Start Lamb

WataugaMan · Unread post by **WataugaMan** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:22 pm

I'm getting here late, however:

YES!!!!!!!!!!

AppSt94 · Unread post by **AppSt94** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:23 pm

MtnDevil95 wrote:Kam did not look as good today as he did last year (like in the Ga. Southern game) this much it true. I do think it's a bit early to toss him to the bench. Campbell should be a better measure of his abilities to lead the offense. Clearly Michigan has better athletes and our receivers had issues with the bumping. Kam made some poor choices and he suffered some dropped balls in the first half that should've generated first downs. It's not all on the QB that the offense failed to get into a rhythm against much better competition.

Lamb, and the whole offense, was impressive against Michigan's 2-deep defense, which is still good news. I don't think that means Satterfield should throw Kam out with the bathwater, but it does mean that we've got a good option should Kam stumble or get injured.

I agree with you. One thing though is that I don't know that Campbell will tell us much. They say that the greatest improvement comes between week 1 and 2. I will hold judgement until So. Miss.

Saint3333 · Unread post by **Saint3333** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:26 pm

Kam continues to start but I wouldn't be surprised if Lamb starts by mid-season.

I say stay with Kam because he played against Michigan's 1's and the Oline couldn't give him time today.

The good news is we have a very capable backup should we need him.

AppState2014 · Unread post by **AppState2014** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:27 pm

AppSt94 wrote:
MtnDevil95 wrote:Kam did not look as good today as he did last year (like in the Ga. Southern game) this much it true. I do think it's a bit early to toss him to the bench. Campbell should be a better measure of his abilities to lead the offense. Clearly Michigan has better athletes and our receivers had issues with the bumping. Kam made some poor choices and he suffered some dropped balls in the first half that should've generated first downs. It's not all on the QB that the offense failed to get into a rhythm against much better competition.

Lamb, and the whole offense, was impressive against Michigan's 2-deep defense, which is still good news. I don't think that means Satterfield should throw Kam out with the bathwater, but it does mean that we've got a good option should Kam stumble or get injured.
I agree with you. One thing though is that I don't know that Campbell will tell us much. They say that the greatest improvement comes between week 1 and 2. I will hold judgement until So. Miss.

I want to see both play against Campbell, Southern Miss, and Georgia Southern. I think 4 games is plenty to give them a shot. Liberty should be a solid Big South team. I hope we don't overlook them. There is not a single game on our schedule, outside of Campbell, that should be a very easy win. We have to show up against everyone.

WataugaMan · Unread post by **WataugaMan** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:28 pm

AppSt94 wrote:
MtnDevil95 wrote:Kam did not look as good today as he did last year (like in the Ga. Southern game) this much it true. I do think it's a bit early to toss him to the bench. Campbell should be a better measure of his abilities to lead the offense. Clearly Michigan has better athletes and our receivers had issues with the bumping. Kam made some poor choices and he suffered some dropped balls in the first half that should've generated first downs. It's not all on the QB that the offense failed to get into a rhythm against much better competition.

Lamb, and the whole offense, was impressive against Michigan's 2-deep defense, which is still good news. I don't think that means Satterfield should throw Kam out with the bathwater, but it does mean that we've got a good option should Kam stumble or get injured.
I agree with you. One thing though is that I don't know that Campbell will tell us much. They say that the greatest improvement comes between week 1 and 2. I will hold judgement until So. Miss.

Agreed, the So. Miss game will give us an excellent gauge of where we're at, no doubt.

AppSt94 · Unread post by **AppSt94** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:41 pm

AppState2014 wrote:
AppSt94 wrote:
MtnDevil95 wrote:Kam did not look as good today as he did last year (like in the Ga. Southern game) this much it true. I do think it's a bit early to toss him to the bench. Campbell should be a better measure of his abilities to lead the offense. Clearly Michigan has better athletes and our receivers had issues with the bumping. Kam made some poor choices and he suffered some dropped balls in the first half that should've generated first downs. It's not all on the QB that the offense failed to get into a rhythm against much better competition.

Lamb, and the whole offense, was impressive against Michigan's 2-deep defense, which is still good news. I don't think that means Satterfield should throw Kam out with the bathwater, but it does mean that we've got a good option should Kam stumble or get injured.
I agree with you. One thing though is that I don't know that Campbell will tell us much. They say that the greatest improvement comes between week 1 and 2. I will hold judgement until So. Miss.
I want to see both play against Campbell, Southern Miss, and Georgia Southern. I think 4 games is plenty to give them a shot. Liberty should be a solid Big South team. I hope we don't overlook them. There is not a single game on our schedule, outside of Campbell, that should be a very easy win. We have to show up against everyone.

If I am the coach, and I am not, I don't do this unless I have openly declared a competition with the players and team. If you play them both equally then the eventual starter has lost valuable reps within the process and you run the risk of fracturing your locker room.

App74 · Unread post by **App74** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:47 pm

Kam continues to wait that one second too long before making a decision. Lamb was the better decision maker today and showed lots of poise. Lamb is a legitimate starter.

Start Kam next week but give Lamb the second half.

moehler · Unread post by **moehler** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:49 pm

Asking the wrong question, it's not should we replace the qb, but rather should we start replacing offensive linemen. I only watched the second quater, but what I saw were our linemen being thrown all over the field like ragdolls. Tom Brady would have a tough time completing passes in this game with how quickly Michigan's linemen got to the qb. Let's be honest, we have some linemen who just aren't skilled enough to play at the FBS level, number one priority for the coaching staff is to recruit quality offensive linemen.

AppDawg · Unread post by **AppDawg** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:51 pm

I admit, haven't read the entire thread, so if this has been posted previously - my apologies. In my opinion, either QB can be successful if the play-calling is good. For some reason, today, we did a 180. Historically, we run the ball to open up the pass. For some unknown reason today, when the run was obviously working, we kept on trying to force the "short" pass. Typically I am a fan of this because in recent years our O-line hasnt been strong enough to support the run... Today we WERE! Yet the coaching staff failed to recognize it and exploit it.

I will go on record as not being a fan of a run game coordinator and a passing coordinator. We need an offensive coordinator. Someone who can recognize when something is working (upshaw) and exploit it... Not play keep the ball out of our most productive players hands.

AppAttack · Unread post by **AppAttack** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:11 pm

Of course Kam was in a more difficult situation so it's hard to say. Lamb appears to make quicker, better decisions and has a better arm. He just looks better all the way around. He is the future, so I say go ahead and start him now. I know it seems like a quick decision, but think how much better we'll be in years 3 and 4 with him starting from day one. I think that's better than 2 years Kam, 2 years Lamb.

WVAPPeer · Unread post by **WVAPPeer** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:37 pm

moehler wrote:Asking the wrong question, it's not should we replace the qb, but rather should we start replacing offensive linemen. I only watched the second quater, but what I saw were our linemen being thrown all over the field like ragdolls. Tom Brady would have a tough time completing passes in this game with how quickly Michigan's linemen got to the qb. Let's be honest, we have some linemen who just aren't skilled enough to play at the FBS level, number one priority for the coaching staff is to recruit quality offensive linemen.

Moehler - actually the OL line played well considering the competition - one TB with @120 yards and the other with @50 against what experts consider one of the very top defenses in the Big 10 ---

appdaze · Unread post by **appdaze** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:40 pm

So of the camp that wants to ditch Kam can we get a volunteer who wants to go tell him personally that they don't have confidence in his ability because he couldn't hold his own against a team that will probably be in the top 20 if not higher by the end of the season? To tell him that they want to go with this other guy because they have more years with him and don't want to try to continue to develop him as the starter? That is a real good lesson to teach the team. Sorry guys you put out a good effort but because you couldn't beat one of the best you are being thrown to the curb for the other guy who couldn't have beaten them either but has more years left than you. Just because one guy falters a bit doesn't mean we need to move on to whatever is perceived as the next latest and greatest. I guess we should change our fan motto to "Instant Gratification or you're fired."

We aren't as good as the App team in 07 and Michigan is better than the team in 07. They also have the O coordinator from bama who just won a few nice pieces of crystal calling their shots.

sixtoes9134 · Unread post by **sixtoes9134** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:42 pm

I agree our OL played well today. The running game, was mostly very good considering. Upshaw is darn solid. Never saw the two-back set.

Kam's issue (and again I support him fully) is that inability to make the really quick decision. Lamb has that 6th sense.

We will see what happens and with whom, but I like where our Offense is despite what happened today.

SpeedkingATL · Unread post by **SpeedkingATL** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:48 pm

At least now it appears we definitely have a competent QB on the sideline should he be needed with time to develop.

moehler · Unread post by **moehler** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:00 pm

Specifically, the pass blocking was awful, yes they were going up against a big ten school, but I saw guys being manhandled, we had a total of 4 yds in the second quater with 6 minutes to go. I never expected for them to hold their own against Michigan's line, but there were plenty of times where there was almost no resistance on there way to our qb.

Saint3333 · Unread post by **Saint3333** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:13 pm

Good run blocking and poor pass blocking tells me our guys are tough and have potential but can't adjust on blitzes. That also falls partly on the RBs and TEs.

It will be a couple weeks before we see adjustments the coaches work on with this group. Overall I think this Oline will be improved from the last two seasons.

AppAttack · Unread post by **AppAttack** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:23 pm

appdaze wrote:So of the camp that wants to ditch Kam can we get a volunteer who wants to go tell him personally that they don't have confidence in his ability because he couldn't hold his own against a team that will probably be in the top 20 if not higher by the end of the season? To tell him that they want to go with this other guy because they have more years with him and don't want to try to continue to develop him as the starter? That is a real good lesson to teach the team. Sorry guys you put out a good effort but because you couldn't beat one of the best you are being thrown to the curb for the other guy who couldn't have beaten them either but has more years left than you. Just because one guy falters a bit doesn't mean we need to move on to whatever is perceived as the next latest and greatest. I guess we should change our fan motto to "Instant Gratification or you're fired."

We aren't as good as the App team in 07 and Michigan is better than the team in 07. They also have the O coordinator from bama who just won a few nice pieces of crystal calling their shots.

Michigan is better than they were in '07 ranked #5 preseason with Henne, Mike Hart, Manningham, Jake Long, etc? They went 9-4, had a chance to win the Big Ten, then beat Florida and Tim Tebow in a bowl. Doubtful, but way too early to tell.

Saint3333 · Unread post by **Saint3333** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:27 pm

I wouldn't say this Michigan team is better than the 2007 team, they finished 12th in the nation, let's see how they do the rest of the season.

clayton · Unread post by **clayton** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:41 pm

Each quarterback had one good drive. I don't think Lamb would have had many more had he started.

I really don't think there's anyway one can believe that one quarterback is better than the other based on this game.

In our famous examples of going with the young quarterback over the veteran, the veteran was battling/coming back from an injury. If Kam is hurt, then we should definitely consider Lamb.

And if there's a clear indication that Lamb might be better based on practice performances, then maybe he's the guy.

But, there's no reason to rev up the "start Lamb" train based on one game...especially this game.

WVAPPeer · Unread post by **WVAPPeer** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:43 pm

moehler wrote:Specifically, the pass blocking was awful, yes they were going up against a big ten school, but I saw guys being manhandled, we had a total of 4 yds in the second quater with 6 minutes to go. I never expected for them to hold their own against Michigan's line, but there were plenty of times where there was almost no resistance on there way to our qb.

thought you said you only watched the 2nd Q - if so, the last 7 minutes of the 2nd Q was the worst part of the game ---

Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Re: Start Lamb

Login • Register