Is it Matt Rogers time in Akron?

[tbozeglav]

I wouldnt consider giving MR a chance until we enter conference play. Jumping ship on our QB when 3 of our first 4 games are against decent BCS teams isn't giving PN7 the time he needs to fully develop under this new system. Like it or not, those BCS teams are a lot better than we are. Yes, GW was a game he should have excelled in, but I think 1 bad game in a winnable situation so far is acceptable. Give the man a chance to play 1 or two conference teams and re-evaluate once he's played more games against a more comparable opponent.

And for the record, I am not on the PN7 bandwagon

[skip-zip]

I wouldnt consider giving MR a chance until we enter conference play. Jumping ship on our QB when 3 of our first 4 games are against decent BCS teams isn't giving PN7 the time he needs to fully develop under this new system. Like it or not, those BCS teams are a lot better than we are. Yes, GW was a game he should have excelled in, but I think 1 bad game in a winnable situation so far is acceptable. Give the man a chance to play 1 or two conference teams and re-evaluate once he's played more games against a more comparable opponent.

And for the record, I am not on the PN7 bandwagon

I'd obviously give PN the benefit of the doubt if this was going to be his 4th game. But, if my count is right, I think this is his 13th game, and I think 8 of those were conference games. And the same pattern continues.

So, how much longer do we wait?

If there is someone we know very little about, it's Matt. And our time is running short to find out any more about him, or to benefit from him as a starter, with only 20 games left in his career.

[Buckzip]

I wouldnt consider giving MR a chance until we enter conference play. Jumping ship on our QB when 3 of our first 4 games are against decent BCS teams isn't giving PN7 the time he needs to fully develop under this new system. Like it or not, those BCS teams are a lot better than we are. Yes, GW was a game he should have excelled in, but I think 1 bad game in a winnable situation so far is acceptable. Give the man a chance to play 1 or two conference teams and re-evaluate once he's played more games against a more comparable opponent.

And for the record, I am not on the PN7 bandwagon

I agree to a point, but wouldn't it be nice to see what MR can do though?

[ZachTheZip]

Why not use them both? I really think a wildcat offense is the way to go. Of course, that would mean ditching the ultra-conservative playcalling we've seen so far.

[zipseuph]

I talked to someone with inside knowledge on the situation and they said that the reason MR isn't the starter is because of his knee. he's still wearing a big brace and is not only working on being able to run with the thing on, but also working on getting the strength in his knee built up. with all of that he has not been able to run like he used to and has to convert to simply passing. based on this I wouldn't give Matt the go ahead to start. I'm not on the PN7 bandwagon I just don't want to see the kid get hurt because he didn't have time to properly recover.

[xu9697]

I'd obviously give PN the benefit of the doubt if this was going to be his 4th game. But, if my count is right, I think this is his 13th game, and I think 8 of those were conference games. And the same pattern continues.

So, how much longer do we wait?

If there is someone we know very little about, it's Matt. And our time is running short to find out any more about him, or to benefit from him as a starter, with only 20 games left in his career.

The Kentucky game was his 11th start. 11 starts, 2 coaches, 2 schemes.

Proof is in the play of the field, but this is a kid that everyone (just about) in the MAC offered a scholarship to, and who had interest from Boston College. He has the size, the strength and the arm. Sure, I get it...we are not sure if he has the accuracy, the footwork and the leadership qualities necessary. But I still don't see any good reason to jump ship from PN7 for Rodgers. On the flip side, I totally realize Rodgers was not given a great chance either. It is a tough call, and one that Ianallo and his staff are paid to make.

[skip-zip]

I'd obviously give PN the benefit of the doubt if this was going to be his 4th game. But, if my count is right, I think this is his 13th game, and I think 8 of those were conference games. And the same pattern continues.

So, how much longer do we wait?

If there is someone we know very little about, it's Matt. And our time is running short to find out any more about him, or to benefit from him as a starter, with only 20 games left in his career.

The Kentucky game was his 11th start. 11 starts, 2 coaches, 2 schemes.

Proof is in the play of the field, but this is a kid that everyone (just about) in the MAC offered a scholarship to, and who had interest from Boston College. He has the size, the strength and the arm. Sure, I get it...we are not sure if he has the accuracy, the footwork and the leadership qualities necessary. But I still don't see any good reason to jump ship from PN7 for Rodgers. On the flip side, I totally realize Rodgers was not given a great chance either. It is a tough call, and one that Ianallo and his staff are paid to make.

Right...the Indiana game would be his 13th game (he played half of the Ohio game last season).

If Zipseuph is right, and Matt is still hampered by the knee problem, I sure hope our staff is hitting the recruiting trail for QBs this year!!!!

[zen]

The last thing we need is indecision at QB. I'd be all in favor of using Rogers more during the game, to make a couple plays here and there, so long as Nicely is the main QB (or vice versa).

Yar!

Nicely's downfield throws were terrible in the part of the game I saw this week, but I'm tired of changing horses. I say ride Nicely out unless he gets hurt. It's not like we're going to blow a perfect season.

[akron football]

You know what kills me about the opinons from from the all knowing fan base. Nicely I think is a teenager and is in a new offensive scheme with new coaches. I think Locker from Washigton and a Heisman canidate went 4 for 20 this week. We played a SEC oppponent who I think plays Florida next weeek. We have a QB that was picked by Sporting News to be an All MAC QB this season and everybody is ready to hang him come on people. I think the offensive line is dinged up and the dropped passes are a repetitive weekly occurance. You need to have confidence that your recievers will not only run the correct route but also catch the ball. Zipsnation needs to understand that this is a team process. Believe you and me that any team in this conference would love to have our QB. The defense played very well but ran out of gas . Just imagine if La France catches the TD and we go up 10-3. Talk about MO. But that did not happen. Hopefully we show up and rock the Hoosiers. They can be beat. And that is just what the Doctor ordered.

[Dave in Green]

QB controversies are part of the great experience of being a football fan. To paraphrase the old saying, every football fan has an opinion on which QB should be playing just like everyone has a defecation orifice. The coaching staff is privy to information that fans are not, so they're better equipped to make the call about who will produce the best results. Since the coaching staff's livelihood depends on winning football games, I'm pretty sure they're playing the QB who they sincerely believe gives them the best chance of winning.

[Buckzip]

Rogers didn't look hurt at all on that nice run against UK.

[GP1]

Believe you and me that any team in this conference would love to have our QB.

I saw Miami and BG both play last weekend. Both have better QBs.

BTW everyone, Miami played great against a bigger and faster CSU team. They made plays, they caught passes and generally executed a good game plan. I could write the same thing about BG against Marshall. Both had big and early leads like we could have had...like we had against GW until we choked it away. Both of these teams played non-bcs D-1A schools and won. They have no different physical abilities than the Zips....same size, same speed, our QB actually has a stronger arm than either. The only difference is they make plays. Both games were entertaining to watch because both teams were relatively equally matched and the best team that day won. My God, why are we playing three BCS teams in the same year. We are just stupid. We should be playing teams like CSU, Marshall, Tulsa, ECU, New Mexico, etc.

[Buckzip]

Believe you and me that any team in this conference would love to have our QB.

I saw Miami and BG both play last weekend. Both have better QBs.

BTW everyone, Miami played great against a bigger and faster CSU team. They made plays, they caught passes and generally executed a good game plan. I could write the same thing about BG against Marshall. Both had big and early leads like we could have had...like we had against GW until we choked it away. Both of these teams played non-bcs D-1A schools and won. They have no different physical abilities than the Zips....same size, same speed, our QB actually has a stronger arm than either. The only difference is they make plays. Both games were entertaining to watch because both teams were relatively equally matched and the best team that day won. My God, why are we playing three BCS teams in the same year. We are just stupid. We should be playing teams like CSU, Marshall, Tulsa, ECU, New Mexico, etc.

Are those better QB's true Sophs?

[johnnyzip84]

Believe you and me that any team in this conference would love to have our QB.

I saw Miami and BG both play last weekend. Both have better QBs.

BTW everyone, Miami played great against a bigger and faster CSU team. They made plays, they caught passes and generally executed a good game plan. I could write the same thing about BG against Marshall. Both had big and early leads like we could have had...like we had against GW until we choked it away. Both of these teams played non-bcs D-1A schools and won. They have no different physical abilities than the Zips....same size, same speed, our QB actually has a stronger arm than either. The only difference is they make plays. Both games were entertaining to watch because both teams were relatively equally matched and the best team that day won. My God, why are we playing three BCS teams in the same year. We are just stupid. We should be playing teams like CSU, Marshall, Tulsa, ECU, New Mexico, etc.

Are those better QB's true Sophs?

BG's Matt Schilz is a true FR and Miami's Zac Dysert is a true SO.

I'll admit, Skip's early concerns about PN7 seem to have some validity. But I think we need to stick with him, at least over the next three games. IF he shows any improvement in this stretch, I think it bodes well for the remainder of the season. If not........then I'm not against a change. I will say this, though. The next three defenses the Zips face are better than some are giving credit. IU will be big and athletic. NIU always plays excellent D under Kill (hope he's OK, BTW). And while we all hate to give K.E.N.T. any credit, their defense is a VERY good MAC defense this year.

[xu9697]

I was at the Marshall/BG game.

Schilz is actually a RS Frosh, but he was playing in his 3rd game. He looked good, no doubt. But I was more impressed with their little RB (Gentry) and receiver (Jordan) than Schilz. What he did well was get the ball in their hands. I'm not so sure Akron has put an offensive player on the field yet this year that has the ability of Gentry or Jordan.

Also, Schilz hurt his shoulder and the back-up QB with 1 start (RS Soph Pankratz) came in. Looked shaky at first, but then used SCREENS and short passes to do some things and get the ball in the playmakers hands. BG had 2 QBs execute= is it b/c they are both better, is it b/c the talent around them is better or is it b/c BG's coaches are doing the right things and putting them in a position to be successful. Not sure if we have that answer yet.

BG also did a nice job of riding the emotion of an enthusiastic crowd, including an OVERFLOW of students (which became annoying in that some seemed to have nowhere to sit). I know the crowd probably will not be the same when it gets cold, but a much better showing in a FAIR comparison to the crowd for SU at Akron.

[johnnyzip84]

I was at the Marshall/BG game.

Schilz is actually a RS Frosh, but he was playing in his 3rd game. He looked good, no doubt. But I was more impressed with their little RB (Gentry) and receiver (Jordan) than Schilz. What he did well was get the ball in their hands. I'm not so sure Akron has put an offensive player on the field yet this year that has the ability of Gentry or Jordan.

Also, Schilz hurt his shoulder and the back-up QB with 1 start (RS Soph Pankratz) came in. Looked shaky at first, but then used SCREENS and short passes to do some things and get the ball in the playmakers hands. BG had 2 QBs execute= is it b/c they are both better, is it b/c the talent around them is better or is it b/c BG's coaches are doing the right things and putting them in a position to be successful. Not sure if we have that answer yet.

BG also did a nice job of riding the emotion of an enthusiastic crowd, including an OVERFLOW of students (which became annoying in that some seemed to have nowhere to sit). I know the crowd probably will not be the same when it gets cold, but a much better showing in a FAIR comparison to the crowd for SU at Akron.

Thanks for the correction On his BG bio, I mistook his HS graduation year of 2009 and being his last year playing HS ball

You make good points about playmakers. While Gary Pride's abilities on downfield routes are questionable, I think he'd make a pretty good slot receiver for these quick developing plays (jailbreak screens, quick slants, etc). The TEs HAVE to become more involved also. Ladrach looked good on his one catch late in the Kentucky game.

[xu9697]

2 questions about the game against UK...

1. Nicely sacked 5 times= bad protection, indecision, no one open? Where are folks leaning here on the majority of the sacks?

2. Did we use any more shotgun? I still think that using the gun would help our offense and Nicely immensely as a "transition" from spread to pro.

[Dr Z]

2 questions about the game against UK...

1. Nicely sacked 5 times= bad protection, indecision, no one open? Where are folks leaning here on the majority of the sacks?

2. Did we use any more shotgun? I still think that using the gun would help our offense and Nicely immensely as a "transition" from spread to pro.

1. I was counting at the snap sometimes..1-2-3-3.5...sack. I didn't count every snap, but I remember doing it at least twice.

2. I didn't notice many shotguns, but I agree with you.

[johnnyzip84]

2 questions about the game against UK...

1. Nicely sacked 5 times= bad protection, indecision, no one open? Where are folks leaning here on the majority of the sacks?

2. Did we use any more shotgun? I still think that using the gun would help our offense and Nicely immensely as a "transition" from spread to pro.

1. I was counting at the snap sometimes..1-2-3-3.5...sack. I didn't count every snap, but I remember doing it at least twice.

2. I didn't notice many shotguns, but I agree with you.

One things I DID notice.....the lack of a fullback. Did Austin Bailey play at all? He makes for a decent check down option.

[skip-zip]

2 questions about the game against UK...

1. Nicely sacked 5 times= bad protection, indecision, no one open? Where are folks leaning here on the majority of the sacks?

2. Did we use any more shotgun? I still think that using the gun would help our offense and Nicely immensely as a "transition" from spread to pro.

1) It seemed like a mix from my perspective. In some cases, I think they were just flat-out getting in our backfield. In other cases, I think he had enough time to get out of there and just throw the ball away.

Side Note: A lot of people I know feel that Nicely was throwing the ball out of bounds in the Syracuse game. But in the last 2 games, it seems like he is holding onto the ball much longer, and even taking the sack. Has anyone else noticed it that way? And you always wonder if maybe the coaches are encouraging him to be more patient.

2) I thought I saw a lot of shotgun on 3rd and long. And there were a lot of those, unfortunately.

[skip-zip]

I couldn't help but to notice something when I was reading the paper tonight....

Here we are evaluating our QBs, the number of drops, missed open receivers, etc., and we're talking about other MAC QBs in comparison. So, in reading the article about Ken+ and their evaluations after their 2 BCS games against Boston College and Penn State, I see comments about how Keith struggled with his accuracy against Penn State. And how he missed many open recievers in both games. I would have thought, based on those descriptions, that I would have seen accuracy maybe similar to Nicely's numbers in our two BCS games, but that was not the case at all. Keith was 20-36 against Penn State, and 23 of 37 against Boston College. That's almost a 60% completion percentage!! For a Sophomore QB, playing against some good competition, in only about his 10th game.

So, what's the standard by which these guys should be judged? If one can describe a guy with 60% accuracy as struggling with accuracy and missing a lot of open receivers, what should we expect from our guys? Does it indicate that we are setting the bar pretty low if we want to be patient and give our QB more time to develop? I at least have to wonder after seeing a number of comments about how we should remain patient after seeing our QB complete only 30% of his passes in our two games against far-from-the-best BCS competition.

[xu9697]

I couldn't help but to notice something when I was reading the paper tonight....

Here we are evaluating our QBs, the number of drops, missed open receivers, etc., and we're talking about other MAC QBs in comparison. So, in reading the article about Ken+ and their evaluations after their 2 BCS games against Boston College and Penn State, I see comments about how Keith struggled with his accuracy against Penn State. And how he missed many open recievers in both games. I would have thought, based on those descriptions, that I would have seen accuracy maybe similar to Nicely's numbers in our two BCS games, but that was not the case at all. Keith was 20-36 against Penn State, and 23 of 37 against Boston College. That's almost a 60% completion percentage!! For a Sophomore QB, playing against some good competition, in only about his 10th game.

So, what's the standard by which these guys should be judged? If one can describe a guy with 60% accuracy as struggling with accuracy and missing a lot of open receivers, what should we expect from our guys? Does it indicate that we are setting the bar pretty low if we want to be patient and give our QB more time to develop? I at least have to wonder after seeing a number of comments about how we should remain patient after seeing our QB complete only 30% of his passes in our two games against far-from-the-best BCS competition.

I think it would be hard to argue, right now, that Nicely is better than Keith. But, again, Keith is in the same system. I know...football is football. But, I'm sorry, there is a big difference btnw the offense we are running this year vs. what we had last year. And, remember...last year we had quite a few veteran receivers. And, with those veteran receivers, Nicely put together a couple of nice games (and some bad games). This year we have one, and that one apparently dropped a big time TD pass in the last game.

I watched a good deal of the Can't/BC game. Keith really struggled and, if memory serves, threw at least one if not 2 picks. Towards the end he seemed to be playing better, but at that point the game was in hand. Not to mention, being that I am a big BC fan (my Dad played football there), BC plays a bend don't break style of D that waits for the QB to eventually make a mistake. So, it is not surprising he completed a decent %.

[skip-zip]

I couldn't help but to notice something when I was reading the paper tonight....

Here we are evaluating our QBs, the number of drops, missed open receivers, etc., and we're talking about other MAC QBs in comparison. So, in reading the article about Ken+ and their evaluations after their 2 BCS games against Boston College and Penn State, I see comments about how Keith struggled with his accuracy against Penn State. And how he missed many open recievers in both games. I would have thought, based on those descriptions, that I would have seen accuracy maybe similar to Nicely's numbers in our two BCS games, but that was not the case at all. Keith was 20-36 against Penn State, and 23 of 37 against Boston College. That's almost a 60% completion percentage!! For a Sophomore QB, playing against some good competition, in only about his 10th game.

So, what's the standard by which these guys should be judged? If one can describe a guy with 60% accuracy as struggling with accuracy and missing a lot of open receivers, what should we expect from our guys? Does it indicate that we are setting the bar pretty low if we want to be patient and give our QB more time to develop? I at least have to wonder after seeing a number of comments about how we should remain patient after seeing our QB complete only 30% of his passes in our two games against far-from-the-best BCS competition.

I think it would be hard to argue, right now, that Nicely is better than Keith. But, again, Keith is in the same system. I know...football is football. But, I'm sorry, there is a big difference btnw the offense we are running this year vs. what we had last year. And, remember...last year we had quite a few veteran receivers. And, with those veteran receivers, Nicely put together a couple of nice games (and some bad games). This year we have one, and that one apparently dropped a big time TD pass in the last game.

I watched a good deal of the Can't/BC game. Keith really struggled and, if memory serves, threw at least one if not 2 picks. Towards the end he seemed to be playing better, but at that point the game was in hand. Not to mention, being that I am a big BC fan (my Dad played football there), BC plays a bend don't break style of D that waits for the QB to eventually make a mistake. So, it is not surprising he completed a decent %.

It looks like his coach might agree with you. So that's my point. If 23 of 37 was judged so critically, how should we be judging our own situation?

I certainly didn't intend it to be a "which QB is better" comment. But FYI, Ken+ was so thin at WR this year that they had to put a backup RB into one of the starting WR spots. And when Jarvis got hurt, they had to return him to RB. So, should we also use that as an excuse that his numbers should be even better than 60% also? It was just amazing to me to see a 60% passer against good BCS competition described as struggling with his accuracy, and missing a lot of open receivers, while some of us sit here encouraging patience with numbers that don't even remotely approach any level of acceptable efficiency.

So, to what standards should we hold the performance of our own QBs with several examples on this thread alone of other young MAC QBs performing well? When should all of the excuses about systems, coverages, etc. stop, and we start looking squarely at the fact that we are seeing an extremely low amount of good throws in our passing game?

[Captain Kangaroo]

People look at stats and see what they want to see. If you don't like the QB, it is low-hanging fruit to point to his completion percentage and say the guy sucks.

Game's #1 and #2, we had ZERO WR's that could shake their DB. No one was open. Ever. Beyond that, Nicely often ran for his life.

Game #3 saw the first signs of improvement in the WR group. They actually began separating from the DB's. Unfortunately, Nicely missed his mark several times...and the open WR's dropped balls multiple times.

If the WR's start catching balls, we will move the chains. If they continue dropping them, we won't. And changing the QB won't help.

If the WR's continue to get open, and Nicely misses them...and it continues for another game or two, then he gets a seat on the bench. But be prepared for the INT count to rise dramatically. Rodgers throws a lot of them. And good luck banking on a running QB with that big ankle brace. It is a major disaster waiting to happen.

How would Charlie Frye's numbers look throwing to LaFrance, Pride and Russell... as opposed to Cherry, Sparks and Irvin? Identical?

[xu9697]

I couldn't help but to notice something when I was reading the paper tonight....

Here we are evaluating our QBs, the number of drops, missed open receivers, etc., and we're talking about other MAC QBs in comparison. So, in reading the article about Ken+ and their evaluations after their 2 BCS games against Boston College and Penn State, I see comments about how Keith struggled with his accuracy against Penn State. And how he missed many open recievers in both games. I would have thought, based on those descriptions, that I would have seen accuracy maybe similar to Nicely's numbers in our two BCS games, but that was not the case at all. Keith was 20-36 against Penn State, and 23 of 37 against Boston College. That's almost a 60% completion percentage!! For a Sophomore QB, playing against some good competition, in only about his 10th game.

So, what's the standard by which these guys should be judged? If one can describe a guy with 60% accuracy as struggling with accuracy and missing a lot of open receivers, what should we expect from our guys? Does it indicate that we are setting the bar pretty low if we want to be patient and give our QB more time to develop? I at least have to wonder after seeing a number of comments about how we should remain patient after seeing our QB complete only 30% of his passes in our two games against far-from-the-best BCS competition.

I think it would be hard to argue, right now, that Nicely is better than Keith. But, again, Keith is in the same system. I know...football is football. But, I'm sorry, there is a big difference btnw the offense we are running this year vs. what we had last year. And, remember...last year we had quite a few veteran receivers. And, with those veteran receivers, Nicely put together a couple of nice games (and some bad games). This year we have one, and that one apparently dropped a big time TD pass in the last game.

I watched a good deal of the Can't/BC game. Keith really struggled and, if memory serves, threw at least one if not 2 picks. Towards the end he seemed to be playing better, but at that point the game was in hand. Not to mention, being that I am a big BC fan (my Dad played football there), BC plays a bend don't break style of D that waits for the QB to eventually make a mistake. So, it is not surprising he completed a decent %.

It looks like his coach might agree with you. So that's my point. If 23 of 37 was judged so critically, how should we be judging our own situation?

I certainly didn't intend it to be a "which QB is better" comment. But FYI, Ken+ was so thin at WR this year that they had to put a backup RB into one of the starting WR spots. And when Jarvis got hurt, they had to return him to RB. So, should we also use that as an excuse that his numbers should be even better than 60% also? It was just amazing to me to see a 60% passer against good BCS competition described as struggling with his accuracy, and missing a lot of open receivers, while some of us sit here encouraging patience with numbers that don't even remotely approach any level of acceptable efficiency.

So, to what standards should we hold the performance of our own QBs with several examples on this thread alone of other young MAC QBs performing well? When should all of the excuses about systems, coverages, etc. stop, and we start looking squarely at the fact that we are seeing an extremely low amount of good throws in our passing game?

We obviously have many opinions on that= some have seen enough already, some want a few more games (including at least a couple of MAC games) and some would probably say ride out the whole season with Nicely if healthy.

Personally, I feel you have to give him at least the next 3-4 games. And, I also think that Nicely will ALWAYS struggle somewhat with accuracy. Which is why I consistently bring up a guy like Derek Anderson in college= got better as the years went on, but was never the most accurate. HOWEVER, he and his teams were at least MODERATELY successful= they did win football games, did finish above .500, did go to bowl games. And, DA was drafted, did have 1 very good year, has now started in 2 NFL cities, etc.