QB argument thread

[Blue Heaven]

We NEED a passer not a runner back there at QB. If we are to ever beat ANY of the big boys in the SEC we need a guy that can make the clutch throw in the critical moment, not somebody trying to out run an SEC (NFL Caliber) linebacker, who is probably faster than he is.

It's a good thing we had Johnson the last two seasons. We have needed a qb with some escapability. Johnson got us some wins with his mobility. I am glad Wilson is mobile.

[Joneslab]

You probably need to be able to do both in today's world, but just thinking about the guys who kill Kentucky and the players you see who are electric and who put up huge games under the biggest spotlights, they're usually quarterbacks with killer speed.

I've always assumed Kentucky's offense was built for a guy who can do both, but it definitely doesn't seem built for a traditional pocket passer.

I would much rather have a guy with speed. But he has to keep 'em honest. Johnson at times last year was so injured that he just couldn't make easy throws.

[Joneslab]

As for two quarterbacks.

That's great in theory. Put one guy in against certain kinds of teams, run the other guy out against other types of teams. Rotate during a game. Seems impossible to set up a defense against that.

But in actuality in college football does that work? Seems that the theory doesn't hold up when you're dealing with egos and confidence and rhythm.

Usually the teams Kentucky plays who are trying to shuffle in two QB's are often in shambles.

[40bill]

Looking back, perhaps I have been too harsh on the OC.

The Cats won 7 with what we found were glaring deficiencies.

I know we wanted the Cats to score quicker....but then turn it over to the defense?????
I'm not sure in retrospect that the TE didn't HAVE to stay in as a blocker to make things work on the line.

Dunno. I don't have a great answer. I just hope the defense is half as much better as a lot of us have been thinking.

[Lighthouse]

We NEED a passer not a runner back there at QB. If we are to ever beat ANY of the big boys in the SEC we need a guy that can make the clutch throw in the critical moment, not somebody trying to out run an SEC (NFL Caliber) linebacker, who is probably faster than he is. We need a Tim Couch, not saying Hoak is but I know Wilson isn’t. IMO you start Hoak and see what he can do, MUCH higher potential ceiling than you get with Wilson. Our receiver corps being so poor doesn’t help, ranked by experts last or next to last in conference. Maybe or hapless O-Coordinator will finally learn how to properly use the tight end, one can hope at least.

I know Wilson is no Lamar Jackson, but he beat us twice with his legs because we had to put so many on him that his passing became a problem. A dual threat QB is never a bad thing. And you're right Houck is no Tim Couch.

[Jload]

Lighthouse I agree that a dual threat QB is desirable, unfortunately we haven’t really had one in a while. We have had guys who could run but a threat in the passing game not so much. We really haven’t had a guy who could make the clutch throws, the accurate mid range throw, that frankly we have to have to beat the big boys in the SEC since Woodson was here. Do you believe a running QB with questionable accuracy will beat FLA, LSU , Auburn, GEORGIA just to name a few. I don’t , we ain’t gonna beat those guys on the ground, a potent running attack might keep us close, and has in some games, but late in the game with the score close, you got to have a passer to make it across the finish line. That’s why I would like to see Houck in there to see if he’s got the goods. If he doesn’t we can always put in the running mediocre passer, we have been doing that for 6 years or so.

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse I agree that a dual threat QB is desirable, unfortunately we haven’t really had one in a while. We have had guys who could run but a threat in the passing game not so much. We really haven’t had a guy who could make the clutch throws, the accurate mid range throw, that frankly we have to have to beat the big boys in the SEC since Woodson was here. Do you believe a running QB with questionable accuracy will beat FLA, LSU , Auburn, GEORGIA just to name a few. I don’t , we ain’t gonna beat those guys on the ground, a potent running attack might keep us close, and has in some games, but late in the game with the score close, you got to have a passer to make it across the finish line. That’s why I would like to see Houck in there to see if he’s got the goods. If he doesn’t we can always put in the running mediocre passer, we have been doing that for 6 years or so.

I agree somewhat, but I think Wilson's arm will be an asset because of his legs. If and when he can read the defense, he will be able to choose which to use. Every play he runs will probably have run blocking and WR's in place to put pressure on the defense to commit to one or the other. That's where he could be dangerous. He doesn't have a bad passing game, just a questionable one at this point. Houck for sure is the better arm, but defenses can concentrate on rushing and covering without worrying to much about his legs. It really doesn't matter to me which starts as long as we win.

[Old School]

Having a mobile quarterback who throws well doesn't guarantee success. Indiana had one of the best ever in Antwaan Randle-El: Big Ten Freshman of the Year, first NCAA player to throw and run for 40 TDs each, Big Ten MVP, #5 all time in total yardage in the NCAA, first player to ever total 2,500 yards in each of four seasons...he was remarkable. And with him, IU went 4-7, 4-7, 3-8, and then 5-6 (avoiding another 4-7 season with a win against 2-9 Kentucky in the last game of the season, rescheduled due to 9/11). Big Ten record: 2-6, 3-5, 2-6, 4-4. Even an absolutely remarkable talent at that position can't guarantee success or even mediocrity.

An effective pass-heavy offense doesn't guarantee success either, but it gives a team much more of an advantage against traditional defenses, even really good ones, than a running QB often does. And while you don't hear of many traditionally unsuccessful programs or teams with weaker rosters having a great season with a very mobile QB, you do hear about that happening with Air Raid offenses.
Oklahoma: the system got them into the playoffs last year and they were a double overtime play away from the national championship game. They won a national championship with it in 2000. They usually win the Big XII. They win 10, 11, 12 games a season most of the time. Points per game: 45.1, 43.9, 43.5, 36.4, 32.8, 38.2, 39.5 the last seven years. On defense: 27.1, 28.8, 22.0, 25.9, 22.1, 25.5. 22.1: running the Air Raid doesn't mean you have to give up a lot of points on the other side of the ball. And you can't chalk that up to Big XII play, because they beat #2 Ohio State at Ohio State 31-16 last year and beat #17 Auburn in the Sugar Bowl 35-19 the year before.

Texas Tech: they were the most consistently successful team in the Big XII during Leach's years there and did it with a roster loaded with 2 star kids, including at QB.

Washington State: worst P5 team in the country before Leach arrived; they bowled in his second year and in the last three were 9-4, 8-5, 9-4 with the weakest roster in the Pac 12. They beat teams with better rosters and history: recent wins include #5 Southern Cal and #18 Stanford last year, at #15 Stanford the year before, at #18 UCLA the year before that.

West Virginia: 34.5, 31.2, 34.0, 33.5, 26.3, 39.5, 37.6 points per game on offense the past 7 years. Holgorsen is 53-37 as head coach there, 49-29 if you exclude the anomalous 2013 season.

Kansas: they're the worst P5 team now, and had been at other times, but when Mark Mangino ran the Air Raid there, they went to a BCS bowl.

Texas Christian: 12-1, 11-2, 6-7, 11-3 in the past four years with former Texas Tech Air Raid coach Sonny Cumbie as OC. In those years they averaged 46.5, 42.1, 31.0 and 33.6 points per game. TCU also shows that running an Air Raid offense doesn't mean you can't have an effective defense. In those same four years they gave up 19.0, 28.0, 27.2, 19.0 points per game, and they may have the best defense in the Big XII this year.

Troy: 3-9, 5-7, 6-6, 3-9 in the four seasons before Neal Brown arrived; 4-8, 10-3, 11-2 since. One of the few losses in that 21-5 stretch was a 30-24 loss at undefeated eventual national champion Clemson. They won at LSU last year and no one would dispute the immense difference in talent between those two teams. They went from averaging 15 points per game to 36 in Brown's first season.

Arizona State: not a particularly talented roster most years, but they get to bowl games by using the Air Raid.

Baylor: Art Briles took a horrible program to great success with the Air Raid attack. They were 10-3, 8-5, 11-2, 11-2 and 10-3 in his last five years there (50-15). They averaged 48.1, 48.2, and 52.4 points per game his last three years, giving up 28.3, 25.5, 23.5. It wasn't just a Big XII team; they beat teams, including ranked teams, from the other P5 conferences (except for the SEC, unless you count Missouri and Texas A&M back then).

Middle Tennessee: certainly not any sort of football power, ever, but they are probably doing better than they ever have right now, with Tony Franklin running the Air Raid there - another example of how the system can narrow the gap between have-nots and haves.

It's not all upside with an Air Raid attack, because it places a lot of strain on defenses that end up spending more time on the field. Traditional powers don't take to it as much because what they do works (loading the field with 4 and 5 star players and bulldozing everyone). If you're not one of those powers and aren't going to field the same sort of roster they have - and there just aren't enough 4 and 5 star players to go around, so only a relative handful of teams will field that sort of roster consistently - your defense is going to be overpowered and winded after four quarters with one of those teams regardless, so that disadvantage isn't much of a relative change on that side of the ball, while giving you a chance to move the ball and score some points.

So: Is a program like Kentucky likely to win because they field a quarterback who can run well? Probably not, even if he is remarkably talented at it. Can a program like Kentucky succeed with a pass-heavy attack? Yes: if run well, it creates advantages against teams that are roughly equal or somewhat better in most aspects, and gives teams a chance against powerhouses - chances that you don't have against those powers merely by fielding a good running QB. Can a QB who runs well, but also passes well, succeed? If he's a very solid passer who can master the Air Raid system, yes - if he has an O line and WRs that do their part, just like he needs an O line to do its part to succeed on the ground.

My take: Has Wilson indicated he can do what's needed in the passing game for this team? No, not yet. Has Hoak? Maybe; I'm not sure, as scrimmages don't tell the story well, but he seems significantly better at it than Wilson at this point. The #1 and #2 determinants of UK's success this year, IMO: 1) success in the passing game (which requires not just a QB performing well, but WRs who run routes accurately and catch well, and an OL that gives adequate protection, and effective playcalling; 2) run defense (DL improvement is a severe need and the LBs must play solid). #3 may be the kicking game or the secondary or Snell staying healthy or playcalling...whatever it is, I think it's far behind #1 and #2. #1 requires a QB who can throw well. Mobility is a bonus, but a consistent and productive passing threat will be a necessary component to have any chance to win six games this year, IMO.

[Blue Heaven]

^ Fantastic breakdown Old School and I totally agree.

[Lighthouse]

Thanks Old School. Very well said and the stats back it up.

[johnkyblue]

So I was off on the numbers. Wilson's throwing numbers are way lower than I put down.

[40bill]

For some reason or another TW just couldn't seem to get his head right in this game. He definitely has the starter spot, but I arm chair coach and wonder if a couple series on the bench might have given him time to focus in.

[Matt Dillon]

For some reason or another TW just couldn't seem to get his head right in this game. He definitely has the starter spot, but I arm chair coach and wonder if a couple series on the bench might have given him time to focus in.

He's probably never played in an atmosphere (big game & 12th Man thing) like that before. He still has some growing to do. The two problems I have with his play, last night, is the fact he slid down when he probably could have had the first down and the fact he took a sack instead of throwing the ball away at a crucial time. If you fear getting hit, you have no business playing fb.

[KCKUKFan]

Old School comes through and knocks it out of the park.

You've gotta ride with Terry Wilson, in my opinion. He's flawed but if he's gonna be the guy going forward, he's gotta get reps. That's how he will get better. Last night was the first time that I felt that he was truly intimidated by the moment, and when you consider he went and played well at The Swamp, it's saying something.

[johnkyblue]

I'm going back to this thread because I said who is playing between the two should depend on the situation. I would have started Hoak in yesterday's game. #1 Run defense.