I really like this new approach of finding a guy who can throw and letting him do that

[HRE Otto IV]

Hartman lead Wake to 8 and 11 wins as a full season starter. They were 4th in the country in scoring with him as QB before he transferred to ND. You're vastly underrating him. He likely would have lead them to additional 8 and 9 win seasons had he not got injured two years in a row. They also had John Wolford before him who was just as good.

He was very good for that system. But I don't think he would be good in any system. And I don't think he is as good as McCord. That isn't a knock on him. I'll take a Hartman ever year.

In his regular season Wake career he was 16-19 vs the P5. Only one of his 5 years was he .500 or better. He was also 2-2 in Bowl games vs P5 teams. For comparison the two years prior to Hartman, Wake was 8-10 vs the P5 in the regular season and 1-0 in Bowls. So basically the same. Heck you even concede that a mediocre QB was "just as good."

If we agree that he is a very good college QB, it alone won't lead to Ws.

 

[Millhouse]

The Wake slow mesh system creates huge throwing windows. And then he went to ND and it was much harder for him to stretch the field. He relied on the 50/50 deep balls and when that dried up he struggled,

The debate here is whether McCord is Brady or manning while Hartman struggled at ND

I'm pretty sure people here had doctors treat head injuries with bath salts

 

[Millhouse]

He was very good for that system. But I don't think he would be good in any system. And I don't think he is as good as McCord. That isn't a knock on him. I'll take a Hartman ever year.

In his regular season Wake career he was 16-19 vs the P5. Only one of his 5 years was he .500 or better. He was also 2-2 in Bowl games vs P5 teams. For comparison the two years prior to Hartman, Wake was 8-10 vs the P5 in the regular season and 1-0 in Bowls. So basically the same. Heck you even concede that a mediocre QB was "just as good."

If we agree that he is a very good college QB, it alone won't lead to Ws.

Wait until you see how our dual threats did against p5

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You're getting pretty fussy
Sam Hartman was good
His teams did well

Not saying he wasn't good. But IMO he isn't close to McCord.

 

[Cusefan0307]

He was very good for that system. But I don't think he would be good in any system. And I don't think he is as good as McCord. That isn't a knock on him. I'll take a Hartman ever year.

In his regular season Wake career he was 16-19 vs the P5. Only one of his 5 years was he .500 or better. He was also 2-2 in Bowl games vs P5 teams. For comparison the two years prior to Hartman, Wake was 8-10 vs the P5 in the regular season and 1-0 in Bowls. So basically the same. Heck you even concede that a mediocre QB was "just as good."

If we agree that he is a very good college QB, it alone won't lead to Ws.

It's Wake. They put up points with him. They had some pretty putrid defenses. Obviously we need to get a bit better on that side of the ball as well.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Wait until you see how our dual threats did against p5

Our "TE" was 9-14 despite no OL and throwing to the likes of Alford and Queeley.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It's Wake. They put up points with him. They had some pretty putrid defenses. Obviously we need to get a bit better on that side of the ball as well.

They also put up points with Wofford and Newman.

We are getting off topic here. How much of our passing is plug and play vs McCord? I think a lot of our success has to do with McCord. His quick decision making is keeping us out of sacks. He moves around the pocket well. He is a good leader. He has a bunch of talent. He has mastered this O quickly. He spreads the ball around well.

IMO the difference between McCord and Hartman (which is a small) is the difference between a win or two this year. And people would not feel as rosy about the team and this O, without McCord. That is the main point.

We would be lucky (as I originally stated) to have a guy like Hartman. But if being lucky has us at 4-2 or 3-3 right now, what happens when we are not lucky at finding a QB?

IMO this isn't a plug and play system where we are 5-1 every year. People can feel free to disagree.

 

[upperdeck]

If we get a QB that plays like McCord next yr I would be surprised. We may find a QB that doesn't throw as well but saves 3-5 plays a game and that would work as well. 100/350 vs 150/300. If we can throw for 300 next yr I will be impressed. But I think/hope the WRs take another step as well so all the throwing windows can be better and maybe the Oline improves as well.

Given the schedule we may be a better team and have a much worse record but sets up for 2026 hopefully.

 

[Millhouse]

Our "TE" was 9-14 despite no OL and throwing to the likes of Alford and Queeley.

McCord is the MVP of defense and OL
Dino had a good offense
Leach didn't think he was a QB because he wanted guys who throw better than they run and he wanted them to do that all day
Throwing is better than running. I would like bigger leads that leads to more garbage time running

 

[Cusefan0307]

They also put up points with Wofford and Newman.

We are getting off topic here. How much of our passing is plug and play vs McCord? I think a lot of our success has to do with McCord. His quick decision making is keeping us out of sacks. He moves around the pocket well. He is a good leader. He has a bunch of talent. He has mastered this O quickly. He spreads the ball around well.

IMO the difference between McCord and Hartman (which is a small) is the difference between a win or two this year. And people would not feel as rosy about the team and this O, without McCord. That is the main point.

We would be lucky (as I originally stated) to have a guy like Hartman. But if being lucky has us at 4-2 or 3-3 right now, what happens when we are not lucky at finding a QB?

IMO this isn't a plug and play system where we are 5-1 every year. People can feel free to disagree.

All a few of us are arguing here is we would rather have a guy who can throw 90% of what McCord can than go back to the Shrader's of the world. Even if you win some games with Shrader he's going to get beat up and injured to the point your screwed late in the year anyway. It happened here every year with him as the starter.

 

[Millhouse]

They also put up points with Wofford and Newman.

We are getting off topic here. How much of our passing is plug and play vs McCord? I think a lot of our success has to do with McCord. His quick decision making is keeping us out of sacks. He moves around the pocket well. He is a good leader. He has a bunch of talent. He has mastered this O quickly. He spreads the ball around well.

IMO the difference between McCord and Hartman (which is a small) is the difference between a win or two this year. And people would not feel as rosy about the team and this O, without McCord. That is the main point.

We would be lucky (as I originally stated) to have a guy like Hartman. But if being lucky has us at 4-2 or 3-3 right now, what happens when we are not lucky at finding a QB?

IMO this isn't a plug and play system where we are 5-1 every year. People can feel free to disagree.

If McCord were as good as the board thinks, he would be much more efficient. It doesn't matter at all to the board that he's 41st. It should be good news

He's pretty good per play and multiplying pretty good by all the plays makes us pretty good

 

[HRE Otto IV]

If McCord were as good as the board thinks, he would be much more efficient. It doesn't matter at all to the board that he's 41st. It should be good news

He's pretty good per play and multiplying pretty good by all the plays makes us pretty good

You are using the same faulty arguments you used with Nassib.

IMO McCord is to Tucker as a guy like Hartman is to LQA. It is the difference between 10-3 and 8-5.

 

[Dcuse]

If McCord were as good as the board thinks, he would be much more efficient. It doesn't matter at all to the board that he's 41st. It should be good news

He's pretty good per play and multiplying pretty good by all the plays makes us pretty good

I know I’ve said this in the past but just to reiterate……..I’m so happy you have zero to do with evaluating players to go after in recruiting.

 

[kcsu]

Kyles success should help Fran land a solid QB

 

[Millhouse]

I know I’ve said this in the past but just to reiterate……..I’m so happy you have zero to do with evaluating players to go after in recruiting.

You think I would get used to the emotional pain , even though I know you don't like me, it just keeps hurting, I so wish we were friends!

 

[Phillymoose]

If McCord were as good as the board thinks, he would be much more efficient. It doesn't matter at all to the board that he's 41st. It should be good news

He's pretty good per play and multiplying pretty good by all the plays makes us pretty good

I think you're proving the wrong point. I have no idea if what McCord is doing will translate at the next level. I suspect so - but he could easily fail as a pro.

The offense we are running is unique and all about guys getting fractionally open in very tight windows, often with the ball in the air during (or even before) breaks. Someone was lamenting in this (or perhaps another) thread about the relatively low YAC. That's a consequence of moving the sticks so reliably.. a trade-off of big play potential vs. dependable yardage.

I trust my eyes - and some of these throws are ridiculous. I'd think it was luck if I didn't see him doing it over and over again. The inefficiency comes from less than elite talent on the OL and at WR. Before I am crucified, I think we have talent on WR - but (unironically) no Marvin Harrison (Jr.).

In any case, the fact that McCord also excelled going downfield with OSU and occasionally this year (when the pocket permits), leads me to believe he will play on Sundays. For my part - that is far from certain.

Back to the original point. McCord is special and this is not a sustainable system without a player of his unique capabilities.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think you're proving the wrong point. I have no idea if what McCord is doing will translate at the next level. I suspect so - but he could easily fail as a pro.

The offense we are running is unique and all about guys getting fractionally open in very tight windows, often with the ball in the air during (or even before) breaks. Someone was lamenting in this (or perhaps another) thread about the relatively low YAC. That's a consequence of moving the sticks so reliably.. a trade-off of big play potential vs. dependable yardage.

I trust my eyes - and some of these throws are ridiculous. I'd think it was luck if I didn't see him doing it over and over again. The inefficiency comes from less than elite talent on the OL and at WR. Before I am crucified, I think we have talent on WR - but (unironically) no Marvin Harrison (Jr.).

In any case, the fact that McCord also excelled going downfield with OSU and occasionally this year (when the pocket permits), leads me to believe he will play on Sundays. For my part - that is far from certain.

Back to the original point. McCord is special and this is not a sustainable system without a player of his unique capabilities.

Even his incompletions tend to be good throws. I feel like we can count on one hand the number of bad throws he has had. He has made bad decision here and there, but how often do you feel like he made a bad pass? It is kinda amazing.

 

[Niastri]

They also put up points with Wofford and Newman.

We are getting off topic here. How much of our passing is plug and play vs McCord? I think a lot of our success has to do with McCord. His quick decision making is keeping us out of sacks. He moves around the pocket well. He is a good leader. He has a bunch of talent. He has mastered this O quickly. He spreads the ball around well.

IMO the difference between McCord and Hartman (which is a small) is the difference between a win or two this year. And people would not feel as rosy about the team and this O, without McCord. That is the main point.

We would be lucky (as I originally stated) to have a guy like Hartman. But if being lucky has us at 4-2 or 3-3 right now, what happens when we are not lucky at finding a QB?

IMO this isn't a plug and play system where we are 5-1 every year. People can feel free to disagree.

"Luck" in this instance means Fran Brown quickly figuring out who he wanted at QB and going to get him.

If we are "lucky" enough to keep Brown for a while, he can probably continue to find top talent willing to come to Syracuse.

It's not like NJ football is going to stop being a great place to recruit.

And next year, instead of being being a brand new head coach, Brown will be sitting in the living room of next year's transfer QB after a season where McCord goes from an outcast at Ohio state to a top10 Heisman finisher and a draft pick.

The next kid that wants to throw for 4k yards and 40 TDs will have a hard time saying no to that. At least Fran gets in the living room.

 

[upperdeck]

He has had a few bad decision throws that mostly didnt get picked
he had 1 one pick because the TE just didn't turn around and probably cost us the game
He has had a few bad throws that led to picks
He made a couple picks on throws that were plain forced because of down and distance

We would all love for better blocking and more 10-20-30yd completions. But the offense is what it is.

 

[upperdeck]

"Luck" in this instance means Fran Brown quickly figuring out who he wanted at QB and going to get him.

If we are "lucky" enough to keep him for a while, he can probably continue to find top talent winning to come to Syracuse.

It's not like NJ football is going to stop being a great place to recruit.

And next year, instead if being being a brand new head coach, Brown will be sitting in the living room if next year's transfer QB after a season where McCord goes from an outcast at Ohio state to a top10 Heisman finisher and a draft pick.

The next kid that wants to throw for 4k yards and 40 TDs will have a hard time saying no to that.

Yup and I think you can find a kid with a better arm or more wiggle to save plays. Will you find someone who processes it that fast we will see.

Will the Tex kid come in the spring so we have 3 kids trying to be the guy?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

"Luck" in this instance means Fran Brown quickly figuring out who he wanted at QB and going to get him.

If we are "lucky" enough to keep Brown for a while, he can probably continue to find top talent willing to come to Syracuse.

It's not like NJ football is going to stop being a great place to recruit.

And next year, instead of being being a brand new head coach, Brown will be sitting in the living room of next year's transfer QB after a season where McCord goes from an outcast at Ohio state to a top10 Heisman finisher and a draft pick.

The next kid that wants to throw for 4k yards and 40 TDs will have a hard time saying no to that. At least Fran gets in the living room.

It will be a lot easier to get a guy now for sure. The bigger question is can we keep him?

Look at K State, they lost their QB to Ohio State. Heck even Oklahoma lost their QB to Oregon. Look at Pitt. What happens there? Can they keep him? Will be a great case study.

 

[Millhouse]

I think you're proving the wrong point. I have no idea if what McCord is doing will translate at the next level. I suspect so - but he could easily fail as a pro.

The offense we are running is unique and all about guys getting fractionally open in very tight windows, often with the ball in the air during (or even before) breaks. Someone was lamenting in this (or perhaps another) thread about the relatively low YAC. That's a consequence of moving the sticks so reliably.. a trade-off of big play potential vs. dependable yardage.

I trust my eyes - and some of these throws are ridiculous. I'd think it was luck if I didn't see him doing it over and over again. The inefficiency comes from less than elite talent on the OL and at WR. Before I am crucified, I think we have talent on WR - but (unironically) no Marvin Harrison (Jr.).

In any case, the fact that McCord also excelled going downfield with OSU and occasionally this year (when the pocket permits), leads me to believe he will play on Sundays. For my part - that is far from certain.

Back to the original point. McCord is special and this is not a sustainable system without a player of his unique capabilities.

I think our eyes have seen way too high a proportion of Syracuse football to rely on the eye test. And I fear all roads lead back to northeastern high school football, which is sustainably bad.

Whatever McCord is doing (which is good) so are a lot of other guys on a per play basis

 

[Millhouse]

It will be a lot easier to get a guy now for sure. The bigger question is can we keep him?

Look at K State, they lost their QB to Ohio State. Heck even Oklahoma lost their QB to Oregon. Look at Pitt. What happens there? Can they keep him? Will be a great case study.

We won't have any trouble keeping our typical dual threat recruit

 

[Cusefan0307]

He has had a few bad decision throws that mostly didnt get picked
he had 1 one pick because the TE just didn't turn around and probably cost us the game
He has had a few bad throws that led to picks
He made a couple picks on throws that were plain forced because of down and distance

We would all love for better blocking and more 10-20-30yd completions. But the offense is what it is.

We threw 15 INT's last year on 317 attempts for the entire season. We have 6 on 287 attempts this year. We are averaging 130 more ypg and 10 more ppg. Zero complaints outside of some RZ playcalling.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

We won't have any trouble keeping our typical dual threat recruit

Howard and Leonard got taken. Nice try. A good QB is a good QB.

I don't care what we run as long as it work and is sustainable.