Hunt is not a QB

[wfschrec]

You can't just talk about those plays in a vacuum. MD was essentially playing to kill the clock in the second half up 18 at halftime, and up by 21 until 0:50 in the 4th quarter. They played bend but don't break defense in the second half allowing for yards but no points. They were happy with us running as long as we didn't score.

I will give you that if we hadn't screwed up royally in the 2nd Quarter, or if we got touchdowns instead of field goals for our first two scores it would have been a different ball game (closer score either way). I will not say that if three out of four plays were different we would have won.

What are you talking about? We had longer better sustained drives in the first half ... we continuously shot ourselves in the foot. We only had 187 yards in the second half ... I swear do people actually watch the games or just change the story to fit their rhetoric? We were much more on point in the second half defensively and had we not self destructed in the second quarter the game would have been much different. MD attempted 15 passes and 5 runs in the third quarter ... what game were people watching?

 

[Noexcuse]

You think last weeks performance on O complete with a lack of points will be the norm?

I'll take the 600 yds vs ND and every other team on the schedule. Points will come.

---

I'd be more worried if I were Maryland. Big plays dry up. They were largely ineffective running the ball and their defense is atrocious. Sure they won - but I wouldn't put any money on them in any game moving fwd.

I don't know what to think to be honest. The only thing I do think is that the competition gets harder from here on out. I pretty much had the MD game chalked up in the win column. My bad.

 

[Ozcuse]

What are you talking about? We had longer better sustained drives in the first half ... we continuously shot ourselves in the foot. We only had 187 yards in the second half ... I swear do people actually watch the games or just change the story to fit their rhetoric? We were much more on point in the second half defensively and had we not self destructed in the second quarter the game would have been much different. MD attempted 15 passes and 5 runs in the third quarter ... what game were people watching?

You think MD still calls the same offensive & defensive plays up 21 vs. a tie game?

We were much more on point defensively because they ALREADY HAD A 21 POINT LEAD.

To say we win based on a different outcome of 3 plays is ridiculous.

 

[wfschrec]

You think MD still calls the same offensive & defensive plays up 21 vs. a tie game?

We were much more on point defensively because they ALREADY HAD A 21 POINT LEAD.

To say we win based on a different outcome of 3 plays is ridiculous.

Does a team trying to 'kill the clock' throw the ball at a 3:1 clip? Honestly? And again they weren't playing bend but don't break D in the second half like you claim a majority of our offense came in the first half ... those 3 plays decided the outcome without a doubt.

 

[Ozcuse]

Does a team trying to 'kill the clock' throw the ball at a 3:1 clip? Honestly? And again they weren't playing bend but don't break D in the second half like you claim a majority of our offense came in the first half ... those 3 plays decided the outcome without a doubt.

 

[wfschrec]

Thats ok just ignore factual data ... its convenient for you

 

[Ozcuse]

Thats ok just ignore factual data ... its convenient for you

Factual data is we lost by 14 and were down by 21 until 0:50 left in the game. Next time take me in a ride in your time machine and show me the three plays that let us win the game in your alternate reality.

:rolling:

 

[wfschrec]

Factual data is we lost by 14 and were down by 21 until 0:50 left in the game. Next time take me in a ride in your time machine and show me the three plays that let us win the game in your alternate reality.

:rolling:

Again does a team that is milking the clock throw the ball at a 3:1 clip? Just because you aren't smart enough to understand what I am saying doesn't mean you can be dismissive ... you made false assertions and come across wrong so be it ... you were wrong about how the game played out and still won't address the points I made so I don't know what to tell you. But hey live in a bubble its all good.

 

[RMH44]

Factual data is we lost by 14 and were down by 21 until 0:50 left in the game. Next time take me in a ride in your time machine and show me the three plays that let us win the game in your alternate reality.

:rolling:

The pick six was the ball game. Could have been a 14 point swing...10 point swing at a minimum.

I think we survive the other big plays i.e. blocked punt and screen pass taken to the house, if we punch one in on that drive. At least we'd have a chance.

Btw, there is a very good chance that Hunt is the slowest dual threat QB in the college game today...maybe ever. He usually makes good decisions but he'll never be a threat to take one 60-plus yards like Golson or BJ Daniels.

 

[wfschrec]

The pick six was the ball game. Could have been a 14 point swing...10 point swing at a minimum.

I think we survive the other big plays i.e. blocked punt and screen pass taken to the house, if we punch one in on that drive. At least we'd have a chance.

Btw, there is a very good chance that Hunt is the slowest dual threat QB in the college game today...maybe ever. He usually makes good decisions but he'll never be a threat to take one 60-plus yards like Golson or BJ Daniels.

Don't use facts with him ... he isn't getting it.

 

[TBCuse11]

What are you talking about? We had longer better sustained drives in the first half ... we continuously shot ourselves in the foot. We only had 187 yards in the second half ... I swear do people actually watch the games or just change the story to fit their rhetoric? We were much more on point in the second half defensively and had we not self destructed in the second quarter the game would have been much different. MD attempted 15 passes and 5 runs in the third quarter ... what game were people watching?

Good teams dont shoot themselves in the feet. This board has become too much "rah rah" and not enough honesty. Hunt is not a good qb. Sadly, he is the best we have right now so there is no reason to argue... but make no mistake, he is not good. As someone stated previously in this thread, if you were watching the game from the 300s (we sit first row in the 3's) u could see SEVERAL open receivers on most plays but Hunt is always locked in on his first option. if he isnt open, he tucks and runs it. Great runner for a qb, no doubt. But we missed out on a few TD's because he didnt scan the field. He also has no touch and throws 100 mph fastballs from 5 yds away.

we need to just keep hoping that we can recruit the lightning in a bottle qb, because its been 15 years since we had anything at this point. You cant win without a qb. ever.

PS - also totally agree that McDonald calls a terrible game.

 

[rrlbees]

its been 15 years since we had anything at this point. You cant win without a qb. ever.

2012 says hello.

 

[Statesman1]

Yeah--he's running out of eligibility... three games into his junior year.

He didn't have the most accurate passing game yesterday--granted. But some of you are really laying it on thick when it comes to criticizing his play, his potential, and his passing aptitude.

And you are also overlooking that the team's leading receiver--Broyld--missed a significant portion of yesterday's game with an injury. Think that might have had an effect?

You cited Nassib's improvement as something to measure Hunt by- clearly Nassib progressed into an NFL a qb, which is fine. Where is the improvement from Hunt? We've played Villanova, C. Michigan and a depleted Marlyland defense. He should be feasting and instead has struggled to I
Prove over his inaugural campaign. You HOPE he will progress, looking for actual progression. It's simply not there yet and we're just now getting into the meat of the season. Show me the improvement, nobody wants to see it more than I do.

 

[wfschrec]

Good teams dont shoot themselves in the feet. This board has become too much "rah rah" and not enough honesty. Hunt is not a good qb. Sadly, he is the best we have right now so there is no reason to argue... but make no mistake, he is not good. As someone stated previously in this thread, if you were watching the game from the 300s (we sit first row in the 3's) u could see SEVERAL open receivers on most plays but Hunt is always locked in on his first option. if he isnt open, he tucks and runs it. Great runner for a qb, no doubt. But we missed out on a few TD's because he didnt scan the field. He also has no touch and throws 100 mph fastballs from 5 yds away.

we need to just keep hoping that we can recruit the lightning in a bottle qb, because its been 15 years since we had anything at this point. You cant win without a qb. ever.

PS - also totally agree that McDonald calls a terrible game.

I never said a thing about whether or not we were a good team ... my point is that we shot ourselves in the foot and 3 plays changed the entire complexion of the game.

 

[TheCusian]

The pick six was the ball game. Could have been a 14 point swing...10 point swing at a minimum. I think we survive the other big plays i.e. blocked punt and screen pass taken to the house, if we punch one in on that drive. At least we'd have a chance. Btw, there is a very good chance that Hunt is the slowest dual threat QB in the college game today...maybe ever. He usually makes good decisions but he'll never be a threat to take one 60-plus yards like Golson or BJ Daniels.

Would be great if he were faster - but the guy is huge and makes people miss and has great vision (when running).

Golson scrambles well when things break down - but is not guy you call a run for. There's a great breakdown on ND's SB nation site about how bad they are at running all the plays we're making a living on (zone read).

 

[Ozcuse]

I never said a thing about whether or not we were a good team ... my point is that we shot ourselves in the foot and 3 plays changed the entire complexion of the game.

Three plays changed the complexion/momentum but we can't say for sure they would have changed the outcome. To make the assumption they would have changed the outcome we would have to also say that everything else that happened would have happened exactly like it did.

It's better to learn from it and move on than dwell on coulda woulda shoulda's.

If we play that game we can also say we would have lost to Villanova if not for 1 missed field goal. Who knows what would have happened if Hunt didn't get ejected, etc, etc, etc.

I like to live in the "what did" happen and not the "what could" have happened.

Oh and sorry for being snarky.

 

[RF2044]

You cited Nassib's improvement as something to measure Hunt by- clearly Nassib progressed into an NFL a qb, which is fine. Where is the improvement from Hunt? We've played Villanova, C. Michigan and a depleted Marlyland defense. He should be feasting and instead has struggled to I
Prove over his inaugural campaign. You HOPE he will progress, looking for actual progression. It's simply not there yet and we're just now getting into the meat of the season. Show me the improvement, nobody wants to see it more than I do.

No I didn't--I was using Nassib an an example that debunks your definitive "what you see is what you get" proclamation when the kid has more than a season and a half left of his collegiate career. One bad game--where he really wasn't even all that bad, relatively speaking--doesn't mean that he sucks, that he isn't a QB, or any of the other nonsense being bandied about in this thread.

You disagree--that's fine. But don't make the mistake of proclaiming that he's a finished product, that he has no room left on his developmental curve, etc.

It was one game. And it wasn't even all that bad of a performance, given drops, etc., where the kid accounted for nearly 400 yards of offense single handedly.

 

[igor]

I never said he was the problem. I just said he's not a QB.

he's in the top ten percent of college qbs

 

[wfschrec]

Three plays changed the complexion/momentum but we can't say for sure they would have changed the outcome. To make the assumption they would have changed the outcome we would have to also say that everything else that happened would have happened exactly like it did.

It's better to learn from it and move on than dwell on coulda woulda shoulda's.

If we play that game we can also say we would have lost to Villanova if not for 1 missed field goal. Who knows what would have happened if Hunt didn't get ejected, etc, etc, etc.

I like to live in the "what did" happen and not the "what could" have happened.

Oh and sorry for being snarky.

I agree we could do the same with Nova ... never argued that .. but I must insist that if you use images we need someone better looking than Jennifer Lawrence ... I never could stand her. Its all good man.

 

[Noexcuse]

he's in the top ten percent of college qbs

Only in the ESPN era though.

 

[JJReddawg]

he's in the top ten percent of college qbs

He's currently number 60 in the ESPN QBR for the season, which also factors in running.
His Pass EPA based on the QBR criteria is 3.4, which puts him at 109 out of 126.

 

[kuethstheman]

One reason I have lots of hope for Hunt: I think a lot of his problem is that he's hurrying himself. Many of the throws he missed and the open receivers he didn't wait for were because of impatience. The crossing routes were almost always check-downs. He'd turn and spot a receiver coming across and let it fly immediately right at what he saw. He didn't take the time to judge the speed of the receiver. He couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Same thing with not seeing receivers on the back side or deep. He took off without waiting for a better option.

Although he's got a full season under his belt, I think with a little more experience, he'll be able to settle down, see more options, and throw better passes, all without necessarily improving his arm and accuracy.

 

[Statesman1]

No I didn't--I was using Nassib an an example that debunks your definitive "what you see is what you get" proclamation when the kid has more than a season and a half left of his collegiate career. One bad game--where he really wasn't even all that bad, relatively speaking--doesn't mean that he sucks, that he isn't a QB, or any of the other nonsense being bandied about in this thread.

You disagree--that's fine. But don't make the mistake of proclaiming that he's a finished product, that he has no room left on his developmental curve, etc.

It was one game. And it wasn't even all that bad of a performance, given drops, etc., where the kid accounted for nearly 400 yards of offense single handedly.

First of all it was one poor game? If only that were so! Second- I'm not burying Hunt or saying he can't play better next week- I'm saying

No I didn't--I was using Nassib an an example that debunks your definitive "what you see is what you get" proclamation when the kid has more than a season and a half left of his collegiate career. One bad game--where he really wasn't even all that bad, relatively speaking--doesn't mean that he sucks, that he isn't a QB, or any of the other nonsense being bandied about in this thread.

You disagree--that's fine. But don't make the mistake of proclaiming that he's a finished product, that he has no room left on his developmental curve, etc.

It was one game. And it wasn't even all that bad of a performance, given drops, etc., where the kid accounted for nearly 400 yards of offense single handedly.

First of all nobody has proclaimed Hunt a finished product- he is a work in progress, to be fair to him. However, more than 3/5 of his college career is behind him and we have yet to see anything approaching consistency in his passing game. It gets old watching subpar qb play excused as "potential" the way our fan base does. When does all this alleged potential get realized? Do we have to wait for good qb play one year out of every four? Is that how it works at SU now? So far our qb has gotten tossed out of one game, has as many pick sixes as td's passes and is the 14th rated qb out of 16 in the ACC- and we haven't even played anybody yet. If you're fine with that then you're no doubt fine with six win seasons and occasional trips to obscure bowls too. We deserve better than this.

 

[RF2044]

First of all it was one poor game? If only that were so! Second- I'm not burying Hunt or saying he can't play better next week- I'm saying


First of all nobody has proclaimed Hunt a finished product- he is a work in progress, to be fair to him. However, more than 3/5 of his college career is behind him and we have yet to see anything approaching consistency in his passing game. It gets old watching subpar qb play excused as "potential" the way our fan base does. When does all this alleged potential get realized? Do we have to wait for good qb play one year out of every four? Is that how it works at SU now? So far our qb has gotten tossed out of one game, has as many pick sixes as td's passes and is the 14th rated qb out of 16 in the ACC- and we haven't even played anybody yet. If you're fine with that then you're no doubt fine with six win seasons and occasional trips to obscure bowls too. We deserve better than this.

Give me a break. 3/5 of the way through his career is a pretty cynical way to look at it, factoring in that he redshirted and didn't play in 2012 as a redshirt frosh.

Here's a more realistic way to look at it: barring the unforeseen, Hunt is going to be a three years starter. I'm going to factor bowl games into the numbers, so that's a total of 39 possible games over that three year span. He's 16 games into those 39... and didn't actually start the first three. 16 games of a possible 39--or about 41% of the way through the time he's going to start here [adjusted for starts, that's only 33%]. Not the 60% you're claiming. Why is that relevant?

Because he's got 60% of his starting career still in front of him. He didn't pass exceedingly well on Saturday, but he was far from the debacle you are making it out to be. If you don't see any passing aptitude from Hunt, then I'll agree to disagree. Beginning with the Pitt game last year, his play went up a notch. Now admittedly, he hasn't taken it up another notch like I expected him to, but your assessment of both his skills and potential are largely misplaced.

We won 7 games last year, and this year's story is still being written. If you're fine with giving up week 3, then that's on you. I'm realistic about this team's ceiling being in the 7 game range [we probably needed to win against Maryland to attain 8 victories]. We aren't challenging for a conference championship this year, let alone a national championship. So the goal is to get to a bowl so that the coaches have something positive to sell on the recruiting trail, and to upgrade the talent--especially at the skilled positions, where we desperately need an infusion of talent / athleticism / play making ability. Hunt is more than capable of getting us to bowls and to winning records, to further that cause. He is far from the liability you make him out to be.

 

[Statesman1]

I think you misinterpret my comments- who's giving up on week three? I'm not even giving up on Hunt. All of the Hunt apologists keep talking about his potential and that maybe he will grow into a decent qb-. I hope you all are right, all I'm saying is that at some point he will have reached his potential, and that he needs to rapidly increase his rate of improvement above and beyond what he has shown so far. Just tired of waiting years at a time for good qb play to develope to maybe get a chance to get to an 8 wins season. Frankly we should set our goals higher than 8 wins once every four years. We deserve much better than this.