goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: Cartierfor3 on August 30, 2013, 10:59:27 PM

Title: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 30, 2013, 10:59:27 PM
Don't make this about Sams/Waters. Can we be more sophisticated as fans? QB play was plenty good to win.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:01:03 PM
Don't make this about Sams/Waters. Can we be more sophisticated as fans? QB play was plenty good to win.

QB sucked balls and taints all night. Waters had 2 good plays all rough ridin' game. Shut the eff up.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Pendergast on August 30, 2013, 11:02:19 PM
Yup, lit it up out there in the first half, and that run to put us up 21 - 7, oh wait.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: _33 on August 30, 2013, 11:03:08 PM
CartierFor3 confirmed racist.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: catzacker on August 30, 2013, 11:03:40 PM
QB play is and will be just one of many reasons this team will rough ridin' suck this year.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: EMAWzified on August 30, 2013, 11:04:17 PM
No it wasn't. Waters didn't move the team through most of the third quarter and all of the fourth. He can't throw under pressure and can't kind his receivers quick enough.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: _33 on August 30, 2013, 11:05:16 PM
Sams would have scored 35+.  Waters made one good throw.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Muldoon on August 30, 2013, 11:05:54 PM
That time out on the first rough ridin' play of the season    :lol:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 30, 2013, 11:06:25 PM
 :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush: :flush:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: star seed 7 on August 30, 2013, 11:07:44 PM
That time out on the first rough ridin' play of the season    :lol:

Good meltdown point.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kso_FAN on August 30, 2013, 11:08:01 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: EMAWzified on August 30, 2013, 11:08:55 PM
I will agree with that.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 30, 2013, 11:08:58 PM
QB play is and will be just one of many reasons this team will rough ridin' suck this year.

we actually have a good QB (sams).  our entire defense sucks, our o-line sucks, our running backs suck, our receivers are decent.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:09:13 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.

Well, maybe if we would have played a game more to their strengths, they wouldn't have looked so shitty.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: star seed 7 on August 30, 2013, 11:09:42 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.

Yes.   I always thought Klein was pretty overrated, but this game made me realize he's a god.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: _33 on August 30, 2013, 11:10:04 PM
yeah hubert is an embarrassment. He's terrible and I'm glad I can finally say it.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ltrain on August 30, 2013, 11:10:16 PM
QB play is and will be just one of many reasons this team will rough ridin' suck this year.

we actually have a good QB (sams).  our entire defense sucks, our o-line sucks, our running backs suck, our receivers are decent.

You forgot special teams...they suck too.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: chum1 on August 30, 2013, 11:11:59 PM
Receivers are very good.  Oline was always way overrated.  Which is why a passing QB is better.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
Receivers are very good.  Oline was always way overrated.  Which is why a passing QB is better.

You couldn't be more wrong about the passing QB thing here.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kso_FAN on August 30, 2013, 11:13:14 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.

Well, maybe if we would have played a game more to their strengths, they wouldn't have looked so shitty.

Maybe, but they flat out missed a ton of blocks. They were constantly getting beat.

Our only chance is probably Sams, because of his ability to make plays on his own.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 30, 2013, 11:13:38 PM
Receivers are very good.  Oline was always way overrated.  Which is why a passing QB is better.

bad o-lines are bad for passing.  also, waters isn't that good of a passer.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: chum1 on August 30, 2013, 11:13:57 PM
Receivers are very good.  Oline was always way overrated.  Which is why a passing QB is better.

You couldn't be more wrong about the passing QB thing here.

Why?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 30, 2013, 11:15:14 PM
Reasons we lost:

1. O-Line
2. D-Line/LB
3. Running Backs
4. Play Calling
5. Special teams (punt return)
6. QB play.

Yet everyone who feels the need to be edgy will A) Call you racist if you don't think Waters was that bad. B) make the entire game about Sams/Waters.

Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:15:29 PM
Receivers are very good.  Oline was always way overrated.  Which is why a passing QB is better.

You couldn't be more wrong about the passing QB thing here.

Why?

Running QBs turn broken plays into touchdowns. Passing QBs turn broken plays into 15 yard losses.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: catzacker on August 30, 2013, 11:15:51 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.

Well, maybe if we would have played a game more to their strengths, they wouldn't have looked so shitty.

Maybe, but they flat out missed a ton of blocks. They were constantly getting beat.

Our only chance is probably Sams, because of his ability to make plays on his own.

Sams has the ability to make plays which forces the defense to defend differently. 

I really enjoyed the play call, after we get a 4th and 1 first down, we're up 4, it's second and 10 and we run Waters on a designed QB run which nets us 0 yards.  I mean, holy rough ridin' crap. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 30, 2013, 11:16:34 PM
QB play was much better than our O-line, RB, entire D, and special teams. That's not saying much, but hanging this loss on QB play? Please.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: chum1 on August 30, 2013, 11:17:40 PM
Receivers are very good.  Oline was always way overrated.  Which is why a passing QB is better.

You couldn't be more wrong about the passing QB thing here.

Why?

Running QBs turn broken plays into touchdowns. Passing QBs turn broken plays into 15 yard losses.

On the team in question, running QB get stuffed at the LOS.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:19:09 PM
Receivers are very good.  Oline was always way overrated.  Which is why a passing QB is better.

You couldn't be more wrong about the passing QB thing here.

Why?

Running QBs turn broken plays into touchdowns. Passing QBs turn broken plays into 15 yard losses.

On the team in question, running QB get stuffed at the LOS.

In this game, running QB scores TDs on 50% of all snaps. Give me a rough ridin' break you rough ridin' bad person. :chainsaw:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 30, 2013, 11:19:30 PM
QB play was much better than our O-line, RB, entire D, and special teams. That's not saying much, but hanging this loss on QB play? Please.

get the eff out of here.  just b/c a bunch of other players sucked doesn't excuse the QB play.  some of you are really rough ridin' dumb.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 30, 2013, 11:22:34 PM
QB play was much better than our O-line, RB, entire D, and special teams. That's not saying much, but hanging this loss on QB play? Please.

get the eff out of here.  just b/c a bunch of other players sucked doesn't excuse the QB play.  some of you are really rough ridin' dumb.

Not sure we're actually in disagreement. Of course we could have eked this out with better QB play, it's just mumped Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to say that that was even close to the main reason we lost.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: yoman on August 30, 2013, 11:24:12 PM
If this game is a 7 on 7 then we win every time. Our line play on both sides of the ball sucked.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:25:40 PM
QB play was much better than our O-line, RB, entire D, and special teams. That's not saying much, but hanging this loss on QB play? Please.

get the eff out of here.  just b/c a bunch of other players sucked doesn't excuse the QB play.  some of you are really rough ridin' dumb.

Not sure we're actually in disagreement. Of course we could have eked this out with better QB play, it's just mumped Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to say that that was even close to the main reason we lost.

Here's the deal, K-S-U-Wildcats!. We don't have any players that could have addressed any of the other deficiencies that you mentioned. We did have a rough ridin' good QB on the sidelines who could have won us this god damned game. I mean, sure, but the Green Bay Packers around Carson Coffman and he would have looked like AJ McCarron. It wasn't Carson's fault we lost any games.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: _33 on August 30, 2013, 11:28:02 PM
Sams would have made the OLine look amazing.  That's what the dumbs stupid idiots don't understand.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: chum1 on August 30, 2013, 11:29:53 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: catzacker on August 30, 2013, 11:30:52 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

the same as waters. 

but not the same as sams.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: TheFormerKCCat on August 30, 2013, 11:31:12 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.
This - SO much of this. Oh yeah, our D is way too soft in the middle. We better hope Big XII O-lines and RBs aren't better than NDSU's. The good news: This is probably the most fundamentally sound team we'll play all season. The bad news: this is the one of the least talented teams we'll face all season. Could be a LONG season!
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: _33 on August 30, 2013, 11:31:24 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

Poorly, because he sucks.  OLine is getting blamed because of a lack of skill at skill positions.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:32:35 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

Poorly, because he sucks.  OLine is getting blamed because of a lack of skill at skill positions.

I agree, but Sams would have made Hubert look good, too. Just like Klein did.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 30, 2013, 11:38:11 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

the same as waters. 

but not the same as sams.

Yes, Sams had a beautiful end zone dash. He also got stuffed on his other possession. What was Waters completion rate and passing yardage? I'll admit he rough ridin' sucks at converting short yardage third down runs. Too bad we couldn't count on Hubert to do that.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: EMAWzified on August 30, 2013, 11:39:53 PM
What was Waters' completion percentage in 2nd and 3rd and long? Obvious passing downs where they blitzed. Seemed to suck.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

the same as waters. 

but not the same as sams.

Yes, Sams had a beautiful end zone dash. He also got stuffed on his other possession. What was Waters completion rate and passing yardage? I'll admit he rough ridin' sucks at converting short yardage third down runs. Too bad we couldn't count on Hubert to do that.

Too bad we couldn't just put Sams in on 3rd and short to score points I guess.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: catzacker on August 30, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

the same as waters. 

but not the same as sams.

Yes, Sams had a beautiful end zone dash. He also got stuffed on his other possession. What was Waters completion rate and passing yardage? I'll admit he rough ridin' sucks at converting short yardage third down runs. Too bad we couldn't count on Hubert to do that.

think of all the other beautiful zone dashes we could have saw.  instead we got waters getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  we can't open up the run by passing because teams will (just as NDSt did) just say "eff it" and blitz the rough ridin' crap out of us and watch jakey fall down.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: pvegs on August 30, 2013, 11:43:27 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.

Well, maybe if we would have played a game more to their strengths, they wouldn't have looked so shitty.

Maybe, but they flat out missed a ton of blocks. They were constantly getting beat.

Our only chance is probably Sams, because of his ability to make plays on his own.

I really thought Waters was okay, but _Fan is right.  We're gonna have to give it over to Sams and hope for the best. Might as well do that now and be good again in 2 years.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: EMAWzified on August 30, 2013, 11:46:06 PM
Hopefully, we can recruit some juco d-linemen and linebackers using the shitpile approach.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: catzacker on August 30, 2013, 11:47:33 PM
Hopefully, we can recruit some juco d-linemen and linebackers using the shitpile approach.

well, we did this off season.  recruited the hell out of them actually, but they all went to other programs like KU and Arkansas and Minnesota.  and the one really good one we got turns out to be a huge rough ridin' pussy and went back home.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 30, 2013, 11:49:27 PM
QB wasn't great, but the offensive line was a complete embarrassment.

Well, maybe if we would have played a game more to their strengths, they wouldn't have looked so shitty.

Maybe, but they flat out missed a ton of blocks. They were constantly getting beat.

Our only chance is probably Sams, because of his ability to make plays on his own.

I really thought Waters was okay, but _Fan is right.  We're gonna have to give it over to Sams and hope for the best. Might as well do that now and be good again in 2 years.

Really sad that we're seriously discussing shelving a great passing QB because our RB rough ridin' sucked tonight.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: chum1 on August 30, 2013, 11:49:40 PM
Did we even have 50 rush yards in the game?  Whatever, more running is what we should have done either way.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 30, 2013, 11:50:42 PM
QB play was much better than our O-line, RB, entire D, and special teams. That's not saying much, but hanging this loss on QB play? Please.

get the eff out of here.  just b/c a bunch of other players sucked doesn't excuse the QB play.  some of you are really rough ridin' dumb.

Not sure we're actually in disagreement. Of course we could have eked this out with better QB play, it's just mumped Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to say that that was even close to the main reason we lost.

the QB is the only thing we could actually change u rough ridin' idiot.  of course our defense sucks, but thats not going to change.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 30, 2013, 11:52:52 PM
Welp. The edgy crowd is going to make everything about the QB. Oh well.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:54:08 PM
Welp. The edgy crowd is going to make everything about the QB. Oh well.

QB play was much better than our O-line, RB, entire D, and special teams. That's not saying much, but hanging this loss on QB play? Please.

get the eff out of here.  just b/c a bunch of other players sucked doesn't excuse the QB play.  some of you are really rough ridin' dumb.

Not sure we're actually in disagreement. Of course we could have eked this out with better QB play, it's just mumped Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to say that that was even close to the main reason we lost.

Here's the deal, K-S-U-Wildcats!. We don't have any players that could have addressed any of the other deficiencies that you mentioned. We did have a rough ridin' good QB on the sidelines who could have won us this god damned game. I mean, sure, put the Green Bay Packers around Carson Coffman and he would have looked like AJ McCarron. It wasn't Carson's fault we lost any games.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: nicname on August 30, 2013, 11:55:30 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

Poorly, because he sucks.  OLine is getting blamed because of a lack of skill at skill positions.

I agree, but Sams would have made Hubert look good, too. Just like Klein did.

I didn't have a great viewing angle, and couldn't figure out if it was Hubert or the line that was not getting the job done.  My assumption was Hubert just because the line seemed so solid last year and returned basically everyone.  Obv.  some of you have voiced different opinions on what transpired during the game.  I don't disagree, but the conclusion that I'm kind of drawing is that Hubert just isn't the type of runner who can carry the load without a legitimate threat back there with him at QB. 

I should put this next part in another post, but I'm lazy.

It looked like Water threw the ball well for a lot of the game.  The two deep balls were beautiful and the scrambling play where he hit a receiver down the sideline was probably his best play all night.  I also liked his throw on what looked like a 15 yd out.  He seems to be able to make all the throws. 

But what about the sacks?  Not getting rid of the ball quick enough, or inadequate protection from the o-line?  I hope not both. 

I like Sams.  I'm a Sams fan, and would have liked to have seen him used more, maybe given his own couple of series.  I'm not going to BID about Waters though. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 30, 2013, 11:56:07 PM
QB play was much better than our O-line, RB, entire D, and special teams. That's not saying much, but hanging this loss on QB play? Please.

get the eff out of here.  just b/c a bunch of other players sucked doesn't excuse the QB play.  some of you are really rough ridin' dumb.

Not sure we're actually in disagreement. Of course we could have eked this out with better QB play, it's just mumped Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to say that that was even close to the main reason we lost.

the QB is the only thing we could actually change u rough ridin' idiot.  of course our defense sucks, but thats not going to change.

Ok, so you're blaming Snyder then. Gotcha.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: FuzzyWuzzy on August 30, 2013, 11:57:01 PM
packers line sucks pretty hard, fyi.  can't we just all be sad together without fighting too?  :dunno:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 30, 2013, 11:57:53 PM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

Poorly, because he sucks.  OLine is getting blamed because of a lack of skill at skill positions.

I agree, but Sams would have made Hubert look good, too. Just like Klein did.

I didn't have a great viewing angle, and couldn't figure out if it was Hubert or the line that was not getting the job done.  My assumption was Hubert just because the line seemed so solid last year and returned basically everyone.  Obv.  some of you have voiced different opinions on what transpired during the game.  I don't disagree, but the conclusion that I'm kind of drawing is that Hubert just isn't the type of runner who can carry the load without a legitimate threat back there with him at QB. 

I should put this next part in another post, but I'm lazy.

It looked like Water threw the ball well for a lot of the game.  The two deep balls were beautiful and the scrambling play where he hit a receiver down the sideline was probably his best play all night.  I also liked his throw on what looked like a 15 yd out.  He seems to be able to make all the throws. 

But what about the sacks?  Not getting rid of the ball quick enough, or inadequate protection from the o-line?  I hope not both. 

I like Sams.  I'm a Sams fan, and would have liked to have seen him used more, maybe given his own couple of series.  I'm not going to BID about Waters though.

Waters was given an entire game to make plays and made 3. Sams was given 2 plays to make plays and made 1.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Acceleration Man on August 30, 2013, 11:58:12 PM
think of all the other beautiful zone dashes we could have saw.  instead we got waters getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  we can't open up the run by passing because teams will (just as NDSt did) just say "eff it" and blitz the rough ridin' crap out of us and watch jakey fall down.

Seemed like we either 1.) didn't have a good safety valve for Waters to check to on these plays or 2.) he didn't look for it. Just watching the game, it seemed more the former, which would really nullify the all-on blitz. However, would need to go back to those plays and look at the routes more closely. _Fan???
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Legit Elite on August 31, 2013, 12:00:07 AM
We lost for three reasons...

We did not establish the run
Our front 7 blows
NDS owned the t.o.p. against said front 7 that blows
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: nicname on August 31, 2013, 12:00:22 AM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

Poorly, because he sucks.  OLine is getting blamed because of a lack of skill at skill positions.

I agree, but Sams would have made Hubert look good, too. Just like Klein did.

I didn't have a great viewing angle, and couldn't figure out if it was Hubert or the line that was not getting the job done.  My assumption was Hubert just because the line seemed so solid last year and returned basically everyone.  Obv.  some of you have voiced different opinions on what transpired during the game.  I don't disagree, but the conclusion that I'm kind of drawing is that Hubert just isn't the type of runner who can carry the load without a legitimate threat back there with him at QB. 

I should put this next part in another post, but I'm lazy.

It looked like Water threw the ball well for a lot of the game.  The two deep balls were beautiful and the scrambling play where he hit a receiver down the sideline was probably his best play all night.  I also liked his throw on what looked like a 15 yd out.  He seems to be able to make all the throws. 

But what about the sacks?  Not getting rid of the ball quick enough, or inadequate protection from the o-line?  I hope not both. 

I like Sams.  I'm a Sams fan, and would have liked to have seen him used more, maybe given his own couple of series.  I'm not going to BID about Waters though.

Waters was given an entire game to make plays and made 3. Sams was given 2 plays to make plays and made 1.

The only thing that worries me is that it could mean that Sams is a one-trick-pony.  I really don't want that to be true.  If he isn't though, something tells me he would be out there?  I dunno. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: chum1 on August 31, 2013, 12:01:24 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:01:57 AM
How did Hubert do with the Oline?

Poorly, because he sucks.  OLine is getting blamed because of a lack of skill at skill positions.

I agree, but Sams would have made Hubert look good, too. Just like Klein did.

I didn't have a great viewing angle, and couldn't figure out if it was Hubert or the line that was not getting the job done.  My assumption was Hubert just because the line seemed so solid last year and returned basically everyone.  Obv.  some of you have voiced different opinions on what transpired during the game.  I don't disagree, but the conclusion that I'm kind of drawing is that Hubert just isn't the type of runner who can carry the load without a legitimate threat back there with him at QB. 

I should put this next part in another post, but I'm lazy.

It looked like Water threw the ball well for a lot of the game.  The two deep balls were beautiful and the scrambling play where he hit a receiver down the sideline was probably his best play all night.  I also liked his throw on what looked like a 15 yd out.  He seems to be able to make all the throws. 

But what about the sacks?  Not getting rid of the ball quick enough, or inadequate protection from the o-line?  I hope not both. 

I like Sams.  I'm a Sams fan, and would have liked to have seen him used more, maybe given his own couple of series.  I'm not going to BID about Waters though.

Waters was given an entire game to make plays and made 3. Sams was given 2 plays to make plays and made 1.

The only thing that worries me is that it could mean that Sams is a one-trick-pony.  I really don't want that to be true.  If he isn't though, something tells me he would be out there?  I dunno.

Sams throws a nice ball. I really think Bill planned on starting him for the Texas game and just didn't think that Waters would be this shitty.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 31, 2013, 12:03:58 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.

This. Its like 33 and KC assume that Sams would have Waters 21-29 for 280 and add 17 for 175 on the ground. Probably would've ran for more, passed for less, and still lost because our lines suck.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 12:04:24 AM
Just seems strange to fault Waters for not being a better runner when he wouldn't have had to be if so many other aspects of our game tonight weren't terrible.

I think it's safe to say that Sams wouldn't have had nearly the passing yards tonight. Would he have bettered that with his superior running ability, especially in short yardage conversion situations? That's really tough to say. I'll probably just leave that one up to guy with his name on he stadium. Sorry for the tuckage.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: PandaXpanda on August 31, 2013, 12:05:41 AM
Jake is not the one. He can be, possibly, but not at the pace he played tonight. He has a quick release but is smaller and slower than he thinks he is.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Acceleration Man on August 31, 2013, 12:08:05 AM
It's his first game.

Remember 10-7 EKU? That wasn't pretty either.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: nicname on August 31, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
Waters throws a pretty ball too, but obviously if Sams has the ability to make the reads and the throws then his other skills make him the better choice.  The fact that whenever he is in we run the same play gives me pause in believing that.  I want to though. 

What I really want is a workhorse back and a FB that will blow people up and establish a ground game.  It looks as thought the only way we will ever establish that this year is going to Sams, which could be great.  Though embarrassing, this game really means nothing.  Waters or Sams, there is still hope.

The D is concerning as well.  All game I was lambasting them in my mind for giving up those passes over the middle and short dump-offs with all the extra cushion.  On the way home though, I thought to myself, "We really gave up a ton of those passing plays last year and the year before as well."  What we didn't do previously was get pushed around up front as much and were really able to make big plays, especially near and in the red zone.

Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: catzacker on August 31, 2013, 12:10:06 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.

yes.. sams = more running = more TOP = less time on the field for our shitty defense
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:10:43 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.

This. Its like 33 and KC assume that Sams would have Waters 21-29 for 280 and add 17 for 175 on the ground. Probably would've ran for more, passed for less, and still lost because our lines suck.

JFC. Sams would have thrown for less, run for about 200 more, and opened up the field for Hubert to run for about 50 more. We would have won by 10 at minimum
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:11:57 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.

This. Its like 33 and KC assume that Sams would have Waters 21-29 for 280 and add 17 for 175 on the ground. Probably would've ran for more, passed for less, and still lost because our lines suck.

JFC. Sams would have thrown for less, run for about 200 more, and opened up the field for Hubert to run for about 50 more. We would have won by 10 at minimum

there is no point in arguing with the blind.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:12:53 AM
It's his first game.

Remember 10-7 EKU? That wasn't pretty either.

That game wasn't pretty because we had nobody on the field with big play ability. The Missouri State game last year would have been similar if we didn't have Sams to run it up for us.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: wetwillie on August 31, 2013, 12:14:12 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.

yes.. sams = more running = more TOP = less time on the field for our shitty defense

I think a QB change is inevitable for this very reason.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:15:05 AM
It's his first game.

Remember 10-7 EKU? That wasn't pretty either.

Our running game isn't going to get better, so the fact that its his first game is irrelevant.  We have to be able to run the ball, we have to start Sams.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Frankenklein on August 31, 2013, 12:15:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl5vi9ir49g
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 12:16:33 AM
Maybe team Sams is right and he's this magical dual threat wonder. I hope they're right, because unless he can maintain a decent passing game to keep the D honest, we're gonna get our crap kicked in with this line, Sams of no.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: puniraptor on August 31, 2013, 12:17:17 AM
i couldnt bear reading up on this thread, but we definitely need to talk crap on the defense too
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: _33 on August 31, 2013, 12:18:58 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.

This. Its like 33 and KC assume that Sams would have Waters 21-29 for 280 and add 17 for 175 on the ground. Probably would've ran for more, passed for less, and still lost because our lines suck.

Face it, you fell it love with the idea that Waters was an elite passer with the ability to run.  We all did.  But he isn't.  Sams could make all the throws waters made and create on the ground, which would have won us the game.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Acceleration Man on August 31, 2013, 12:21:55 AM
Face it, you fell it love with the idea that Waters was an elite passer with the ability to run.  We all did.  But he isn't.  Sams could make all the throws waters made and create on the ground, which would have won us the game.

If this is true, then explain why he didn't get the playing time.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: puniraptor on August 31, 2013, 12:22:28 AM
Face it, you fell it love with the idea that Waters was an elite passer with the ability to run.  We all did.  But he isn't.  Sams could make all the throws waters made and create on the ground, which would have won us the game.

If this is true, then explain why he didn't get the playing time.

BECAUSE WHAT THE F UCK
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kso_FAN on August 31, 2013, 12:23:22 AM
My list of concerns:

Offensive line. I'll have to go back and look, but I remember several instances where we were beat on a single block that blew up otherwise well executed plays.

Defense. Inability to step up in crucial situations. NDSU was something like 11-18 on third down. We miss a lot of guys, but honestly about a dozen plays I thought "Arthur would've made that tackle". So yeah, stars matter, even if you only have a few high star guys.

Playmaker at RB. Hubert isn't awful, but clearly he needs to be the secondary guy. With an offense led by waters and no dominant offensive line he may not get 500 yards this year.

Very early returns are showing I could be wrong on not thinking this is Ell vs Dunn 2.

Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:24:07 AM
Face it, you fell it love with the idea that Waters was an elite passer with the ability to run.  We all did.  But he isn't.  Sams could make all the throws waters made and create on the ground, which would have won us the game.

If this is true, then explain why he didn't get the playing time.

i already explained it somewhere on the board, the only possible explanation is that bill is a racist, and i'm convinced that he is.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: nicname on August 31, 2013, 12:24:37 AM
The QB is the only thing that could have been different.  What do you rough ridin' idiots not understand?

I think what is being called into question is the suggestion that Sams makes all of the other problems go away.

This. Its like 33 and KC assume that Sams would have Waters 21-29 for 280 and add 17 for 175 on the ground. Probably would've ran for more, passed for less, and still lost because our lines suck.

Face it, you fell it love with the idea that Waters was an elite passer with the ability to run.  We all did.  But he isn't.  Sams could make all the throws waters made and create on the ground, which would have won us the game.

If he is an elite passer I dont give a crap if he can run or not.  Snyder should be able to plan an attack to suit his skills.  Didnt seem like he did that tonight.  I don't really think he is though.  Great ball, great arm, but shorter than elite and not an incredibly fleet or savvy scrambler. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: wetwillie on August 31, 2013, 12:25:06 AM
How did gronk do?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:25:14 AM
Face it, you fell it love with the idea that Waters was an elite passer with the ability to run.  We all did.  But he isn't.  Sams could make all the throws waters made and create on the ground, which would have won us the game.

If this is true, then explain why he didn't get the playing time.

You need Snyder to explain that to you. Based on game film, there is simply no explanation.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: nicname on August 31, 2013, 12:25:43 AM
_Fan is smart. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: catzacker on August 31, 2013, 12:26:57 AM
Sams could have made the TD throws, but not all the throws waters made.  Sams would have provided more of a true threat to run.  I am not sure if NDSt blitzes sams as much because of it. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:27:57 AM
How did gronk do?

He might have played in 6 plays, which makes me take the Hubert criticism with a huge grain of salt, tbh. I mean, Sams only takes snaps out of the shotgun and is told to just score a touchdown (I'm assuming because that is what he usually does) while the other QBs get the benefit of actual rough ridin' offensive sets and plays and still struggle to score the god damned football but it's all Hubert's rough ridin' fault. :curse:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 12:31:22 AM
I think I've seen every one of Sams gametime throws, and no, he could not have thrown some of the lasers that Waters heaved tonight. He is a better runner, no doubt, but thats not the whole story. Snyder is just going to have to decide what's the better solution to paper over this shitty line.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:32:28 AM
I think I've seen every one of Sams gametime throws, and no, he could not have thrown some of the lasers that Waters heaved tonight. He is a better runner, no doubt, but thats not the whole story. Snyder is just going to have to decide what's the better solution to paper over this shitty line.

he would have made the throws necessary to win.  you play to win the game.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: jaa1025 on August 31, 2013, 12:34:37 AM
The line blows. The RB situation blows. And Snyder is going to rely on a 1 dimensional passing QB. Water's might be a good QB, but this team needs Sams to take the pressure off Hubert and take a defender away in the running game.

This would have been a blowout win if Sams would have started instead of a loss.

Will we even make a bowl game? Worst loss since Snyder returned?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 12:41:50 AM
I think I've seen every one of Sams gametime throws, and no, he could not have thrown some of the lasers that Waters heaved tonight. He is a better runner, no doubt, but thats not the whole story. Snyder is just going to have to decide what's the better solution to paper over this shitty line.

he would have made the throws necessary to win.  you play to win the game.

I hope you're right and Sams is the solution. I sure dont see the D or O-line (and with that, Hubert) getting much better.

I'll admit that part of my reservations is that it is just such a rough ridin' waste of an amazing arm to bench Waters just because we suck in so many other facets of the game.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:44:50 AM
I think I've seen every one of Sams gametime throws, and no, he could not have thrown some of the lasers that Waters heaved tonight. He is a better runner, no doubt, but thats not the whole story. Snyder is just going to have to decide what's the better solution to paper over this shitty line.

he would have made the throws necessary to win.  you play to win the game.

I hope you're right and Sams is the solution. I sure dont see the D or O-line (and with that, Hubert) getting much better.

I'll admit that part of my reservations is that it is just such a rough ridin' waste of an amazing arm to bench Waters just because we suck in so many other facets of the game.

The O-Line is all back from last year, when they were good enough for Hubert to make 1st team all Big 12, you rough ridin' dumbass. The problem is at head coach, and if he can't find a way to make Waters move the chains, then Sams has to play.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 12:52:49 AM
I think I've seen every one of Sams gametime throws, and no, he could not have thrown some of the lasers that Waters heaved tonight. He is a better runner, no doubt, but thats not the whole story. Snyder is just going to have to decide what's the better solution to paper over this shitty line.

he would have made the throws necessary to win.  you play to win the game.

I hope you're right and Sams is the solution. I sure dont see the D or O-line (and with that, Hubert) getting much better.

I'll admit that part of my reservations is that it is just such a rough ridin' waste of an amazing arm to bench Waters just because we suck in so many other facets of the game.

The O-Line is all back from last year, when they were good enough for Hubert to make 1st team all Big 12, you rough ridin' dumbass. The problem is at head coach, and if he can't find a way to make Waters move the chains, then Sams has to play.

And yet, they were completely dominated tonight. Go figure. Pretty sure that wasn't Waters fault.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:54:24 AM
I think I've seen every one of Sams gametime throws, and no, he could not have thrown some of the lasers that Waters heaved tonight. He is a better runner, no doubt, but thats not the whole story. Snyder is just going to have to decide what's the better solution to paper over this shitty line.

he would have made the throws necessary to win.  you play to win the game.

I hope you're right and Sams is the solution. I sure dont see the D or O-line (and with that, Hubert) getting much better.

I'll admit that part of my reservations is that it is just such a rough ridin' waste of an amazing arm to bench Waters just because we suck in so many other facets of the game.

The O-Line is all back from last year, when they were good enough for Hubert to make 1st team all Big 12, you rough ridin' dumbass. The problem is at head coach, and if he can't find a way to make Waters move the chains, then Sams has to play.

And yet, they were completely dominated tonight. Go figure. Pretty sure that wasn't Waters fault.

Maybe it was McDonald's fault? Or maybe Lockett's fault? Because those are the only 2 other variables here.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: eastcat on August 31, 2013, 12:55:11 AM
Waters had in the neighborhood of 2 seconds every snap to get rid of the ball or get sacked. He actually evaded and made clutch throws more often than he mumped up.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 01:07:40 AM
Waters had in the neighborhood of 2 seconds every snap to get rid of the ball or get sacked. He actually evaded and made clutch throws more often than he mumped up.

Well, that must be his fault, or the receivers. Couldn't be the line. They're all back from last year.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 01:09:47 AM
Waters had in the neighborhood of 2 seconds every snap to get rid of the ball or get sacked. He actually evaded and made clutch throws more often than he mumped up.

Well, that must be his fault, or the receivers. Couldn't be the line. They're all back from last year.

I know Waters is white, so you are clutching at reasons for him to remain the starter, but if you care at all about winning football games, you should probably just support Sams.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 01:17:52 AM
Waters had in the neighborhood of 2 seconds every snap to get rid of the ball or get sacked. He actually evaded and made clutch throws more often than he mumped up.

Well, that must be his fault, or the receivers. Couldn't be the line. They're all back from last year.

I know Waters is white, so you are clutching at reasons for him to remain the starter, but if you care at all about winning football games, you should probably just support Sams.

Annnnndddd let's make this about race too. JFC talk about melting down and jumping the shark. Again, I really hope Sams is the solution. He's not going to compensate for all our deficiencies, but maybe he'll serve better than Waters. I'm just going to miss that arm.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 01:23:18 AM
Waters had in the neighborhood of 2 seconds every snap to get rid of the ball or get sacked. He actually evaded and made clutch throws more often than he mumped up.

Well, that must be his fault, or the receivers. Couldn't be the line. They're all back from last year.

I know Waters is white, so you are clutching at reasons for him to remain the starter, but if you care at all about winning football games, you should probably just support Sams.

Annnnndddd let's make this about race too. JFC talk about melting down and jumping the shark. Again, I really hope Sams is the solution. He's not going to compensate for all our deficiencies, but maybe he'll serve better than Waters. I'm just going to miss that arm.

Sorry, but it's the only explanation that makes sense. We have an offensive line that Collin Klein played behind and we all thought were a bunch of future NFL studs, yet Jake Waters plays 1 game behind them and we decide they must suck ass because Jake was awesome in Juco or something. Yet Daniel Sams scores a touchdown on 2 carries, as usual. Please explain your rationale if it isn't just simple racism, because I am at a loss.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 01:33:21 AM
Waters had in the neighborhood of 2 seconds every snap to get rid of the ball or get sacked. He actually evaded and made clutch throws more often than he mumped up.

Well, that must be his fault, or the receivers. Couldn't be the line. They're all back from last year.

I know Waters is white, so you are clutching at reasons for him to remain the starter, but if you care at all about winning football games, you should probably just support Sams.

Annnnndddd let's make this about race too. JFC talk about melting down and jumping the shark. Again, I really hope Sams is the solution. He's not going to compensate for all our deficiencies, but maybe he'll serve better than Waters. I'm just going to miss that arm.

Sorry, but it's the only explanation that makes sense. We have an offensive line that Collin Klein played behind and we all thought were a bunch of future NFL studs, yet Jake Waters plays 1 game behind them and we decide they must suck ass because Jake was awesome in Juco or something. Yet Daniel Sams scores a touchdown on 2 carries, as usual. Please explain your rationale if it isn't just simple racism, because I am at a loss.

Seriously, I'd say you're drunk but your spelling is too good, so I'm just going to blame the pathetic racism charge as some sort of lame temper tantrum. If you can stomach rewatching this game, you'll find that our line got BLOWN UP time after time, you ass. This wasn't a matter of Waters taking too much time. It is frankly amazing that he completed as many passes as he did with our shitty line play tonight. Sleep it off man. Tomorrow is a new day.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 01:35:51 AM
Waters had in the neighborhood of 2 seconds every snap to get rid of the ball or get sacked. He actually evaded and made clutch throws more often than he mumped up.

Well, that must be his fault, or the receivers. Couldn't be the line. They're all back from last year.

I know Waters is white, so you are clutching at reasons for him to remain the starter, but if you care at all about winning football games, you should probably just support Sams.

Annnnndddd let's make this about race too. JFC talk about melting down and jumping the shark. Again, I really hope Sams is the solution. He's not going to compensate for all our deficiencies, but maybe he'll serve better than Waters. I'm just going to miss that arm.

Sorry, but it's the only explanation that makes sense. We have an offensive line that Collin Klein played behind and we all thought were a bunch of future NFL studs, yet Jake Waters plays 1 game behind them and we decide they must suck ass because Jake was awesome in Juco or something. Yet Daniel Sams scores a touchdown on 2 carries, as usual. Please explain your rationale if it isn't just simple racism, because I am at a loss.

Seriously, I'd say you're drunk but your spelling is too good, so I'm just going to blame the pathetic racism charge as some sort of lame temper tantrum. If you can stomach rewatching this game, you'll find that our line got BLOWN UP time after time, you ass. This wasn't a matter of Waters taking too much time. It is frankly amazing that he completed as many passes as he did with our shitty line play tonight. Sleep it off man. Tomorrow is a new day.

I am drunk beyond belief, yet I saw Sams score a touchdown on his first play as expected after our shitty performance tonight. The o-line is not, nor were they ever good enough for Waters to shine as starting QB. Hubert needs a scrambling QB or at the very least a FB to be effective as well.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 01:42:17 AM
Waters is a very good QB. He's just not our QB. Hell, Dunn was a very good QB. Waters could have signed with Texas and taken them to a Big 12 championship and BCS victory this year. We just don't have the surrounding talent he needs to succeed and we never will. We need a QB who can make plays with his arms and legs and all historic evidence says that QB is Sams. I really hope I don't look Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) tomorrow and if I do, I will apologize, but I'm pretty sure I'm right right now.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: GoodForAnother on August 31, 2013, 01:53:05 AM
My list of concerns:

Offensive line. I'll have to go back and look, but I remember several instances where we were beat on a single block that blew up otherwise well executed plays.

Defense. Inability to step up in crucial situations. NDSU was something like 11-18 on third down. We miss a lot of guys, but honestly about a dozen plays I thought "Arthur would've made that tackle". So yeah, stars matter, even if you only have a few high star guys.

Playmaker at RB. Hubert isn't awful, but clearly he needs to be the secondary guy. With an offense led by waters and no dominant offensive line he may not get 500 yards this year.

Very early returns are showing I could be wrong on not thinking this is Ell vs Dunn 2.



really the only post worth reading in here
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ksupamplemousse on August 31, 2013, 01:56:56 AM
Don't make this about Sams/Waters. Can we be more sophisticated as fans? QB play was plenty good to win.

and then the thread becomes all about Sams vs Waters...cool  :barf:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 01:58:58 AM
Quote from: Bill rough ridin' Snyder
Daniel, I mean, that's poor coaching on our part that Daniel, I mean, we put him in one play and he's in the endzone, uh, so, you know that, uh, that falls back on us, not utilizing him more.
. . .
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 02:09:14 AM
Well I guess even Snyder thinks playing Waters so much was stupid, guys.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Pett on August 31, 2013, 02:16:50 AM
My list of concerns:

Offensive line. I'll have to go back and look, but I remember several instances where we were beat on a single block that blew up otherwise well executed plays.

Defense. Inability to step up in crucial situations. NDSU was something like 11-18 on third down. We miss a lot of guys, but honestly about a dozen plays I thought "Arthur would've made that tackle". So yeah, stars matter, even if you only have a few high star guys.

Playmaker at RB. Hubert isn't awful, but clearly he needs to be the secondary guy. With an offense led by waters and no dominant offensive line he may not get 500 yards this year.

Very early returns are showing I could be wrong on not thinking this is Ell vs Dunn 2.



Major concern: NDSU's 6'2" second string RB out running our safety (Barnett)
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MakeItRain on August 31, 2013, 02:21:39 AM
Just seems strange to fault Waters for not being a better runner when he wouldn't have had to be if so many other aspects of our game tonight weren't terrible.

The playcalling at 21-7 required him to be a better runner.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MakeItRain on August 31, 2013, 02:31:13 AM
I think I've seen every one of Sams gametime throws, and no, he could not have thrown some of the lasers that Waters heaved tonight. He is a better runner, no doubt, but thats not the whole story. Snyder is just going to have to decide what's the better solution to paper over this shitty line.

Waters appeared to get tired or something because his accuracy got noticeably worse as the game progressed. Even on completed passes the receivers were in no position to get any yards after catch because they were diving at underthrown balls. I also don't know this for sure but he seemed to get locked of WRs running outs or flag routes. There were wide outs open up the seams all night and he never found them.

I'm going to keep posting this until _FAN or someone else who rewatches this game tells me I'm right or wrong.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: GoodForAnother on August 31, 2013, 02:44:12 AM
Big concern: NDSU's 6'2" second string RB out running our safety (Barnett)

it's not just the front 7 that sucks, the secondary is pretty bad too.  really the whole defense is pretty bad, just overall.  I think, with good coaching, they might eventually be only sort of bad.  the offense probably has the potential to be good.  if bill wants to use waters go for it.  I don't care.  but if you want to roll with waters then call the right plays for him.

The playcalling at 21-7 required him to be a better runner.

bill played a huge factor with some horrific playcalling.  troubling as the only other time I can really remember questioning bill's overall playcalling for a game was 04-05.  normally he makes significantly more good calls than bad during the course of a game but tonight that was reversed, which is rare, and troubling.  bill is supposed to be good at calling plays for the players he has, and he didn't do that tonight.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Holdin Manutz on August 31, 2013, 02:53:51 AM
It was pretty obvious at halftime that jake could throw the ball, but ran into the defense everytime he took off. Snyder needs a quarterback that can break one whenever called upon and jake is not that guy. Sams would have won the game no question.  K-State doesn't win by passing.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: DOD Take 2 on August 31, 2013, 03:02:02 AM
My list of concerns:

Offensive line. I'll have to go back and look, but I remember several instances where we were beat on a single block that blew up otherwise well executed plays.

Defense. Inability to step up in crucial situations. NDSU was something like 11-18 on third down. We miss a lot of guys, but honestly about a dozen plays I thought "Arthur would've made that tackle". So yeah, stars matter, even if you only have a few high star guys.

Playmaker at RB. Hubert isn't awful, but clearly he needs to be the secondary guy. With an offense led by waters and no dominant offensive line he may not get 500 yards this year.

Very early returns are showing I could be wrong on not thinking this is Ell vs Dunn 2.

It looked to me like right guard play specifically was poor. A few missed blocks that ruined plays.

I also don't understand our defensive play calling. We give up tons of passes over the middle, and we do nothing different to stop it. We continue to run a cover 2 with 7 yard cushion on the wideouts. That slant becomes automatic in man cover 2 unless you bring the corners up to chuck the receiver and force the QB to throw into a tighter window.

We are asking Hubert to do things he can't do. He's not an explosive back, and with Waters at QB we are asking him to run from spread formations. He doesn't have the speed to do that, and Waters has no running threat to force the defense to respect him and open lanes for Hubert. It isn't a good sign that Rose or Robinson didn't get a chance. They must be fairly far behind Hubert, and Hubert is an above average back at best. Snyder either has to move to an air attack offense with Waters, or change QBs. He can't make Waters a runner.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Stevesie60 on August 31, 2013, 03:05:12 AM
I just feel bad that we convinced Waters to come here when he could have gone to Texas or Penn State and actually fit into a good system for him.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: GoodForAnother on August 31, 2013, 03:17:18 AM
another reason we lost was because when I was walking into the stadium this lady holding a huge sign started yelling at me about how I need to accept jesus into my life, and that he was the only way and stuff, and I blew her off and didn't like, even talk to jesus or give him a shot or anything, and then jesus made us lose, and it's my fault, my bad, and I won't do it again
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: wabash909 on August 31, 2013, 07:35:09 AM
Reasons we lost:

2. D-Line/LB


This.  The crux of the problem is not the offense.

We have terrible D-Tackles and linebackers.. And are slow and unathletic across the board on defense.

We lost this game after pinning them deep on the three yard line with the punt, had all the momentum in the game, and proceded to let them break off a 70 yard run.

In the game winning drive, a FBS running back literally ran the ball right through the interior of the D-Line the extent of an 8 minute drive and we couldn't do a effing thing about it.

It's completely unacceptable that we're goddamn Conference Champions and yet again completely unable to capitalize on this success by addressing key positions of need on defense in this past recruiting class.  This identical scenario played out post 2003 and it's likely to yield the same result.

This is the problem and it has nothing to do with the goddamn QB play.

Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: HELLHAMMER on August 31, 2013, 08:17:09 AM
another reason we lost was because when I was walking into the stadium this lady holding a huge sign started yelling at me about how I need to accept jesus into my life, and that he was the only way and stuff, and I blew her off and didn't like, even talk to jesus or give him a shot or anything, and then jesus made us lose, and it's my fault, my bad, and I won't do it again

You did the right thing.  It's not your fault that the team turned into dog crap.  I blame religion.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 09:00:55 AM
The defense and offensive line aren't changing but a QB who can run can make it not so obvious that they suck.  But by all means keep discussing how the defense and offensive line lost the game. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Mr Bread on August 31, 2013, 09:45:52 AM
I just feel bad that we convinced Waters to come here when he could have gone to Texas or Penn State and actually fit into a good system for him.

Really wonder what they told him they were going to run.  If they were upfront about all the running then he deserves what he got for not being honest with himself that he can't do it or being a dumbass thinking he could.  He needs a Chase Daniel offense.       
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: chum1 on August 31, 2013, 10:22:02 AM
I guess the bottom line for me is that the people who think Sams would have made much of a difference necessarily fail to acknowledge that the rest of the team played like dogshit.  That's incomprehensible to me.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: eastcat on August 31, 2013, 10:25:22 AM
We wouldn't have scored 21 points with Sams. The only time we moved the ball more than 4 yards was with Waters passing.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: PIPE on August 31, 2013, 10:32:33 AM
Kim Carnes, if you don't shut up I am going to punch you in your nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My take:

Whoever thinks Sams can throw the rock like Waters is a tard. And I am not talking about a beautiful spiral, I am talking about reading plays and actually hitting the receiver in the hands.  Waters' passing last night blows Klein's out of the water. Obviously, Waters is not much of a runner.  So what does everyone want? Sams may have been like 6-22 w/ 82 yards passing, but maybe 150 yards rushing.  Is that what you want?  Maybe, that would have kept our shitty defense off the field longer, but maybe we would of had a lot more 3 and outs, which guess what, puts your defense out there more and we lose by 20 instead of 3.

Our line was godawful....not disputable. Even when Waters dropped back to pass, most of the time he had time to blink and he was in scramble mode.  Lucas got beat. Rooker got beat.  Interior line got blown up. No question this was my biggest negative from the game.

Our d line and LB's are godawful.....not disputable.  Are you telling me that we don't have one single LB on our roster that is faster than Walker, Slaughter, and Truman?  If so, our recruiting continues on it's normal trend, which has always been shitty......I agree A. Brown would have steamrolled a lot of the plays that Walker was chasing.  Man, he is sssslllllloooooooowwwww! Our front four will rush the same way every play and it always formed a nice pocked for their QB to sit there and drink coffee and take a crap and then still make a pass.  I can remember just a few blitzes in the 2nd half, which falls on coaching......next

Our coaching was shitty.......remember when we had it 4th and 3 and went for it and Waters did a draw and got one yard?  I remember b4 that play telling my son they should be Sams in and just toss sweep it and have him sprint to the marker...too fast not to get it....Remember when, for pretty much the whole game they had a 3rd and long, and we just rushed 4 players, and he had all day to throw?  T. Newman could not have covered his guy for that long.  I kept saying to myself, "bring the heat and get to this guy, cause you sure as hell are not w/ just four guys"  They never did in the 2nd half.....unbelievable!!!!  What was NDSU doing? They were blitzing the crap out of our shitty OL and our QB and no time to itch his butt!!!!  I also loved the call with Hubert in the Wildcat dancing around...that was all  :lol:

2nd, and the one time I will agree w this Kim Carnes dude, is that we need speed in the backfield behind whoever plays QB....Hubert has no speed at all.  I think him and Walker have been training together at dunkin and donuts....

Hell Zimmerman had a shitty game too, took bad angles, missed tackles.......This is one game but man there are ALOT of glaring issues to take notice of.  I would love to see some gifs of our OL protection though, that was a riot.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kitten_mittons on August 31, 2013, 10:44:09 AM
I'm curious why everyone on team waters thinks sams sucks at passing. Is it his 75% completion percentage?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 10:50:55 AM
I'm curious why everyone on team waters thinks sams sucks at passing. Is it his 75% completion percentage?

racism
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 11:45:23 AM
Sams may have been like 6-22 w/ 82 yards passing, but maybe 150 yards rushing.  Is that what you want?  Maybe, that would have kept our shitty defense off the field longer, but maybe we would of had a lot more 3 and outs, which guess what, puts your defense out there more and we lose by 20 instead of 3.

fantastic use of made up stats and hypothetical post game analysis to back up your argument here. what a rough ridin' dumbass.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 11:48:00 AM
I guess the bottom line for me is that the people who think Sams would have made much of a difference necessarily fail to acknowledge that the rest of the team played like dogshit.  That's incomprehensible to me.

agree
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Pett on August 31, 2013, 11:51:18 AM
I would love to see some gifs of our OL protection though, that was a riot.
This still shocks me. Seems like NDSU took Baylor's defensive game plan vs. us last season and blitzed constantly
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 12:00:27 PM
Reasons we lost:

2. D-Line/LB


This.  The crux of the problem is not the offense.

We have terrible D-Tackles and linebackers.. And are slow and unathletic across the board on defense.

We lost this game after pinning them deep on the three yard line with the punt, had all the momentum in the game, and proceded to let them break off a 70 yard run.

In the game winning drive, a FBS running back literally ran the ball right through the interior of the D-Line the extent of an 8 minute drive and we couldn't do a effing thing about it.

It's completely unacceptable that we're goddamn Conference Champions and yet again completely unable to capitalize on this success by addressing key positions of need on defense in this past recruiting class.  This identical scenario played out post 2003 and it's likely to yield the same result.

This is the problem and it has nothing to do with the goddamn QB play.

This.

If NDSU were as good as Fresno State was back in 2004 last night would have been a rout.

The offense will get fixed. I don't think the defense can be salvaged with the players we have.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:08:41 PM
We wouldn't have scored 21 points with Sams. The only time we moved the ball more than 4 yards was with Waters passing.

Well, there was that time that Sams had his 20 yard TD run.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 12:16:40 PM
I have a vision of them both being on the field at the same time. It is glorious. And it's not coming out before conference play starts. I think it will happen.

But still...the defense.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:17:36 PM
As i've said before, it absolutely blows my mind that Hubert and Rose are 1 and 2 at running back on the depth chart.  That is completely unacceptable from a recruiting perspective.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 12:18:55 PM
I thing the obvious solution is to start Sams next game and see what happens. If he can chew up more yardage and convert more third downs with his speed, despite our shitty line play, then he's the answer. My preference (and i think Snyders) was to use him as a red zone QB, but if we don't have a running game with Hubert and Waters, were going to have to sacrifice some passing ability for more mobility.

Again though, the whole premise of this thread is that QB play is about 10 on the list of things that lost this game. Our defense rough ridin' sucks. Period. Sams might provide marginally more offense, but our crap D is going to make it very hard to win 6 games this year.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Lucas Scoopsalot on August 31, 2013, 12:20:47 PM
The whole rough ridin' team sucks except for our wide receivers.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:22:27 PM
The whole rough ridin' team sucks except for our wide receivers.

Backup QB looked pretty good, too.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 31, 2013, 12:24:59 PM
The whole rough ridin' team sucks except for our wide receivers.

JFC. Waters does not suck. He may not give us what we need without decent line play and RB, but he is a tremendous passer. Sams probably doesn't suck either.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: CHONGS on August 31, 2013, 12:29:10 PM
Waters may not suck, but nothing I saw hinted that he was a tremendous passer. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
Waters may not suck, but nothing I saw hinted that he was a tremendous passer.

yeah, he looked decent. doesn't seem to be a real quick thinker.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:31:17 PM
Waters may not suck, but nothing I saw hinted that he was a tremendous passer.

+1
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 12:31:26 PM
I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 12:32:04 PM
I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

I thought he would go downfield more.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 12:32:32 PM
I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ChiComCat on August 31, 2013, 12:35:18 PM
On the QB draw plays, Waters looked like he was about to pass from about the time the ball was snapped until it hit his hands.  Then he just jumped up and down for 2 seconds (what the eff was that) and then ran once the defense reacted.  What a joke
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 12:36:30 PM
he's good at kind of curling into a ball before getting hit to guard his soft underbelly too
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 12:38:17 PM
I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 12:39:55 PM
I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.

I have no idea who paul watson is but chad may was not a "better runner than I think". he was equally as poor a runner as all other exclusively pocket passing slow QBs.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 12:42:42 PM
I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.

I have no idea who paul watson is but chad may was not a "better runner than I think". he was equally as poor a runner as all other exclusively pocket passing slow QBs.

Paul Watson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF03E89fRsw

Watch the whole thing. The end is the best part.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:45:41 PM
he seemed to throw alot of passes low, maybe some of them were intentional. 
he missed an easy outlet pass to Hubert.
he doesn't have a real live arm.
he threw 2 picks.
is he any better of a thrower than a guy like seth doege?  i'm not so sure, and i wouldn't want seth doege as my starting QB.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: 'taterblast on August 31, 2013, 12:54:43 PM
all along i was scared that waters would start and we would call plays as if klein were still back there. and that's what happened. i think waters could be a pretty good qb in a spread system. if they're going to run the same ol stuff (which is fine), rough ridin' play sams.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 12:55:55 PM
all along i was scared that waters would start and we would call plays as if klein were still back there. and that's what happened. i think waters could be a pretty good qb in a spread system. if they're going to run the same ol stuff (which is fine), rough ridin' play sams.

yes. this is exactly what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 12:58:49 PM
all along i was scared that waters would start and we would call plays as if klein were still back there. and that's what happened. i think waters could be a pretty good qb in a spread system. if they're going to run the same ol stuff (which is fine), rough ridin' play sams.

we can't run the spread
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: yoman on August 31, 2013, 01:06:14 PM
If we are ignoring e thread title and are talking about QB play, Waters under threw about everyone in the second, besides the TLBL TD. If we are sticking to the title, holy rough ridin' crap our dline is rough ridin' awful. Like should be playing at Pitt State awful
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ChiComCat on August 31, 2013, 01:07:25 PM
Mueller tho.  Really the star turd
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 01:08:59 PM
The D-Line looked like they could be a pretty good FCS unit until Britz got hurt, imo.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: yoman on August 31, 2013, 01:09:48 PM
Mueller tho.  Really the star turd

Credit where credit is due. Mueller was the only one who looked like he should be on a d-1 roster. If he was a change of pace sub guy, I would love him.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 01:11:50 PM
Mueller tho.  Really the star turd

Credit where credit is due. Mueller was the only one who looked like he should be on a d-1 roster. If he was a change of pace sub guy, I would love him.

yes, which is what he was last year and now he is our best d-lineman.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 01:14:07 PM
I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.

I have no idea who paul watson is but chad may was not a "better runner than I think". he was equally as poor a runner as all other exclusively pocket passing slow QBs.

Ever heard of Carl Straw? I'm seriously questioning your KSU fan status. Fatty would be disappointed.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: DOD Take 2 on August 31, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
 :shocked:
Mueller tho.  Really the star turd

Credit where credit is due. Mueller was the only one who looked like he should be on a d-1 roster. If he was a change of pace sub guy, I would love him.

yes, which is what he was last year and now he is our best d-lineman.

I think our d-line and linebackers suck, but about 100 of the 215 that NDSU ran for came on 2 plays. The run at the end of half and the 70 yard run from the 3. Against FCS, 115 is too much to give up anyway. I think they really sucked in the passing game, no pressure and no ability to make a play in space.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: steve dave on August 31, 2013, 01:39:26 PM

I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.

I have no idea who paul watson is but chad may was not a "better runner than I think". he was equally as poor a runner as all other exclusively pocket passing slow QBs.

Ever heard of Carl Straw? I'm seriously questioning your KSU fan status. Fatty would be disappointed.

No. And don't try to tell me what fatty would think you dumbass.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 01:41:39 PM

I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.

I have no idea who paul watson is but chad may was not a "better runner than I think". he was equally as poor a runner as all other exclusively pocket passing slow QBs.

Ever heard of Carl Straw? I'm seriously questioning your KSU fan status. Fatty would be disappointed.

No. And don't try to tell me what fatty would think you dumbass.

fatty is sad.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on August 31, 2013, 01:44:36 PM
watson was an ok runner. prob about the same as waters. may, much worse.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: eastcat on August 31, 2013, 02:02:02 PM
he seemed to throw alot of passes low, maybe some of them were intentional. 
he missed an easy outlet pass to Hubert.
he doesn't have a real live arm.
he threw 2 picks.
is he any better of a thrower than a guy like seth doege?  i'm not so sure, and i wouldn't want seth doege as my starting QB.

He averaged 9.7 yards an attempt behind an offensive line that couldn't stop a 4 man rush to save their life. If you think waters sucked last night you should pick another sport to follow because you clearly know nothing about this one.

Coaching and O-Line lost the game.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 02:07:24 PM
he seemed to throw alot of passes low, maybe some of them were intentional. 
he missed an easy outlet pass to Hubert.
he doesn't have a real live arm.
he threw 2 picks.
is he any better of a thrower than a guy like seth doege?  i'm not so sure, and i wouldn't want seth doege as my starting QB.

He averaged 9.7 yards an attempt behind an offensive line that couldn't stop a 4 man rush to save their life. If you think waters sucked last night you should pick another sport to follow because you clearly know nothing about this one.

Coaching and O-Line lost the game.

ok, wise guy, how do you intend to win games with waters if our o-line sucks? 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 02:22:53 PM
he seemed to throw alot of passes low, maybe some of them were intentional. 
he missed an easy outlet pass to Hubert.
he doesn't have a real live arm.
he threw 2 picks.
is he any better of a thrower than a guy like seth doege?  i'm not so sure, and i wouldn't want seth doege as my starting QB.

He averaged 9.7 yards an attempt behind an offensive line that couldn't stop a 4 man rush to save their life. If you think waters sucked last night you should pick another sport to follow because you clearly know nothing about this one.

Coaching and O-Line lost the game.

We couldn't convert a 3rd down to save our life, though. Maybe it was just nerves. I don't know. I do know that Waters just wasn't good enough last night.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: DOD Take 2 on August 31, 2013, 02:32:19 PM
he seemed to throw alot of passes low, maybe some of them were intentional. 
he missed an easy outlet pass to Hubert.
he doesn't have a real live arm.
he threw 2 picks.
is he any better of a thrower than a guy like seth doege?  i'm not so sure, and i wouldn't want seth doege as my starting QB.

He averaged 9.7 yards an attempt behind an offensive line that couldn't stop a 4 man rush to save their life. If you think waters sucked last night you should pick another sport to follow because you clearly know nothing about this one.

Coaching and O-Line lost the game.

ok, wise guy, how do you intend to win games with waters if our o-line sucks?

I thought pass protection against 4 & 5 man rushes was acceptable last night.   :dunno:
It looked like Waters left the pocket before he had to sometimes. Not great pocket presence.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: felix rex on August 31, 2013, 03:02:19 PM
Yards per attempt tho :ridinghorse:  :Jeffy: :001_wink:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Skipper44 on August 31, 2013, 03:12:47 PM
 I  believe  the  team converted  only 1 (one)  third down  with  Waters :barf:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MakeItRain on August 31, 2013, 03:13:33 PM

I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.

I have no idea who paul watson is but chad may was not a "better runner than I think". he was equally as poor a runner as all other exclusively pocket passing slow QBs.

Ever heard of Carl Straw? I'm seriously questioning your KSU fan status. Fatty would be disappointed.

No. And don't try to tell me what fatty would think you dumbass.

fatty is sad.

Who the eff are you?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MakeItRain on August 31, 2013, 03:16:12 PM
He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

all along i was scared that waters would start and we would call plays as if klein were still back there. and that's what happened. i think waters could be a pretty good qb in a spread system. if they're going to run the same ol stuff (which is fine), rough ridin' play sams.

yes. this is exactly what I'm saying.

 :clap:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Ira Hayes on August 31, 2013, 04:38:23 PM

I thought Waters was exactly what was advertised.

well, a lot of people were advertising him as "a better runner than you think" which was not as advertised because he was worse than I thought. though I guess that's pretty subjective. He'd be great under Mike Leach. He's not so great under LHC Bill Snyder.

Well we're used to Collin, Freeman, Ell, and Bishop. He's not going to break a tackle, but he's not extremely slow. He is a Chad May/Paul Watson QB.

I have no idea who paul watson is but chad may was not a "better runner than I think". he was equally as poor a runner as all other exclusively pocket passing slow QBs.

Ever heard of Carl Straw? I'm seriously questioning your KSU fan status. Fatty would be disappointed.

No. And don't try to tell me what fatty would think you dumbass.

fatty is sad.

Who the eff are you?

I am just another somebody that you've never heard of.   :Carl:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: PowercatPat on August 31, 2013, 04:59:21 PM
I wish we could put Waters' arm on Sam's body.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rams on August 31, 2013, 05:05:01 PM
I wish we could put Waters' arm on Sam's body.
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: DOD Take 2 on August 31, 2013, 05:47:33 PM
Anyone else watch OSU have little to no success with the awesome passer, only to put in the dynamic QB and start driving the ball on MSU? Now in control of the game and going to win. Snyder might want to take notice of how the running QB opened up the offense. And even though Walsh can't throw as well as Chelf, the defense is respecting the run and the passing game has improved.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ednksu on August 31, 2013, 06:14:56 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Lucas Scoopsalot on August 31, 2013, 06:43:23 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ednksu on August 31, 2013, 07:01:25 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MakeItRain on August 31, 2013, 07:01:56 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?

:sdeek: WOAH!

If this post came from almost anyone other than you I would have taken it as facetious.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MakeItRain on August 31, 2013, 07:04:02 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.

My god, he would get killed as a running back. Tremaine Thompson is speedy and elusive, do you want to try him out at running back too?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kim carnes on August 31, 2013, 07:04:30 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.

wtf
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on August 31, 2013, 07:05:55 PM
:dnr: this thread but the oline was not good.. up the middle on d not good and hubert is a terrible back
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ednksu on August 31, 2013, 07:09:48 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.

My god, he would get killed as a running back. Tremaine Thompson is speedy and elusive, do you want to try him out at running back too?
Well the inherent problem with your attack is that TT is a good option at WR and doesn't have the skill set that you tried to shoe horn my suggestion into.  Also the fallacy is that you believe I'd put Sams into the mold of what we've been trying to do with Hubert at RB, which I've already suggested we don't do.  But I guess you believe Sams best spot now is warming the bench holding a clipboard?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 31, 2013, 07:11:57 PM
Its ok to have 2 capable players at the same position.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 07:12:41 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.

My god, he would get killed as a running back. Tremaine Thompson is speedy and elusive, do you want to try him out at running back too?
Well the inherent problem with your attack is that TT is a good option at WR and doesn't have the skill set that you tried to shoe horn my suggestion into.  Also the fallacy is that you believe I'd put Sams into the mold of what we've been trying to do with Hubert at RB, which I've already suggested we don't do.  But I guess you believe Sams best spot now is warming the bench holding a clipboard?

I think most rational people think Sams' best spot right now is on the field taking snaps.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ednksu on August 31, 2013, 07:12:51 PM
Its ok to have 2 capable players at the same position.
who said otherwise?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MakeItRain on August 31, 2013, 07:15:36 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.

My god, he would get killed as a running back. Tremaine Thompson is speedy and elusive, do you want to try him out at running back too?
Well the inherent problem with your attack is that TT is a good option at WR and doesn't have the skill set that you tried to shoe horn my suggestion into.  Also the fallacy is that you believe I'd put Sams into the mold of what we've been trying to do with Hubert at RB, which I've already suggested we don't do.  But I guess you believe Sams best spot now is warming the bench holding a clipboard?

Running as a QB is significantly different than running as a RB. I'm guessing you'd rather have him as a slot back running jet sweeps and catching screens. I also think this isn't a good idea. He's a quarterback.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ednksu on August 31, 2013, 07:15:39 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.

My god, he would get killed as a running back. Tremaine Thompson is speedy and elusive, do you want to try him out at running back too?
Well the inherent problem with your attack is that TT is a good option at WR and doesn't have the skill set that you tried to shoe horn my suggestion into.  Also the fallacy is that you believe I'd put Sams into the mold of what we've been trying to do with Hubert at RB, which I've already suggested we don't do.  But I guess you believe Sams best spot now is warming the bench holding a clipboard?

I think most rational people think Sams' best spot right now is on the field taking snaps.
So are you happy with our run game?

Would you agree with me that we need to use more quick passing to our best player, who I believe to be Lockett?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 31, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
If Water is the superior QB why do we need to keep Sams behind him.  Why not a position change for him to change the dynamic of the composition of players on the field. Has Hubert shown he is a capable of a running back as Sams is?
He just doesn't seem like the running back type to me
I would certainly agree to that.  I would also say that he does look like more of a QB than a RB.  But I would say he is too dynamic to be off the field and he seems more valuable running the ball right now than your number 1 RB because of his sheer speed and elusiveness.

My god, he would get killed as a running back. Tremaine Thompson is speedy and elusive, do you want to try him out at running back too?
Well the inherent problem with your attack is that TT is a good option at WR and doesn't have the skill set that you tried to shoe horn my suggestion into.  Also the fallacy is that you believe I'd put Sams into the mold of what we've been trying to do with Hubert at RB, which I've already suggested we don't do.  But I guess you believe Sams best spot now is warming the bench holding a clipboard?

I think most rational people think Sams' best spot right now is on the field taking snaps.
So are you happy with our run game?

Would you agree with me that we need to use more quick passing to our best player, who I believe to be Lockett?

I think we need to run power sets and run a lot of read option. This would open holes for Hubert because the defense would be keying on Sams, and whenever Sams makes the right read and keeps, it should be a big play. We should go vertical in the passing game because over the top will be wide open because there will be 8 in the box.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: PowercatPat on August 31, 2013, 08:03:01 PM
I wish we could put Waters' arm on Sam's body.
:facepalm:

Would you like to elaborate?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Trim on September 02, 2013, 10:08:45 PM
I just feel bad that we convinced Waters to come here when he could have gone to Texas or Penn State and actually fit into a good system for him.

I think both K-State and Waters win their opening games if he'd gone elsewhere.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Skipper44 on September 03, 2013, 10:27:34 AM

I think we need to run power sets and run a lot of read option. This would open holes for Hubert because the defense would be keying on Sams, and whenever Sams makes the right read and keeps, it should be a big play. We should go vertical in the passing game because over the top will be wide open because there will be 8 in the box.
Some version of this is the offense that that Bishop, Beasley, Ell and CK ran to bring us the DoD and I am perplexed why this coaching staff has moved away from it. 

I realize some may prefer a prostyle QB (although I can't imagine why cat fans that witnessed the above QBs would) but a real dual threat QB is what the personnel on this team requires to be succesfull.   
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: GCJayhawker on September 03, 2013, 10:35:45 AM
You probably should adjust your system to your QB to some level, not just try to fit a QB into the pre existing system. Why recruit Waters if you just want to make him a option running QB? The guy can throw the ball very well and the offense should work with that.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: lopakman on September 03, 2013, 10:41:16 AM
You probably should adjust your system to your QB to some level, not just try to fit a QB into the pre existing system. Why recruit Waters if you just want to make him a option running QB? The guy can throw the ball very well and the offense should work with that.

GC,

Please answer the following questions and if any of the answers are no, then shut the eff up.

1.  Have you won two big 12 titles?
2.  Do you have rough ridin' castle named after you and your family?
3.  Do you have your own statue?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 03, 2013, 11:02:22 AM
You probably should adjust your system to your QB to some level, not just try to fit a QB into the pre existing system. Why recruit Waters if you just want to make him a option running QB? The guy can throw the ball very well and the offense should work with that.

Well, we have 10 other players who were very good with the old system and a QB on the bench who is more than capable of running it. The pass blocking Friday night was awful. Hubert was awful. This new system built around Waters just isn't working for the rest of the personnel.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: GCJayhawker on September 03, 2013, 11:09:18 AM
You probably should adjust your system to your QB to some level, not just try to fit a QB into the pre existing system. Why recruit Waters if you just want to make him a option running QB? The guy can throw the ball very well and the offense should work with that.

Well, we have 10 other players who were very good with the old system and a QB on the bench who is more than capable of running it. The pass blocking Friday night was awful. Hubert was awful. This new system built around Waters just isn't working for the rest of the personnel.

I definitely think the QB was good enough to win the game. The fact is the defense needed ot make a stand on that last NDSU drive and didn't. That's why the Cats lost
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: GCJayhawker on September 03, 2013, 11:09:52 AM
You probably should adjust your system to your QB to some level, not just try to fit a QB into the pre existing system. Why recruit Waters if you just want to make him a option running QB? The guy can throw the ball very well and the offense should work with that.

GC,

Please answer the following questions and if any of the answers are no, then shut the eff up.

1.  Have you won two big 12 titles?
2.  Do you have rough ridin' castle named after you and your family?
3.  Do you have your own statue?

I guess all these threads shouldn't exist because last time I checked no one posting here was named LHC Bill Snyder.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: lopakman on September 03, 2013, 11:13:34 AM
You probably should adjust your system to your QB to some level, not just try to fit a QB into the pre existing system. Why recruit Waters if you just want to make him a option running QB? The guy can throw the ball very well and the offense should work with that.

GC,

Please answer the following questions and if any of the answers are no, then shut the eff up.

1.  Have you won two big 12 titles?
2.  Do you have rough ridin' castle named after you and your family?
3.  Do you have your own statue?

I guess all these threads shouldn't exist because last time I checked no one posting here was named LHC Bill Snyder.

I wish you didn't exist.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 03, 2013, 11:14:26 AM
You probably should adjust your system to your QB to some level, not just try to fit a QB into the pre existing system. Why recruit Waters if you just want to make him a option running QB? The guy can throw the ball very well and the offense should work with that.

Well, we have 10 other players who were very good with the old system and a QB on the bench who is more than capable of running it. The pass blocking Friday night was awful. Hubert was awful. This new system built around Waters just isn't working for the rest of the personnel.

I definitely think the QB was good enough to win the game. The fact is the defense needed ot make a stand on that last NDSU drive and didn't. That's why the Cats lost

The team took a 21-7 lead and let NDSU score 17 unanswered points. Offense and defense deserve equal blame for that disaster. The thing is, the defensive personnel is awful and will be no matter what is done. The offense should be very good and if they can't score on an FCS opponent, then something needs to change.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 03, 2013, 11:34:52 AM
The OL was atrocious, and we apparently don't have any RB's that can do anything unless they're given gaping holes to run through. 

Once again, it appears we have an offensive coaching staff who really don't know what they want their offense to be.

Plus IF we took our foot off the gas, I am going to ask why?   What in the hell does Snyder think he's hiding that no decent coaching staff, with any level of decent pre/historical scouting isn't going to already be fully aware of . . . we're a complete cluster f_ck when we try to put in any new wrinkles anyway, so most opposing teams should welcome the paralysis by analysis over-thinking train wreck we put together outside of our bread and butter.

Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: KanSt43 on September 03, 2013, 11:35:16 AM
I haven't read this thread, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive...

Waters played decent. Made some good throws and some poor ones. But guys, we're literally going to have ZERO running game if Sams isn't the QB. The last 2 years, Klein opened things up for Hubert/Pease. Teams HAD to respect him. With Waters, you don't really get that threat (I know he can run, but he isn't comfortable, as you can tell...) And Hubert isn't the type of back that's elite enough to get it done himself. The QB run game is ESSENTIAL for our overall running game. Otherwise, Waters is just gonna sit back there and sling it 35+ times a game. And I'm not saying Waters isn't a capable thrower with decent footwork and speed. But for this offense, I think Daniel would be more successful. Granted, the o-line played awful, but I feel like Sams elusiveness/speed/escape-ability would benefit the o-line's struggles tremendously.

My 2 cents...
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: CNS on September 03, 2013, 11:44:35 AM
I haven't read this thread, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive...

Waters played decent. Made some good throws and some poor ones. But guys, we're literally going to have ZERO running game if Sams isn't the QB. The last 2 years, Klein opened things up for Hubert/Pease. Teams HAD to respect him. With Waters, you don't really get that threat (I know he can run, but he isn't comfortable, as you can tell...) And Hubert isn't the type of back that's elite enough to get it done himself. The QB run game is ESSENTIAL for our overall running game. Otherwise, Waters is just gonna sit back there and sling it 35+ times a game. And I'm not saying Waters isn't a capable thrower with decent footwork and speed. But for this offense, I think Daniel would be more successful. Granted, the o-line played awful, but I feel like Sams elusiveness/speed/escape-ability would benefit the o-line's struggles tremendously.

My 2 cents...

Do you mean like in the sense that all of us with two functional legs can run? 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: KanSt43 on September 03, 2013, 11:47:29 AM
I haven't read this thread, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive...

Waters played decent. Made some good throws and some poor ones. But guys, we're literally going to have ZERO running game if Sams isn't the QB. The last 2 years, Klein opened things up for Hubert/Pease. Teams HAD to respect him. With Waters, you don't really get that threat (I know he can run, but he isn't comfortable, as you can tell...) And Hubert isn't the type of back that's elite enough to get it done himself. The QB run game is ESSENTIAL for our overall running game. Otherwise, Waters is just gonna sit back there and sling it 35+ times a game. And I'm not saying Waters isn't a capable thrower with decent footwork and speed. But for this offense, I think Daniel would be more successful. Granted, the o-line played awful, but I feel like Sams elusiveness/speed/escape-ability would benefit the o-line's struggles tremendously.

My 2 cents...

Do you mean like in the sense that all of us with two functional legs can run?

Nailed it.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Skipper44 on September 03, 2013, 12:03:43 PM
People need to remember this was a good, maybe great FCS defense but is still a FCS defense and possibly the least athletic defense we will face.  If Waters couldn't execute a QB draw against NDSU, who is he going to out run in the Big 12? 

Also, I love TLBL and TT but they are both undersized and TT does not have the kind of speed that makes Big 12 DBs give him a big cushion.  The decent to good Ds we will play in conference won't put more than 7 in the box and keep a safety deep that will take away the 2 good throws Waters had. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: one time gella on September 03, 2013, 12:54:21 PM
Last year during the Baylor game, it was brought to light that one of our O-linemen was changing his stance between running and passing plays.  Since we have basically the same O-line, did anyone notice if he was doing this again this year?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Emo EMAW on September 03, 2013, 05:35:06 PM
Has anyone mentioned that Britz got hurt?  Not only does the DL suck but my belly button is deeper (and I have an outie).
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Mr_BONES on September 03, 2013, 06:43:45 PM
Last year during the Baylor game, it was brought to light that one of our O-linemen was changing his stance between running and passing plays.  Since we have basically the same O-line, did anyone notice if he was doing this again this year?

Supposedly it was coached out of him.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: HeinBallz on September 03, 2013, 06:44:44 PM
I think I've isolated the problem between people in this thread.

 "Sam's would have won"
does not equal
"waters lost the game"

Yes, the defense sucks and oline/rb run game sucked balls. Waters was reasonably good and one of the only bright spots, but Sams could have won. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: michigancat on September 03, 2013, 08:47:28 PM
The QB play may have been good enough to win, but it was also bad enough to lose. Think about it.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 03, 2013, 08:49:45 PM
The QB play may have been good enough to win, but it was also bad enough to lose. Think about it.

That is ridiculous, michigancat. It was not good enough to win. It was almost good enough to win. That is why we lost.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rams on September 03, 2013, 09:02:24 PM
The QB play may have been good enough to win, but it was also bad enough to lose. Think about it.
actually the qb play and available personnel were good enough to win, but the play calling and substitution (or lack thereof) was bad enough to lose.  and it did.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: timhawk on September 03, 2013, 09:09:52 PM
The QB play may have been good enough to win, but it was also bad enough to lose. Think about it.

That is ridiculous, michigancat. It was not good enough to win. It was almost good enough to win. That is why we lost.

guys come on now....the QB did a fine job. he went 21-29 for 280 yards, averaged 9.7 yds per completion with 2 TD and 2 INT. the last INT was at the end so that one we can live with. who's to say Sams plays and maybe throws for 150 and rushes for 80 and they still lose? would you be saying Snyder shoulda played Waters more? you guys jumped out to a big lead by THROWING the ball. honestly the blame should be on the defense, not the QB. NDSU drove down the field their final possession an 18 play, 8:30 min long drive. your D simply couldnt stop them. look at the TD they scored....#44 for KSU got destroyed and #15 looked like he was scared to hit someone. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: michigancat on September 03, 2013, 09:31:40 PM
The QB play may have been good enough to win, but it was also bad enough to lose. Think about it.

That is ridiculous, michigancat. It was not good enough to win. It was almost good enough to win. That is why we lost.

guys come on now....the QB did a fine job. he went 21-29 for 280 yards, averaged 9.7 yds per completion with 2 TD and 2 INT. the last INT was at the end so that one we can live with.

BAD. ENOUGH. TO. LOSE.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: timhawk on September 03, 2013, 10:06:18 PM
The QB play may have been good enough to win, but it was also bad enough to lose. Think about it.

That is ridiculous, michigancat. It was not good enough to win. It was almost good enough to win. That is why we lost.

guys come on now....the QB did a fine job. he went 21-29 for 280 yards, averaged 9.7 yds per completion with 2 TD and 2 INT. the last INT was at the end so that one we can live with.

BAD. ENOUGH. TO. LOSE.

Hubert says hi
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: wiley on September 03, 2013, 10:14:48 PM
Im not sure dthomas or sproles couldve done much with the crap fest that was our oline.  However with sproles they at least wouldve had to respect his speed to the outside.  With hubert, not so much.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: timhawk on September 03, 2013, 10:15:48 PM
Im not sure dthomas or sproles couldve done much with the crap fest that was our oline.  However with sproles they at least wouldve had to respect his speed to the outside.  With hubert, not so much.

1st team big 12 tho
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on September 03, 2013, 10:34:07 PM
80% of it was play calling.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: KSUBrian on September 04, 2013, 01:34:51 AM
The QB play may have been good enough to win, but it was also bad enough to lose. Think about it.

That is ridiculous, michigancat. It was not good enough to win. It was almost good enough to win. That is why we lost.

guys come on now....the QB did a fine job. he went 21-29 for 280 yards, averaged 9.7 yds per completion with 2 TD and 2 INT. the last INT was at the end so that one we can live with. who's to say Sams plays and maybe throws for 150 and rushes for 80 and they still lose? would you be saying Snyder shoulda played Waters more? you guys jumped out to a big lead by THROWING the ball. honestly the blame should be on the defense, not the QB. NDSU drove down the field their final possession an 18 play, 8:30 min long drive. your D simply couldnt stop them. look at the TD they scored....#44 for KSU got destroyed and #15 looked like he was scared to hit someone.

No way anybody with any FBIQ lives with the int at the end.  That was not a hail mary.  They had 28 seconds to get into FG range to try to tie the score. So 50-55 yards on 2-3 plays in 28 seconds in CFB is a reasonable expectation.  Throwing an Int on the 1st attempt is unacceptable.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: KSUBrian on September 04, 2013, 01:44:02 AM
QB run game dilemma:  On the zone read, Waters always seems to hand-off to the RB, Sams always seems to keep the ball. If I can see this with very little game action, opposing D coordinators can too.  Until either can learn to make the right read or Sams becomes a threat in the passing game, it will be easyfor the D  to know what to key on for whichever QB is in the game.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ksupamplemousse on September 04, 2013, 02:09:58 AM
Guys, it was one game. Sometimes things just don't click in the first game for whatever reason. Let's see what happens against Loozyanna before we all look back at this thread and realize that we're idiots. I'm positive that Waters and Hubert will run better behind a more motivated line this weekend. Whether that's good enough to win some ball games in the Big XII should be apparent at the end of the non-con, if it isn't good enough then it's time to make a change. In the meantime I am sure Bill is going to get #Life some more snaps to make sure that he's ready to go if a change is needed.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: felix rex on September 04, 2013, 04:21:55 AM
The KU meltdown over Hubert/Sims has been a rare bright spot this week.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: CNS on September 04, 2013, 10:11:07 AM
Simply amazing how many ppl automatically assume Sams can't pass just because Waters can't run. 

Don't get this.  Like at all.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: 8manpick on September 04, 2013, 10:29:09 AM
Guys, it was one game. Sometimes things just don't click in the first game for whatever reason. Let's see what happens against Loozyanna before we all look back at this thread and realize that we're idiots. I'm positive that Waters and Hubert will run better behind a more motivated line this weekend. Whether that's good enough to win some ball games in the Big XII should be apparent at the end of the non-con, if it isn't good enough then it's time to make a change. In the meantime I am sure Bill is going to get #Life some more snaps to make sure that he's ready to go if a change is needed.

Take it to the optimism thread, loser
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on September 04, 2013, 10:32:02 AM
what if waters is like mike tyson.. hear me out.. just like iron mike was use to knocking fools out in nanoseconds and then when it came to a long bout wasn't always the best, what if that is the case with waters?

he has become accustomed to getting a huge lead, coasting and then letting his reserve come in.. can waters play a full game?  :Ughhh:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MadCat on September 04, 2013, 10:40:10 AM
what if waters is like mike tyson.. hear me out.. just like iron mike was use to knocking fools out in nanoseconds and then when it came to a long bout wasn't always the best, what if that is the case with waters?

he has become accustomed to getting a huge lead, coasting and then letting his reserve come in.. can waters play a full game?  :Ughhh:

Like if he played the two snaps that were given to Sams? :dunno:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 04, 2013, 11:18:31 AM
what if waters is like mike tyson.. hear me out.. just like iron mike was use to knocking fools out in nanoseconds and then when it came to a long bout wasn't always the best, what if that is the case with waters?

he has become accustomed to getting a huge lead, coasting and then letting his reserve come in.. can waters play a full game?  :Ughhh:

I think you are on to something here and the solution is simple. Waters should start every game and play until we either have a turnover, punt, or field goal. Let him stay in the game as long as he gets touchdowns, then as soon as he starts to wear down, let Sams finish the game.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: MadCat on September 04, 2013, 11:24:04 AM
what if waters is like mike tyson.. hear me out.. just like iron mike was use to knocking fools out in nanoseconds and then when it came to a long bout wasn't always the best, what if that is the case with waters?

he has become accustomed to getting a huge lead, coasting and then letting his reserve come in.. can waters play a full game?  :Ughhh:

I think you are on to something here and the solution is simple. Waters should start every game and play until we either have a turnover, punt, or field goal. Let him stay in the game as long as he gets touchdowns, then as soon as he starts to wear down, let Sams finish the game.
Would you switch back and forth if both continued to fail at getting touchdowns?  At which point do you bring in HSC?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ksupamplemousse on September 04, 2013, 11:37:17 AM
Guys, it was one game. Sometimes things just don't click in the first game for whatever reason. Let's see what happens against Loozyanna before we all look back at this thread and realize that we're idiots. I'm positive that Waters and Hubert will run better behind a more motivated line this weekend. Whether that's good enough to win some ball games in the Big XII should be apparent at the end of the non-con, if it isn't good enough then it's time to make a change. In the meantime I am sure Bill is going to get #Life some more snaps to make sure that he's ready to go if a change is needed.

Take it to the optimism thread, loser

I contemplated posting it there, loser.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Demo158 on September 04, 2013, 11:38:31 AM
Does anyone have footage of Sams' 17-yard td run?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: wiley on September 04, 2013, 11:44:38 AM
Im not sure dthomas or sproles couldve done much with the crap fest that was our oline.  However with sproles they at least wouldve had to respect his speed to the outside.  With hubert, not so much.

1st team big 12 tho

Yeah, last year, right?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 04, 2013, 11:50:05 AM
what if waters is like mike tyson.. hear me out.. just like iron mike was use to knocking fools out in nanoseconds and then when it came to a long bout wasn't always the best, what if that is the case with waters?

he has become accustomed to getting a huge lead, coasting and then letting his reserve come in.. can waters play a full game?  :Ughhh:

I think you are on to something here and the solution is simple. Waters should start every game and play until we either have a turnover, punt, or field goal. Let him stay in the game as long as he gets touchdowns, then as soon as he starts to wear down, let Sams finish the game.
Would you switch back and forth if both continued to fail at getting touchdowns?  At which point do you bring in HSC?

No. Waters is Mike Tyson. He is built for the early knockout. If you don't get it, you go to the guy who is built to grind it out on the ground and win close games.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Unruly on September 04, 2013, 11:52:02 AM
I mean really, the sole reason that we lost this game was because the mask didn't make a production quality video.

It has to be the only reason why.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kso_FAN on September 04, 2013, 12:06:23 PM
I rewatched the game in prep of this week's _FANalysis. While some of the Waters/Sams discussion has merit, the offensive line play and play calling were much bigger concerns, especially considering how NDSU played defense. NDSU was extremely aggressive; constantly stunting their defensive front, blitzing linebackers and safeties, and selling out to stop the run. They not only got our players (especially the offensive line) on their heels, they had our coaches scrambling as well. There is no good reason that we only had 2 big pass plays in this game.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kostakio on September 04, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
I rewatched the game in prep of this week's _FANalysis. While some of the Waters/Sams discussion has merit, the offensive line play and play calling were much bigger concerns, especially considering how NDSU played defense. NDSU was extremely aggressive; constantly stunting their defensive front, blitzing linebackers and safeties, and selling out to stop the run. They not only got our players (especially the offensive line) on their heels, they had our coaches scrambling as well. There is no good reason that we only had 2 big pass plays in this game.

The weird thing is this team should have been more equipped to deal with that type of defense then any we've had in a long time. 
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: ksupamplemousse on September 04, 2013, 12:22:58 PM
I rewatched the game in prep of this week's _FANalysis. While some of the Waters/Sams discussion has merit, the offensive line play and play calling were much bigger concerns, especially considering how NDSU played defense. NDSU was extremely aggressive; constantly stunting their defensive front, blitzing linebackers and safeties, and selling out to stop the run. They not only got our players (especially the offensive line) on their heels, they had our coaches scrambling as well. There is no good reason that we only had 2 big pass plays in this game.

Yep, Bill and co. got duped into thinking that they didn't have to respond to the other team's gameplan, and they would still win based on talent. It has worked out in the end every time that he has done this in the non-con, but he finally got caught with his pants down. I'm sure he felt like that even if NDSU scored on that last drive that we would have plenty of time to go and score, and then he'd be able to tell his team that they almost lost to an FCS team and it's time to get their crap together. Unfortunately NDSU killed the last nine minutes. That game could have been a blowout if they were calling plays like the game was against Texas. Instead they pussyfooted around with a team that we had no business rough ridin' around with. Hopefully it's a lesson learned and we shoot to kill against U-La-La.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 04, 2013, 12:30:24 PM
I rewatched the game in prep of this week's _FANalysis. While some of the Waters/Sams discussion has merit, the offensive line play and play calling were much bigger concerns, especially considering how NDSU played defense. NDSU was extremely aggressive; constantly stunting their defensive front, blitzing linebackers and safeties, and selling out to stop the run. They not only got our players (especially the offensive line) on their heels, they had our coaches scrambling as well. There is no good reason that we only had 2 big pass plays in this game.

Maybe you'll answer this in _FANalysis but how on earth could the O-Line be so awful? Was it more scheme or execution by them?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: GoodForAnother on September 04, 2013, 12:34:20 PM
I rewatched the game in prep of this week's _FANalysis. While some of the Waters/Sams discussion has merit, the offensive line play and play calling were much bigger concerns, especially considering how NDSU played defense. NDSU was extremely aggressive; constantly stunting their defensive front, blitzing linebackers and safeties, and selling out to stop the run. They not only got our players (especially the offensive line) on their heels, they had our coaches scrambling as well. There is no good reason that we only had 2 big pass plays in this game.

yeah waters should've been throwing bombs all night.  I was so mad at bill I almost spit!
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: kslim on September 04, 2013, 12:44:13 PM
I rewatched the game in prep of this week's _FANalysis. While some of the Waters/Sams discussion has merit, the offensive line play and play calling were much bigger concerns, especially considering how NDSU played defense. NDSU was extremely aggressive; constantly stunting their defensive front, blitzing linebackers and safeties, and selling out to stop the run. They not only got our players (especially the offensive line) on their heels, they had our coaches scrambling as well. There is no good reason that we only had 2 big pass plays in this game.

yeah waters should've been throwing bombs all night.  I was so mad at bill I almost spit!

EXACTLY!! We have two burners that would torch NDSU dbacks and we only go deep two-three times???? Also we have toe, andre, and trujullio that all are way bigger than their lbs/dbs. why not just play a game of jump ball all night? I get it, the line sucked and the run was abysmal but why keep going to it?? I hate how stubborn snyder is

Also i was mad enough i did spit
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: 8manpick on September 04, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
NDSU was extremely aggressive; constantly stunting their defensive front, blitzing linebackers and safeties, and selling out to stop the run. They not only got our players (especially the offensive line) on their heels, they had our coaches scrambling as well.

Baylor, anyone?
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: wazucat on September 04, 2013, 01:45:57 PM
_Fan thanks, maybe this should be in Optimism thread but lousy (stubborn) play calling seems to be one of the easiest things in football to correct,   :cheers:
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: HeinBallz on September 04, 2013, 11:14:15 PM

Does anyone have footage of Sams' 17-yard td run?

The whole game is in YouTube if you look.
Title: Re: Not about the Quarterback play.
Post by: Pett on September 04, 2013, 11:19:40 PM
Guys, it was one game. Sometimes things just don't click in the first game for whatever reason. Let's see what happens against Loozyanna before we all look back at this thread and realize that we're idiots. I'm positive that Waters and Hubert will run better behind a more motivated line this weekend
Agreed but if we lose this weekend I'm melting down hard