You have to pull Worley

why is he taking a beating if the oline is elite?

 

maybe he doesn't make the right reads fast enough? Plus people want them to run the read option. and that's not the mental side.

 

I think the difference is the freshman qb then has nothing to lose and can play better in your situation above. Yanking one early at Oregon and replacing with Worley isn't a direction I want to go, and you couldn't keep him out there like a sacraficial lamb like you can Worley. Its not just about this game, in summary, imo.

 

Shielding them from what? A beating that they will get from nearly any SEC team (minus KY possibly)? My point is that if you plan on putting the freshmen in, it doesn't matter what game it is, because they are going to get beat down, regardless. In my opinion, I would want to see how they react mentally and physically.

To answer your question about Ainge and Schaeffer, they only other QB's on the roster in 2004 when they were freshmen were Bo Hardegree, Rick Clausen, and Jim Bob Cooter. So yes, the exact same situation, and we pulled the trigger with two freshman from the start. Granted, there was a lot of talent around them at the time. Also, once Joey Matthews showed he didn't have the arm against Southern Miss, AJ Suggs (also a freshman) kept the seat warm until the tendonitis in Clausen's elbow/shoulder got better. Point is, we have a history of starting freshmen QBs, either at the start of the season, or after the upperclassmen have proven themselves incapable of performing in the position.

If our interest is to keep them "protected", the OL should be able to do so, based on their experience. And, the offensive staff should put them in position to make plays, and not ask them to do too much.

 

What if he has a day like the wku kid and starts to pull the string a little? I'm talking about the mental aspect of playing when not ready yet.

 

the difference is, much like in all the cases above excepting Ainge/Schaeffer, you give them that much more time and preparation before throwing them to the wolves

 

I agree that making baseless claims to predict future success is silly, which was your comment.

 

Look, I get why Worley is starting. He knows the offense, made fewer mistakes in practice/camp, blah blah blah. I also believe, and it's my belief, that Worley has shown he doesn't have the skills needed to win in the SEC already. His arm strength and decision making under pressure against inferior opponents will cost us SEC games in my opinion. Worley has no upside whatsoever. If the freshmen can actually run the read option, and make plays with their legs, I say put them in and take our lumps now and get them ready for October and November. Playing Worley for the rest of this month guarantees us to finish September with 2 losses, a freshman could possibly give us a chance at only 1 loss. With potential to break the O-for-October streak.

 

I understand that stance. I just disagree with starting them. I also expect to see at least one Saturday, and he'll probably look good with the game out of hand.

 

If Randy Sanders can prepare Ainge/Shaeffer/Clausen/Suggs to play QB as a freshmen in the SEC, the Butch Jones and the Best Staff in America should be able to make one a Heisman Trophy candidate.

I know that's really overexaggerated, but in the Suggs/Clausen scenario, Suggs was the starter for the FL game that year. Manning wasn't in any way shape or form ready to play QB after Colquitt went down, which you could see in the Florida game when he was a freshman. However, once Helton was hurt and out of the picture, the staff then prepared Manning and Stewart to play, and finally Manning alone as the starter. My point is this, if this offensive staff is supposed to be one of the best, it should be able to prepare a freshman to play. Period.

 

And sitting on the bench is going to help that a lot? I saw an interesting analysis on true frosh qbs that I know i posted here at some point. And basically every true frosh qb who has been decent (barkley, miller) ended up with a very successful career and improved year after year and those that stunk stayed terrible. Now i guess you can argue that those that sucked had their confidence ruined forever, but i'm not sure i buy that. A kid isn't going to be a ***** at 18 and unflappable at 20.

 

And Brady nor Peyton started until injury or graduation, and they are two of the best ever. And there is a great deal of difference between an 18 yr old frshman and a 20-21 yr old Jr, mentally and physically, especially in the SEC.

 

There you go. Thanks.

 

Brady was a late bloomer. He didn't start full time before his senior year at michigan and he wasn't even all that great then. With many HS offenses playing the spread, HS QBs are better prepared than ever to step in as frosh. The top two passers in div 1a this year are true frosh. I agree, all things equal, you'd prefer an older guy to a young one, but if your other option is a guy who can't deliver the ball I don't see the problem.

 

Okay, you picked out Peyton. Granted, he is a once in a lifetime QB. However, Ainge/Schaeffer/Clausen/Suggs either never made it to the NFL or washed out. And all four of them had absolutely the worst offensive coordinator at the time preparing them. Suggs almost beat FL as the QB that year, and we lost on a fluke "catch" at the end of the game. I understand the difference in physical and mental maturity, but a QB either has it or doesn't, regardless of age.

Also, if we are so concerned about protecting their minds and bodies, why put them out there next year just to get their head torn off with an inexperienced OL? Based on the logic of protecting them, we should wait until they are juniors, so the line will be better. But even then, they will have no game experience, so how will you know they can handle it? You won't unless you get them battle-tested.

 

I said I understand those points. I just don't agree and like the way its being handled. Names like suggs, shaeffer, don't inspire. They were "good" enough to start, and sucked.

 

I still say South Alabama is their ETA.

 

The same can be said for Worley.

I would take Schaeffer right now in a heartbeat.

 

The question is if you are truly ruining someone in those situations. would those guys have had successful careers if they had started later? probably not.

 

Probably not. But hypothetical nonetheless. And I haven't said that sending them in early ruined them. I just think the way this is being handled is best for the current situation and 2015.