eh, times being what they are, and evolution of the position, especially from the dual threat part of it, it's not really close who was better athletically.
shuler was great....25 years ago....athletically.
but no way he makes the plays dobbs did with his legs, especially with the physicality.
Hollaway was better athletically than Shuler.
none of that means Shuler sucked. heck, i loved the guy.
and yeah, wish he'd of stuck around for his sr year too. that 94 season may have been a lot different.
Holloway was better than DOBBS, too....and if you want to expand the conversation--neither of them could hold a candle to Tony Robinson!
While it is true that the game has changed over the past 25 years....Shuler would've thrived in CBJ's offensive scheme and, I certainly believe, put up better numbers passing than Dobbs. In fact, CBJ's offensive system was tailor-made for Heath Shuler--who looked more like Deshaun Watson back in the day than Josh Dobbs. (Please remember that a whole lot of folks thought that Shuler was good enough to finish 2nd in the pre-Peyton Heisman).
I don't believe that Dobbs would have thrived in the offensive system Shuler ran because Dobbs never demonstrated the ability to read defenses or throw the ball with great accuracy.
Dobbs' was one of the worst QBs we've ever had throwing the deep ball. And, just because Dobbs was faster and had more DESIGNED QB RUNS doesn't make him more athletic--IMO.
And before everyone goes off on me--I love Dobbs. He was more durable than Shuler and much harder to tackle. But honestly examine his performances against stiffer competition and you see just how bad he could be.
It is true that he thrived by making plays with his legs, but his inability to stay in the pocket and find the open receiver HURT us way more than it helped us.
Not arguing, just giving my reasons for believing Shuler was better.
However, the best athlete we've ever had playing QB would have to be between Holloway and Robinson--IMO.
GO VOLS!