by Ursus1 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:12 pm
If takes that good of QB to work .....it is the stupidest offense to run in college. You change QB'S through graduation and RARELY can get a stud, let alone reload. In the Missoulian article about Marty M. helping local QB'S he mentioned how you can't put too much on a QB. Pretty sure he knows a hell of a lot more about that position than Stitt. But if average QB play gets you average results.....no wonder his career record is mediocre.
The evolution of this thread has brought me to somewhat of an epiphany. Many of you will not like it. Many of you won't be able to follow the logic to the end. That's ok but here it is.
1. First of all you need to look at Stitt's record at CSM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Stitt#Colorado_School_of_Mines ; notice how very good playoff years are followed by poor, average, or slightly above average years.
2. Many of you have noted how long it takes (2 to 3 years) for players to learn Stitt's system and seem to accept that is a good or acceptable thing
3. So we get to the epiphany thing. Why recruit transfer QB's that only have 2 years if it takes 3 to learn the system. Should we expect great things from Phillips and Hill?
4. From a QB recruiting perspective if we have a red-shirt freshman like Jensen, who might be very good in a couple of years if he plays, where is the playing time for the backup. In other words this would substantiate Stitt's record at CSM. A QB learns and plays and eventually has a good season. But the kid recruited behind him has little experience and the following season or seasons are not that good. How do your recruit top of the mill QB's who may only play one year if the recruit ahead of him is one year ahead.
I don't know if this is the stupidest offense run in college (as per the tweak by Ursus1), but it may show that we are going to have the same arguments year after year if Stitt is retained.