We need a mobile QB!

#29
#29
tennfanatic said:
If you dont like the thread then dont post anything. Hell nobody asked you to say anything. We are talking about the need for a mobile QB and how other teams have prospered under them. I just think we need a mobile QB. The thread could have been a little clearer but you dont have to be jerk about it.
Click to expand...

Way to remain calm and pleasant there.

You erroneously assume that there is an inherent need for a mobile quarterback because "that's what other teams have done". Let me ask you this. When Tee Martin was around, exactly how much did other teams have to adjust a defensive game plan to adjust for him?

If a quarterback isn't a running threat 10-15 times a game and doesn't create a slew of mismatches across the field by simply getting outside of the tackle, what really is the point of going out of your way to recruit one? Tebow flourishes, as did Omar Jacobs and Alex Smith before him, because the offense is built and continually retooled around the quarterback. I'd love to see someone on the same scale as Donovan McNabb or Tommie Frazier wearing orange and white, but if the offense isn't constructed to take advantage of the ability to quickly read a defense and get moving, there's no need to have one.
 
#30
#30
Ohio Vol said:
Way to remain calm and pleasant there.

You erroneously assume that there is an inherent need for a mobile quarterback because "that's what other teams have done". Let me ask you this. When Tee Martin was around, exactly how much did other teams have to adjust a defensive game plan to adjust for him?

If a quarterback isn't a running threat 10-15 times a game and doesn't create a slew of mismatches across the field by simply getting outside of the tackle, what really is the point of going out of your way to recruit one? Tebow flourishes, as did Omar Jacobs and Alex Smith before him, because the offense is built and continually retooled around the quarterback. I'd love to see someone on the same scale as Donovan McNabb or Tommie Frazier wearing orange and white, but if the offense isn't constructed to take advantage of the ability to quickly read a defense and get moving, there's no need to have one.
Click to expand...

You've made a great point and mobile QB's are more effective in an offense that is built for them. Im only saying that I'd like to have a QB that can at least run and make a few yards when everything breaks down. I guess like a Fran Tarkenton. He didnt have an offense that was built to run but he made plays with his legs. Heath Shuler is also another QB who didnt have an offense that was built for running.
 
#31
#31
Come to think of it...it did get OSU there last year...but we all saw how that turned out. Haven't seen them play this year...is the new qb mobile?
 
#32
#32
Clausen played fine against Clemson. His biggest problem his last two seasons was the complete absence of a running game to complement him. Having a converted QB and a converted DB as your go-to wide receivers didn't help him out, either.
 
#34
#34
kptvol said:
Clausen played fine against Clemson. His biggest problem his last two seasons was the complete absence of a running game to complement him. Having a converted QB and a converted DB as your go-to wide receivers didn't help him out, either.
Click to expand...

Now that I think back Clausen didnt have the best receiving corps to throw to.
 
#36
#36
I hope we never have an offense where we depend on the QB to run as Florida and West Virginia does. However, we do need to get away from the leadfooted statues like Ainge and the Clausen sloths. QB's like Tee Martin and Chris Leak could pick up key first downs when all their receivers were covered, rather than throwing the ball like Ainge did a million times or take sacks like the (do I have to say the word)....Clausens!
 
#37
#37
tennfanatic said:
Now that I think back Clausen didnt have the best receiving corps to throw to.
Click to expand...

He had a great one in 2001 and also a fantastic running game. That resulted in a #4 final ranking. We also beat the best team we've beaten this century.
 
#39
#39
rockydoc said:
But we didn't beat LSU the second time.
Click to expand...
Which had absolutely nothing to do with Casey Clausen's performance in that game. If the sainted defensive tackles, tailback, and wide receiver on that team had performed their duties as well that night as Casey did, Tennessee wins by three touchdowns.
 
#41
#41
hatvol96 said:
Which had absolutely nothing to do with Casey Clausen's performance in that game. If the sainted defensive tackles, tailback, and wide receiver on that team had performed their duties as well that night as Casey did, Tennessee wins by three touchdowns.
Click to expand...

I had almost front row seats at that game. Though Casey had respectable numbers there were a couple of incidents where Casey could have put the dagger in the Tigers. One with seconds left in the first half he overthrew a wide open receiver that would have put us up like 24-7. Another time when we had the ball inside the five, first and goal, he could have ran it in but chose to throw it in the turf to covered receivers.

Agree, there was enough blame to go around in this loss, primarily with the turnovers and the defense (Chavis should have been fired on the spot).
 
#42
#42
hatvol96 said:
Which had absolutely nothing to do with Casey Clausen's performance in that game. If the sainted defensive tackles, tailback, and wide receiver on that team had performed their duties as well that night as Casey did, Tennessee wins by three touchdowns.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
#43
#43
Earlier someone said Clausen was 0-4 against Georgia. He was 0-3. One year he was injured, so CJ Leak and an ironically mobile James Banks did the QBing. We lost. So much for that "mobile quarterback wouldn't have lost to Georgia during the Clausen years" argument. One did.
 
#44
#44
cd12 said:
There is a very mobile kid down at McMinn County and he has a rocket arm only problem is he couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle. Other than that I think he is available.
Click to expand...
:post-4-1090547912:
 
#45
#45
kptvol said:
He had a great one in 2001 and also a fantastic running game. That resulted in a #4 final ranking. We also beat the best team we've beaten this century.
Click to expand...

In 2001 Clausen had the receiving corps in UT History to throw to in my opinion. We had Stallworth, Washington, and Witten.
 
#47
#47
tennfanatic said:
I also recall Clausen going 0-4 against Georgia and playing like sh## the last two bowl games he played. Oh and he did not win one SEC championship just like Ainge.
Click to expand...


Clausen gets the loss for the 2002 game, even though he didn't play a snap against the bulldogs?

I also find it a little difficult to blame him for the loss to the dogs in 01. His offense scored the go-ahead touchdown with less than a minute to play.
 
#48
#48
Jaytrain5 said:
Clausen gets the loss for the 2002 game, even though he didn't play a snap against the bulldogs?

I also find it a little difficult to blame him for the loss to the dogs in 01. His offense scored the go-ahead touchdown with less than a minute to play.
Click to expand...

Your right James Banks played that game in 2002, I stand corrected. I guess im just still bitter over Casey fumbling the ball before halftime against Georgia in 03.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top