Nassib | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Nassib

There's no way I would ever trade Nassib for Daniels. Kid loses as many games as he wins.

Agree. The only QB in the BE I would trade Nassib for is Smith.
 
Nassib has started 14 games.. he has led us to game winning 4th quarter drives vs USF/Rutgers/KSU/Wake/RI. thats 3 in a row. We drove in the 3rd to take the lead vs BC. He drove us to almost tie the game in the 3rd vs Uconn but we kicked a FG. he drove us to the lead vs UL in the 3rd

akron/maine/colgate/cinci/WV we had the lead. Wash and Pitt we lost by 20 .

so in the games we trailed by less than 2 scores in the 2nd half he took us down the field the last 9 games where he had the chance to basically tie or take the lead.. UL/Uconn/BC the D failed to hold on or we would be looking at 9 game winning drives in a row.. Since the Pitt game of last year. The games the D could not stop the run we ended up losing..
 
If he hits either of the ones to Stevens or Chew early, the game is over before it begins.

Instead, he misses, throws a terrible pick, and allows them to stay in the game in the first quarter.

I don't care what anyone says, he's not the answer. Not even close.
They scored on the possession when he missed Stevens, so what difference does that make?
 
Maybe it's a rout if he hits one of those, but he shouldn't have had to. We should have been able to run for 250+ against a FCS team with 35-40 minutes of time of possession.
They didn't really try to run, that was the point of the game plan.
 
IMO, Gimmicky means, essentially, "unsustainable strategy based on unconventional tactics that do not work in a repeat game setting." So using lots of shotgun isn't necessarily gimmicky, unless a team uses shotgun so much, and lacks adequate pass protection talent, to maintain an element of surprise.

Some offenses are gimmicky, and they do not fit your formula of "if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't," because they only work against lower quality talent. Obviously, all offenses will play better against Rhode Island than against Alabama, but some gimmicky offenses work dis-proportionally well against Rhode Island and work dis-proportionally poorly against Alabama.

I agree with your statement, but I wasn't calling shotgun, passing, and less reliance on fullbacks gimmicky. No one said that, so even though you are correct, you are arguing a straw man.

You've no doubt seen our offense, and it has very little shotgun, very little vertical passing, and uses the fullback a ton. Our offense is gimmicky because we use way, way, way too many bootlegs and play action fakes. We run very few 3 or 5 step drop timing routes. We run very few timing routes out of shotgun. We run very few plays that are at the cutting edge of tactical offensive strategy.

Instead, we are using an unsustainable, gimmicky strategy of moving the QB out of the pocket at a rate that will not work against better quality opponents. That is why our offense is gimmicky.

Sure, some innovative and brilliant offenses, most notably the spread option, have been incorrectly labeled "gimmicky" on the false assumption that the offense wouldn't be sustainable against better talent. But that does not mean that gimmicky offenses do not exist. Many have come and gone with an embarrassing lack of efficiency against quality talent. Chris Ault's pistol offense is a good example. Mouse Davis's Run-and-Shoot is another solid example. Ditto for the triple option out of the flexbone.

Yes, are you kidding me? As an objective football fan, BJ Daniels is easily the better college quarterback. He is a force on a college offense. His career passing numbers are as good as Nassib's, and his rushing numbers are far superior. He also comes from a gimmicky offense though, haha, so you've got me on that point.

As a Syracuse fan, I am glad Nassib is our guy, I appreciate his popularity and his exciting role as someone playing a pivotal role in our return to respectability, and I have some Nassib memorabilia. I'm a Nassib guy! But Daniels has so far been the much more effective college QB. Also using a Chad Pennington analogy as a compliment is kinda self-defeating.
You have a strangely loose definition of gimmicky

More play action than I like - GIMMICK
not enough vertical passing GIMMICK
run and shoot with less vertical passing GIMMICK
rollouts GIMMICK
less undefined cutting edge of tactical strategy GIMMICK
 
The only thing that Ryan needs right now is a RB who can give him a consistent 4 yards on first down. If that happens, I don't see why his performance (aside from the sick completion percentage) shouldn't hover relatively close to where it is now.
 
The only thing that Ryan needs right now is a RB who can give him a consistent 4 yards on first down. If that happens, I don't see why his performance (aside from the sick completion percentage) shouldn't hover relatively close to where it is now.
is that at all reasonable to expect?

i would figure that having a success rate of 50% (4 yards on first down) would be really good for a season. I don't have those numbers handy.

we're already setting the table for unreasonable expectations of everyone else, i see.

edit : found a link for success rates in general. best season success rate for a team from 05 to 10 was 60%. we had a couple games with 0% in there!

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2011/3/15/2050106/the-toolbox-offensive-success-rates
 
is that at all reasonable to expect?

i would figure that having a success rate of 50% (4 yards on first down) would be really good for a season. I don't have those numbers handy.

we're already setting the table for unreasonable expectations of everyone else, i see.

edit : found a link for success rates in general. best season success rate for a team from 05 to 10 was 60%. we had a couple games with 0% in there!

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2011/3/15/2050106/the-toolbox-offensive-success-rates

That Iowa game - most helpless football team I've ever seen.
 
Yes, are you kidding me? As an objective football fan, BJ Daniels is easily the better college quarterback. He is a force on a college offense.

I thought Daniels stunk against ND.
 
IMO, Gimmicky means, essentially, "unsustainable strategy based on unconventional tactics that do not work in a repeat game setting." So using lots of shotgun isn't necessarily gimmicky, unless a team uses shotgun so much, and lacks adequate pass protection talent, to maintain an element of surprise.

Some offenses are gimmicky, and they do not fit your formula of "if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't," because they only work against lower quality talent. Obviously, all offenses will play better against Rhode Island than against Alabama, but some gimmicky offenses work dis-proportionally well against Rhode Island and work dis-proportionally poorly against Alabama.

I agree with your statement, but I wasn't calling shotgun, passing, and less reliance on fullbacks gimmicky. No one said that, so even though you are correct, you are arguing a straw man.

You've no doubt seen our offense, and it has very little shotgun, very little vertical passing, and uses the fullback a ton. Our offense is gimmicky because we use way, way, way too many bootlegs and play action fakes. We run very few 3 or 5 step drop timing routes. We run very few timing routes out of shotgun. We run very few plays that are at the cutting edge of tactical offensive strategy.

Instead, we are using an unsustainable, gimmicky strategy of moving the QB out of the pocket at a rate that will not work against better quality opponents. That is why our offense is gimmicky.

Sure, some innovative and brilliant offenses, most notably the spread option, have been incorrectly labeled "gimmicky" on the false assumption that the offense wouldn't be sustainable against better talent. But that does not mean that gimmicky offenses do not exist. Many have come and gone with an embarrassing lack of efficiency against quality talent. Chris Ault's pistol offense is a good example. Mouse Davis's Run-and-Shoot is another solid example. Ditto for the triple option out of the flexbone.

Yes, are you kidding me? As an objective football fan, BJ Daniels is easily the better college quarterback. He is a force on a college offense. His career passing numbers are as good as Nassib's, and his rushing numbers are far superior. He also comes from a gimmicky offense though, haha, so you've got me on that point.

As a Syracuse fan, I am glad Nassib is our guy, I appreciate his popularity and his exciting role as someone playing a pivotal role in our return to respectability, and I have some Nassib memorabilia. I'm a Nassib guy! But Daniels has so far been the much more effective college QB. Also using a Chad Pennington analogy as a compliment is kinda self-defeating.

You can't be serious ... if you trade Daniels for Nassib we lose to USF last season ... Daniels was one of the reasons we won that game ... did you hit your head?
 
is that at all reasonable to expect?

i would figure that having a success rate of 50% (4 yards on first down) would be really good for a season. I don't have those numbers handy.

we're already setting the table for unreasonable expectations of everyone else, i see.

edit : found a link for success rates in general. best season success rate for a team from 05 to 10 was 60%. we had a couple games with 0% in there!

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2011/3/15/2050106/the-toolbox-offensive-success-rates

Those are some interesting stats, but since I only used the word consistent, I am not sure why you would think I am setting "unreasonable expectations" for anyone. I agree with your original guess that if our RB can go for 4 yards or more every other first down, then that would be great. Keep in mind that while gaining 3 yards would be considered a failure in the eyes of this stat, I would certainly take it.
 
Those are some interesting stats, but since I only used the word consistent, I am not sure why you would think I am setting "unreasonable expectations" for anyone. I agree with your original guess that if our RB can go for 4 yards or more every other first down, then that would be great. Keep in mind that while gaining 3 yards would be considered a failure in the eyes of this stat, I would certainly take it.

ok, i guess i was thinking that "consistent" meant you expected a higher percentage. half the time is a good goal. especially since i think he'll give us some big plays. it's so hard to methodically churn out long drives (which is why i lose my friggin mind every time nassib throws a deep ball deep into the gatorade on the sidelines...) i do like the passing game though, high percentage quick *forward* short passes (vs rob spence screens every down).. the bubble screen is just a constraint play, can't live or die by it
 
People may think I'm crazy, but I see what I see. And it's not a guy that's going to lead a team to a championship. That is what we're all striving for, right?

Ultimately, you want a kid that's going to win games for you at the QB position. Not not lose them. Is he terrible? I'd say no. He's actually not terrible. He's not bad, and he's, in some instances, above average.

But consistently, he misses at least three or four throws a game that need to be completed and that would be game changers. And he just doesn't look like he's ever comfortable in the pocket. That's why we do play-action every single passing play. What happens when we're facing a team that can stop the run with four down linemen, and can bring pressure from the back side on our play action passes? He's going to go right back to throwing for 130 yards a game like he did last year during BIG EAST play.

If I'm wrong about this, I'll be the first to say so. I really do root for him, and root for the team to win. But I just don't see it.

I don't disagree that he's the best since McNabb -- but come on, what is the competition? It's not like he's going up against Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.
We're still playing for respectability, not championships. Yeah - the championship thing is the PC thing to say - but let's be realistic here.

Without Nassib, this team is 0-2 right now heading into a slaughterfest. Is that really what you're asking for?
 
They did early, but they gave up on it when it didn't work.
They did early, but they gave up on it when it didn't work.
You sure about that?

This is Dave Rahme writing about his pregame brief from Marrone, not after the fact rationalization.

"Marrone shelved the balanced offense approach and decided to come out throwing against Rhode Island. He saw the Rams’ 4-4 stack defense – basically an eight-man front designed to stuff the run – and determined their single-high safety and cornerbacks responsible for a deep third of the field would be ripe for the picking by quarterback Ryan Nassib and wideouts Van Chew and Alec Lemon.

On the eve of the game Marrone predicted they would have a monster game, and they did."

http://blog.syracuse.com/orangefootball/2011/09/syracuse_university_football_t_99.html
 
You sure about that?

This is Dave Rahme writing about his pregame brief from Marrone, not after the fact rationalization.

"Marrone shelved the balanced offense approach and decided to come out throwing against Rhode Island. He saw the Rams’ 4-4 stack defense – basically an eight-man front designed to stuff the run – and determined their single-high safety and cornerbacks responsible for a deep third of the field would be ripe for the picking by quarterback Ryan Nassib and wideouts Van Chew and Alec Lemon.

On the eve of the game Marrone predicted they would have a monster game, and they did."

http://blog.syracuse.com/orangefootball/2011/09/syracuse_university_football_t_99.html
Go, don't let facts get in the way of his agenda.
 
Yes, Nassib is good... NO, Nassib is not God...

With our O-line, we should have a McNabb caliber speed guy, which Nassib can't even approach. Give Ryan another 1 or 2 seconds to throw, & he's GOLD !!!

I am more satisfied with Nassib's performance thusfar this season than I was last year, EVEN when he did so well in the Pinstripe... Let's face it, KState didn't place a premium on defense...

He has one hell of an arm, & I believe that appendage will win a big game or two for us this year.
 
You sure about that?

This is Dave Rahme writing about his pregame brief from Marrone, not after the fact rationalization.

"Marrone shelved the balanced offense approach and decided to come out throwing against Rhode Island. He saw the Rams’ 4-4 stack defense – basically an eight-man front designed to stuff the run – and determined their single-high safety and cornerbacks responsible for a deep third of the field would be ripe for the picking by quarterback Ryan Nassib and wideouts Van Chew and Alec Lemon.

On the eve of the game Marrone predicted they would have a monster game, and they did."

http://blog.syracuse.com/orangefootball/2011/09/syracuse_university_football_t_99.html

Well, I'm not so sure now. I was basing my opinion on the that it seemed they tried to run the ball more in the first half versus the second half. The running backs got stuffed repeatedly at the line of scrimmage. Even if the game plan was to throw it more, I'm pretty sure Marrone didn't want Nassib to have to throw it as much as he had to. Did he really expect to run for less than 100 yards? Did he really expect to average barely over 3ypc? My original point was that Nassib shouldn't have had to carry the load so much against an FCS team. It was also meant to say that the o-line underperformed. I don't think Marrone necessarily wanted Nassib to roll out as much as he did for his 37 attempts. Against an FCS team 4ypc should be a given and the quarterback for the FBS team should be able to stand in the pocket for an eternity to find his recievers.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,885
Messages
4,735,298
Members
5,930
Latest member
CuseGuy44

Online statistics

Members online
219
Guests online
1,348
Total visitors
1,567


Top Bottom