CSNbbs
Stony Brook - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CAAbbs (/forum-676.html)
+---- Forum: CAA Conference Talk (/forum-677.html)
+----- Forum: William & Mary (/forum-691.html)
+----- Thread: Stony Brook (/thread-796708.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6


Stony Brook - tribefbfan - 11-01-2016 03:52 PM

Their season seems weirder than ours. The highs and lows seem to have a bigger swing than ours, but I believe they are still in the hunt for a playoff spot. They lose it's possibly over just like it was for us last week.

This game will be tough for our guys I am sure. Some will think there is nothing to play for any more. Some will say I have too much pride and respect for the game to ever think like that.

For the seniors, the finality of playing this sport will really start to sink in.

We can play spoiler, we can play to win or we can give up.

We are beat up physically as much as we are mentally too.

They will have to dig deep inside themselves this week. Pride can be a big motivator. I hope we see our boys play with pride and a will to win. They've done that all season, just coming up short too many times.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using CSNbbs mobile app


RE: Stony Brook - LeadBolt - 11-01-2016 03:57 PM

(11-01-2016 03:52 PM)tribefbfan Wrote:  Their season seems weirder than ours. The highs and lows seem to have a bigger swing than ours, but I believe they are still in the hunt for a playoff spot. They lose it's possibly over just like it was for us last week.

This game will be tough for our guys I am sure. Some will think there is nothing to play for any more. Some will say I have too much pride and respect for the game to ever think like that.

For the seniors, the finality of playing this sport will really start to sink in.

We can play spoiler, we can play to win or we can give up.

We are beat up physically as much as we are mentally too.

They will have to dig deep inside themselves this week. Pride can be a big motivator. I hope we see our boys play with pride and a will to win. They've done that all season, just coming up short too many times.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using CSNbbs mobile app

Well Said


RE: Stony Brook - zablenoise - 11-01-2016 03:57 PM

I'll note that we're also still playing for a winning season. If we win out 6-5 won't look so bad (IF). We're also still undefeated against Stony Brook and we already blew that record against one opponent this year, I'd love to see us hold this one. The two deep is largely the same but that's not saying much at all.


Stony Brook - Tribeheart - 11-01-2016 07:34 PM

And when do we get McKee, Battle and/or Rotger some needed game experience looking forward to next year. Unless Mitchell is a once in a decade QB, it will be another long season next year otherwise.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app


RE: Stony Brook - tribefbfan - 11-01-2016 08:16 PM

Their experience will come this spring, this summer and fall. I can see the competition lasting until the middle of fall camp.

Steve is a senior captain and has earned his starting role. Maybe some mop up time for McKee and Battle, they will not burn Rotger's red shirt.

Does your thinking just apply to the QB position? Should we sit other starters to give experience?

McKee will be a red shirt junior, Battle a red shirt sophomore, and Rotger a red shirt freshman. I'll also throw out a kid who's been very unselfish, but if our younger receivers improve enough Isaiah Kinder could get a look too. That's what spring ball is all about. Putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. Mitchell will get a look I assume in the fall, but the current QB'S should have the advantage knowing the offense.

Should be exciting to watch this evolve.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using CSNbbs mobile app


RE: Stony Brook - zablenoise - 11-01-2016 09:17 PM

I think the fact that we never once went to McKee/Battle speaks to the hopes the program has in Mitchell. But that is pure speculation.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


RE: Stony Brook - tribetime10 - 11-01-2016 09:55 PM

(11-01-2016 07:34 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  Unless Mitchell is a once in a decade QB.

Yes.


RE: Stony Brook - tribefbfan - 11-01-2016 10:34 PM

It's fun to speculate. I hope we at least wait to see how he adjusts to the college game.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using CSNbbs mobile app


RE: Stony Brook - WMInTheBurg - 11-01-2016 10:47 PM

(11-01-2016 09:17 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  I think the fact that we never once went to McKee/Battle speaks to the hopes the program has in Mitchell. But that is pure speculation.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

For better or worse, Jimmye always plays the QB that he thinks gives us the best chance to win the current game. Decisions aren't made looking to the future.


RE: Stony Brook - zablenoise - 11-02-2016 07:20 AM

(11-01-2016 10:47 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  For better or worse, Jimmye always plays the QB that he thinks gives us the best chance to win the current game. Decisions aren't made looking to the future.

I completely agree. But it's worth nothing that until recently we had a long string of multi year starters. Something must have changed in either recruiting, development, or evaluation to have changed that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


RE: Stony Brook - tribefbfan - 11-02-2016 08:36 AM

How has that changed? Cluley just went three years. If McKee wins the spot and keeps it he'll have 2 years, Battle 3, Rotger 4. If Mitchell comes in and blows everyone out, he'll have the opportunity for 4 years.

Besides, just because a guy is a starter, doesn't mean he owns that spot. If a guy comes in and beats the current starter out, he's going to play.

Our starters need a quick start this Saturday. The weather is perfect football weather.

We've proven a few things this year. We start slow, we get behind, we come back, we fall short.

We fix the first two, we don't have to worry about the last two.

Go Tribe!



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using CSNbbs mobile app


RE: Stony Brook - Tribe32 - 11-02-2016 10:28 AM

One thing that you have to remember is that EVERY QB that plays in Division 1 (BCS/FCS) were all everything in high school. We get lost in the stats that these kids put up in high school. College is way different. First of all you are playing against grown men. Second, you are playing against defenses that you never would even consider in high school. The mental part of the game amps up big time. Reading defenses is key. Playing in college game conditions isn't something you practice at practice. You only get it with real reps on Saturdays.

Kinder is going to be a weapon at WR. I don't see him going back to QB.

If Mitchell enrolls in college for the second semester and practices this spring you will have your answer as to who plays QB in the fall.


Stony Brook - Tribeheart - 11-02-2016 11:57 AM

No better time than the remainder of this season to find out how McKee, Battle, and even Rotger, actually will perform in game, as opposed to practice. If no "it" factor there, then move on to next option, but at least provide the opportunity now, more than just handing the ball off.


Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app


RE: Stony Brook - TribePride52 - 11-02-2016 01:10 PM

(11-02-2016 10:28 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  One thing that you have to remember is that EVERY QB that plays in Division 1 (BCS/FCS) were all everything in high school. We get lost in the stats that these kids put up in high school. College is way different. First of all you are playing against grown men. Second, you are playing against defenses that you never would even consider in high school. The mental part of the game amps up big time. Reading defenses is key. Playing in college game conditions isn't something you practice at practice. You only get it with real reps on Saturdays.

Kinder is going to be a weapon at WR. I don't see him going back to QB.

If Mitchell enrolls in college for the second semester and practices this spring you will have your answer as to who plays QB in the fall.
in case you haven't heard, Mitchell is planning to enroll in January.


RE: Stony Brook - zablenoise - 11-02-2016 01:18 PM

(11-02-2016 08:36 AM)tribefbfan Wrote:  How has that changed? Cluley just went three years. If McKee wins the spot and keeps it he'll have 2 years, Battle 3, Rotger 4. If Mitchell comes in and blows everyone out, he'll have the opportunity for 4 years.

Besides, just because a guy is a starter, doesn't mean he owns that spot. If a guy comes in and beats the current starter out, he's going to play.

Our starters need a quick start this Saturday. The weather is perfect football weather.

We've proven a few things this year. We start slow, we get behind, we come back, we fall short.

We fix the first two, we don't have to worry about the last two.

Go Tribe!



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using CSNbbs mobile app

Excepting Cluley obviously. From '09-'13 we had different starters every season. And in many cases multiple starters. There were even some very good teams in those years but my point was that we went from hitting on multi-year starters with great consistency to complete chaos. Something must have changed to prevented us from recruiting/developing/evaluation QBs in that time frame like we had in the past. We've had the same guy for three years now and that's good but if whatever issues comes back from that 5 year window we could revert to where we were

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


RE: Stony Brook - WM Beancounter - 11-02-2016 02:08 PM

Harvey, Dedmon, and Martinelli all listed as starters in this week's game notes. Either W&M has hired a healing wizard this year, or there is some high-level bullsh1t being distributed via these notes.


RE: Stony Brook - Tribe4SF - 11-02-2016 03:02 PM

(11-02-2016 01:18 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 08:36 AM)tribefbfan Wrote:  How has that changed? Cluley just went three years. If McKee wins the spot and keeps it he'll have 2 years, Battle 3, Rotger 4. If Mitchell comes in and blows everyone out, he'll have the opportunity for 4 years.

Besides, just because a guy is a starter, doesn't mean he owns that spot. If a guy comes in and beats the current starter out, he's going to play.

Our starters need a quick start this Saturday. The weather is perfect football weather.

We've proven a few things this year. We start slow, we get behind, we come back, we fall short.

We fix the first two, we don't have to worry about the last two.

Go Tribe!



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using CSNbbs mobile app

Excepting Cluley obviously. From '09-'13 we had different starters every season. And in many cases multiple starters. There were even some very good teams in those years but my point was that we went from hitting on multi-year starters with great consistency to complete chaos. Something must have changed to prevented us from recruiting/developing/evaluation QBs in that time frame like we had in the past. We've had the same guy for three years now and that's good but if whatever issues comes back from that 5 year window we could revert to where we were

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

You're forgetting the incredible string of injuries that plagued the position from 2010 - 2013.


RE: Stony Brook - Tribe32 - 11-02-2016 05:36 PM

There's your answer. We'll see how he fares in the Spring game.

(11-02-2016 01:10 PM)TribePride52 Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 10:28 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  One thing that you have to remember is that EVERY QB that plays in Division 1 (BCS/FCS) were all everything in high school. We get lost in the stats that these kids put up in high school. College is way different. First of all you are playing against grown men. Second, you are playing against defenses that you never would even consider in high school. The mental part of the game amps up big time. Reading defenses is key. Playing in college game conditions isn't something you practice at practice. You only get it with real reps on Saturdays.

Kinder is going to be a weapon at WR. I don't see him going back to QB.

If Mitchell enrolls in college for the second semester and practices this spring you will have your answer as to who plays QB in the fall.
in case you haven't heard, Mitchell is planning to enroll in January.



RE: Stony Brook - WMInTheBurg - 11-02-2016 06:02 PM

(11-02-2016 03:02 PM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  You're forgetting the incredible string of injuries that plagued the position from 2010 - 2013.

That's what my first thought was, too. Glad I waited to read the rest of the thread.

My point in my earlier post was that when we were in similar situations (out of playoff contention) in the past, we kept playing the seniors trying to win every game no matter whether it mattered or not. Personally, I think we leave starters in too long in blowouts, too.


RE: Stony Brook - zablenoise - 11-02-2016 06:47 PM

(11-02-2016 06:02 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 03:02 PM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  You're forgetting the incredible string of injuries that plagued the position from 2010 - 2013.

That's what my first thought was, too. Glad I waited to read the rest of the thread.

My point in my earlier post was that when we were in similar situations (out of playoff contention) in the past, we kept playing the seniors trying to win every game no matter whether it mattered or not. Personally, I think we leave starters in too long in blowouts, too.
Yeah I can't really argue with that. Those teams were absolutely cursed at QB with injuries. And I've never understood why we don't get backups reps when way up or way down.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk