Big Game Concerns

[kemajic]

Call it fundamental or core value (ball security) of Hauck. Wouldn't be a slight or disrespect to Sneed to spell him for a series or two. Maybe with a more mobile Humphrey he could have given a spark. Sneed may have benefited from seeing things from the sidelines for a few plays.
Even at that, the end result may have not changed. Sneed was the man to get Griz as far as they did, however he was injured at Weber to a point of limiting his effectiveness.
End of the day it is just speculation, only one team is happy at the end of the year.

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

John Edwards at the end of 2002. Brandon Neill was in far better shape to be playing. Lost 3 of the last 4 games and Neill hardly played.

 

[Spanky2]

Call it fundamental or core value (ball security) of Hauck. Wouldn't be a slight or disrespect to Sneed to spell him for a series or two. Maybe with a more mobile Humphrey he could have given a spark. Sneed may have benefited from seeing things from the sidelines for a few plays.
Even at that, the end result may have not changed. Sneed was the man to get Griz as far as they did, however he was injured at Weber to a point of limiting his effectiveness.
End of the day it is just speculation, only one team is happy at the end of the year.

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

John Edwards at the end of 2002. Brandon Neill was in far better shape to be playing. Lost 3 of the last 4 games and Neill hardly played.

Neill was a victim of politics.

 

[SaskGriz]

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

John Edwards at the end of 2002. Brandon Neill was in far better shape to be playing. Lost 3 of the last 4 games and Neill hardly played.

Neill was a victim of politics.

Was it the Democrats? :roll:

 

[Spanky2]

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

John Edwards at the end of 2002. Brandon Neill was in far better shape to be playing. Lost 3 of the last 4 games and Neill hardly played.

Neill was a victim of politics.

Was it the Democrats? :roll:

Good one!

 

[grizindabox]

Call it fundamental or core value (ball security) of Hauck. Wouldn't be a slight or disrespect to Sneed to spell him for a series or two. Maybe with a more mobile Humphrey he could have given a spark. Sneed may have benefited from seeing things from the sidelines for a few plays.
Even at that, the end result may have not changed. Sneed was the man to get Griz as far as they did, however he was injured at Weber to a point of limiting his effectiveness.
End of the day it is just speculation, only one team is happy at the end of the year.

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

Maybe, but it doesn't seem to go against his core values for the QB position. I will also add the RBs and WRs are more interchangeable on the whole than the QB position is...so a good QB will get much more leeway than those other positions.

 

[Diesel]

Call it fundamental or core value (ball security) of Hauck. Wouldn't be a slight or disrespect to Sneed to spell him for a series or two. Maybe with a more mobile Humphrey he could have given a spark. Sneed may have benefited from seeing things from the sidelines for a few plays.
Even at that, the end result may have not changed. Sneed was the man to get Griz as far as they did, however he was injured at Weber to a point of limiting his effectiveness.
End of the day it is just speculation, only one team is happy at the end of the year.

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

Maybe, but it doesn't seem to go against his core values for the QB position. I will also add the RBs and WRs are more interchangeable on the whole than the QB position is...so a good QB will get much more leeway than those other positions.

I agree with that, however there has to be a point where coaches protect a injured player struggling to perform. Sneed didn’t look healthy, when he had opportunities to run he had to slide short. Sneed when healthy should be given a lot of leeway. Injured Sneed with healthy Humphrey on bench...change of pace for a series or two doesn’t seem disrespectful to Sneed or too high of a risk with a less experienced QB who won the games he started. Humphrey did well against PSU one read and run against the flex defense and was effective against EWU. Hauck has a history of being a bit too loyal to starting Sr QBs, appears to be an area of weakness when in elimination games. Adds to the frustration when UM looked to be the better team even after the loss.

 

[grizindabox]

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

Maybe, but it doesn't seem to go against his core values for the QB position. I will also add the RBs and WRs are more interchangeable on the whole than the QB position is...so a good QB will get much more leeway than those other positions.

I agree with that, however there has to be a point where coaches protect a injured player struggling to perform. Sneed didn’t look healthy, when he had opportunities to run he had to slide short. Sneed when healthy should be given a lot of leeway. Injured Sneed with healthy Humphrey on bench...change of pace for a series or two doesn’t seem disrespectful to Sneed or too high of a risk with a less experienced QB who won the games he started. Humphrey did well against PSU one read and run against the flex defense and was effective against EWU. Hauck has a history of being a bit too loyal to starting Sr QBs, appears to be an area of weakness when in elimination games. Adds to the frustration when UM looked to be the better team even after the loss.

I still think even with his struggles, Sneed gave them the best chance to win even being injured. I would guess he didn't even think of pulling Sneed for a second.

 

[grizghost]

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.

Maybe, but it doesn't seem to go against his core values for the QB position. I will also add the RBs and WRs are more interchangeable on the whole than the QB position is...so a good QB will get much more leeway than those other positions.

I agree with that, however there has to be a point where coaches protect a injured player struggling to perform. Sneed didn’t look healthy, when he had opportunities to run he had to slide short. Sneed when healthy should be given a lot of leeway. Injured Sneed with healthy Humphrey on bench...change of pace for a series or two doesn’t seem disrespectful to Sneed or too high of a risk with a less experienced QB who won the games he started. Humphrey did well against PSU one read and run against the flex defense and was effective against EWU. Hauck has a history of being a bit too loyal to starting Sr QBs, appears to be an area of weakness when in elimination games. Adds to the frustration when UM looked to be the better team even after the loss.

..a couple years ago Saban pulled his number #1QB and replaced him with #2 primetime
championship game ..Saban said it just wasn't working..smart move..I was surprised they
didn't just pull Sneed out for a series to get his head together..anyway Sneed gave it all!