I'm a long time lurker, first time poster on the pack but I'm somewhat frustrated with our current QB situation. As long as I can remember we've never had a QB that was worth anything, i.e., Fant, Connor, Carroll, Henig, Lee, just to name a few. From what I've seen of Russell he's got the potential to be better than any QB we've ever had. But isn't it just like State that when we finally get a legit drop-back passer, we've installed an offense that doesn't really show off that talent set. I'm very pleased with the way our program is going and I appreciate Chris Relf's running ability, but he's an athlete playing QB and, at least from what I've seen, Russell is the real deal. Russell is just a redshirt freshman, but he plays with a poise that makes Relf look uncomfortable by comparison (notice that Russell has yet to take a sack in 25 pass attempts while Relf has taken 4 in 39 attempts). I'm just wondering if, while it might hurt us in the win-loss column for this year, it wouldn't be better to let Russell take his lumps in 2010 and gain experience that we could cash in on in 2011, 2012 & 2013? I'm not suggesting that Relf wouldn't play, just that their roles would be reversed, with Russell starting and doing most of, if not all, the passing and Relf being used inside the red zone and when we're backed up deep in our own end to run the read option. What do you think?
Reversing Roles for Russell and Relf?
- Thread starter klerushund
- Start date
I'm a long time lurker, first time poster on the pack but I'm somewhat frustrated with our current QB situation. As long as I can remember we've never had a QB that was worth anything, i.e., Fant, Connor, Carroll, Henig, Lee, just to name a few. From what I've seen of Russell he's got the potential to be better than any QB we've ever had. But isn't it just like State that when we finally get a legit drop-back passer, we've installed an offense that doesn't really show off that talent set. I'm very pleased with the way our program is going and I appreciate Chris Relf's running ability, but he's an athlete playing QB and, at least from what I've seen, Russell is the real deal. Russell is just a redshirt freshman, but he plays with a poise that makes Relf look uncomfortable by comparison (notice that Russell has yet to take a sack in 25 pass attempts while Relf has taken 4 in 39 attempts). I'm just wondering if, while it might hurt us in the win-loss column for this year, it wouldn't be better to let Russell take his lumps in 2010 and gain experience that we could cash in on in 2011, 2012 & 2013? I'm not suggesting that Relf wouldn't play, just that their roles would be reversed, with Russell starting and doing most of, if not all, the passing and Relf being used inside the red zone and when we're backed up deep in our own end to run the read option. What do you think?
The bottom line is that our team personnel appears to be better suited to an option running game right now than a passing game. If you watched the Auburn game, you saw how our O-line did well in rushing plays, but got blown up over and over on passing downs.
I'd love to see us sling it all over as much as the next guy, but the Auburn game sheared me of my wool. We are not ready yet. You go with your strengths to win ballgames, and right now that is Relf running the option.
Hopefully in the future, our Oline will learn how to protect the QB on passing downs and we can revisit this.
I'd love to see us sling it all over as much as the next guy, but the Auburn game sheared me of my wool. We are not ready yet. You go with your strengths to win ballgames, and right now that is Relf running the option.
Hopefully in the future, our Oline will learn how to protect the QB on passing downs and we can revisit this.
We don't have the experience and/or athletes at the receiver position at this time to run the type spread offense that fits Russell.. It appears that Mullen has put an emphasis on getting those receivers in and getting them game ready for Russell.. My fear, if we throw him out there and hope for the best, is that he has way to many dropped/intercepted passes due to the receiver play and that kills his confidence..
That being said, I do not think it is very beneficial to throw Russell out there this year and hope for the best..Our best chance at 6 wins this year is to leave Ralph at QB and implement much more read option.. Just make sure he knows that he does have the option to pitch it instead of being dead set on running the ball himself..
I do think Russell can possibly become the best QB any of us have seen in come through here.. I just think we need to give him another year to get the other parts ready for him..Mullen has said over and over that the spread can be ran in multiple ways, and I feel we will see much more of the Houston type, pass first, spread next season with Russell running the show..Then you bring Ralph in as the change of pace, bruiser type QB..
That being said, I do not think it is very beneficial to throw Russell out there this year and hope for the best..Our best chance at 6 wins this year is to leave Ralph at QB and implement much more read option.. Just make sure he knows that he does have the option to pitch it instead of being dead set on running the ball himself..
I do think Russell can possibly become the best QB any of us have seen in come through here.. I just think we need to give him another year to get the other parts ready for him..Mullen has said over and over that the spread can be ran in multiple ways, and I feel we will see much more of the Houston type, pass first, spread next season with Russell running the show..Then you bring Ralph in as the change of pace, bruiser type QB..
<div>@MSUCE99</div><div>
</div>I might be wrong about this but the footwork and principles for zone read blocking are different from pass protection because in the zone read scheme, you don't have to form a pocket. So I see what you are saying, because I do think our line is more adept at run blocking. At the same time, I think our QBs are getting time to throw when we do pass. The drops by the receivers are killing us, but more than a couple times Thursday night I found myself yelling at Relf to get rid of it while he panicked in the pocket and then took a sack. If the defenses (which only get better from here on out) aren't threatened by our passing game I think the running game will start to find fewer holes.
</div>I might be wrong about this but the footwork and principles for zone read blocking are different from pass protection because in the zone read scheme, you don't have to form a pocket. So I see what you are saying, because I do think our line is more adept at run blocking. At the same time, I think our QBs are getting time to throw when we do pass. The drops by the receivers are killing us, but more than a couple times Thursday night I found myself yelling at Relf to get rid of it while he panicked in the pocket and then took a sack. If the defenses (which only get better from here on out) aren't threatened by our passing game I think the running game will start to find fewer holes.
What is Ralph's problem with scrambling.. He can be such a good runner but when it's a designed pass play it's like he thinks he has to stay in that pocket and actually pass the ball.. Hell, if the pocket collapses, get your *** out and make a play with your feet..
Mullen was making him stay in the pocket... I hope not.
all these people on the wr drops... it is hard to catch a damn ball when you have less than a sec and it could be at your head, feet, hands, behind you...
some of the wr problems could be that relf has no touch on his passes...
but going with Russell at this moment, would be disastrous, because our wr are not mature or constitent enough and def would just blitz him to high heaven...
I feel like Mullen wanted to test the qb last week so he but them in hostile situations at home, to get them use to going on the road... I hope Mullen protects the qbs better at Tiger Stadium than he did last thurs... no reason to have a rs fr in a 5 wide set on the 10, lucky he didn't get a safety with that ****...
all these people on the wr drops... it is hard to catch a damn ball when you have less than a sec and it could be at your head, feet, hands, behind you...
some of the wr problems could be that relf has no touch on his passes...
but going with Russell at this moment, would be disastrous, because our wr are not mature or constitent enough and def would just blitz him to high heaven...
I feel like Mullen wanted to test the qb last week so he but them in hostile situations at home, to get them use to going on the road... I hope Mullen protects the qbs better at Tiger Stadium than he did last thurs... no reason to have a rs fr in a 5 wide set on the 10, lucky he didn't get a safety with that ****...
Why didn't we move Relf in the passing game in the 2nd half. The guy looks a LOT better throwing the ball when he is on the move. Not to mention the run threat. I kept asking my buddies why the 17 we weren't rolling him out and moving the pocket. I still don't know why.
I agree. Frankly, a good bit of the play calling on offense did not make muchsense to me.AzzurriDawg4 said:
And as for the previous poster who somewhatdefended our WRs performance. 17 that! If you are an SEC WR and can get two hands on the damn ball, you better come down with it. We had some passes that were not exactly on target, but an SEC WR should come down with almost anything he can get two hands on...
Well, I was one of the many wondering why we got away from Relf running the option after the first drive of the 2nd half last Thursday, when it was so effective for us.
I agree with you on this: the defenses only get better from here. With that said, it makes sense to me to "feel out" each opponent, and see how our OL/receivers/QBs do against them, and go with who's making the best production. Against Auburn, it was Relf on the ground. (Not to say it was Russell's fault his receivers weren't catching). Against Memphis, Russell had a field day. LSU will be tough with two lock-down corners and a stout DL, but I think I'd rather have a QB in who can run AND throw, to help keep them honest.
Think about this: If our receivers revert to dropping passes again, then how will Russell move us down the field? At least with Relf you have to anticipate a TB/QB run AND a pass, so you can't really sell out against either one.
I agree with you on this: the defenses only get better from here. With that said, it makes sense to me to "feel out" each opponent, and see how our OL/receivers/QBs do against them, and go with who's making the best production. Against Auburn, it was Relf on the ground. (Not to say it was Russell's fault his receivers weren't catching). Against Memphis, Russell had a field day. LSU will be tough with two lock-down corners and a stout DL, but I think I'd rather have a QB in who can run AND throw, to help keep them honest.
Think about this: If our receivers revert to dropping passes again, then how will Russell move us down the field? At least with Relf you have to anticipate a TB/QB run AND a pass, so you can't really sell out against either one.
You're exactly right... That's the point though... Most of those dropped passes, save the Berry drop late and a couple others, the receivers didn't get two hands on...
These guys are trying to catch a pass that should be throw in or around the numbers, and they have absolutely no idea where this thing is gonna go.. It will be in front at their knees one play, and it'll be head high and a foot behind them the next.. That's a pretty damn big jump..
These guys are trying to catch a pass that should be throw in or around the numbers, and they have absolutely no idea where this thing is gonna go.. It will be in front at their knees one play, and it'll be head high and a foot behind them the next.. That's a pretty damn big jump..
I share your frustration with MSU's historical QB asshattery.
But we have to let Tyler develop. Most freshmen- true or redshirt- do not come in and are game ready.
If anything, I'd like to use Tyler less, and then use Relf/Russell 50/50 against non-conference people like UAB and Alcorn. Maybe even let Tyler start against Alcorn so that he can have the experience.
I think throwing Russell out there against LSU would be disasterous. The only team that I can think of that would be worse would be starting him against Alabama. Patrick Peterson would be licking his chops all game long against Tyler.
I think Tyler will be fine- he has the tools to be an elite QB in the SEC. What he needs now is experience- but that experience also has to be controlled in that we have to make sure that he keeps his confidence up and that we don't hurt the team.
I also think that Relf can be an effective QB in the meantime. He had a crappy game, but so did pretty much everyone else on the offensive side of the ball except for maybe Patrick Hanrahan and maybe Vick Ballard. And with Relf, we know that we are likely to have some games where he hits port-a-potties like he unfortunately did on Thurs. from time to time.
But we have to let Tyler develop. Most freshmen- true or redshirt- do not come in and are game ready.
If anything, I'd like to use Tyler less, and then use Relf/Russell 50/50 against non-conference people like UAB and Alcorn. Maybe even let Tyler start against Alcorn so that he can have the experience.
I think throwing Russell out there against LSU would be disasterous. The only team that I can think of that would be worse would be starting him against Alabama. Patrick Peterson would be licking his chops all game long against Tyler.
I think Tyler will be fine- he has the tools to be an elite QB in the SEC. What he needs now is experience- but that experience also has to be controlled in that we have to make sure that he keeps his confidence up and that we don't hurt the team.
I also think that Relf can be an effective QB in the meantime. He had a crappy game, but so did pretty much everyone else on the offensive side of the ball except for maybe Patrick Hanrahan and maybe Vick Ballard. And with Relf, we know that we are likely to have some games where he hits port-a-potties like he unfortunately did on Thurs. from time to time.
<div>@AzzurriDawg4</div><div>
</div>...ought to be the only way he enters the passing game. He just doesn't have the mental make-up of a QB. I'm not saying he's dumb because I don't know him. I am saying that he's clearly overwhelmed when he has to scan the field and make a decision (i.e., the panic sacks). Rolling him out eliminates a lot of that problem because he's only got to deal with half the field. <div>
</div><div>@Foronce -"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">but going with Russell at this moment, would be disastrous, because our wr are not mature or constitent enough and def would just blitz him to high heaven..."</span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">
</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Times; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Actually, I think Russell handles the blitz a lot better than Relf does.</span></span></font></div><div><div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div></div>
</div>...ought to be the only way he enters the passing game. He just doesn't have the mental make-up of a QB. I'm not saying he's dumb because I don't know him. I am saying that he's clearly overwhelmed when he has to scan the field and make a decision (i.e., the panic sacks). Rolling him out eliminates a lot of that problem because he's only got to deal with half the field. <div>
</div><div>@Foronce -"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">but going with Russell at this moment, would be disastrous, because our wr are not mature or constitent enough and def would just blitz him to high heaven..."</span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">
</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Times; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Actually, I think Russell handles the blitz a lot better than Relf does.</span></span></font></div><div><div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div></div>
the o-line isn't going to magically get better at pass blocking with Tyler in there. Unless we go with the old MSU mantra- "The players like Tyler better than Relf and felt like he should be the QB all along, and so they play harder for him." Or the Relf is shacking up with Chad Bumphis's girlfriend MSU fan theory of QB suckitude.
When we have five wideouts, and roll out, you generally eliminate half of the field that you would actually be able to throw to.
Dropping back and staying in the pocket, opens up the entire field, and give you more options. BUT you must be able to protect the QB, and he needs to be able to execute.
But, Relf seems to be better on the roll.
</p>
Dropping back and staying in the pocket, opens up the entire field, and give you more options. BUT you must be able to protect the QB, and he needs to be able to execute.
But, Relf seems to be better on the roll.
</p>
You watched us play the other night, and after having WR's having multiple dropped passes- you feel like it would be beneficial for us to throw the football more? Ooooooooookay then...and let's make sure we have the facts right- Henderson and Bump dropped passes from Russell that hit them right in the breadbasket...Bumphis and Berry dropped passes from Ralph that hit them dead *** in the hands. But we need to throw more huh?
On the other hand, we run the Triple at them from multiple formations and they have a hard time stopping it. Bumphis averages 9 yards/carry...Hanrahan averages 7 yards/carry...Ralph averaged 5.5/carry when the sacks are taken out...but watching that didnt make it occur to you that maybe we need to stop wasting our time throwing as much and maybe run more option...that didnt register huh?
I really do wonder about our fanbase
On the other hand, we run the Triple at them from multiple formations and they have a hard time stopping it. Bumphis averages 9 yards/carry...Hanrahan averages 7 yards/carry...Ralph averaged 5.5/carry when the sacks are taken out...but watching that didnt make it occur to you that maybe we need to stop wasting our time throwing as much and maybe run more option...that didnt register huh?
I really do wonder about our fanbase
but they did have a poor game the other night. But I'm not agreeing we should pass more. I'm in the more run option camp. But let's not throw Bumpis and Berry out with the garbage. Because they are assets to the team.Coach34 said:
Bump had a decent freshman year, but was inconsistent with drops. And still is
Berry disappeared last year at WR. His biggest contribution was on special teams
Heavens was lost last year
Clark has never done anything
Smith has never done anything
remind me again why we should rely on this crew as the foundation of our offense? That would be stupid
Berry disappeared last year at WR. His biggest contribution was on special teams
Heavens was lost last year
Clark has never done anything
Smith has never done anything
remind me again why we should rely on this crew as the foundation of our offense? That would be stupid
at a critical time in the second halfshifting ouroffense into a one dimensional mode at that time? How many ofyou would have put our "running"QB after that onside kick to throw three straight passes? Anybody think that`s the way to develope anything but a loss? There`s a hell of a lot more to developing a QB than just giving him random playingtime. IMO our coaching staff needs to developeTHEMSELVES into winning coaches and until they do that developing anything else goes on the back burner.
It's more difficult and risky to throw the ball inside the 10. Going to Relf makes sense from that standpoint alone.
Not just ours.
Take away half of the dropped passes..........hell take away 1/3rd of the dropped passes.........hell take away 1 of the dropped passes (berry's at the end) and we probably win the game.
Thats the frustrating thing with people on the internet. If Berry catches that pass and we score a td on the drive, all of a sudden the wool is growing tremendously. We are about to win 8 or 9 games. We are awesome.
But Berry dropped it. One play could have been the difference in the game and now all of a sudden the 17ing sky is falling and Relph sucks. Russell sucks. Mullen sucks. The o-line sucks. LSU is going to demoralize us. 17 people. We played a good team and beat ourselves. Yes, we have to learn to find a way to win those games, but we are getting close. Its not time to start changing ****. Its time to focus on the details.
Take away half of the dropped passes..........hell take away 1/3rd of the dropped passes.........hell take away 1 of the dropped passes (berry's at the end) and we probably win the game.
Thats the frustrating thing with people on the internet. If Berry catches that pass and we score a td on the drive, all of a sudden the wool is growing tremendously. We are about to win 8 or 9 games. We are awesome.
But Berry dropped it. One play could have been the difference in the game and now all of a sudden the 17ing sky is falling and Relph sucks. Russell sucks. Mullen sucks. The o-line sucks. LSU is going to demoralize us. 17 people. We played a good team and beat ourselves. Yes, we have to learn to find a way to win those games, but we are getting close. Its not time to start changing ****. Its time to focus on the details.
It seems like several folks think we decimated Auburn with the run. We averaged 3.7 yards per pass attempt against Auburn. We averaged 3.5 yards per rush attempt in that same game. That includes all the drops. <div>Coach34 said:
</div><div>I'm sure Relf's stats look good when you remove the sacks, but unfortunately, they count and when he drops back to pass, their far likelier to occur. </div><div>
</div><div>I'm not saying we should throw it more (nor that we should throw it less), but that when we throw it should be Russell doing the throwing. <div>
</div><div>
</div></div>
I too thought it would have been better to go conservative with Relf when we were backed up deep in our own end. If you're bent on throwing it (as they seemed to be after the onside recovery), that seems like a good place to put in Russell, i.e., outside the shadow of his own goal post.thatsbaseball said:
it wasnt like he was holding onto the ball too long- our pass protection was awful...also, sack yardage should go on passing yardage, not rushing yardage- because 3.5 yards/rush was not indicative of how we were running the football- it was much better than that
Russell got us 1 first down in 3 possessions...I just don't think he needs to play very much in big games...we are wasting our time- and he will face an even better defense Saturday- especially in the secondary...on the road
I'm really curious to see where we go with the offense this Saturday because this game is huge...Miles seems like he is determined to stay with Jefferson and that could really help our cause.
Russell got us 1 first down in 3 possessions...I just don't think he needs to play very much in big games...we are wasting our time- and he will face an even better defense Saturday- especially in the secondary...on the road
I'm really curious to see where we go with the offense this Saturday because this game is huge...Miles seems like he is determined to stay with Jefferson and that could really help our cause.
Relf can't handle the beating of running the option 10 straight times. I agree it might be our best form of offense, but those 2 drives where Russell went into game on our own 10 was because<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Relf was talking to the trainers on the sidelines<span style="font-weight: bold;">. </span></span>Relf got up slow after almost every run in the 2nd half.
I know it's easy to say that "well he's the same size as the LBs!" but that doesn't mean he isn't still taking a beaten.
Plus, where would we be if Relf gets hurts for a few games? We'd be <17>ed. Thats why we dont run the option every single snap, we have to have balance, and if our WRs could catch the ball - we would.
I know it's easy to say that "well he's the same size as the LBs!" but that doesn't mean he isn't still taking a beaten.
Plus, where would we be if Relf gets hurts for a few games? We'd be <17>ed. Thats why we dont run the option every single snap, we have to have balance, and if our WRs could catch the ball - we would.
So Bumphis and Berry aren't assets to the team? The guy didn't say they were the foundation. He said they were assets and could be used.
Its clear we need to run more triple option from different sets and some zone read, but we need to do those things so we can set up some easy passes also.
Its clear we need to run more triple option from different sets and some zone read, but we need to do those things so we can set up some easy passes also.
Coach34 said:
I disagree. From what I saw, Relf did hold the ball way too long and panic when his first read wasn't open. When Russell was pressured (in his own endzone mind you) he rolled out and got rid of the ball, like a good QB does.
Coach34 said:
I guess it depends on your goals. It might be a waste of time to give Relf a bunch of snaps when we could be seasoning the future of our program instead. Would we lose more games? Quite possibly. But that's why I started this topic in the first place: to weigh the benefits of playing Russell more and losing more now versus the potential playoff of having a QB that's already gone through his growing pains when next season begins. It's a question of short term versus long term.
Couldn't agree more. It's not as simple as just running a Georgia Tech offense with Relf. He won't last 8 games if we aren't careful. And let's also remember that Auburn's defense is highly suspect. We put up fewer points than Arkansas State and I'm guessing that come season's end, we'll look back and say they were one of the weakest defenses we faced. If we try to go option heavy against some of these defenses coming up, we might find rushing yards a little tougher to get.57StratDawg said:
did not have their "A" game out there this past Thursday night. Only putting up 246 yards of offense on what is probably only at best a mid-level SEC defense does not bode well. However, I do have enough confidence in Mullen that he will see the mistakes in some of the play calls and make corrections. Of course with Croom I never expected the offense to do much of anything anyway so even a bad day with Mullen's staff beats having to deal with McCorvey & Company.
he actually gave the pitch serious consideration when its there. He seems to keep the ball about 80% of the time if not more.