Yeah, the guy who said this:
"I do strongly believe that Laviano should have seen some time on the bench for some of his poor play though."
Do all the QBs other than Laviano really suck?
- Thread starter lighty
- Start date
Yeah, the guy who said this:
"I do strongly believe that Laviano should have seen some time on the bench for some of his poor play though."
please tell me you are not a scientist or or anyone who deals with statistics. You fall all over yourself to defend the guy who has 95% sample participation and draw such conclusions vs. the sample of 5% total (and likely 1%) of what you are talking about... ok...
just WOW Ed. Just wow. You are the ying to my yang.... I absolutely have ZERO idea how anybody can come to that conclusion. [eyeroll]
The fact that you put a 4 star recruit who has never played a down of college football over a 4 star on the team we have seen make plays already in the limited minutes he has been given says it all.
Rettig left LSU (LSU right?!) because they went away from the Pro Set. Then he sat a year. Then he let Kyle Flood to determine his future. When he chooses to go the Tom Savage route (yeah that Rutgers wash up now NFL QB) we can revisit this "miss" too.
Yeah I'm the insider they planted here 11 years ago, when I signed up for this account 2 months after Schianno was hired. Knowing I would be in place for Fllod when he was hired 4 or 5 years later.
All I am doing is trying to bring a little fair and balanced commentary to the discussions here. This board is like the Fox news of Rutgers sports.... Anything that Laviano or coach Flood does poorly or any opinion that is published blasting either of them is repeated ad nasuem, and nothing positive or complimentary is ever posted about either of them... and I have NEVER seen anything posted negative with regards to Peyton Manning (er I mean Hayden Rettig) on this board. It's actually pretty funny.
Oh and let me predict the responses... uhhh what did coach Fluddgers ever do good to talk about !! Laviano sucks... there is nothing positive to say. He hasnt thrown a TD in 47.8 days now, and his arm is weaker than my 90 year old grandfather, who woudl be able to stretch the defense from his wheelchair...and , who by the way saw 11 minutes of the game against Ohio St and cant understand why Fluud hasn't changed the QB.
If the 5% represents the total amount of time he has played against starters, then that is the only data you can make conclusions about. Yeah it is not complete, but you can only comment on the data you have, everything else is guessing.
The thread asked if everyone else sucked. I don't think anyone said Laviano sucked. The question is why should he be the only one to see the field when he's struggling. Wouldn't he benefit from watching a few plays? And what could hurt Rutgers from seeing if anyone else could do better?
Again, no mention of the downs Rettig played with Carroo. Oh, that's right, THERE AREN'T ANY; not a single snap.
Preach on, moron.
OK. So:
That 5% has taken place
1) in the 4th quarter, after sitting/standing on the sidelines all game,
2) when the team is behind by 20,30, or 40 points,
3) when the team is probably trying to just get off the field and into the locker room
I see how that is a valid comparison to someone who gets to start every game, score tied 0-0, when the team is fresh and full of hope!
Thanks for the clarification.
As I said...give Rettig a start or two against one of these teams and we can have a meaningful comparison. Any other coaching staff, this probably would have happened.
Gerry DiNardo said preseason that Rettig has a lot more upside.
Imagine where he would be if Meat played him.
Imagine where he would be if Meat played him.
And thanks for that. But you're wasting your time. The "Fire Flood" crowd doesn't wanna hear any other point of view and most of the more reasonable RU fans are apparently on hiatus from this board. It's almost unreadable for now. Hopefully in a week or two things will settle down.
sorry Lighty. I wasn't directing that comment at you or anyone in particular. It was more of a general comment but I can see how you could take it the way you did.
On one hand I can understand Flood believing that a team MUST have one QB -- and since both are young, he made his choice and believes the guy can learn.
On the other, IF (and maybe that's a big if) the reports were accurate that the QB competition was close, Flood could easily have ended the debate and proven he made the right decision by giving Rettig (OR ANYONE ELSE) meaningful time in game. Meaningful meaning either starting a game or, at the very least, starting the 2nd half when there is still a chance to turn the game around.
Laviano has struggled in many games. It's hard to dispute that. His struggles gave Flood ample opportunities to see if someone else might have done better. Maybe the OL is so horrible that nobody would have succeeded. But maybe someone else would have hit receivers in stride and had us moving the chains.
So many people make this to be a Laviano vs Rettig argument. For me, it isn't. The question is when your starter is struggling to throw for over 100 yards per game and isn't leading the team to the endzone (forget about throwing for TDs, just look at all of the field goal attempts vs touchdowns as a whole) than I think it's fair to ask if:
1) Is Laviano really heads and shoulders above every other QB on the roster?
2) Is Flood simply sticking with Laviano because he's stubborn or doesn't want to risk being proven wrong?
3) Is Laviano doing EXACTLY what Flood wants from his QB?
The more I think about it, the more I think whoever said it was right -- Flood wants extremely low risk QB play and to be a running team. He's had plenty of chances to see what Laviano could do in the air -- games in which we were far behind in which handing off and running 2 or 3 times in a row isn't going to get you back in the game and opponents like Army who were weak against the pass. Yet, the passing game took a backseat. Maybe Laviano is the perfect QB for this offense. The problem is the offense isn't scoring enough to compete and the coach should recognize that.
On the other, IF (and maybe that's a big if) the reports were accurate that the QB competition was close, Flood could easily have ended the debate and proven he made the right decision by giving Rettig (OR ANYONE ELSE) meaningful time in game. Meaningful meaning either starting a game or, at the very least, starting the 2nd half when there is still a chance to turn the game around.
Laviano has struggled in many games. It's hard to dispute that. His struggles gave Flood ample opportunities to see if someone else might have done better. Maybe the OL is so horrible that nobody would have succeeded. But maybe someone else would have hit receivers in stride and had us moving the chains.
So many people make this to be a Laviano vs Rettig argument. For me, it isn't. The question is when your starter is struggling to throw for over 100 yards per game and isn't leading the team to the endzone (forget about throwing for TDs, just look at all of the field goal attempts vs touchdowns as a whole) than I think it's fair to ask if:
1) Is Laviano really heads and shoulders above every other QB on the roster?
2) Is Flood simply sticking with Laviano because he's stubborn or doesn't want to risk being proven wrong?
3) Is Laviano doing EXACTLY what Flood wants from his QB?
The more I think about it, the more I think whoever said it was right -- Flood wants extremely low risk QB play and to be a running team. He's had plenty of chances to see what Laviano could do in the air -- games in which we were far behind in which handing off and running 2 or 3 times in a row isn't going to get you back in the game and opponents like Army who were weak against the pass. Yet, the passing game took a backseat. Maybe Laviano is the perfect QB for this offense. The problem is the offense isn't scoring enough to compete and the coach should recognize that.
And we are not going against the D lines of the mid 2000's as well; not even close
The comical thing is that people are arguing that Rettig did not get the benefit of having Caroo when he was in against the starters in those Big Ten games when he had all those three and outs and moved the offense no where. Yet at the same time so many posters love to point out how badly Laviano played in the 4 games against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nebraska… yet they conveniently ignore the fact that Caroo did not play at all in the UW & UM games and only played ½ of each of the OSU and NU games… and was clearly playing at less than 100% in the little time he participated in those games. And also was not mentioned that Agudosi was out injured for parts of those games and Patton was banged up as well.
Apples to apples
some sample sizes are too small to be statistically relevant. if you want, take his stats and extrapolate them to match CL's time and compare them for fun.
are you a student at Rutgers?
Laviano and Rettig were a toss up when the season started per Flood. Laviano got the nod but has gotten worse not better. This is irrefutable. So, logic would dictate that at some point Rettig would be the better choice for us to go 1-0. The answer to this riddle is not what we see or saw on the field so it must be in Flood's head.
Dude you need help. It's not apples to apples. You make some valid points about folks not giving Laviano credit but you are doing the same thing against Rettig. If you think he's been given ample opportunity to play and show what he's capable of then you are just a Laviano fan and nothing more. I applaud you defending your favorite but why take down Rettig while doing so.
Last edited:
The game circumstances, available receivers, and defensive units that Laviano and Rettig have faced during the 2015 season are not even close. The rest of your post is just noise.
The funny thing is that all we would really have needed to see in order to agree with you was Rettig under center for at least a couple of series in the first half (you know, when RU isn't already losing by 28-42 points and has a reasonable chance to stay in the game) against just about any starting B1G defense, with a 90-100% Carroo in at Wide Receiver. There were multiple opportunities to do this, and if Rettig couldn't move the offense and/or complete passes in that situation, then this argument would be over.
But instead, Flood proved to approximately 95% of the fanbase that he's in over his head as a B1G head coach with stubbornness, insanity in repetition, or a combination of both.
Why are you asking me? I don’t have enough information to explain that decision. I’ve only pointed out reasons why Rettig has not done anything in game situations against starters that would warrant more playing time. I, like all the other fans on the board, have seen none of the thousands of practice snaps and have no idea what Rettig does poorly when taking reps with Carroo. I can only speculate that the staff has seen enough practice reps with Rettig & Carroo together that indicates the offense is less effective. If they felt there was anything more I would expect we would have seen him earlier in games.
Why didn't Flood play Marcus Applefield on the O Line earlier in the year so the fans can see for themselves why he is not better than Dorian Miller. Would we be happy if we knew the coach was playing someone he thought was inferior , just so the fans could see for themselves? At the expense of the performance of the team? I know I sure wouldn't want that to be the norm. That's what we pay the professionals to do. Put the player out there that the staff feels gives the team the best chance to succeed. If he, and Fridgeon and the rest of the staff all feel CL is better, why would we want him to make a change... especially if they feel the offensive problems are due to issues way beyond QB play. Like receiver separation, lack of O Line protection etc etc
So you are satisfied with what you've seen out of Laviano this year and thought he should play every meaningful snap this season despite the ineffectiveness we have seen with Laviano at the helm?
Do you personally think backup quarterbacks should never be used when a game is in doubt, and the offense just isn't clicking like it should?
Is every other coach at the college and pro level crazy when they sit the starter, even for a series?
Even if you pull Laviano and make him your starter next game, I think most fans could live with that. Then you would give the starter time to sit and watch and learn, keep him from getting shell shocked, and give the backup meaningful reps so that:
1) you know whether or not he can perform in a game with starters on your offense in the game
2) give your backup a chance to develop in case the starter gets injured
3) you see if the change sparks the team and gives them a chance to try something different, give the opponent different looks, send a message to your team that no one is guaranteed anything and all have to earn their spots
Would love to get your HONEST answers here. Truly I would.
Then I could maybe respect your opinions and stop calling you out.
Can we dialog here?
Posts like this are why no one believes you. I'm not even sure you believe the stuff you write.
There have been plenty of games where all Laviano did was three and outs and Rutgers fell behind by 21-28 points. To say putting in someone else at the "expense of the performance of the team" is laughable.
You'd have a point if Laviano had been even remotely serviceable in some of these games. There is little to say Rettig (or anyone else) would have done worse. That's why Flood should have made a move. It could have saved the season and it would have likely ended the QB argument. He shouldn't have done it for the fans, he should have done it for the team.
My honest opinion is after Norfolk St If I had a gun to my head. I pick Rettig as the starter. But like I have said on this board, I realize that was about 30 snaps out of thousands that the staff has seen and they have a lot more knowledge about what they need out of the position. So I had no problem with the choice of CL.
I obviously have seen areas of laviano’s play that were not perfect, however my opinion is that a young QB will make mistakes and you need to live with them, and I think much more of the problems of the Offense are related to other things unrelated to the QB play. And that a backup would not have made much of a difference or provided any other spark And I am fine with the decision of Friedgen, Flood and McDaniel in sticking with him. They had said from the beginning that they would pick one starter and not want him looking over his shoulder. Staff is sticking with what they said would be the case. I don’t think that was at the expense of the ability to win games, because or QB has been running for his life all year, and been playing with injured receivers not getting open. Where is Tsimis? My beef all year has just been the bashing of what the coaching staff has said they would do from the beginning and blindly bashing the decision to play one over the other without any real knowledge about how QB#2 really can play…. That is something only the coaches know.
Another beef is how many of the things that are seen as Laviano errors, could likely be things has been coached to do and in response to things no fans can conceivably know. If he has been told to not try to force a pass and void INT's... if know one is open and he throws into the ground .... fans cry that he sucks , look at that shxxt pass. If he throws short of the sticks because the deeper receivers are covered... he sucks.. And unless you review film and analyze each receiver, no fan really knows if receivers were covered downfield or not... and if the QB is running for his life and doesn't pass the ball... and either throws it away or gets sacked. Again, if you are watching on TV, or watching in the stands... 99% of people are watching teh QB, and really have no clue how open or not a receiver is. Or if they happen to see a receiver wide open on the right, and the QB is scrambling left away from pressure... the fan expects the QB to see said receiver... .yeah right. He may have been the third read and they criticize him for not seeing that 3rd read under pressure. examples could go on and on...
Okay, now we are talking.
That is good.
Let me ask you; do you think it makes sense when Flood said he is picking 1 guy and sticking with him (I assume no matter what)? Have you ever heard a coach at any level ever take that approach?
No matter if the starter throws 3, or 4, or 5, or 6 interceptions in a single game?
Have you ever seen any coach keep a guy in who has thrown 6 interceptions in a single game?
No matter if the offense cannot score a passing TD in 5 straight games, and averages 105 yards per game over that period?
Forget what Flood said he was going to do.
If YOU were coach, would you employ the same philosophy NO MATTER WHAT?
And under what conditions would YOU give the backup QB a series or 2?
(Remember, Laviano and his backup were supposedly too close to call until just before the season began, so I am not talking about pulling a clearly established guy like Tom Brady after he throws a couple of picks.)
Again, let's keep talking without ripping each other.
I’ll answer you point by point:
Let me ask you; do you think it makes sense when Flood said he is picking 1 guy and sticking with him (I assume no matter what)? Have you ever heard a coach at any level ever take that approach?
-----Not my job to know if it makes sense or not. Flood has input from many like Fridge / Schianno, Belickek, etc., etc., who have seen it both ways. I can definitely see where a young QB could be less effective knowing he will get pulled for any mistake. It's his Philosiphy- assumed based on input from others and experience. I’m Fine with it. Not always a right or wrong.
And coaches knowledge of ability of #2 QB and his ability to handle game stuations like extreme defensive pressure goes into decision to pull him or not when Offense not clicking. If Flood knows Rettig is shaky under duress from practice… why would he think it would change in a game. I'm Ok with leaving him in in the Gauntlett of 4 games.
No matter if the starter throws 3, or 4, or 5, or 6 interceptions in a single game?
Have you ever seen any coach keep a guy in who has thrown 6 interceptions in a single game?
------I may have pulled Nova after the multiple INT’s …however it is not like the pros where the backup is typically much more seasoned. Our backup QB’s last year were green. , he knew what was on the bench. Inexperience. So likely did not expect any better outcome, so I really did not have a problem with leaving Nova in. Really probably still the best option at that point if we wanted to win the game.
No matter if the offense cannot score a passing TD in 5 straight games, and averages 105 yards per game over that period?
--------Same answer as above my first reply above And I can even live with more since I know how effective most of those defenses have been against other teams. Especially with the inexperience of our O Line… and then the O Line playing w/ injuries against Nebraska. If our coaches know that our backup has shown worse production against heavy pass rushes , (hypothetical, since none of us really know this) why would I expect the outcome to be better just by playing #2. Totally fine with this, Also… Many drops by receivers, including dropped TD in Army game.
Forget what Flood said he was going to do.
If YOU were coach, would you employ the same philosophy NO MATTER WHAT?
-------Cant answer what I would do, because I really don’t know how QB #2 performs in multitude of situations. If I know the #2 is close in performance I may look to make a change, but if I knew he got rattled under pressure… and I really felt the #1 was overall going to be the best option going forward I would not make a change just to make a change.
And under what conditions would YOU give the backup QB a series or 2?
-------I would first need to know the real competency of the backup to know if he is able to provide improved performance under similar conditions. Cant answer unless I knew that. Also depends on the type of game situations in any particular game and how the backups skills would match the situation
(Remember, Laviano and his backup were supposedly too close to call until just before the season began, so I am not talking about pulling a clearly established guy like Tom Brady after he throws a couple of picks.)
---------This is possibly coach speak. So not sure of the truth of the statement. I do not necessarily buy that they were close. Could have been something he had to say as to not to hurt confidence of #2 in case he was needed due to injury down the road.
Slyker, you have defended Laviano a great deal, good for you. I want you to understand that my calls for Rettig to play do not (NECESSARILY) mean that Laviano should be replaced as the starter; maybe yes, maybe no, we have no idea until we see what he offers (not 10 minutes in a blowout loss.)
A fair sample would be to let him start the 2nd half of a game. At this point, there is NOTHING to lose. If, after an equal chance, Rettig falters, then go back to Laviano. I have always argued that the offensive failures do not rest solely on Laviano's shoulders, and in fact, some games I might have pulled him to protect his self-confidence. Regardless of what we, here on the boards think, the common denominator is that this whole thing has been mishandled by the Coach.
I want our QBs to develop, truth is, I'd prefer they both develop. The only apples to apples comparison we have to go on is Norfolk State. In that game, one QB was 4 for 4, the other was 9 for 11, both had good stats. What intrigued me about Rettig was I think he found 6 or 7 different receivers; leading me to believe he worked through his progressions. Now, the pressure vs. Norfolk was nothing like OSU, or Wisky or the others, but I think from that first game, I'd have wanted to take a look.
Neither you nor I have any input in who plays, but I know if my job was riding on the success or failure of the team; no stone would be left unturned.
A fair sample would be to let him start the 2nd half of a game. At this point, there is NOTHING to lose. If, after an equal chance, Rettig falters, then go back to Laviano. I have always argued that the offensive failures do not rest solely on Laviano's shoulders, and in fact, some games I might have pulled him to protect his self-confidence. Regardless of what we, here on the boards think, the common denominator is that this whole thing has been mishandled by the Coach.
I want our QBs to develop, truth is, I'd prefer they both develop. The only apples to apples comparison we have to go on is Norfolk State. In that game, one QB was 4 for 4, the other was 9 for 11, both had good stats. What intrigued me about Rettig was I think he found 6 or 7 different receivers; leading me to believe he worked through his progressions. Now, the pressure vs. Norfolk was nothing like OSU, or Wisky or the others, but I think from that first game, I'd have wanted to take a look.
Neither you nor I have any input in who plays, but I know if my job was riding on the success or failure of the team; no stone would be left unturned.
"Neither you nor I have any input in who plays, but I know if my job was riding on the success or failure of the team; no stone would be left unturned."
And what if Rettig has continuously shown in practice that when under heavy pass rushes he consistently fails to find receivers or throws interceptions or take sacks and is clearly inferior to CL. This would be obvious to the coaching staff and then it would be the correct decision to keep CL in the game knowing his job was riding on getting the best results possible. So without knowing any information about how HR performs in these situations how can you criticize flood for not putting him in. And in the few times that HR has been put in a game against the Big Ten starting D he has done absolutely nothing to move the team. So if, hypothetically , He is terrible in practice and has done nothing in his short stints against heavy D pressure to change their opinion of him why in the world would they ever decide to start him in any meaningful situations. Just to keep a small group of vocal whining fans happy? I don't want the head coach of my team doing that. As I've said, we as fans really have no idea what he has done in practice and if this is the case and the coaching staff has no obligation to let the fan see why he is making the decision he is making
Last edited: