Starting QB speculation

[inGTwetrust]

IMO graham starts with a package of plays for Yates.

 

[MidtownJacket]

They did it last year since it was a "rebuilding" year. Apparently this is another "rebuilding" year.

It was KQ who made the -- CGC might start Sims as a recruiting ploy -- statement, not me. Maybe I have missed it, but I don't remember hearing the coaches talk about winning now. I have heard them talk about getting the program back to past glory. I have heard them talk about playing with effort and getting comfortable with the system.

I am not trying to say anything bad about any of the coaches. If one of the QBs takes control of the team, I don't expect that anyone else would start. However, if one QB is good at something, one is good at another, one has more game experience, etc., I could see a potential boost in recruiting playing a large factor.

Yep - I didn't @anyone because I wasn't trying to pick battles with anybody. We are all just guessing at this point (part of the fun of message boards generally and the Preseason specifically).

 

[smokey_wasp]

Love the fact that we are having this conversation. Not much is expected of our team this year, but I am excited. This is bringing some light to a pretty dark time overall.

 

[Coloradojacket]

I know that not announcing the starter creates surprise....but I am of the opinion that a starter should be named coming out of fall camp and stuck with until proved wrong. I sure hope we don't have quarterback by committee again this year. I believe it cost us some games last year.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Love the fact that we are having this conversation. Not much is expected of our team this year, but I am excited. This is bringing some light to a pretty dark time overall.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I know that not announcing the starter creates surprise....but I am of the opinion that a starter should be named coming out of fall camp and stuck with until proved wrong. I sure hope we don't have quarterback by committee again this year. I believe it cost us some games last year.

A QB has been named. He just hasn't been announced publically. He's reportedly gotten 75% of the snaps this week in preparation.

And to clarify my pick, I think Graham starts this week, but that doesn't mean that I think Graham starts Week 2.

 

[g0lftime]

I agree Collins doesn't see this as a throw away game IMO. He wants to win. The 2 freshmen have never been on a college road game as a player and it's national TV. He also has to decide given 4 young QB's who is he willing to lose next year if they are 4th in the pecking order plus he has a really good commit coming in next year. He has a "good" problem in that he has 4 good young QB's but someone will be odd man out. We were Sims second choice so if he doesn't get some PT this year with a path to start sooner than later, I could see him transferring. JG or Yates are athletic enough to change positions but that will depend on performance. Sims and Gleason are prototypical QB'S.

I don't think for a minute CGC is willing to start a guy who doesn't give us the best possible chance to win. Maybe he gets some snaps if we are ahead or behind enough, but I don't think he'd riverboat gamble the game. This is something fans love to think about but coaches dismiss out of hand.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Yeah I think (again IMHO) that we see JG because he has the experience. Same way we saw TO against Clemson last year. I know crowd size is limited, but it is still a road game in conference play and a super odd offseason. I think we go with the guy who has been there/done that. I do not think JG is the definite dude moving forward, but he will get a shot at proving his development (and someone likely Sims in my opinion will get a chance to make some noise). I could see the staff being swayed to play him as the package guy for the reasons above, but they would need to make sure the moment doesn't get too big for him.

 

[g0lftime]

I think the "package" may be more slanted for Yates with roll out rather than pocket passing plays. I hope to see a lot of 2 back formations with the RB'S we have. Helps with pass blocking as well. I expect they will blitz and disguise coverages more if we play the true freshmen QB'S. Not sure they are ready to check off plays yet.

 

[Lee]

Maybe I’m reading too much into what Coach P said in his presser, but when he said “I’m really excited to see this dude play on Saturday and I think you guys will be too” or STTE, I took it as he was talking about one of the freshman.

Maybe I’m wrong (wouldn’t be the first time), but it sounds like he’s talking about someone who hasn’t played in a game for us before.

Or maybe Graham or Yates has just improved so much that he can’t wait to see it? Seems less likely but still possible.

Either way, Saturday can’t get here soon enough!

 

[BuzzThePlumber]

I know that not announcing the starter creates surprise....but I am of the opinion that a starter should be named coming out of fall camp and stuck with until proved wrong. I sure hope we don't have quarterback by committee again this year. I believe it cost us some games last year.

Patenaude in his conference yesterday said they have named a starter, the whole team knows, just not the public. And he plans to play 1 guy, but as always has a package for 2nd guy just in case. Pretty certain the starter will be either Sims or Gleason.

 

[UgaBlows]

I stated this earlier in the thread, but that is basically what KQ said on the radio. It might be too difficult for CGC to turn down the opportunity to have that narrative in recruiting blue chip players.

And that would definitely be HUge in recruiting. I fear that Sims is the most likely to transfer if he doesn’t win the starting job by seasons end, thats just the way it is with highly ranked QB’s now. This season is basically a exhibition, of course you always want to win and win now but it is also the perfect opportunity to get a young QB ready for when it really counts and when the pressure mounts for CGC to win with his own recruits In the following 2-4 seasons.

 

[dmel25]

I want to see some trick plays where we have Graham lined up as a RB or something and whoever the QB is tosses it to Graham and he just heaves the ball 50 yards down the field to Brown. OR maybe Graham lined up as a reciever and we run a jet sweep only for him to stop and then chuck the ball down field to a receiver for a big gain. Let's see stuff like that.

 

[TaxJacket]

I want to see some trick plays where we have Graham lined up as a RB or something and whoever the QB is tosses it to Graham and he just heaves the ball 50 yards down the field to Brown. OR maybe Graham lined up as a reciever and we run a jet sweep only for him to stop and then chuck the ball down field to a receiver for a big gain. Let's see stuff like that.

So like what we did against UGA two years ago at the end of the game? The UGA fans around me were very impressed that I called that play from the beginning lol

 

[boger2337]

So.. don't want to start another thread with a players name... but Chris Martin isn't listed on the GT roster online.

 

[WreckinGT]

I know that not announcing the starter creates surprise....but I am of the opinion that a starter should be named coming out of fall camp and stuck with until proved wrong. I sure hope we don't have quarterback by committee again this year. I believe it cost us some games last year.

I personally think the surprise aspect is way overblown. I wish they would name a starter just to build hype for the season opener.

 

[lv20gt]

I personally think the surprise aspect is way overblown. I wish they would name a starter just to build hype for the season opener.

It's a double edged sword. Yes, naming a starter could build hype. But that could backfire if the named starter struggles because of the underlying assumption that the best player was the one named starter. By not naming a starter, you're basically saying that the competition is still open, so if whoever starts struggles it doesn't take the wind out of the sails as much. Considering our situation, 3 FR and a soph, in a weird season in terms of eligibility, and likely postseason weirdness as well, it makes sense to not commit to one guy at this point.

Obviously that changes if one guy just is head and shoulders ahead of the rest, but I don't get the feeling that's the case.

 

[dmel25]

It's a double edged sword. Yes, naming a starter could build hype. But that could backfire if the named starter struggles because of the underlying assumption that the best player was the one named starter. By not naming a starter, you're basically saying that the competition is still open, so if whoever starts struggles it doesn't take the wind out of the sails as much. Considering our situation, 3 FR and a soph, in a weird season in terms of eligibility, and likely postseason weirdness as well, it makes sense to not commit to one guy at this point.

Obviously that changes if one guy just is head and shoulders ahead of the rest, but I don't get the feeling that's the case.

But internally the coaches have named a starter, they just aren't saying who it is until the game.

 

[herb]

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...eorgia-tech-names-starting-qb-say-publicly-is

 

[MidtownJacket]

Not Naming a starter has me convinced we expect a young gun to be ready to win the job later in the season. For the reasons previously posted above I think the staff is going to want to have a known, known start the game. It sets up better for the season and the team it is important that we manage the egos on the team (by all accounts CGC has the team bought in and minds right). I think starting JG is the safest thing from a player management and game management perspective.

Best news of the week, is that we will know soon enough what we have got. I think we are going to be heads and shoulders above where we finished last season and am excited for some Georgia Tech Football.