Clayton

[DaCat]

Last year, Kyle Prater got off to a slow start but by mid-season he was our most reliable receiver. Similarly I think it is taking this receiving corps a little time to build chemistry with Clayton. Our clutch receiver is clearly Christian Jones, and deep threat is Miles Shuler who so far has shown improvement this season. Austin Carr is also getting more confident while McHugh and Flyin Flynn Nagel are still trying to get their feet under them. It's a serviceable receiving corps that is work-in-progress. I would like to see us utilize our Superbacks more as Vitale and Dickerson have all the physical tools.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Well everyone knows how loyal Fitz is to younger players compared to veterans like ZO (sarcasm alert). I spoke with Miles Shuler at the "meet the players" night and he was really happy that CT was going to start. He said, "he's been a stud since he arrived on campus and everyone is excited that he got the nod at quarterback." Bad game or no, it's great that CT has the support of his receiving corps.

Interesting point. I keep hearing how the coaches "owe it to the rest of the team" on production versus potential at all positions including QB. This somehow assumes the alternative would equal production. I do think both ZO and Matt have the "potential" to get the job done. However, that doesn't equate to suddenly turning our offense in to a Peyton Manning led machine ( back in the day).

I heard from a few insiders last year that it was hard to win when your best QB was red shirting. They were very confident last year that CT was the guy. I believe the CT decision was very popular among the team, so who do you owe what to? Please don't take this as a knock to ZO or Matt, but just stating the team is behind CT from everything I know. ZO and Matt are likely going to get there chance and certainly in my view are capable if called upon, but it would be the same recipe for success of managing the game, relaying on the run game and letting the D do their thing.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Nothing to lose except the Duke game perhaps?

I don't think changing QB's would have put our win in jeopardy. We got almost nothing from the QB position on Saturday. Arguably, it was a net negative. I really don't think we would have had anything to lose by trying someone else.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I don't think changing QB's would have put our win in jeopardy. We got almost nothing from the QB position on Saturday. Arguably, it was a net negative. I really don't think we would have had anything to lose by trying someone else.

The point is that we won the game, which was in no small part due to significant halftime adjustments that needed to be made to counter Duke's defensive game plan. If we were to make those adjustments AND change QBs, that would probably been enough to slow down our offense for at least a quarter until the new QB got his feet underneath him while implementing the changes.

Plus Thorson wasn't helped at all by the WRs in the first half AND we needed his legs to implement our read-option in the second half.

 

[hdhntr1]

I would not have pulled CT mid-game. Whoever plays QB deserves to work with the 1's the week before the game, and not worry about being yanked if he's having a bad half. I think you go with your starter again in Game 4. But if there aren't signs of progress 1/3 of the way through the regular season, you owe it to the rest of the team to go with Plan B in game 5. Unless, of course, you have been blowing smoke all along and the QB competition really wasn't close, and there actually is no Plan B. Which none of us who don't watch practice will ever know.

So you are going to put a guy in that has not seen the field in the first BIG game?

 

[hdhntr1]

Check the last page. MannCat might have edited his post, but I captured it in a quote when I commented that he doesn't watch much football. I didn't have a computer heandy and iPads are rough for research, but I'm sure CT isn't even on the radar for one of the best RS frosh QBs ever. I suspect ND, FSU, Bama, FL Auburn and few other pwerhouses have produced a few recently. I suspect several current NFL QBs played as RS Frosh and did ok. But who knows - thus a good thread idea.

I think that the comment was only to put things in perspective. THat even though Thorson has shown growing pains, even the 5 star walk on water prospects are know to have issues their first year. The old saying. Want a job, get experience. Want experience get a job. If you want the stud, at some point you are going to have to go through the growing pains.

And we really do have an issue at WR whether it be because of lack of talent or lack of development or both. All I know is we lost our WR coach to Indiana and suddenly our WR production has gone down and Indiana's WR production has been solid. Indication is that Johns was better.

 

[NJCat83588]

So you are going to put a guy in that has not seen the field in the first BIG game?

Yes. Oliver has already played 1.5 more Big 10 games than has CT.

 

[mikewebb68]

Had we not gotten the go ahead TD on the second half kick, we may have seen ZO get a series or two.

This is contrary to what Fitz said in the press conference, I believe.

 

[mikewebb68]

I don't think changing QB's would have put our win in jeopardy. We got almost nothing from the QB position on Saturday. Arguably, it was a net negative. I really don't think we would have had anything to lose by trying someone else.

Think back to ZO's performance against a far weaker defense in the Illinois game. Now fast-forward again. Still think we would have had anything to lose?

 

[EvanstonCat]

Perhaps, you have a point. But, I don't know that Thorson's performance was any worse than ZO's. Thorson had a QBR of 7.0.

 

[NJCat83588]

This is contrary to what Fitz said in the press conference, I believe.

That's true. However, do you honestly think he would have said anything different after the game? Few head coaches (except perhaps Steve Spurrier) would say, "yeah we were one snap from pulling his losing ass"......

 

[Purple is Forever]

How does Fitzgerald square the circle when he says "it's about performance, not potential"? All along he has said the QB race was very close. CT has ben pretty average the first three games, admittedly against very good talent in two games. Pat says he's tired of being average, and was all over Vitale and North after they were below average in game 1. IF, and it's purely hypothetical at this point, CT is average again against Ball State, does he go ZO against Minny? Because this could be a really special season, and right now QB is by far the weak link on this team.

Average? I thought CT was several shades below average. About the only decent thing he did was hand the ball off and run. But Fitzerald would change QB's if he felt that ZO would be more productive. As bad as CT is playing, he does seem to keep the defenses honest with his scrambling ability. That buys him and the OL some time. When ZO played last year, there was no running threat and defenses just mad rushed him all day long.

CT has ripped off several 20+ runs, and with our defense, those impact runs have put the opposition in a big hole. Even putting us in FG range could be costly for the opposition since points will be very hard to come by against our defense.

McCall has drawn up some nice plays for CT, putting Vitale in motion to block on the off tackle QB keeper. CT has run off Vitale's back, pass to Vitale off that same play, and handed off to Jackson with Vitale in motion. When Vitale goes in motion, defenses have to be prepared for all 3 options. If ZO was in there, there would be no reason for Vitale's motion.

I do think playing MA for one series would be interesting. Not to replace CT but as a changeup. I hope he gets some game day experience this week.

 

[NJCat83588]

I do think playing MA for one series would be interesting. Not to replace CT but as a changeup. I hope he gets some game day experience this week.

Matt and Clayton are pretty similar, guys who can run from the QB position. I don't see how that would represent a "changeup" in the least. You want a changeup, you play Zack.

 

[DocCatsFan]

Matt and Clayton are pretty similar, guys who can run from the QB position. I don't see how that would represent a "changeup" in the least. You want a changeup, you play Zack.

Not exactly. True that both can run. But Matt has a way-below average arm and Clayton has a gun.

 

[NJCat83588]

Not exactly. True that both can run. But Matt has a way-below average arm and Clayton has a gun.

I guess I didn't consider putting in a QB with a worse arm constituted a "changeup". Maybe he is a knuckleballer.... /s