The point is not in the stats, its in the offensive scheme. Next year, assuming Haack is under center, we will not be compared to what TCU did this year as they ran a more prolific offense with QB run oriented offense. I never said anything about being a heavy run oriented team. I said that they had a heavy option threat which would mean that when they do run the ball, the QB is often involved in that decision making process which we will NOT be next year if Haack is under center.
It is understood that much can happen from spring to the first game of the season. However, is it not by default that he will be tentatively scheduled to be #1 on the depth chart headed to spring? If he is not, then there should be something highly wrong with C4L's argument. If Brooks Haack is the best we have at the position (and at this time I believe he will be) then its the coaches job to transform the offense to fit his skill set. If he is not the QB heading into the fall, it won't be because the coaches are stubborn about a particular scheme they want to run, it would be because he wasn't as good as we thought.
Tom Brady started his last two years at Michigan. He was behind Brian Griese when he arrived and Griese was no donkey in college. Brady had to fight of Drew Henson but he was a valuable part of their success in college. I'm not sure Brady and Haack can really be compared especially since Haack hasn't even one a college game, much less become an NFL icon.
To be honest, I don't think there has necessarily been an argument against Haack. I think what you are seeing is a "lets keep everything in perspective" attitude in reaction to seeing yourself along with others mentioning how he's the most accurate passer we've ever had and the best since blank person with very limited experience and such a small body of work to go from. One cannot make statements like this about someone who has not won a game as a starter and had the pressure of leading his team week in and week out.
I, along with others, don't have anything against Haack but I will see how he takes the opportunity to become "the man" and how he leads his team next season before I give him the props he's already had. Its somewhat similar to the BG situation back about 4 years ago. Many of us thought he should play ahead of Masson and McGuire but the problem was that we had limited amounts of game play to go by until he got his opportunity to start a few games.
Name me one freshman that has beaten out a 2 year incumbent starter who was winning? I can only think of 1.
Ok, so Warner's first NFL season was 1998. Average career of an NFL QB is around 4.5 years. So every 5 years, you have 32 teams with 3 QB's on the roster. That's 384 QBs over 20 years. It's happened twice. That's less than 1%. So yes, that's not good enough.
If nothing else, both arguments are inconclusive and you can't say it is likely to happen one way or the other. And I believe you are the only one saying to bank on it. We are just saying to let it play out. No one is saying he absolutely won't be in the NFL in a couple years.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)