What BTN thinks about our QB's
- Thread starter FloridAlum
- Start date
Number 3 is not bad to start by Clayton is clearly the best quarterback in the Big Ten at throwing the ball
I hope we blow out several teams this season to the point we can get MAlviti some serious playing time. I am just so curious to find out what the heck kind of potential this kid has in him. All we've really seen so far is a few plays against ND. He was such a great HS Qb that it would behoove everybody that cheers for the Cats to see him succeed- even if it is like ZOliver his senior year when he played a lot and did well against PSU. Now that Matt is supposedly healthy and hopefully he can stay that way all season, maybe we might see a second coming of Persa? Hopefully so!
I would much prefer that Thorson takes the next step forward, allowing Alviti to play out blow-out's with the Cats up big.
PS -- not so sure I would define 11-24 passing with 1 TD and 1 INT to go along with four sacks as "do[ing] well."
And if CT is the man, how much of MA do we want to see. Does that mean injury to CT?
Mick, he's a senior. He has had opportunities to beat out Siemian, then ZO when Siemian was hurt, and then CT when CT was only a RS frosh. "Potential" really is not the word anymore.
I'd rather they use one of the other QB's in mop-up situations. Can Matt kick FG's?
I would love to see Matt get some substantial playing time for the following reasons:
1) We are kicking our opponents ass by 35 points at the start of the 4th quarter.
2) He is a senior and I would like to see him get a chance to play a bit more.
1) We are kicking our opponents ass by 35 points at the start of the 4th quarter.
2) He is a senior and I would like to see him get a chance to play a bit more.
He really did not have a chance to beat out TS and ZO had been in the system for 4+ years. They only one you could say he did not beat out is Thorson and I believe Alviti was injured and eventually, it forced surgery..
I'm just glad he stayed on to give us a veteran backup QB. I assume he will get a valuable degree out of the deal and that will be good for him going forward. His future is NOT in pro football. Size mattered when it came to his college career and I think he realized that. There just aren't many Drew Brees' out there.
An obvious reason to want to see MA on the field is that he is a very different type of QB. Having 2 QB's taking significant numbers of snaps (even if one of the 2 takes most) complicates the D's job and makes them waste valuable practice time preparing for both. Also, one QB may be able to run certain plays much better than the other. Hence, this enlarges the number of plays that the team can use successfully. Also, for several reasons, one type of QB may be more successful against certain types of D, or just have a better day than the other in a given game.
Finally, with two athletic QB's the OC may design a few tricky plays where both are on the field simultaneously.
NU has had recent experience running a 2-QB system and it has worked reasonably well for the reasons mentioned above and others.
But of course BOTH QB's must be effective. For whatever reasons MA hasn't been effective for the most part so far. If he was this season, it would be great for the team.
The reason the two-QB system worked with Colter and Siemian is the two had bet different skill sets. Thorson and Alviti are too similar.
I pretty much agree with this because of the last paragraph. I enjoy the two QB system when it was working for us. The thing that I think breaks down is the chemistry of all the units has to change to adjust for each QB, The timing, the kinds of plays, blocking schemes, etc. Then there is the split repetitions in practice.
I don't really think so. Although both can satisfy a definition of "dual threat" QB, MA is (or should be) a much greater running threat (with significant but limited passing skills), whereas Clayton is the opposite: mostly a passing threat who can do some damage running the FB on occasions. If BOTH are/were effective, they could be perfect complements to each other.
While Alviti may be a slightly better runner and Thorson a slightly better thrower, both can do a little bit of both... that wasn't the case with Colter and Siemian, where one guy's strength far outstripped the other's.
Well, they must always allocate significant practice time to the main backup QB, since he can be called into action at any time, if for no other reason, injury. Hence the team MUST be ready to play under either QB at any time.
The issue is whether the 2nd-string QB should be there mostly for injury purpose (besides garbage time), or he should be an integral part of the O, periodically running some series (even if the starter gets most snaps), for some of the reasons mentioned earlier.
Not terribly interested in rehashing this argument. Colter was an extremely effective QB, just not in the way you wanted to see.
If your definition of a QB was someone who had no arm, posed zero down field threat and would run with the ball more often than not, perhaps, you have an argument. But, then you aren't interested in rehashing this, are you?
As effective as he may be, there really is no excuse starting him over a future NFL starter, who by the way also proved how effective he could be with zero pass protection at the NFL level against a much higher grade of pass rush and pressure.
My definition of a QB is a guy who can move the offense. Don't particularly care whether it's with his arm or his legs.
That was a nice play, by both QB and receiver. The throw went exactly where it should to take advantage of a open area, and the receiver did the rest with his speed.
That said, it was a relatively short pass (caught about 20 yards downfield, and extended into a TD by the receiver). A good throw, not a particularly long one.
Same team that Fitz played for. So, let's retire Nick Roach's number because he was a better pro than Fitz
Coaches job is to put the team in the best position to win and not satisfy someones fantasy FB dreams. Colter taking the majority of snaps as QB was the best way to do it.
No Best position to make the team function and win games. Colter was the best one to take the majority of snaps with that being the goal.
It doesn't. It only underscores that we played the wrong QB. That we didn't play our best quarterback.
We could have started by playing an actual QB.
*snort
Debatable at best.
I argue we would have won more games with Colter. We won DESPITE having a one dimensional offense and no ability to go downfield and because of our defense.
That's exactly my point. In your view an "actual QB" is a taller guy who operates primarily from the pocket. My view is that an "actual QB" is one that moves the offense, which is what Colter did.
Last edited:
Except he didn't. We never went downfield. When offense stalled as it often did, it was Siemian who would come in and bail us out. 4th quarter comebacks and all. Sure, we got some yards with the read option. But, I argue we would have been truly explosive with Siemian posing a downfield threat and a running game led by Tyrell Sutton. Read option was not as crucial as many of you think. Balance of air and pass is. The pass would have opened up the run game much more. And vice versa.
Katatonic can do the heavy lifting for you, but if you look at the numbers, our offense wasn't particularly efficient with Colter. We won despite the inefficiency, not because of it.
