šŸˆ HURT: Alabama doesn't need to name starting QB right away

Bamabww

Bench Warmer
Member
August 2, 2015

Cecil Hurt
TideSports.com Columnist

August has arrived. Inevitably, a decision must follow.

Someone has to run onto the field for the University of Alabama's first offensive play against Wisconsin in less than five weeks. Someone has to throw the first pass, preferably to a teammate. Nick Saban is not reverting to the single wing.

But I still don't think that decision has been made in a backroom somewhere. In the upcoming week, we will get a better idea about who the starting quarterback will be (I just typed 80 words before actually using the word "quarterback," a record that may not be broken by anyone covering the team this month). Practice will begin. Reporters will visit with Saban in a less guarded situation than the imposing Big Room at SEC Media Days. We may also get a chance to hear from Lane Kiffin. That's the usual routine in opening week.

There is also an open practice next Sunday where the obsessed - and who isn't obsessed with Alabama quarterbacks - get to analyze things like the number of practice snaps taken and the decibel level of Saban's displeasure with any mistakes.

People are getting anxious. Some "analysts" are already making the call for one candidate or another, hinting that Saban has pulled them aside, thrown a friendly arm around their shoulder and whispered, "I don't want you to tell anybody this, but..." It doesn't work that way.

Others are trying to shoehorn this year's race into last year's circumstances, but it isn't a fit. None of this year's candidates have Blake Sims' exact skill set. There's no one who has waited his turn for four years in Tuscaloosa. I think the most revealing Saban quote of the entire summer came when he talked about Sims "winning the team" last year. Not winning "the job," but, in the heat of August, winning "the team." Someone could certainly do that in the next few weeks, but it hasn't happened yet.

How do we know? Well, we know what Saban has said about no one "taking the bull by the horns." We know that Alabama would have been very interested in Everett Golson, the quarterback who transferred from Notre Dame to Florida State, had it not been a situation that would have required an SEC waiver. That was probably based more on prudence than panic, but it does not hint at some leader in the clubhouse with an insurmountable lead.

Will Alabama try to go with a "game manager," to use a term coaches and quarterbacks abhor? I'm going to quibble here. I do think the candidate that shows the least propensity to turning the ball over via the interception is going to have a heck of a shot. The pick-six that Sims threw in the third quarter of the Ohio State game with Alabama down by six points was huge, which is neither "blaming Sims" nor "making an excuse." It's a fact. No quarterback is gong to go through the season without being intercepted, but frequency will be a factor.

On the other hand, this is 2015. Quarterbacks don't have to make every play in Alabama's offense, but they will have to make some. So the race isn't automatically going to go to the "smartest" guy if he doesn't have the physical tools to make things happen sometimes.

Will it be Jake Coker? Will it be David Cornwell? Will it be one of the others? Today is Aug. 2. Check back on Aug. 30.

https://alabama.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1788064
 
Hurt is basically an extension of Saban. .. I generally like his writing but he's not breaking any news unless Saban allows it.

It is absolutely unnerving to not have a QB once again. Those scrimmages will be huge. Hopefully both look confident and we have 2 options, as opposed to only 1 dude who just "doesn't mess up as much". RTR
 
I think the choice is Coker - they are keeping their cards close to the chest in order to pressure Coker to work harder and under pressure. At this point, I believer Coker gives us the best chance to win.
 
:bolt:



Do you really think if Cornwell got the nod this season that people wouldn't be asking for Barnett?

Maybe so, but at least we'd have an apparent incumbent starter at the most important position on the field for a change next year. If Blake beats him out, so be it. The kid is that good. But if the contest is even between Coker and Cornwell, I'd rather Cornwell get the snaps since he will still be here next spring.
 
Maybe so, but at least we'd have an apparent incumbent starter at the most important position on the field for a change next year. If Blake beats him out, so be it. The kid is that good. But if the contest is even between Coker and Cornwell, I'd rather Cornwell get the snaps since he will still be here next spring.
Still using sound logic in your posts I see. Glad you made it over. :beer:
 
:what:

Oh how much we forget... Wasn't there this QB named McElroy who did pretty good his first year? Not so good the next year?

First time starters are underrated, compared to second year starters... ESPECIALLY QB's.

Besides, since this game is a team sport, maybe, just maybe, the entire team is getting the message directly or indirectly that they better have their $#!^ together to have a chance.
 
Wasn't there this QB named McElroy who did pretty good his first year? Not so good the next year?

2010 wasn't a bad year for Greg, at all. I'd have to look to make sure but I'm fairly confident saying his completion rate was right around 70%. I know he threw five INT's in 2010 versus somewhere around 20TD's. If I'm not mistaken here he was just a tad under 3000 yards passing for the season.

The only INT that season—in a loss—was against LSU. (He did fumble in the fourth quarter when the OL lost containment and he was sacked.)

In my opinion, that's a pretty strong season.
 
2010 wasn't a bad year for Greg, at all. I'd have to look to make sure but I'm fairly confident saying his completion rate was right around 70%. I know he threw five INT's in 2010 versus somewhere around 20TD's. If I'm not mistaken here he was just a tad under 3000 yards passing for the season.

The only INT that season—in a loss—was against LSU. (He did fumble in the fourth quarter when the OL lost containment and he was sacked.)

In my opinion, that's a pretty strong season.

I feel you on the stats and I hate to be cliche' but wins are the most important...the only stat that really matters. Now, let me fair to G Mac, the team didn't play as well in 2010. He may have better numbers but as a whole, the results were less impressive.

To be clear, I'm trying to convey that the QB stats or QBR tend to be red herrings especially when your team has the seasoned (GMAC, McCarron 2013) or world beater (Peyton Manning) at QB. The team tends to place the season on this one person.
 
Now, let me fair to G Mac, the team didn't play as well in 2010

The wins and losses are a bit of a misnomer for '10 in my opinion. As example, I recall the number being over 30 ... as in the total number of games starters missed due to injury.

Fans expectations were not meet. Neither were the teams expectations. I'm still of the opinion that was a damn good football team that didn't/couldn't survive the rash of injuries.
 
:what:

Oh how much we forget... Wasn't there this QB named McElroy who did pretty good his first year? Not so good the next year?

First time starters are underrated, compared to second year starters... ESPECIALLY QB's.

Besides, since this game is a team sport, maybe, just maybe, the entire team is getting the message directly or indirectly that they better have their $#!^ together to have a chance.

Greg had a good first year. However, this is shaping up to be a tougher schedule... And the game has changed to the point where simply managing the game may not be enough.

I think Saban strives to have a QB like GMAC who can limit mistakes and make good enough throws... But offenses have found ways to score easier, particularly on our defenses, which makes our QB play a little more important than Saban is probably comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom