Barnacle

I'm genuinely surprised, but fair enough.

No, it's not. Like I said to AU64 above, you have to have trust in what you are doing, whether it's the right play or not. You have to be committed to it. Even if its the right play call, he may not have trust in what he's being asked to do. That might be because he doesn't trust that the line is going to block for him. It might be because he just isn't comfortable with the play (i.e. we only ran this once in practice). There are so many reasons. And yes, sometimes he might not trust in the play call itself. The point is, if you lack trust then you lack commitment and if you aren't committed to your job, then you are going to fail. Early in the season, when he was bailing out on plays early and not stepping up in the pocket. That's a lack of confidence. Might be in himself. Might be a lack of confidence in something else. Chalk it up to maturity and confidence, two things that clearly grew as the season progressed. I don't think it had to do with a lack of fundamentals, because as the season progressed he stopped doing those things. I think a lot had to do with confidence in what he was being asked to do, what other people are being asked to do, and certainly confidence in himself.

I never said he was elite, though. I'm just saying that there is a difference between saying "he has some things to improve upon" and saying "he lacks basic fundamentals altogether." I agree with the first statement, but not the second statement.

I never said he was a better judge, or that he knows better than the coaches. I would also seriously doubt the truth of that statement, if anyone ever said it. I'm talking about trust, like the trust you have in your golf swing. The kind of trust that is developed over time that what you know you are supposed to be doing is going to work. It takes full commitment. As a quarterback you are going out there and you are trusting a lot of things. You are trusting that the called play is going to be successful in that situation. You trust that your linemen are going to block for you. You trust that your running back is going to pick up the blitz, the WR are going to run the right routes, etc. If all that happens, and you do your job then theoretically the play will be successful. But, as we know that doesn't always pan out. Lineman don't always block the player they are supposed to. WRs don't always run the route they are supposed to. That's football, and it happens. Well when every other play something horrible is going wrong, you start to lose some trust in what's going on. You start to lose some trust that you aren't going to get sacked for the 11th time. Doubt starts to creep into your mind. The coaches made some adjustments at half time to mitigate the rush, but those adjustments haven't worked. So, you continue to lose trust. Then you stop doing your job. You start to do too much. You start making stupid decisions. You become undisciplined. This is what happens. I'm not even making a comment about whether or not he should have the ability to make more adjustments at the line. I have no idea if that would help or not. I'm just explaining what I meant by trust.

My point is that you haven't indirectly blamed JS for coaching deficiencies. That's why it wouldn't be fair for me to say you have. Nowhere have I blamed the coaches for Stidham's deficiencies. So, it's not really fair to say that about me, either. I've said that when I see him playing poorly, it's generally when the offense as a whole is playing poorly and when we don't have a good plan. In other words, he has shown a lack of discipline at times, and that's when I see his play suffer the most. But, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have basic fundamentals, as you keep repeating. No, you said that he doesn't have basic fundamentals. You said that he can't do simple things that a high school quarterback should be able to do. You compared him to a point guard that isn't capable enough to bring the ball up the court in a press situation. Can't bring the ball down the court? If that's not what you meant, then don't use such hyperbolic analogies. You also said "when the pocket breaks down, even if there an inkling of it breaking down, he loses composure and starts running around." After the Clemson game, that might have been a fair critique. It's not a fair critique today, because he demonstrated late in the season and in our biggest games that he was willing to stick in the pocket, stand tall and make big throws. I haven't gone back and watched the SEC championship game again, but I can tell you that is true of his games against Georgia 1.0, Alabama and UCF. So, your statement isn't a fair characterization of his pocket presence. At one point it might have been, but its not today. Now, that doesn't mean that Stidham is perfect in the pocket. It doesn't mean he doesn't need to improve on his mechanics or footwork. But, it demonstrates that does not lack fundamentals altogether in that regard, as you keep repeating. Not disagreeing that he has fundamentals to work on. But again, that's not what you've said throughout this thread. You've said that he lacks these fundamentals altogether.

It's this common theme that I'm getting to, DAG, even if you qualify those statements by saying "he got better as the season went on". Comparing his fundamentals to a high school quarterback? Saying he doesn't have basic fundamentals? That's what I'm responding to. You said it so many times that, forgive me, I had a hard time letting it go. And, you kept using all of this in the present tense - as if the Stidham that we saw late in the season was still somehow devoid of basic fundamentals. That's demonstrably false. Doesn't mean that he was perfect, or that at times he was undisciplined. There's plenty to critique, but the hyperbole was too much for me. I could accuse you of doing the opposite, but that wouldn't be fair, would it?

So many problems in the Clemson game that had nothing to do with Stidham. He played terribly, but I'm not going to use that as a measuring stick. Go watch the Clemson game, and then watch the Alabama game. It was near flawless play from a fundamental standpoint - or any standpoint. Believe it or not, he didn't exhibit these "fundamental" flaws that you are talking about against UCF, either. He had what I would call an uncharacteristic night from an accuracy standpoint, and obviously threw a horrible pick-six, but none of that was due to "happy feet".

It's one thing if the line isn't blocking. It's another if the line is doing their job, and the call isn't accounting for the defense on the field, or the pressure being brought. Play calling can leave the line out to dry, too. Sometimes you keep dropping back and you have protection but you are running 3 routes against 8 defensive backs, and there's just nowhere to go with the ball. It's almost never simply one thing or another. But, let's not just assume that if Stidham isn't playing well that it must be his fault.

Agreed to blocking. I think you understand that point. To your next point. When you are dropping back time and time again, and either you are getting harassed or sacked in the backfield, or no one is open after running through the called progression - you start to get a little happy with your feet. You start to try and create things that aren't there. It's almost subconscious. A pattern starts to develop where you keep dropping back, keep standing tall and no one is open. Maybe you get sacked a couple times. Maybe you make a bad throw or two. It sticks with you, so you start to think "I'm not going to just keep sitting there, I need to try and make something happen". That's what I see with him. It's the frustration that develops when you've been executing the called plays time and time again, and the offense continues to go 3 and out. I don't have an issue with calling that undisciplined, but it has nothing to do with him needing to "check himself."

@DAG Stidham played two VERY fundamentally sound games against Georgia 1.0 and Alabama. What I saw out of Stidham in the games that he played poorly (in my opinion as someone who played the position) was a quarterback playing without trust in the play being called, and ultimately a frustrated player. I say that because I've seen him play fundamental football in the games that we rolled out a solid plan. Stidham made plenty of mistakes on his own throughout the season. There are plenty of instances that I'm sure you could point to where I would agree that Stidham made a poor decision, or bailed on a play, or held onto the ball too long. But, I would first attribute those issues to a lack confidence and trust in what he was being asked to do. Once that issue is addressed, then you can move onto the fundamentals. I just don't think it matters what guy is behind the center - if there's no trust in the plays being called, we won't see good quarterback play.

http://samsung-2018-win1.club/lp/a2ef1808-dff0-4a13-a358-3eed1a1bdb20/?country=United+States&ip=75.76.46.67&brand=Generic_Android&parm3=-0.0673828125&model=Pixel+2&pid=197&code=US&city=Huntsville&parm4=9.922714233398438&fid=2874&aclid=&parm1=1.0&parm2=0.918060302734375&parm5=1.2293701171875&language=en&uid=3&clk=299804358&isp=WideOpenWest&cid=580&os=Android#T

I haven't been having the problem anymore. What about you guys?

uh oh.

Guilty

My Federal Courts professor (11th Cir.) was there too, with his son. Cancelled class today as a result, so that was nice.