QB Competition 2018

[BamaMoon]

There has been a lot of justifiable concerns voiced about Jalen Hurts in this thread. There are very real issues, and if they are not properly addressed (I'd argue they should have been addressed sooner) there will be major consequences. Having said that, come on. Jalen Hurts is the 12th rated passer (that's purely as a passer, his QBR is top 10) in all of college football! He's done that without heavily relying on short stuff like last year, in fact I believe he's 10th in the NCAA in yards per attempt! Now, we can nitpick his reads and what not, and he has areas he can improve in and areas in which Tua is better.

But, mark my words. If things go south at Alabama, Hurts will start elsewhere and he will win games. He's a good quarterback who has improved and most likely will continue to improve. He's still just a true sophomore, so the comparisons to GMac playing as a redshirt junior, or AJ playing as a redshirt sophomore are not really valid as in we never saw those guys play meaningful minutes at this stage in their development. Hurts needs to improve, no question, but there really are not that many guys out there that are definitively better at the position. This was the consensus on the board a relatively short while ago, and there's no way that the Auburn game (remember he came into the game as a dark horse Heisman candidate), as bad as it was, erases everything he's done up to this point. He's still a good quarterback, that was never the question.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/nick-marshall-2.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/jalen-hurts-1.html

 

[BAMARICH]

You think that Clemson is going to have a different defensive game plan this year vs last year? I get that they are marginally better on the d-line (they were almost as good last year), but I just don't see them playing this game any differently.

So you're saying there's nothing to learn from watching how better teams shut our offense down this year?

 

[CrimsonForce]

You think that Clemson is going to have a different defensive game plan this year vs last year? I get that they are marginally better on the d-line (they were almost as good last year), but I just don't see them playing this game any differently.

This is why teams who lose the first game of a rematch are almost always favored (and usually win) the rematch. The winning team doesn't make any adjustments because it worked last time and the losing team makes adjustments because the lost the game. I realize this isn't your typical rematch since it's been a year since the last game but I'd expect Clemson to play us the same but we'll make adjustments..

 

[BamaMoon]

I see this differently. See, Spurrier is an offensive guy while Saban is a defensive guy. They both want balance, but they each want to win in a different way. Saban wants to take as few risks as possible and win on the strength of his defense. Spurrier wants to take chances on offense and needs his defense to be good enough to bail them out, but not good enough to win the games, because he expects his offense to win the games for him. The results with respect "patience" for players is pretty predictable:

Saban is very patient with offensive players as long as they do not turn the ball over, but he lacks patience for defensive players who cannot play consistently. No defensive player is guaranteed a starting spot from week to week. They have to perform consistently to see the field on defense. He expects the defense to stop the other team from scoring every time (though he understands that this is not possible). He does not place the same expectations on the offense.

Spurrier - well, flip it around. If a QB plays poorly in a game, he gets yanked - even if his replacement is not proven. Spurrier expected his offense to score on every possession, and he demanded the same kind of play from his offensive players that Saban expects from his defensive players, with similar consequences for inconsistent play.

So each is patient and impatient in the same way - they just apply those characteristics to opposite sides of the ball. Both could have improved with an equal demand for consistent performance from the other side of the ball.

I think that's a fair analysis of what makes these two coaches tick.

Who am I to second guess a coach who's won 5 NCs, but sometimes I wish he'd be a little more "risky" with his quarterbacks knowing he typically has a good enough defense to bail him out of most turnovers or to at least limit the damage to 3 instead of 6.

 

[BAMARICH]

I actually think they did have the blueprint, they just look at it differently. Yes, we did score 31 points, but I think their plan was more holistic than that. They knew we would break some big plays; that has been a big part of our scoring recently. Their plan was to know that would happen and try to limit as much as possible but that they would not allow any/many long sustained drives by playing back to limit deep passes and forcing jalens hand. it worked, we had TON of 3 and outs forcing our defense onto the field more than it should have been, and they wore us out. That's why Dabo know EXACTLY how many plays his offense had run at halftime and was so confident they were in good shape.

Case in point on the "learning curve". Auburn devoted themselves to committing pass interference when they believed they were going to give up a big passing play. Their belief was that JH would not be able to lead sustained drives down the field due to their lack of ability to convert on 3rd downs - and they were right. You can bet your life's savings that Clemson will imitate that.

 

[BAMARICH]

This is why teams who lose the first game of a rematch are almost always favored (and usually win) the rematch. The winning team doesn't make any adjustments because it worked last time and the losing team makes adjustments because the lost the game. I realize this isn't your typical rematch since it's been a year since the last game but I'd expect Clemson to play us the same but we'll make adjustments..

Your game plan rests on what the other team has... and what you have. Clemson won't go into the game this year with the same game plan as last year because their offense is vastly different without DW. They can't afford to utilize the same one.

 

[KrAzY3]

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/nick-marshall-2.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/jalen-hurts-1.html

Marshall as a 5th year senior had a lower passing rating than Hurts as a true sophomore. I think that about sums it up.

Secondly, to a point made by another poster, having better passing abilities and being a better passer are two different things. Sam Darnold was a turnover machine and blew his team's chances of a title. He is a great talent, but he screwed up, and those screw up makes their way into the stats. Same with Rosen, for instance he completely blew the Arizona game. That counts, and there is I think the blind spot some posters here have. It's not about what you can do, it's about what you actually do. If Hurts had a 0/3 game and Alabama lost, everyone here would be quick to say he's not a real quarterback. Rosen does that and he's still a real quarterback right?

The simple fact of the matter is Hurts is a good college quarterback, period. The fact that some people here won't give him that simple respect is both mind boggling and obviously born of some deep seeded bias. He has issues, very real, very important, potentially destructive issues. But that doesn't make him unable to play the position and if you can't start with admitting some basic truths about the abilities he does have, you're not going to have a very productive or objective discussion.

 

[TiderJack]

Case in point on the "learning curve". Auburn devoted themselves to committing pass interference when they believed they were going to give up a big passing play. Their belief was that JH would not be able to lead sustained drives down the field due to their lack of ability to convert on 3rd downs - and they were right. You can bet your life's savings that Clemson will imitate that.

I heard we sent 9 plays to the SEC office after the game about the Barn muggings on Calvin and others so they would not give up the big play but only 1 or 2 were called. If the refs call it fairly I will love for Clemson to imitate that strategy and you can bet Saban will tell the refs to look for it during pre-game.

 

[BAMARICH]

I heard we sent 9 plays to the SEC office after the game about the Barn muggings on Calvin and others so they would not give up the big play but only 1 or 2 were called. If the refs call it fairly I will love for Clemson to imitate that strategy and you can bet Saban will tell the refs to look for it during pre-game.

Getting it called and us taking advantage of the calls are two different things though. Eventually you've got to convert on longer drives if you can't get lucky with the longer passing plays.

 

[CrimsonForce]

I heard we sent 9 plays to the SEC office after the game about the Barn muggings on Calvin and others so they would not give up the big play but only 1 or 2 were called. If the refs call it fairly I will love for Clemson to imitate that strategy and you can bet Saban will tell the refs to look for it during pre-game.

That strategy seems to backfire more than help. I remember when Saban caused a stink about the lineman down field and we got called for it the next game lol. I feel like if Saban made a big deal about pick plays we'd definitely be called for one..

 

[CrimsonForce]

Your game plan rests on what the other team has... and what you have. Clemson won't go into the game this year with the same game plan as last year because their offense is vastly different without DW. They can't afford to utilize the same one.

Right, the topic of conversation was really aimed at how Clemson would defend us. They have basically the same type of defense as last year and our offense is pretty much the same as last year. I expect them to defense us the same way - crowd the LOS - which shouldn't be anything new because that's how teams have played us all year. It's up to the coaches to come up with adjustments and the players to execute..

 

[RT27]

Sure - he was and is a character that I would not want running my program, but was he wrong here?

Not wrong but not totally accurate, he says it like with this talent you should win almost every game, As if talent alone wins games.MY point was and is how many coaches at times in the past had a BIG talent edge and still never won a title or only 1. He is jabbing Saban's ability to coach, pure and simple. At UF Spurrier had almost exactly what Saban has now, a big talent edge on almost every school he played. He tries to diminish the 4 titles as all on talent, if talent alone wins multi titles then why did spurrier not do that while at UF? You have to know spurrier to know Saban is a threat to his greatness in the SEC. Until Saban arrived at Bama Spurrier was the OLE BALL COACH, considered by many as the best since Bear. Not even close. He is like Bobby Bowden to me, took superior talent in a league that at the time was light years behind today's leagues, and won a lot of games and few titles. Bobby and Steve were very good, but neither are in Sabans league. When you own a mediocre conference it is one thing, BUT Saban ruled SEC during the best years of it's life. When FSU and UF ruled they had one maybe 2 games a year against a real title contender, their schedules were much weaker than they are now. Hence even then with superior talent, a conference that was not as strong top to bottom, they won a lot of games but only 1 title each with a loss. So Again Spurrier being spurrier being spurrier.Yes saban should win a lot of games and he does, he also does what spurrier with a big advantage never did, he won multiple titles. So far as spurrier goes, just let him fade out, he was good at one time but was never at Sabans level, never.

 

[BamaMoon]

Marshall as a 5th year senior had a lower passing rating than Hurts as a true sophomore. I think that about sums it up.

Secondly, to a point made by another poster, having better passing abilities and being a better passer are two different things. Sam Darnold was a turnover machine and blew his team's chances of a title. He is a great talent, but he screwed up, and those screw up makes their way into the stats. Same with Rosen, for instance he completely blew the Arizona game. That counts, and there is I think the blind spot some posters here have. It's not about what you can do, it's about what you actually do. If Hurts had a 0/3 game and Alabama lost, everyone here would be quick to say he's not a real quarterback. Rosen does that and he's still a real quarterback right?

The simple fact of the matter is Hurts is a good college quarterback, period. The fact that some people here won't give him that simple respect is both mind boggling and obviously born of some deep seeded bias. He has issues, very real, very important, potentially destructive issues. But that doesn't make him unable to play the position and if you can't start with admitting some basic truths about the abilities he does have, you're not going to have a very productive or objective discussion.

I said Hurts is slightly better than Nick Marshall. Did you look at the stats? He's slightly better. Marshall played DB before he played QB. The fact he was a redshirt sr and JH is a true soph. means nothing, especially since Jalen has played QB his whole college career. Jalen is "supposed" to be the qb that came to Bama to learn to be a pocket passer. At least people admitted Marshall was really a DB turned QB who was decent.

Oh, and can you drop the complaint that every time someone critiques Jalen as a passer that they are "biased?" What is your claim founded on?

 

[RT27]

Marshall as a 5th year senior had a lower passing rating than Hurts as a true sophomore. I think that about sums it up.

Secondly, to a point made by another poster, having better passing abilities and being a better passer are two different things. Sam Darnold was a turnover machine and blew his team's chances of a title. He is a great talent, but he screwed up, and those screw up makes their way into the stats. Same with Rosen, for instance he completely blew the Arizona game. That counts, and there is I think the blind spot some posters here have. It's not about what you can do, it's about what you actually do. If Hurts had a 0/3 game and Alabama lost, everyone here would be quick to say he's not a real quarterback. Rosen does that and he's still a real quarterback right?

The simple fact of the matter is Hurts is a good college quarterback, period. The fact that some people here won't give him that simple respect is both mind boggling and obviously born of some deep seeded bias. He has issues, very real, very important, potentially destructive issues. But that doesn't make him unable to play the position and if you can't start with admitting some basic truths about the abilities he does have, you're not going to have a very productive or objective discussion.

The one thing I can safely say, is Jalen does not commit a lot of game killing turnovers as some real talented great passing QB's do. Nick has always been more about a QB not costing us a game, rather than asking him to win the game.,Jalen is trying to win the games on his own. He just needs to do what he has to and allow others to carry the water sometimes.His passing is not Joe Montana quality, does not need to be to win a NC. Just got to get him to play his game and allow the rest of the team to play their game, we will be fine. I feel his biggest problem is trying to do to much, and sometimes that shows his weaknesses. Nick has never at Bama relied on a QB to carry a team to a win,he expects all the play makers to contribute. if we can get back to that, we can wipe the floor and get 17 this year. Spread the wealth.

 

[BAMARICH]

Marshall as a 5th year senior had a lower passing rating than Hurts as a true sophomore. I think that about sums it up.

Secondly, to a point made by another poster, having better passing abilities and being a better passer are two different things. Sam Darnold was a turnover machine and blew his team's chances of a title. He is a great talent, but he screwed up, and those screw up makes their way into the stats. Same with Rosen, for instance he completely blew the Arizona game. That counts, and there is I think the blind spot some posters here have. It's not about what you can do, it's about what you actually do. If Hurts had a 0/3 game and Alabama lost, everyone here would be quick to say he's not a real quarterback. Rosen does that and he's still a real quarterback right?

The simple fact of the matter is Hurts is a good college quarterback, period. The fact that some people here won't give him that simple respect is both mind boggling and obviously born of some deep seeded bias. He has issues, very real, very important, potentially destructive issues. But that doesn't make him unable to play the position and if you can't start with admitting some basic truths about the abilities he does have, you're not going to have a very productive or objective discussion.

It's not that any of us are not willing to say he's a good college QB overall. He's shown himself to be a GREAT QB against poor competition and a BELOW AVERAGE QB against tough competition though. That's averages out to "good"... but the problem is, we're facing the tough competition at this point.

 

[B1GTide]

It's not that any of us are not willing to say he's a good college QB overall. He's shown himself to be a GREAT QB against poor competition and a BELOW AVERAGE QB against tough competition though. That's averages out to "good"... but the problem is, we're facing the tough competition at this point.

I would say that he is an above average college QB against tough competition. He has played a lot of games against tough competition and only lost 2 of them. Not many below average QBs could do that - if any. So he is good, but not very good, against tough competition - he is not an AJ type QB - and it is fair that Alabama fans worry that you might need that kind of QB to win every once in a while.

The question - will a "good" Jalen be enough against Clemson? I think that it will.

 

[BAMARICH]

Right, the topic of conversation was really aimed at how Clemson would defend us. They have basically the same type of defense as last year and our offense is pretty much the same as last year. I expect them to defense us the same way - crowd the LOS - which shouldn't be anything new because that's how teams have played us all year. It's up to the coaches to come up with adjustments and the players to execute..

You're missing my point though... Clemson's offense WILL dictate to some degree how their defense plans for this game. For instance, if you have a quick strike, explosive offense, then you can afford to take more chances on defense (i.e. blitz more). However, if you lack that ability, then you normally are more conservative on defense. It's not just about stopping the other team, it's about putting yourself in a position to score points yourself. I fully expect Clemson to be more conservative - that probably means less man-to-man and less blitzing (with their front being better than AU, they may not have to anyway). I'd also expect they're going to put a spy on Hurts on 3rd downs.

 

[B1GTide]

You're missing my point though... Clemson's offense WILL dictate to some degree how their defense plans for this game. For instance, if you have a quick strike, explosive offense, then you can afford to take more chances on defense (i.e. blitz more). However, if you lack that ability, then you normally are more conservative on defense. It's not just about stopping the other team, it's about putting yourself in a position to score points yourself. I fully expect Clemson to be more conservative - that probably means less man-to-man and less blitzing (with their front being better than AU, they may not have to anyway). I'd also expect they're going to put a spy on Hurts on 3rd downs.

I think that both teams will play this way, and without turnovers it will produce a low scoring game.

 

[BAMARICH]

I would say that he is an above average college QB against tough competition. He has played a lot of games against tough competition and only lost 2 of them.

We totally disagree here... the numbers also don't support it. As I've pointed out earlier in the thread, the "1992 Jay Barker" wouldn't have been called "an above average QB" because he didn't lose a game that year.

 

[BAMARICH]

I think that both teams will play this way, and without turnovers it will produce a low scoring game.

Agreed... or at least I think both teams would like to let it play out like this.