8 games in -- What have we learned? What questions linger?

[billsin01]

Can't throw down the field when the QB's on his ass after 3 seconds.

Absolutely true. And that was my intended point earlier which is to say that is Nassib better when he has an OL that can protect him to a degree and a solid running game (which somehow became an insult), but this offense has become far more aggressive down the field. I still don't think that makes him McNabb, who I would argue is a great QB, but he is very solid.

 

[Moontan]

Youth movement -- not really. The new power comes from juniors (or those with junior status). Smith, Wales, West, Hickey, Davis, Spruill, Lyn, Anderson, Bromley. And a handful of sophs. Lots of other teams get more from true frosh and RFs.

You mean like Trudo? There will be a lot of contributors next year that will meet those criteria.

 

[SoBristol]

Absolutely to the credit to the players. My point was that we didn't go from "no talent" to "really good talent" in a year. Scheme makes a difference. I agree on the youth movement point but was merely trying to point out that some of DM's recruits are starting contribute in more meaningful ways. That includes some juniors like West and Smith who we haven't seen much of before as well as a few of the younger kids like Broyld, Clark (new, I guess, though not young), MPB, Eskridge, Reddish, etc. You are right this has been mostly upper-class driven, but there are some younger/newer names popping up as this season has gone along.

On the "youth movement", it is comparative thing. Every team will have a few newer names step up over the course of a season and our list (Desir, Eskridge, Trudo) has to be shorter than any rival. Most of ours newbies are older guys (MPB, Broyld, Kobena & Clark aren't 19 year old frosh). We haven't recruited talent that can step in as wonderkind frosh (you might compare Maryland) -- our guys develop and tend to emerge as juniors. And that is fine.
I agree that the uptempo scheme has made a difference. It fits what we have (no maulers in the OL, but experience in all playmaking spots). We needed that upgrade in the OL (Macky 2012 is a big upgrade; Hickey is a big upgrade; and the right side of the OL can pass block -- whereas the 2011 version was a frequent sieve); we needed Sales back and development of West to round out the WR corps; Nassib has shown improvement; Smith has emerged as better than Bailey at this point in the season. We may not have high end talent, but we have balance and just enough depth. Credit to the new offense; but sure helps to have RS-senior experience in key roles and not a single underclassmen in a key role on offense other than Trudo.

 

[SoBristol]

You mean like Trudo? There will be a lot of contributors next year that will meet those criteria.

Yes -- Trudo is a good example. And he is the only contributor on offense, from his class, other than Kobena (who had a PG Milton year).
Maybe other underclassman contribute next year (the TEs, the two RBs, and someone has to compete with Loeb at QB), but we will likely have veteran upperclassmen in every starting role on offense.
Assuming Pugh returns, the replacement for Chilbane is a junior (Foy or Robinson) and we will have seniors across the rest of the front, including TE. The new WR is Funderbunk (junior status academically). The RB tandem -- both seniors.
Nothing wrong with that --

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Smith has emerged as better than Bailey at this point in the season.

I think Bailey would have kicked @ss in this offense.

 

[billsin01]

I think Bailey would have kicked @ss in this offense.

Yeah, I think that too. I always liked him as a back.

 

[All4SU]

I just need to see consistency.

I believe middling teams are, by definition, inconsistent.

 

[OrangeAl]

His detractors will point to turnovers or missed deep balls or check downs or passes lacking touch and say he blows. At the end of the day, Nassib is a good, not great QB. That's it.

In the past 15 years we've had some QB's who blew. Ryan doesn't blow. He's a QB you can put into the middle of the offense and he'll produce.

 

[kcsu]

1st, It's not a new offense. It's just being run faster. 2nd, recruiting is only a mystery because we are waiting on many recruits with numerous BCS offers. You want to recruit with the big boys, you have to sweat it out a bit. 3rd, completely agree with Bees on your stance against Nassib.



That last drive there was exactly the thing you said he doesn't do. He was a field general, found the open receiver quickly, and was able to put it where the defense wasn't. That pass to Lemon was perfect. The pass to Sales was perfect. His poise in the second half being down 20 and then being down 9 was incredible.

The O is new. The line calls are simplified, the majority of snaps are in the gun vs under center, the positioning of backs, Going with a three wr set vs the TE heavy and FB heavy sets of last year. Basically everything is different not just the tempo.

 

[SoBristol]

I think Bailey would have kicked @ss in this offense.

Yes -- in a supplemental role (passing situations), with Smith as the heavy-duty runner between tackles. One key to our shot-gun offense is having a credible inside running threat (as Smith provides) to keep the LBs honest.

 

[SmilinBob]

Yes -- in a supplemental role (passing situations), with Smith as the heavy-duty runner between tackles. One key to our shot-gun offense is having a credible inside running threat (as Smith provides) to keep the LBs honest.

I agree 100%. That said I would have loved Bailey catching passes like they have Gulley doing. I give Gulley credit, he can block and I'm not so sure Bailey was a good as a blocker.

 

[SoBristol]

I agree 100%. That said I would have loved Bailey catching passes like they have Gulley doing. I give Gulley credit, he can block and I'm not so sure Bailey was a good as a blocker.

Yes -- Bailey would have thrived in that role. Bailey was good in all phases and very good as a receiver. But we didn't have a useful second back (once Gulley was hurt) and Bailey was asked to do too much.

 

[SmilinBob]

Yes -- Bailey would have thrived in that role. Bailey was good in all phases and very good as a receiver. But we didn't have a useful second back (once Gulley was hurt) and Bailey was asked to do too much.

Ironically Smith was there but probably not quite ready to make that next step I suppose.

 

[SoBristol]

Ironically Smith was there but probably not quite ready to make that next step I suppose.

Yes -- he got some carries in one mid-season game, and then nothing until Pitt when Bailey was banged up. There might be an inside story as to why the staff used Bailey exclusively until the Pitt game (injury to Smith? not ready?).

 

[bnoro]

Yes -- he got some carries in one mid-season game, and then nothing until Pitt when Bailey was banged up. There might be an inside story as to why the staff used Bailey exclusively until the Pitt game (injury to Smith? not ready?).

He was hurt.