Nicely Will Start

[skip-zip]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

[Captain Kangaroo]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

Nicely is the least of our problems. He's a better QB than Rodgers. But the guy has no OL, and no WR's.

Because he's apt to run, Rodgers may be a better QB for our present situation. I'd like to have seen him get a shot. But I'm under no illusions that changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

[Dr Z]

changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

+1, but I might give Matt a series or two to shake up the defense a little though.

[Let'sGoZips94]

... :wall: I thought the point was to win.

On the other hand, seeing as though this doesn't help the team, we'll probably lose, then that's one more game closer to iCoach getting fired.

[MaxZIP]

changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

+1, but I might give Matt a series or two to shake up the defense a little though.

I've seen some teams win BCS Bowl games using two quarterbacks. Design a package for both and play to their strengths. Is that completely out of the question for some reason?

[skip-zip]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

Nicely is the least of our problems. He's a better QB than Rodgers. But the guy has no OL, and no WR's.

Because he's apt to run, Rodgers may be a better QB for our present situation. I'd like to have seen him get a shot. But I'm under no illusions that changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

I like this quote. ZipsWin, with your permission, can I use this in my personal and professional life?

Seriously though, to me this is no longer an issue of which QB might be better. Although, I can't deny that PN has underperformed even my own low expecations for him. But, the much bigger issue is what's in the best interest of Akron football? And the reality is, Matt gets closer and closer to the end of his career as the weeks roll along. And if we leave him sit much longer, we will have boxed ourselves into a corner with only one option. And I don't want to see us put all of our eggs in one basket. Especially when that basket has a lot of holes in the bottom.

We've seen Matt play very little in his career (2 full games), and he was productive against good teams in both of those games. I'd like to see if his abilities can help us. If he fails, PN is still an experienced 2nd option. But If we go much longer with PN, we won't have a 2nd option.

[ZachTheZip]

changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

+1, but I might give Matt a series or two to shake up the defense a little though.

I've seen some teams win BCS Bowl games using two quarterbacks. Design a package for both and play to their strengths. Is that completely out of the question for some reason?

That's something I assumed would happen, based off the coach's comments before the season. he said they would use both QBs. But the only time Rodgers has come in is when the game is completely out of hand or if Nicely is hurt. Why haven't we seen both QBs on the field at once in the wildcat? Why hasn't Rodgers played a drive or two against a defense that is weak against the run?

[jupitertoo]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

Nicely is the least of our problems. He's a better QB than Rodgers. But the guy has no OL, and no WR's.

Because he's apt to run, Rodgers may be a better QB for our present situation. I'd like to have seen him get a shot. But I'm under no illusions that changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

Not sure you'd say Nicely is a better QB if you had been in Athens. Go to ohiobobcats.com and watch the recap videos. There were three or four cases where he just panicked under pressure. BTW, major, very aggressive heckling of iCoach by a few Akron fans throughout the game.

[K92]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

Nicely is the least of our problems. He's a better QB than Rodgers. But the guy has no OL, and no WR's.

Because he's apt to run, Rodgers may be a better QB for our present situation. I'd like to have seen him get a shot. But I'm under no illusions that changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

Not sure you'd say Nicely is a better QB if you had been in Athens. Go to ohiobobcats.com and watch the recap videos. There were three or four cases where he just panicked under pressure. BTW, major, very aggressive heckling of iCoach by a few Akron fans throughout the game.

Matt Rodgers deserves a chance to start and see what he can do. The team is Ohfer 7 under the on-field direction of Patrick Nicely. He has been given ample opportunity to prove himself. Start Matt and see if there are any signs of life. Sometimes changing the QB changes the dynamics of the offense. Chemistry. See if Rodgers can be a catalyst. What do we have to lose? This season is rapidly becoming a total write-off. No position on the team should be safe, especially one where the performance has been abysmal.

Another call for Matt: http://www.examiner.com/akron-zips-in-akro...s-time-has-come

[Zipmeister]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

Nicely is the least of our problems. He's a better QB than Rodgers. But the guy has no OL, and no WR's.

Because he's apt to run, Rodgers may be a better QB for our present situation. I'd like to have seen him get a shot. But I'm under no illusions that changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

I like this quote. ZipsWin, with your permission, can I use this in my personal and professional life?

Seriously though, to me this is no longer an issue of which QB might be better. Although, I can't deny that PN has underperformed even my own low expecations for him. But, the much bigger issue is what's in the best interest of Akron football? And the reality is, Matt gets closer and closer to the end of his career as the weeks roll along. And if we leave him sit much longer, we will have boxed ourselves into a corner with only one option. And I don't want to see us put all of our eggs in one basket. Especially when that basket has a lot of holes in the bottom.

We've seen Matt play very little in his career (2 full games), and he was productive against good teams in both of those games. I'd like to see if his abilities can help us. If he fails, PN is still an experienced 2nd option. But If we go much longer with PN, we won't have a 2nd option.

Perhaps you are asking the wrong person for permission.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/220569.html

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

Nicely is the least of our problems. He's a better QB than Rodgers. But the guy has no OL, and no WR's.

Because he's apt to run, Rodgers may be a better QB for our present situation. I'd like to have seen him get a shot. But I'm under no illusions that changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

I like this quote. ZipsWin, with your permission, can I use this in my personal and professional life?

Seriously though, to me this is no longer an issue of which QB might be better. Although, I can't deny that PN has underperformed even my own low expecations for him. But, the much bigger issue is what's in the best interest of Akron football? And the reality is, Matt gets closer and closer to the end of his career as the weeks roll along. And if we leave him sit much longer, we will have boxed ourselves into a corner with only one option. And I don't want to see us put all of our eggs in one basket. Especially when that basket has a lot of holes in the bottom.

We've seen Matt play very little in his career (2 full games), and he was productive against good teams in both of those games. I'd like to see if his abilities can help us. If he fails, PN is still an experienced 2nd option. But If we go much longer with PN, we won't have a 2nd option.

Not a huge thing, but the quip "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" has been used countless times, by countless people, for many many years. You surely don't need the approval of any posters here to use it, as none of the posters here came up with it to begin with.

[Zipmeister]

According to ICoach's comments in the ABJ article this morning.

I know how I feel about this. I'm stunned. What do you guys think? I already had someone tell me that our coach must be blind.

Nicely is the least of our problems. He's a better QB than Rodgers. But the guy has no OL, and no WR's.

Because he's apt to run, Rodgers may be a better QB for our present situation. I'd like to have seen him get a shot. But I'm under no illusions that changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

I like this quote. ZipsWin, with your permission, can I use this in my personal and professional life?

Seriously though, to me this is no longer an issue of which QB might be better. Although, I can't deny that PN has underperformed even my own low expecations for him. But, the much bigger issue is what's in the best interest of Akron football? And the reality is, Matt gets closer and closer to the end of his career as the weeks roll along. And if we leave him sit much longer, we will have boxed ourselves into a corner with only one option. And I don't want to see us put all of our eggs in one basket. Especially when that basket has a lot of holes in the bottom.

We've seen Matt play very little in his career (2 full games), and he was productive against good teams in both of those games. I'd like to see if his abilities can help us. If he fails, PN is still an experienced 2nd option. But If we go much longer with PN, we won't have a 2nd option.

Not a huge thing, but the quip "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" has been used countless times, by countless people, for many many years. You surely don't need the approval of any posters here to use it, as none of the posters here came up with it to begin with.

I don't believe you. Can you provide a Internet site like google.answer to verify your assertion that someone other than a Zip fan came up with the Titanic deckchair statement?

[Captain Kangaroo]

Not a huge thing, but the quip "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" has been used countless times, by countless people, for many many years. You surely don't need the approval of any posters here to use it, as none of the posters here came up with it to begin with.

I don't believe you. Can you provide a Internet site like google.answer to verify your assertion that someone other than a Zip fan came up with the Titanic deckchair statement?

The phrase was actually first uttered by Sir Horatio Shuttlebobberzipswin, whom ZipsWin! honors in his ZN board name. Shuttlebobberzipswin was a deck hand on the Carpathia, and not-so-coincidentally the college room mate of one Johnathan Heisman. Shuttlebobberzipswin was notorious in the late 1800's for his raucous buggy-gating prior to Buchtel College football games. While the UA Company line touts "Zips" as being derived from a rubber shoe...it is as true as crediting SeeTeeZip with the phrase "You win some, you lose some."

The name indeed comes from UA legend "ZipsWin!" (an abbreviated nickname for Shuttlebobberzipswin, given to him by none other than Heisman himself in 1893).

And now you know....the rest of the story.

Sir Horatio Shuttlebobberzipswin...one of the great pioneers of University of Akron Football.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

Not a huge thing, but the quip "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" has been used countless times, by countless people, for many many years. You surely don't need the approval of any posters here to use it, as none of the posters here came up with it to begin with.

I don't believe you. Can you provide a Internet site like google.answer to verify your assertion that someone other than a Zip fan came up with the Titanic deckchair statement?

The phrase was actually first uttered by Sir Horatio Shuttlebobberzipswin, whom ZipsWin! honors in his ZN board name. Shuttlebobberzipswin was a deck hand on the Carpathia, and not-so-coincidentally the college room mate of one Johnathan Heisman. Shuttlebobberzipswin was notorious in the late 1800's for his raucous buggy-gating prior to Buchtel College football games. While the UA Company line touts "Zips" as being derived from a rubber shoe...it is as true as crediting SeeTeeZip with the phrase "You win some, you lose some."

The name indeed comes from UA legend "ZipsWin!" (an abbreviated nickname for Shuttlebobberzipswin, given to him by none other than Heisman himself in 1893).

And now you know....the rest of the story.

Sir Horatio Shuttlebobberzipswin...one of the great pioneers of University of Akron Football.

Oh.My.GAWD. OK I give up. Clearly it was ZipsWin! who coined the phrase. On another (but related) note, I think that this is the time for Zips football fans to embrace this team the way Cubs fans have come to love their crappy Cubbies. I am prepared to love my lovable little "Zips that couldn't" and revel in their ineptitude, drinking heavily and tailgating the pain away during home games. Why gnash teeth when we could become Akron-Wrigleyville East?

[johnnyzip84]

Oh.My.GAWD. OK I give up. Clearly it was ZipsWin! who coined the phrase. On another (but related) note, I think that this is the time for Zips football fans to embrace this team the way Cubs fans have come to love their crappy Cubbies. I am prepared to love my lovable little "Zips that couldn't" and revel in their ineptitude, drinking heavily and tailgating the pain away during home games. Why gnash teeth when we could become Akron-Wrigleyville East?

+1

Any nominees for our very own Bartman when it looks just as if we're about to turn the corner?

Go Zips!!!

Edit: We could use a Bill Murray, too

[Dave in Green]

The two QB system is not used successfully very often in college football. But if anyone wants a model to examine, LSU is a good one. The two QB system is producing great results this year for the Bayou Bengals, helping them pull out one unlikely win after another even though they tend to be a mistake-prone team.

One of Nicely's weaknesses appears to be judgment under pressure. It's worth speculating that alternating Nicely on and off the field with Rodgers might give him a little time to collect his thoughts.

One positive of a two QB system is that it adds a dimension to what the other team's defense has to prepare to face.

One negative is that it can disrupt the rhythm and chemistry the rest of the offensive team has with its on-field leader. But in the case of this year's Zips, there doesn't appear to be much rhythm and chemistry to disrupt.

[RootforRoo44]

changing a QB is anything but, to quote ZipsWin!, "rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

+1, but I might give Matt a series or two to shake up the defense a little though.

Nice sig picture Dr Z. haha

I would wonder if that hit knocked some proper grammar into the guy but it came from another Can't State alum so it probably had the opposite effect.

[skip-zip]

The two QB system is not used successfully very often in college football. But if anyone wants a model to examine, LSU is a good one. The two QB system is producing great results this year for the Bayou Bengals, helping them pull out one unlikely win after another even though they tend to be a mistake-prone team.

One of Nicely's weaknesses appears to be judgment under pressure. It's worth speculating that alternating Nicely on and off the field with Rodgers might give him a little time to collect his thoughts.

One positive of a two QB system is that it adds a dimension to what the other team's defense has to prepare to face.

One negative is that it can disrupt the rhythm and chemistry the rest of the offensive team has with its on-field leader. But in the case of this year's Zips, there doesn't appear to be much rhythm and chemistry to disrupt.

I think you would get unanimous agreement on this phrase from everyone who is begging for personnel changes.

[InTheZone]

I would like to think that this is Ianello being crafty, making a public statement about starting Nicely because he doesn't want Western Michigan game planning and practicing for a mobile quarterback.... but that would be giving the man far too much credit in the intelligence department. I'm sure we'll see Nicely until we're down by 30 + in the 4th quarter again.

[skip-zip]

I would like to think that this is Ianello being crafty, making a public statement about starting Nicely because he doesn't want Western Michigan game planning and practicing for a mobile quarterback.... but that would be giving the man far too much credit in the intelligence department. I'm sure we'll see Nicely until we're down by 30 + in the 4th quarter again.

Please note on the other thread that I factored this exact scenario into my prediction

[Dave in Green]

The more I think about the Zips playing two QBs, the more I like the idea. Most intriguing is the seldom-used concept of alternating QBs on every play. That is, the QB who's not on the field stands next to the coach, and as soon as each play is over, the coach sends the other QB back onto the field after having had the opportunity to verbally give detailed instructions to him with more data than just flushing signs to the QB on the field.

Two different style QBs alternating on each play just might cause some problems for the defense, and the Zips offense has proven so far this year that it could use any help it can get no matter how small.

[johnnyzip84]

The more I think about the Zips playing two QBs, the more I like the idea. Most intriguing is the seldom-used concept of alternating QBs on every play. That is, the QB who's not on the field stands next to the coach, and as soon as each play is over, the coach sends the other QB back onto the field after having had the opportunity to verbally give detailed instructions to him with more data than just flushing signs to the QB on the field.

Two different style QBs alternating on each play just might cause some problems for the defense, and the Zips offense has proven so far this year that it could use any help it can get no matter how small.

You might be onto something, even if it's only for entertainment value. I'm in!

[tbozeglav]

The more I think about the Zips playing two QBs, the more I like the idea. Most intriguing is the seldom-used concept of alternating QBs on every play. That is, the QB who's not on the field stands next to the coach, and as soon as each play is over, the coach sends the other QB back onto the field after having had the opportunity to verbally give detailed instructions to him with more data than just flushing signs to the QB on the field.

Two different style QBs alternating on each play just might cause some problems for the defense, and the Zips offense has proven so far this year that it could use any help it can get no matter how small.

You might be onto something, even if it's only for entertainment value. I'm in!

That wont happen. And here's why:

Coach I has no marbles.

[Dr Z]

Two different style QBs alternating on each play just might cause some problems for the defense

I'm OUT. Only group it will cause problems for is the OFFENSE. We can't even get set when we have the same QB, now we are going to run our QB's in and out every play. We will lead the league in false starts and illegal formations. I wouldn't mind a series, but NEVER between plays.

[RowdyZip]

The more I think about the Zips playing two QBs, the more I like the idea. Most intriguing is the seldom-used concept of alternating QBs on every play. That is, the QB who's not on the field stands next to the coach, and as soon as each play is over, the coach sends the other QB back onto the field after having had the opportunity to verbally give detailed instructions to him with more data than just flushing signs to the QB on the field.

Two different style QBs alternating on each play just might cause some problems fI wor the defense, and the Zips offense has proven so far this year that it could use any help it can get no matter how small.

You might be onto something, even if it's only for entertainment value. I'm in!

That wont happen. And here's why:

Coach I has no marbles.

I watched Major League 3: Back to the Minors last night on Netflix. An underated movie, despite a poor followup performance by Taka.