The Quarterbacks Have Me Not My Usual Self
When I'm feeling pessimistic, I think about LSU's quarterback situation. Yes, I have said that while the QBs are inexperienced, we have a great situation in which to incubate a young quarterback. We have a solid and experienced offensive line, a dynamic running game, and very good receivers.
All of that is true, but let's look at the impact of the last part of that list. And while we're doing it, let's go ahead and just assume, without proof, that our quarterback play will be substandard this year. I know we don't know that will be true, but we also do not know that it won't be true. Which is to say it very well could be true.
Do good receivers really elevate a mediocre quarterback?
I have no proof of this, but I really do not think good receivers elevate a mediocre quarterback. I think the opposite is true. A mediocre quarterback acts as a limit on good receivers, while a good quarterback can elevate mediocre receivers (and a good quarterback with good receivers can become magical).
Think about it. While a good receiver can get open by half a step, it won't matter if the quarterback doesn't see him. While a good receiver can make the great one-handed catch, it won't matter if the quarterback puts the ball where it can be swatted away by the defender. While a good receiver can outrun the defensive back to the end zone, it won't matter if the quarterback can't throw it that far.
I've simply seen it enough where good receivers get frustrated by a quarterback who can't get the ball to them. Not even Calvin Johnson was able to elevate the play of Reggie Ball, who completed less than 50% of his passes each year he and Calvin Johnson were on the field together. And Calvin Johnson was largely considered the best wide receiver since Randy Moss.
Calvin Johnson got his stats, but Reggie Ball was still a weak QB.
Now, the dynamic running game and the very good offensive line will certainly help matters, but if Hatch, Lee, and Jefferson are substandard quarterbacks (and I'm not saying they are, but merely playing a hypothetical), that speed and skill on the outside will partially go to waste.
Even when I'm pessimistic, however, my spirits rise when I think of the impact of Richard Dickson. While those outside receivers may not help a substandard QB, I think a rock solid inside receiver almost certainly will. Dickson will go out and sit in creases in the zone, and should be reliably open and a big target. It may not make for an imaginative offense, but it should be effective.
I just hope those QBs are good enough to get the ball to the playmakers on the outside reliably.
0 recs |
4
comments
Read Related
Comments
The O Line
Jeff over at LSUTigerBait had a great post on this last weekend. He makes the case that the O Line will be what makes or breaks our QB (whoever it ends up being). He used the example of Sam Bradford who had a great freshman season behind a monster Oklahome O line vs. Jimmy Clausen who was hyped much more out of high school but was sacked 58 times last year. Using your example, I’m not sure Ball ever had a great OL in front of him either.
Hopefully, Hatch, Lee, or Jefferson have more Sam Bradford in them and are able to take advantage of their protection to make good decisions.
by The Bengal on Aug 27, 2008 11:01 PM CDT 0 recs
If i think hard about lsu's qb situation....i am less than confident.
A few things strike me.
1.) If we have a true freshman competing for our starting job, then we are in trouble no matter how good he is.
2.) I agree with you that QBs make the WR’s more than vice versa…..that being said, our advantage at WR can be nullified if our QBs are prone to being “rattled.”
Hopefully, JL or AH will surprise us all by how awesome they are though….
by Zandor435 on Aug 28, 2008 9:07 AM CDT 0 recs
I disagree about the WR's...
I really do not think good receivers elevate a mediocre quarterback
I think it is hard to make a statement like that. It’s almost a chicken-and-the-egg relationship.
Not even Calvin Johnson was able to elevate the play of Reggie Ball, who completed less than 50% of his passes each year he and Calvin Johnson were on the field together.
Sure Calvin’s numbers would have been better with Jamarcus Russell throwing to him, but what would Ball’s numbers have been without Calvin? I think the better way to put this is that great WR’s can hide a QB’s defficiencies, not necesarily elevate their play. The QB is going to throw it where he’s going to throw it, but maybe our great WR’s are open by a yard instead of half a step, maybe they drop fewer balls or make better catches on poorly thrown balls, or maybe they can break up balls that could be intercepted.
I’ll point to Ben Roethlisburger’s first year in the NFL. His WR’s (Randle El, Plaxico, Ward) told him, “you throw the ball, we’ll take care of the rest”. Roethlisburger attributed a lot of his success that first year to the leadership amond the WR’s.
by LSU Jonno on Aug 28, 2008 12:33 PM CDT 0 recs
I agree with Jonno
Every little advantage that a receiver can give the inexperienced QB is a great help. The margin of error on the throws gets increased.
A small addition to his comments has to do with the offensive line. If the line gives the QB enough time that the receivers outrun the QB’s arm, the default is for the receivers to run back to the QB. Look at any old Herb Tyler game and you will see that MANY of his completions were comeback patterns. On a comeback pattern, the best rebounder usually has the advantantage (if I may cross sports a little). The best rebounder is usually the stronger, taller, better jumper of two athletes. I think LSU has that covered in most cases over opposing CB’s. Unfortunately, comeback patterns usually have very little yards after catch, but I’ll take them if they result in first downs.
by Gman6809 on Aug 28, 2008 6:06 PM CDT 0 recs























