…I hope you really like Damian Williams. Chris Relf, a hulk of a QB, did not make it through a single season without missing time due to injury. Dak is smaller than him and has already had injury issues. Who wouldn't when we treat our QB like a fullback? Just another excuse locked and loaded for the Mullen-defenders when we underperform yet again next season.
To everyone who thinks we turn it around next year...
- Thread starter CookieMonster.sixpack
- Start date
Year five under Mullen. Comes from the Meyer philosophy. And the possibility that a dual threat QB might get hurt is just now coming to your mind? Not mention I don't remember cries from the fan base to run Relf less.
Groundbreaking stuff.
A QB in a run-friendly offense may suffer injuries. This is from the Tim McCarver school of insight, huh?
A QB in a run-friendly offense may suffer injuries. This is from the Tim McCarver school of insight, huh?
I'm beginning to think there is an agenda going on. Two different sites and the exact same stuff being brought up today. Hmmmm
To play devil's advocate,
We sure didn't want him to throw more.
But yes, Williams should be a much better backup seeing how he fits into the system.
We sure didn't want him to throw more.
But yes, Williams should be a much better backup seeing how he fits into the system.
Well no we didn't. Lol. But he could have just give it the RB a lot more but when he was effective running the ball people were not looking to roast Dan over the scheme and play calls back then because of it.
"In my view, a QB that doesn't sustain any contact during a game has less of a chance to get injured"
Haven't been on here long so don't know the players on each side of the aisle. And don't understand how this post could relate to either side since its so out there.
Maybe I'm drunk…or maybe it's just poor strategy to expose the most important player on your offense to extra abuse when you already have depth issues at his position and are clearly several rungs below your conference opponents talent-wise already.
Also, as one of the most clueless posters on the board, any criticism from you just confirms my opinions.
So your idea is to take away Dak's biggest strength, running the ball, and make him stay protected in the pocket? Become one dimensional so all the opposing team has to worry about is him throwing the ball.
So you want
to turn Dak into a pocket passer, much like Tyler (to which you've cussed Mullen over, countless times), and I'm clueless? Is this Opposite Day? Please tell us another great strategy...having our coaches telling our WRs to do better on making catches?
to turn Dak into a pocket passer, much like Tyler (to which you've cussed Mullen over, countless times), and I'm clueless? Is this Opposite Day? Please tell us another great strategy...having our coaches telling our WRs to do better on making catches?
Last edited:
How about we just teach Dak to slide and run out of bounds when possible and thus kill two birds with one stone.
Well that would at least be something plausible to debate. Like him or not at least he is taking advantage of Daks biggest weapon. The idea that its "poor strategy" is not just going out on a limb but he missed the whole tree.
Here's a better question, name one win we've gotten under Dak that we haven't under Tyler. Just one. I'll hang up and listen.
How about instead of trying to change the debate you defend your previous assertations that its "poor strategy" to have Dak run the ball and Dan should turn him into a pocket passer?
I'll get back with you on thanksgiving.
I know you like TR, but dak is clearly the leader of our team now. Dak is the better option at qb
Okay. State has poor depth. Our #1's can hang with just about anyone. Our #2's not so much. In conference we are climbing a talent gap in more than half our games. If that's true, then injuries hurt our team worse than injuries affect the "haves" of the conference. Are you with me so far numb nuts?
So, if injuries are far more damaging to us than to our opponents, maybe the architect of our program shouldn't base his entire offensive philosophy around our most important offensive player, the quarterback, getting pounded game after game after game.
His philosophy is so great that our fans are legitimately talking about sitting our starting quarterback against the #1 team in the nation to make sure he doesn't get hurt. What other fan base does this? Let's just give up in our last chance of the season to get a good win so our QB can run wild against a winless (in conference) Arkansas. If that's the strategy, then we should shutter the program.
My problem isn't with Dak. It's with Dan. He is a one trick pony and that trick doesn't work unless you are playing a crap schedule with superior talent. We will never have that at State, so he's not the guy. End of story.
So, if injuries are far more damaging to us than to our opponents, maybe the architect of our program shouldn't base his entire offensive philosophy around our most important offensive player, the quarterback, getting pounded game after game after game.
His philosophy is so great that our fans are legitimately talking about sitting our starting quarterback against the #1 team in the nation to make sure he doesn't get hurt. What other fan base does this? Let's just give up in our last chance of the season to get a good win so our QB can run wild against a winless (in conference) Arkansas. If that's the strategy, then we should shutter the program.
My problem isn't with Dak. It's with Dan. He is a one trick pony and that trick doesn't work unless you are playing a crap schedule with superior talent. We will never have that at State, so he's not the guy. End of story.
Actually this is also being discussed on another site as well. And the majority of the fans think its absurd to discuss sitting your starting QB. Regardless of the system being played. So no, the majority of the fans are not on board with sitting him. Neither on here or other sites as well. Funny that its only some of the ones wanting him gone that is bring this up. Why not bring it up about ULL? His QB is the second leaving rusher on the team. Why didn't you bring it up when it was Relf running and our depth was even worse? Well it didn't fit your agenda then. Never mind the fact it's the offense we all knew he ran when he came on board.
What fans
of MSU are "legitimately" bringing up that we should sit Dak? I havne't seen this. It's obviously a few idiots, and not the majority.
I am blown away, or clueless, that someone honestly believe it's in our offenses' best interest to not run Dak.
of MSU are "legitimately" bringing up that we should sit Dak? I havne't seen this. It's obviously a few idiots, and not the majority.
I am blown away, or clueless, that someone honestly believe it's in our offenses' best interest to not run Dak.
Ha. Funny you should say that. I've been critical of the "Relf-fense" since 2010.
I don't know what agenda you are talking about and I also do not have an account at any other message board.
I don't know what agenda you are talking about and I also do not have an account at any other message board.
I don't know what your agenda is other than the fact you don't believe you should have an offense centered around a running QB. The league is implementing the QB run option. Countless of teams in college football utilize a running QB but your not speaking against any of that. Sounds like your agenda is whatever Dan does is wrong. I wasn't on here until recently so if you were posting these same statements against this offense since 2010 please link those so I can get better idea of where you are coming from.
I don't think we need to stop running the quarterback. I do think we need to get a lot smarter about how we run the QB. I'd like to see us get away from having Dak run the veer-type read option where he's the one pounding the ball up the middle. Those plays are the ones where you take the biggest licks from the biggest people (defensive linemen and linebackers) and there's more traffic which makes it less likely for it to pop and go the distance. I'd much rather have Josh Robinson take those type of carries, whether that means shifting to a pistol formation veer or just sticking more to the "traditional" zone read. Also, not a huge fan of the QB power as often as we run it. Can be effective in short yardage situations, but also seems to get blown up more than any of our QB runs and get our QBs POUNDED in the process. I'd rather Dak have 5-8 carries a game for 70-80 yards than have 15-18 carries a game for 120-140 yards. More big plays from the QB run, less "ground and pound" type carries.
I understand what your saying but two points. One that is not the philosophy of this style of offense. Tebow, Cam, Miller at OSU, Dak and Relf, etc. when you have a big QB it is designed for them to lead the team in rushing to the tune of 12-20 carries a game. With a smaller QB I agree and you do see these teams adjust for that. Also, when executed properly we can see how difficult it is to stop. Secondly, go back in the season a look at how many of Dak's big runs have come from between the tackles. Yes it will get stopped for small gains at times but when blocked out properly he is to the second level before they get a good shot on him. I also believe that shots from a running LB or Safety deliver more force that could result in injury. Not to mention how many QB have we seen over the years that are hurt from a lineman falling on them while they are throwing in the pocket. This is not saying that he should not limit taking shots when he can though or that this is even a style I prefer. But when it is operating at full capacity is when the QB is both a QB and RB.