Coach T deflects critism of Eveld==White's not ready

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone will argue that BJ was better than any QB on our current roster. But the (minor) point here is that QB is not the sole issue in our pathetic offense.

not the sole but certainly 85% of the problems. until we get that issue fixed nothing will change.

BJ is gone and we obviously don't have anyone on the roster that can fill those shoes, so what's your point? Everyone has acknowledged the QB play is bad, but you seem to look at the mess at WR and OL and think we have no issues.

 

sorry but WRs can't pass to themselves. they were fine with BJ. perfect?? no not even close but good enough. o-line can't hold blocks for the 6 seconds it takes our QBs to pass the ball. they are certainly proven run blockers.

 

again 85% of our offensive issues are directly related to our QB play. nothing will change until that is resolved. we haven't scorted an offensive TD in 6 of our last 9 games.

 

 

So is your point that we are just screwed?  If that's your end result then I am not sure I can disagree.  But as for MW, we have a professional head coach saying "Mike White is not ready to play [at this level of college football]".  Taggart has shown that he will put a freshman out there if they are ready (see the other 7 guys on the field).  So for this past game, and as depressing as it is, Eveld seemed to be the best option despite his being injured.

 

As a side note, have you actually WATCHED the receiver play?  We have a few that have zero talent and the ones that do have talent are not giving even an ounce of effort out there.  I would be happy if Taggart would park Davis' ass on the pine because he is hurting the team out there.

 

have you seen the QB play? it's beyond awful. I'm not saying our receivers are NFL quality but please.

 

your solution is to curing our receiving woes is to bech our leading receiver??

 

BTW our receivers and TEs had offers to plenty of bigtime BCS programs. our QB is a walk-on from Jesuit, a guy that can't handle a snap and a guy that rarely passed in high school for an option offense. none had better than 55% completion percentage in high school.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Bull94

[Bull94]

 

 

All of  the Mike White backers are assuming that he's a better option than Eveld or Floyd.  You know there's a chance that he's not as good, right?

all of the mike white backers would like to find out.

 

we already know that the other 3 aren't the answer.

 

he was definitely a more accomplished passer in high school.

 

 

Is it worth burning his redshirt though? CWT sees him in practice daily and if he doesn't think he can go out and win us 4+ games to get us bowling, then i do not think it's worth it.

 

yes it is. auburn last week just burnt their true freshman QBs redshirt and they are 5-1.

 

personally I don't think the other three can win us many games when we can't even score a TD.

 

6 of last 9 games our offense hasn't scored a TD.

 

I think the experience would be good for him and I think we could see if he has what it akes.

[WWMJD]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone will argue that BJ was better than any QB on our current roster. But the (minor) point here is that QB is not the sole issue in our pathetic offense.

not the sole but certainly 85% of the problems. until we get that issue fixed nothing will change.

BJ is gone and we obviously don't have anyone on the roster that can fill those shoes, so what's your point? Everyone has acknowledged the QB play is bad, but you seem to look at the mess at WR and OL and think we have no issues.

 

sorry but WRs can't pass to themselves. they were fine with BJ. perfect?? no not even close but good enough. o-line can't hold blocks for the 6 seconds it takes our QBs to pass the ball. they are certainly proven run blockers.

 

again 85% of our offensive issues are directly related to our QB play. nothing will change until that is resolved. we haven't scorted an offensive TD in 6 of our last 9 games.

 

 

So is your point that we are just screwed?  If that's your end result then I am not sure I can disagree.  But as for MW, we have a professional head coach saying "Mike White is not ready to play [at this level of college football]".  Taggart has shown that he will put a freshman out there if they are ready (see the other 7 guys on the field).  So for this past game, and as depressing as it is, Eveld seemed to be the best option despite his being injured.

 

As a side note, have you actually WATCHED the receiver play?  We have a few that have zero talent and the ones that do have talent are not giving even an ounce of effort out there.  I would be happy if Taggart would park Davis' ass on the pine because he is hurting the team out there.

 

have you seen the QB play? it's beyond awful. I'm not saying our receivers are NFL quality but please.

 

your solution is to curing our receiving woes is to bech our leading receiver??

 

BTW our receivers and TEs had offers to plenty of bigtime BCS programs. our QB is a walk-on from Jesuit, a guy that can't handle a snap and a guy that rarely passed in high school for an option offense. none had better than 55% completion percentage in high school.

 

 

I acknowledge that Eveld is not a good quarterback.  (I also see that he gets NO help.  And yes, I would bench even our most talented player if I think he is a cancer (as I think Davis is).)  But again, I ask you, is your point just that we are doomed?  

[BullsFanInTX]

 

All of  the Mike White backers are assuming that he's a better option than Eveld or Floyd.  You know there's a chance that he's not as good, right?

all of the mike white backers would like to find out.

 

we already know that the other 3 aren't the answer.

 

he was definitely a more accomplished passer in high school.

 

How do u know Bench is not the answer. Why lump him in with Floyveld. He hasn't had enough time. 

 

1. He's missed last 2 games due to injury (in which Eveld played poorly)

 

2. He came in late and didn't know the offense like Floyveld. 

 

3. He probably played before he was ready due to poor qb play. 

 

4. He has shown obvious flashes that Floyveld never have

 

Stop grouping Bench in with Floyveld until we've seen a true sample size, he has offense down, and he's not injured. Thank you. 

Edited October 15, 2013 by BullsFanInTX

[Triple B]

 

 

 

All of  the Mike White backers are assuming that he's a better option than Eveld or Floyd.  You know there's a chance that he's not as good, right?

all of the mike white backers would like to find out.

 

we already know that the other 3 aren't the answer.

 

he was definitely a more accomplished passer in high school.

 

 

Is it worth burning his redshirt though? CWT sees him in practice daily and if he doesn't think he can go out and win us 4+ games to get us bowling, then i do not think it's worth it.

 

yes it is. auburn last week just burnt their true freshman QBs redshirt and they are 5-1.

 

personally I don't think the other three can win us many games when we can't even score a TD.

 

6 of last 9 games our offense hasn't scored a TD.

 

I think the experience would be good for him and I think we could see if he has what it takes.

 

 

Ya see, here's the thing. Us seeing if he has what it takes doesn't mean for ****. All that matters is what the coaches, and in particular CWT, think and right now he's not the best option for us to win games.

[raptorcj]

 

All of  the Mike White backers are assuming that he's a better option than Eveld or Floyd.  You know there's a chance that he's not as good, right?

all of the mike white backers would like to find out.

 

we already know that the other 3 aren't the answer.

 

he was definitely a more accomplished passer in high school.

 

There ya go. I was being facetious but you actually said it. Dude, good in HS football /= good in pro-style college football.

 

That's not to say that he wouldn't come out and do the exact opposite of Floyd and be a gamer in spite of his inexperience, but if it hasn't shown up in practice there's no foundation for the logic. Again, CWT is a QB (and a gamer) and knows what he needs to see. He ain't seein' it, so let's just be patient and hope he'll live up to the hype next year.

[NCBull]

Step 1: Become involved in a thread with Bull94.

Step 2: Find a large rock.

Step 3: Beat your head against said rock multiple times.

Step 4: Repeat as desired.

[commbull]

It's not at all idiotic to believe that Willie Taggart is taking into account White's redshirt status.

 

It probably weighs very heavily in his decision making.

 

If he thought White was significantly better than the three goobers the team has had to try thus far, he would probably make the decision to burn the redshirt. But he's not going to put him out there just because he looks "as good" as them in practice, and therefore tossing him out in the game would be just one more roll of the dice to see if you might actually have something.

 

That's kind of what people want. They think well Floyd sucks, Eveld sucks and Bench sucks, who's next? Try the next guy, ya never know.

 

Taggart's not going to burn the redshirt in favor of a "ya never know" strategy.

that's exactly what you should do. one guy can't get it done then go on to the next one. O'Brien at penn state subscribes to this theory. it's why Bench got reps there as a true freshman. it's also why they have a true freshman starting this year.

 

it's why we have young guys playing in front of older guys all over the field. the older guys aren't getting it done.

 

Which is why our fan base needs to stop calling for White.

 

Taggart  clearly is willing to put true freshmen on the field. If White was the best QB available, he'd be on the field, so - by definition - he's not.

 

By my count, at least 6 true freshman are getting starts or significant playing time, and I'm sure I've missed a couple.

 

Ward @ DB

Harris @ LB

Calloway @ DL

Threat @ OL

Godwin @ DB

Tice @ RB

Taggart  clearly is willing to put true freshmen on the field. If White was the best QB available, he'd be on the field, so - by definition - he's not.

Exactly right.

[slowdown]

 

 

 

All of  the Mike White backers are assuming that he's a better option than Eveld or Floyd.  You know there's a chance that he's not as good, right?

all of the mike white backers would like to find out.

 

we already know that the other 3 aren't the answer.

 

he was definitely a more accomplished passer in high school.

 

 

Is it worth burning his redshirt though? CWT sees him in practice daily and if he doesn't think he can go out and win us 4+ games to get us bowling, then i do not think it's worth it.

 

yes it is. auburn last week just burnt their true freshman QBs redshirt and they are 5-1.

 

personally I don't think the other three can win us many games when we can't even score a TD.

 

6 of last 9 games our offense hasn't scored a TD.

 

I think the experience would be good for him and I think we could see if he has what it akes.

 

If we were rushing for 287 yards a game and Mike White were the best QB, even my a slim margin, he would start, I am sure of it.  Auburn is a completely different offense playing at a completely different level.  Having seen that QB in practice they felt it was a good move.  They didn't do it to appease fans who had the next guy in line mentality. 

Edited October 16, 2013 by slowdown

[SoTampaBull]

Bulls94, re: your following reply: "last year when our offense was scoring 30+ points per game with BJ Daniels, andre davis and co. had the same issues. perhaps you forget but they weren't exactly sticky fingers and they pulled up on routes, had plenty of penalties, etc."

 

"what's odd is that last year you and the minions blamed all our woes on BJ Daniels (Bruce i believe you derogatorily called him). said he wasn't a d-1a level QB. Now this year you're using the offensive line and WRs as scapegoats for our atrocious QB play."

 

Before getting back to the subject conversation here (this year's team and the QB & WR play), let me address the points / comments you made: First, just for accuracy sake, during the 9 games that Daniels started last year, USF averaged 25 ppg, not 30+.  Secondly, I'll concede that most likely some passes were dropped by Bulls' WRs last year and that there were some penalties last year that nullified pass completions.  However, for your argument to have any validity re: countering my analysis, you would have to provide the actual numbers rather than simply throw out random speculative player outcomes from last season. My analysis was based on the fact that a high percentage of passes (from Eveld) have been dropped during games.  In addition to those dropped passes, there's beeen a fairly large amount of nullifying penalties that also stripped Eveld (and Bench) from having more completions. For example, if you count the number of dropped passes against UConn and the potential completions nullified by penalties, they would account for 7 or 8 (depending on viewpoint) additional completions to go with Eveld's 8 total.  Do the math, and Eveld could have gone 15 of 29 for 52% or 14 of 28 (50%).  So, based on actual numbers I've provided, there's no way that you can accurately state that USF QBs are 85% of the problem re: the Bulls' passing game. Yes, are they playing like crap much of the time, yes, they are, but they apparently are not 85% of the problem. Now, I'm not sure what anyone's opinion about Daniels' performance last season has to do with the opinion of many here who believe that the problems with this year's passing attack is a multi-faceted one involving a combination of poor OL play, inconsistent receivers and less than stellar QB performances?  USF has used 3 QBs, and the results have been largely the same: statistically ineffective. While I agree there's some issues with all three, it's a bit odd to suggest that all three are perfectly and equally terrible and 85% of the problem.  So, is it possible then that all three are not equally terrible, but other factors within the offense are playing a significant role in their poor results?  I think you have to say yes, it's a high probability that there's other areas that are not working well in the passing game to also go along with some poor QB performance as well.  As for the second part of your post, it appears that part of your comparative argument is related to someone else from another blog who referred to B.J. Daniels as "Bruce."  I had no idea that calling someone by their actual first name was "derogatory," but to set the record straight, I never referred to Daniels as "Bruce." Also, I sense that when you don't have clear facts or when you utilize incorrect math to further your arguments (i.e., USF averaged 30+ ppg last year or that QBs are 85% of the problem), your preference is to resort to ad hominem retorts ("you and the minons blamed all our woes on B.J. Daniels....")  rather than simply sticking to the subject being discussed in this thread. Not sure how that tact advances your efforts to persuade others here to favor your opinion or analysis, but if me, my preference would be to challenge others with reasonable discourse via a healthy exchange of ideas and speculation rather than randomly thrown hyperbole in place of accurate facts.