Haack comes through big in relief role

[zephyr]

Let's go over just how bad brooks haack was against south al since you obviously weren't there and your memory is failing you.
First drive 5 plays...2 first downs both negated by penalty
2nd drive failed fake punt in our own territory...FG south al.
3rd drive Alonzo's Harris fumble on first play...2 plays later TD south al
4th drive...didn't have one, fumble the kickoff...td south Al
17-0 and brooks haack has snapped the ball 6 times do far.
5th drive he is moving the ball, false start stalls the drive.
FG south Al.
6th drive stalls...FG south al
23-0 south al with 16 seconds left and our coaches call a pass play across the hashes that gets picked off instead of taking a knee.
I'm just tired of people bring up that game when evaluating the kid. I choose to look at all the other times when everyone else around him didn't crap their pants. Yet you sit here and make excuses about the o-line and receivers not playing well for TB. I don't think haack should start over TB yet, but I think haack has done well enough to put him on a short leash. I think he should have gotten snaps at ole miss and boise. I think there is a group on the team that rather haack but would never say it. We could not have helped brooks haack any less at south alabama. Jalen Nixon threw a 47 yard buster coverage against south al 3rd string defense while down 30-0 for those that think he went in and lit it up. I'm not gonna sit here and beat my chest about our 4 start 5th year senior finally looking pretty good the 5th game of the year against the worst defense in the country. I'll trust what my eyes are telling me. Brooks haack can run plenty good enough for what we need, he isn't van cleave...the kid can move. In fact maybe we could make an entire season with 1 qb if we had a more traditional qb. I only need him to run to pick up 1st downs and big chunks when it's there.

We would agree except I thought that was the whole argument here, you felt that Haack should have been playing when Broadway was struggling?

[cajunfan337]

He will probably be a good QB for us, but his limited time hasn't proven that he's the best option at QB yet. Be patient, there's a good chance he will start for us the next 2 years, or this year if TB go's down.

And I understand and respect that, but then what's going to happen at the end of the year? Let's say BH doesn't get to start at all the rest of the season. Do people not get behind him going into next year just because he's still unproven? What garners people getting behind Nixon? Because he's a replica of Gautier?

The point people are aggravated with is TB did poorly against Tech and BH came in and did some great work, albeit in mop-up duty. So there was promise. With Ole Miss & Boise, TB struggled again and it would've been the perfect opportunity for BH to really show what he's got against elite competition but was passed over both times.

You know I just had a theory. As a former Passing Game Coordinator, maybe HUD didn't want Haack going in at all in those games because he didn't want to start a QB controversy before conference play...

[CrazyCajun]

We would agree except I thought that was the whole argument here, you felt that Haack should have been playing when Broadway was struggling?

Against ole miss and boise? Down by half a hundred? Yes, I thought he should have been given snaps in both those games.

[CrazyCajun]

And I understand and respect that, but then what's going to happen at the end of the year? Let's say BH doesn't get to start at all the rest of the season. Do people not get behind him going into next year just because he's still unproven? What garners people getting behind Nixon? Because he's a replica of Gautier?

The point people are aggravated with is TB did poorly against Tech and BH came in and did some great work, albeit in mop-up duty. So there was promise. With Ole Miss & Boise, TB struggled again and it would've been the perfect opportunity for BH to really show what he's got against elite competition but was passed over both times.

You know I just had a theory. As a former Passing Game Coordinator, maybe HUD didn't want Haack going in at all in those games because he didn't want to start a QB controversy before conference play...

And if history tells us anything, we will need brooks haack to start at least 1 game this year for us.

[cajunfan337]

How much breath does it take to type a message?

[cajunfan337]

The concept we are trying to relay, is in contrast to what you and CrazyCajun are pushing, in that we feel Haack has done very well in his relief time on the field as his stats show. However, most people who have played football and certainly QB can note that there is a huge difference in coming off the bench in relief versus being the full time guy whom every one of your opponents game plan for week in and week out. This was especially true last year when he looked good in relief but fell flat when pushed to start against USA. This point is conveniently pushed aside for those who argue he should be starting over Broadway.

The situations you point how he handled them well is coming off the bench to play.....Not start and finish a game. What's sad is that some of you are simply unwilling to note this when making your argument. I also love the rebuttal of comparing his one start and mentioning how inconsequential it is versus Broadway's 3 year's worth of starts. Well, Broadway has won a LOT of ball games and two bowl games hasn't he? Midway through last year, Broadway was potentially knocking on the door of becoming the yardage and TD leader of this university. I'd say he is much more proven than Haack.

I don't disregard Haack either and I've been very critical of Broadway thus far this year and actually mentioned several times, even though CC and others would disregard it, that if Broadway were to continue to look bad particularly in conference, that Haack should be given his shot.

I just feel that Broadway still gives us the best shot to win, especially moving forward. His feet are a weapon and while I know Haack is a decent athlete and can move in the pocket and such, he doesn't have the wheels or the ability to turn a read option into a 40 yard TD run. One of you guys made mention of TB's run where he fell without being hit but I think most here would agree that Haack never would have gotten to that point because he doesn't have the wheels and the coaches would likely change up the playbook and playcalls to cater to Haack. This offense has proven that it is at its best when its balanced and the QB is a threat to run. Period.

Bottom line is that this will be an argument, likely for the rest of the season but I find it funny that people were still calling for Haack during this game when Broadway completed nearly 77% of his passes and had no interceptions.

Nobodies discrediting what TB has done for us in the past, and I was on the Broadway for POY bandwagon beginning of the season. But most of this BH talk is coming on because TB has performed so poorly through 1/4 of a year as a 5th year Senior leading the team. Just did some number crunching. Out of 5 games & 175 pts scored against us, TB turnovers have attributed to 28 of those points, or 16%. That's no bueno. And I know other's have turned the ball over as well and have attributed to pts, but he is the only one that CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be doing that.

[cajunfan337]

Against ole miss and boise? Down by half a hundred? Yes, I thought he should have been given snaps in both those games.

This