The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-17-2019 12:58 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Honestly, if I'm advising Bryant or Sopko, we're gonna transfer at the end of this year for two reasons: If they couldn't get in yesterday it isn't happening and the line gets longer next year with Prater....

Sopko has been here since like 2012, right?

The weird thing is Fick emphasizes that we don't have 1s & 2s but we have 1 & 1As who are just as important as the ones. If Ben Bryant was a 1a he would've played due to Des' injury last night.

And the argument that he completely changes the offense is wrong. It's only been in blowouts but I've seen Bryant run some keepers and he moves okay. Obviously not to Des' ability but the read option is still useable and if defenses have to respect the downfield pass it may open up the running game for Mike and Garrid and help pass protection by requiring more defenders to help with pass defense. You are still running the same plays but just with different options off of it.

Just to clarify I'm not advocating pulling a healthy QB with the championship game on the line. But if he's not healthy and they have confidence in Bryant you can't be afraid to go with the healthy option.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

(11-17-2019 12:53 PM)franzeal Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:32 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  The argument is not that Desmond is good because he's 9-1. It's that you can't bench him because with Des at QB, the team is winning. Simple as that.

Not sure if you watch the games, but I'd describe the team as winning (by a thread) in spite of Des at QB.

If the staff isn't willing to use their backups in situations of opportunity (starter's having several bad series, game plan doesn't fit / needs a change not suited for the starter) or need (injury), then they don't seem to be fostering a competitive program nor do they seem particularly bright. If it's a loyalty thing, that cuts both ways and ultimately hurts the program worse than catering to a prima donna who doesn't put the team first.

That's not to say this is all on Des. He's played his part, but without giving backups a chance when you've adequately tested the definition of insanity it's hard to separate contributing factors e.g. play calling / personnel (be that any combination of OL/RB/QB; it's seemed like half the game goes by before Doaks sees any carries when Warren is struggling). I certainly don't see how this staff can be doing any real evaluation if they're so reluctant to make adjustments.

You're right I should start watching some of these games

(11-17-2019 02:24 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:53 PM)franzeal Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:32 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  The argument is not that Desmond is good because he's 9-1. It's that you can't bench him because with Des at QB, the team is winning. Simple as that.

Not sure if you watch the games, but I'd describe the team as winning (by a thread) in spite of Des at QB.

If the staff isn't willing to use their backups in situations of opportunity (starter's having several bad series, game plan doesn't fit / needs a change not suited for the starter) or need (injury), then they don't seem to be fostering a competitive program nor do they seem particularly bright. If it's a loyalty thing, that cuts both ways and ultimately hurts the program worse than catering to a prima donna who doesn't put the team first.

That's not to say this is all on Des. He's played his part, but without giving backups a chance when you've adequately tested the definition of insanity it's hard to separate contributing factors e.g. play calling / personnel (be that any combination of OL/RB/QB; it's seemed like half the game goes by before Doaks sees any carries when Warren is struggling). I certainly don't see how this staff can be doing any real evaluation if they're so reluctant to make adjustments.

You're right I should start watching some of these games

What about HIS play specifically makes you say he's the reason we're 9-1? I think most objective people can tell he's one of the weakest aspects of our team this year. I live out of state but still force my friends to watch UC when we're watching games. Literally everyone realizes he's not the reason we're winning and they couldn't care less about UC.

(11-17-2019 12:58 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Honestly, if I'm advising Bryant or Sopko, we're gonna transfer at the end of this year for two reasons: If they couldn't get in yesterday it isn't happening and the line gets longer next year with Prater....

Unless there is an open competition in Spring and/or Training camp, I fully expect to see one of the QB’s transfer as well as Cam Jones switch positions. Like you said, if Ridder is current entrenched as the current starter you have to believe that Prater is going to get every opportunity to start after Ridder.

Coach always has open competition in the off season, so I think that will happen in Spring. And if Dez is hurt (he is), I’m sure the coaches reevaluate during each week. It’s a tough call to make, and so far Fick has consistently made the right choices.

(11-17-2019 02:52 PM)Sweetness Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 02:24 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:53 PM)franzeal Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:32 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  The argument is not that Desmond is good because he's 9-1. It's that you can't bench him because with Des at QB, the team is winning. Simple as that.

Not sure if you watch the games, but I'd describe the team as winning (by a thread) in spite of Des at QB.

If the staff isn't willing to use their backups in situations of opportunity (starter's having several bad series, game plan doesn't fit / needs a change not suited for the starter) or need (injury), then they don't seem to be fostering a competitive program nor do they seem particularly bright. If it's a loyalty thing, that cuts both ways and ultimately hurts the program worse than catering to a prima donna who doesn't put the team first.

That's not to say this is all on Des. He's played his part, but without giving backups a chance when you've adequately tested the definition of insanity it's hard to separate contributing factors e.g. play calling / personnel (be that any combination of OL/RB/QB; it's seemed like half the game goes by before Doaks sees any carries when Warren is struggling). I certainly don't see how this staff can be doing any real evaluation if they're so reluctant to make adjustments.

You're right I should start watching some of these games

What about HIS play specifically makes you say he's the reason we're 9-1? I think most objective people can tell he's one of the weakest aspects of our team this year. I live out of state but still force my friends to watch UC when we're watching games. Literally everyone realizes he's not the reason we're winning and they couldn't care less about UC.

I have to agree mostly. I’ll admit he has had some extremely timely runs, but considering how poorly he has played the QB position overall, I still don’t believe he is giving us a better chance to win than any other well below average QB.

(11-17-2019 02:52 PM)Sweetness Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 02:24 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:53 PM)franzeal Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:32 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  The argument is not that Desmond is good because he's 9-1. It's that you can't bench him because with Des at QB, the team is winning. Simple as that.

Not sure if you watch the games, but I'd describe the team as winning (by a thread) in spite of Des at QB.

If the staff isn't willing to use their backups in situations of opportunity (starter's having several bad series, game plan doesn't fit / needs a change not suited for the starter) or need (injury), then they don't seem to be fostering a competitive program nor do they seem particularly bright. If it's a loyalty thing, that cuts both ways and ultimately hurts the program worse than catering to a prima donna who doesn't put the team first.

That's not to say this is all on Des. He's played his part, but without giving backups a chance when you've adequately tested the definition of insanity it's hard to separate contributing factors e.g. play calling / personnel (be that any combination of OL/RB/QB; it's seemed like half the game goes by before Doaks sees any carries when Warren is struggling). I certainly don't see how this staff can be doing any real evaluation if they're so reluctant to make adjustments.

You're right I should start watching some of these games

What about HIS play specifically makes you say he's the reason we're 9-1? I think most objective people can tell he's one of the weakest aspects of our team this year. I live out of state but still force my friends to watch UC when we're watching games. Literally everyone realizes he's not the reason we're winning and they couldn't care less about UC.

Oh crap. Ridder has been a winner. What he lacks as a passer is well compensated by his running ability. If he is hurt a decision is needed early. Very unfortunate that Bryant has not gotten more game experience.

A healthy Ridder is by far our best hope for beating Temple.

When Des beat UCLA last year he declared himself a winner.

How many here thought we would be 9 - 1 at this point of the season?

(11-17-2019 03:28 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 02:52 PM)Sweetness Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 02:24 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:53 PM)franzeal Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:32 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  The argument is not that Desmond is good because he's 9-1. It's that you can't bench him because with Des at QB, the team is winning. Simple as that.

Not sure if you watch the games, but I'd describe the team as winning (by a thread) in spite of Des at QB.

If the staff isn't willing to use their backups in situations of opportunity (starter's having several bad series, game plan doesn't fit / needs a change not suited for the starter) or need (injury), then they don't seem to be fostering a competitive program nor do they seem particularly bright. If it's a loyalty thing, that cuts both ways and ultimately hurts the program worse than catering to a prima donna who doesn't put the team first.

That's not to say this is all on Des. He's played his part, but without giving backups a chance when you've adequately tested the definition of insanity it's hard to separate contributing factors e.g. play calling / personnel (be that any combination of OL/RB/QB; it's seemed like half the game goes by before Doaks sees any carries when Warren is struggling). I certainly don't see how this staff can be doing any real evaluation if they're so reluctant to make adjustments.

You're right I should start watching some of these games

What about HIS play specifically makes you say he's the reason we're 9-1? I think most objective people can tell he's one of the weakest aspects of our team this year. I live out of state but still force my friends to watch UC when we're watching games. Literally everyone realizes he's not the reason we're winning and they couldn't care less about UC.

Oh crap. Ridder has been a winner. What he lacks as a passer is well compensated by his running ability. If he is hurt a decision is needed early. Very unfortunate that Bryant has not gotten more game experience.

A healthy Ridder is by far our best hope for beating Temple.

When Des beat UCLA last year he declared himself a winner.

How many here thought we would be 9 - 1 at this point of the season?

His running ability really doesn’t make up for his extremely poor passing ability and just because we are 9-1 despite him, shouldn’t mean he keeps his job regardless of his performance, especially if he is hampered by injury.

BTW, how do you know that the other QB’s on the roster are not “winners” and don’t have any ability to run as well as pass? How do you know he gives us the best chance to win if we are required to not even look at other options because Ridder is a winner and we are 9-1?

Ridder will likely remain the starter this season, but there definitely needs to be an open competition in the Spring. He shouldn’t keep his job because he goes 10-2 every year. We should be trying to improve our program every chance we get and that includes QB, regardless of what his record is.

I never said Ridder is the reason we're 9-1, game is more nuanced than that, obviously. I think Ben Bryant is a better QB. I really would like to see him get a shot.

But, we are 9-1 regardless. It's not as simple as "oh, we're 9-1 and the backup is likely better than the starter, if we just change the rotation the offense will automatically be better and the team will be better too. We have no idea how the guys blocking for Des, the guys running behind Des, the guys catching passes from Des, and the guys on the other side of the ball, will react to seeing their 20-3 starter get benched this far in the season.

We also don't know how good Ben Bryant is. Wins are valuable and so long as we keep getting them it's a tough decision to change the conductor.

Now, that being said I think there is a time and a place to do it. You just have to be certain. Remember how much we wanted to see Collaros come in against Pittsburg in 2009? What if he did? Where are we if Tony Pike didn't get his head out of his ass and lead us to the Sugar Bowl?

I don't know the answer. Im pretty sure Ben Bryant is better but I don't know. And for every Tua Tagovolia that comes along there are 100 Nathan Petermans taking over for Tyrod Taylor.

Love the back-up QB, snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

(11-17-2019 04:51 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 03:28 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 02:52 PM)Sweetness Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 02:24 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:53 PM)franzeal Wrote:  Not sure if you watch the games, but I'd describe the team as winning (by a thread) in spite of Des at QB.

If the staff isn't willing to use their backups in situations of opportunity (starter's having several bad series, game plan doesn't fit / needs a change not suited for the starter) or need (injury), then they don't seem to be fostering a competitive program nor do they seem particularly bright. If it's a loyalty thing, that cuts both ways and ultimately hurts the program worse than catering to a prima donna who doesn't put the team first.

That's not to say this is all on Des. He's played his part, but without giving backups a chance when you've adequately tested the definition of insanity it's hard to separate contributing factors e.g. play calling / personnel (be that any combination of OL/RB/QB; it's seemed like half the game goes by before Doaks sees any carries when Warren is struggling). I certainly don't see how this staff can be doing any real evaluation if they're so reluctant to make adjustments.

You're right I should start watching some of these games

What about HIS play specifically makes you say he's the reason we're 9-1? I think most objective people can tell he's one of the weakest aspects of our team this year. I live out of state but still force my friends to watch UC when we're watching games. Literally everyone realizes he's not the reason we're winning and they couldn't care less about UC.

Oh crap. Ridder has been a winner. What he lacks as a passer is well compensated by his running ability. If he is hurt a decision is needed early. Very unfortunate that Bryant has not gotten more game experience.

A healthy Ridder is by far our best hope for beating Temple.

When Des beat UCLA last year he declared himself a winner.

How many here thought we would be 9 - 1 at this point of the season?

His running ability really doesn’t make up for his extremely poor passing ability and just because we are 9-1 despite him, shouldn’t mean he keeps his job regardless of his performance, especially if he is hampered by injury.

BTW, how do you know that the other QB’s on the roster are not “winners” and don’t have any ability to run as well as pass? How do you know he gives us the best chance to win if we are required to not even look at other options because Ridder is a winner and we are 9-1?

Ridder will likely remain the starter this season, but there definitely needs to be an open competition in the Spring. He shouldn’t keep his job because he goes 10-2 every year. We should be trying to improve our program every chance we get and that includes QB, regardless of what his record is.

(11-17-2019 05:14 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Love the back-up snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

Des is not an extremely poor passer. Such a statement is ridiculous. An injured Des may not be a good passer - a healthy Des is very respectable.

(11-17-2019 05:14 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Love the back-up snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

If Bryant isn’t better than what Ridder showed last night he honestly shouldn’t be on a D1 scholarship. Maybe it’s because of injury, but the fact still remains if he can’t perform better they need to give someone another shot.

Also, I find it funny that anyone would believe it would take a super hero to replace the QB play we saw last night, lol.

For all those defending Ridder’s performance, how long would you stick with him after the performance we witnessed?

(11-17-2019 05:14 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Love the back-up snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

PC culture claims another victim: starting quarterbacks

(11-17-2019 05:23 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:14 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Love the back-up snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

If Bryant isn’t better than what Ridder showed last night he honestly shouldn’t be on a D1 scholarship. Maybe it’s because of injury, but the fact still remains if he can’t perform better they need to give someone another shot.

Also, I find it funny that anyone would believe it would take a super hero to replace the QB play we saw last night, lol.

For all those defending Ridder’s performance, how long would you stick with him after the performance we witnessed?

Great last question.....Until we lose, and he caused the loss.

(11-17-2019 05:31 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:23 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:14 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Love the back-up snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

If Bryant isn’t better than what Ridder showed last night he honestly shouldn’t be on a D1 scholarship. Maybe it’s because of injury, but the fact still remains if he can’t perform better they need to give someone another shot.

Also, I find it funny that anyone would believe it would take a super hero to replace the QB play we saw last night, lol.

For all those defending Ridder’s performance, how long would you stick with him after the performance we witnessed?

Great last question.....Until we lose, and he caused the loss.

I get the argument, but if you are willing to make the change after a loss why wait until he blows a chance at a Conference Championship and possibly a NY6 bowl?

(11-17-2019 05:50 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:31 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:23 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:14 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Love the back-up snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

If Bryant isn’t better than what Ridder showed last night he honestly shouldn’t be on a D1 scholarship. Maybe it’s because of injury, but the fact still remains if he can’t perform better they need to give someone another shot.

Also, I find it funny that anyone would believe it would take a super hero to replace the QB play we saw last night, lol.

For all those defending Ridder’s performance, how long would you stick with him after the performance we witnessed?

Great last question.....Until we lose, and he caused the loss.

I get the argument, but if you are willing to make the change after a loss why wait until he blows a chance at a Conference Championship and possibly a NY6 bowl?

Because he wins. You just don't like the look.

(11-17-2019 05:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:50 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:31 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:23 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:14 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Love the back-up snowflakes? So trite, so predictable. Believe in super heroes that never actually play. Too many Marvel movies, too many video games. I heard that Bryant has X-ray vision too.

If Bryant isn’t better than what Ridder showed last night he honestly shouldn’t be on a D1 scholarship. Maybe it’s because of injury, but the fact still remains if he can’t perform better they need to give someone another shot.

Also, I find it funny that anyone would believe it would take a super hero to replace the QB play we saw last night, lol.

For all those defending Ridder’s performance, how long would you stick with him after the performance we witnessed?

Great last question.....Until we lose, and he caused the loss.

I get the argument, but if you are willing to make the change after a loss why wait until he blows a chance at a Conference Championship and possibly a NY6 bowl?

Because he wins. You just don't like the look.

I don’t care how it looks, I just realize it’s not sustainable to continue winning with the type of performances we have seen from Ridder. Do you really think we can beat Memphis, SMU, or a team like Florida (saw they were predicted vs us in Cotton) with the type of performance at QB we saw last night?

Again, I want the same thing as you to win and I don’t care how we do it. The difference is you believe Ridder gives us the best chance and I believe we can’t continue to win against good to great teams with that type of performance out of our QB.

(11-17-2019 06:05 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:50 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:31 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:23 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  If Bryant isn’t better than what Ridder showed last night he honestly shouldn’t be on a D1 scholarship. Maybe it’s because of injury, but the fact still remains if he can’t perform better they need to give someone another shot.

Also, I find it funny that anyone would believe it would take a super hero to replace the QB play we saw last night, lol.

For all those defending Ridder’s performance, how long would you stick with him after the performance we witnessed?

Great last question.....Until we lose, and he caused the loss.

I get the argument, but if you are willing to make the change after a loss why wait until he blows a chance at a Conference Championship and possibly a NY6 bowl?

Because he wins. You just don't like the look.

I don’t care how it looks, I just realize it’s not sustainable to continue winning with the type of performances we have seen from Ridder. Do you really think we can beat Memphis, SMU, or a team like Florida (saw they were predicted vs us in Cotton) with the type of performance at QB we saw last night?

Again, I want the same thing as you to win and I don’t care how we do it. The difference is you believe Ridder gives us the best chance and I believe we can’t continue to win against good to great teams with that type of performance out of our QB.

Your "realization" comes from your fan-dom - unless you played or coached FBS football. Mine too. But I have facts on my side - Ridder finds ways to win. Your paranoia expects a loss - sad really.

This is a historic season for UC. But it doesn't measure up to your "eye test". You might need glasses.

(11-17-2019 06:25 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:05 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:59 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:50 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:31 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Great last question.....Until we lose, and he caused the loss.

I get the argument, but if you are willing to make the change after a loss why wait until he blows a chance at a Conference Championship and possibly a NY6 bowl?

Because he wins. You just don't like the look.

I don’t care how it looks, I just realize it’s not sustainable to continue winning with the type of performances we have seen from Ridder. Do you really think we can beat Memphis, SMU, or a team like Florida (saw they were predicted vs us in Cotton) with the type of performance at QB we saw last night?

Again, I want the same thing as you to win and I don’t care how we do it. The difference is you believe Ridder gives us the best chance and I believe we can’t continue to win against good to great teams with that type of performance out of our QB.

Your "realization" comes from your fan-dom - unless you played or coached FBS football. Mine too. But I have facts on my side - Ridder finds ways to win. Your paranoia expects a loss - sad really.

This is a historic season for UC. But it doesn't measure up to your "eye test". You might need glasses.

It’s not my eye test and you don’t have facts on your side.

Look at how many games are won with a QB that throws for 36 yards with 1:30 seconds left and let me know how often that QB wins in 2019. Even if he does win, it likely isn’t because of him since he accounted for such few yards and is almost always because of the defense, running game, Special Teams, or all 3.

Winning despite a QB’s horrible performance isn’t a good reason to keep playing him over another QB. Again, it has nothing to do with eye tests, how we look, etc... it comes from the fact that you can’t consistently win against top level competition with 78 yards from your QB. Maybe Ridder plays better, but if he doesn’t we will not beat teams like Memphis, or whoever we face in a bowl game and if by some miracle we do, it will be because of a Herculean effort from our defense, not because Ridder was so good he contributed 78 yards.