McNeil is the best game manager and that is why he is in. I think after the MTSU debacle Lambert decided in some games we have no chance and Lee could probably keep the score closer than anyone else.
Any word on how Klugh has looked in practice?
Youāre not managing much of anything if you are at the FBS level and are averaging less than 100yds/game playing QB, with 0 TDās and 9 Intās. Our margin for error is razor thin when our passing game mainly consist of 3 to 5 yard completions going sideline to sideline, because any deep routes are hung up in the air or thrown weakly into double coverage for interceptions.
I think they are sticking with Lee because he may be showing them that he is making the least terrible reads, but he doesnāt have the arm strength for this level. Johnson and Barden may have the better arms, but arenāt showing the coaches that they are reading the defenses correctly, especially with the speed in FBS.
What I question is this: You started Matt over Lee for 2+ years. Matt didnāt play terrible against Ga State (his O line and WRs didnāt do him any favors). Clearly that says Matt is better than Lee. And now all of sudden you decide to start Lee. Itās like Lee rolled outta bed one day and the coaches said āDamn Lee you lookin like a QB today. You should be our starter from now on!ā
[quote=ā49erCC, post:42, topic:29916ā]Any word on how Klugh has looked in practice?[/quote]others have said strong arm, questionable accuracy, but also very fast.
None of our QBs are good at all. Matt Johnson is a turnover machine, even though McNeil isnāt too much better in that department. Honestly I donāt know why we just donāt run the wildcat the entire game.
None of our QBs are good at all. Matt Johnson is a turnover machine, even though McNeil isnāt too much better in that department. Honestly I donāt know why we just donāt run the wildcat the entire game.[/quote]
Iād rather see matt in the triple option.
I have to disagree with some of the sentiments above, we had the #1 rated D in terms of efficiency in the conference going into this game (how crazy is that?). Can we upgrade some talent on that side of the ball? Sure who canāt, but they have been playing good enough to to win (at least good enough to get us to 4-3).
We had the leading rusher in CUSA going into last week. That fact alone tells you the line has been holding up. Can our line improve? Sure, but once again the RB and line have played good enough to let us have a winning record.
Our WRs are the highest rated recruits that we have on the team. They have been getting open for the most part (the INT to Duke in the end zone is a perfect example). Now there have been some drops, but overall they have performed well enough to get us to 4-3.
There is one position, unfortunately the most important one, that has not exceeded expectations. Add to that the fact we passed on someone who has program changing talent, and well it stings a bit. There is zero doubt in my mind that weāre 4-3 with him, and that we would have been competitive in at least two of the three wide losses.
I am extremely happy that we have been competitive in every game except two this year, and Iām surprised at how well weāve been able to go toe to toe with these CUSA guys. Lambert has a ton of leeway with me, and itās hard to be critical of him. Iāve been a college football fan all my life, and if I were building a program I would do it exactly the way he has. The spread offense allows you to compete on more even footing than a power game with the bigger programs, a 3-4 D allows you to recruit more LBS which are easier to find than DL, and red-shirting the amount of players we do will pay big dividends down the road. He has also been a great spokesman for the program.
Iām not ready to give up on Barden yet either, he still just a RS freshman. Our QB play has been so bad, it is worrisome that he is not seeing the field. Before the year, if you told me this was where we would be after 7 games, I would have been extremely happy. Seeing how close we are to having a spectacular year tho (just needing average QB play), well itās easy to greedy.
Well said chidave. All of it.
I think this is true, but is a cowardly coaching move. Everyone knows weāre not winning any games with McNeil, but we also will probably limp our way to only 20 points losses than to have Johnson funsling into potentially big losses. Iāll take Johnson trying than to go into a game prepared to be a loser.
I think this is true, but is a cowardly coaching move. Everyone knows weāre not winning any games with McNeil, but we also will probably limp our way to only 20 points losses than to have Johnson funsling into potentially big losses. Iāll take Johnson trying than to go into a game prepared to be a loser.[/quote]
I with this guy. I would rather see Matt throw picks as well as touchdowns and have a chance rather than have Lee doing absolutely nothing on the field. I mean the guy canāt throw more than 15 yards and still manages to throw several intās. 
I think this is true, but is a cowardly coaching move. Everyone knows weāre not winning any games with McNeil, but we also will probably limp our way to only 20 points losses than to have Johnson funsling into potentially big losses. Iāll take Johnson trying than to go into a game prepared to be a loser.[/quote]
I with this guy. I would rather see Matt throw picks as well as touchdowns and have a chance rather than have Lee doing absolutely nothing on the field. I mean the guy canāt throw more than 15 yards and still manages to throw several intās. ???[/quote]
Thatās my opinion also, because if our āgame managerā is just providing us 1 close loss, then I would rather roll the dice with the guy that at least gives us the chance to make explosive plays down the field. High risk, high reward (Matt or Brooks) over low risk (even though Lee has 9 INTās with 0 passing TDās) and low reward. Plus Barden should be getting some game reps regardless if heās starting or not, just for experience.
I think this is true, but is a cowardly coaching move. Everyone knows weāre not winning any games with McNeil, but we also will probably limp our way to only 20 points losses than to have Johnson funsling into potentially big losses. Iāll take Johnson trying than to go into a game prepared to be a loser.[/quote]
I with this guy. I would rather see Matt throw picks as well as touchdowns and have a chance rather than have Lee doing absolutely nothing on the field. I mean the guy canāt throw more than 15 yards and still manages to throw several intās. ???[/quote]
Thatās my opinion also, because if our āgame managerā is just providing us 1 close loss, then I would rather roll the dice with the guy that at least gives us the chance to make explosive plays down the field. High risk, high reward (Matt or Brooks) over low risk (even though Lee has 9 INTās with 0 passing TDās) and low reward. Plus Barden should be getting some game reps regardless if heās starting or not, just for experience.[/quote]
I have said this since the change was made. Johnson is feast or famine, but McNeil is just famine.
At this point Barden needs to be seeing some repsā¦No reason he shouldnāt be