[El Scorcho]

To me, this loss is soley on the shoulders of our starting center. As the person who snaps the ball, he sets the tone for the entire play. He is just not getting it done obviously as evidenced by the fact that we lost.

I blame you.

[paradox]

When you run for 160 yards and run all over the defense, yes.

Ok, you say that dropped passes go with the territory. Well, right before the dropped pass, he completed one that was called back by a penalty. That was back-to-back plays. Were both Brock's fault?

I'm sorry, but back-to-back plays, with one getting called back is not my definition of getting it done.

And yet you fail to address how either of these things could possibly be the QB's fault. Logic is absent from your argument. That's not an insult. It's factual. You can't argue if you're not going to do it logically. Anyone can just make stuff up.

You guys are getting sidetracked. I never blamed every play on the guy. Even Brock himself stated that the games do not come down to one play.

Bottom line: this team's history tells us that once we fall behind against a good opponent, the game is over, and we end up on the losing end.

[SuperJon]

What about our lack of innovation on offense?

There have been a number of major college football upsets this season. How are these smaller programs getting it done?

It would seem like Rich Rodriegez style of play is what puts a smaller team in the best position to win and pull off the upset. (ie-the spread offense)


..

Ok, this is the first intelligent thing you have said. You want us to go to the spread offense. However, you say your reason is because we are a "smaller team." That, my friend, is not true. We are one of the larger teams at our level. Coach Wachenheim, our offense coordinator, came from Rice where they ran the option. Once he got here, even before Rashad came, him and Coach Rocco said we were going to be a power running team. This year they have added numerous 4-5 wide sets (a wrinkle of the Spread Offense if you will) and we've been successful in that formation. That doesn't mean we should scrap what we do best and that is run the ball. Normal offenses work across the country. Shoot, we run pretty much the same offense that Southern Cal does, and no one complains about what offense they're running. The offense we run has put up points in every game but Elon. There's no arguing that.

[LUconn]

history also told us that Rashad can only rack up yards against Savannah and D2 schools right dox? I recall you saying that. That's not working out too well.

[El Scorcho]

You guys are getting sidetracked. I never blamed every play on the guy. Even Brock himself stated that the games do not come down to one play.

You said that he fails to deliver in the crunch. We provided concrete evidence to the contrary. Then you still (quite illogically) insisted that he wasn't getting it done and that even the examples we cited were somehow his fault.

Again, logic seems to fail you. Either he fails in the crunch or he doesn't. We have proven that he doesn't. You, sir (or mam), are the one who tried to sidestep the issue by bringing up this business about not being able to come from behind.

[SuperJon]

Bottom line: this team's history tells us that once we fall behind against a good opponent, the game is over, and we end up on the losing end.

The history does say that, you're right. No one will argue with that. You claim that we don't win those games because of Brock. That is where we disagree with you, and you have yet to give us a reason as to why Brock is the reason we don't win games.

[paradox]

history also told us that Rashad can only rack up yards against Savannah and D2 schools right dox? I recall you saying that. That's not working out too well.

That was a great effort for Rashad and he deserves a lot of credit. I hope that it continues.

However, this game does not negate or change any of the past history. Hopefully, this is not an aberation and we'll see more of it against the better teams.


...

[SuperJon]

That was a great effort for Rashad and he deserves a lot of credit. I hope that it continues.

However, this game does not negate or change any of the past history. Hopefully, this is not an aberation and we'll see more of it against the better teams.


...

He did the same thing at W&M. He's healthy, and he's running against good teams. Your theory is shot to Hell. Time to move to the next myth we can bust.

[paradox]

Bottom line: this team's history tells us that once we fall behind against a good opponent, the game is over, and we end up on the losing end.

The history does say that, you're right. No one will argue with that. You claim that we don't win those games because of Brock. That is where we disagree with you, and you have yet to give us a reason as to why Brock is the reason we don't win games.

Even really bad teams pull upsets and win games that they shouldn't sometimes because they had a good QB who stepped up, led the way, and got it done.

I would'nt say that our O-line is bad, or our recievers are bad, or that our RB's are bad. In fact, I think that most of would have to admit that we are actually pretty good in those three areas.

[paradox]

That was a great effort for Rashad and he deserves a lot of credit. I hope that it continues.

However, this game does not negate or change any of the past history. Hopefully, this is not an aberation and we'll see more of it against the better teams.


...

He did the same thing at W&M. He's healthy, and he's running against good teams. Your theory is shot to Hell. Time to move to the next myth we can bust.

W&M was among THE WORST run defenses in the nation last year. Everyone and his mother ran on them last year.

..

[El Scorcho]

I would'nt say that our O-line is bad, or our recievers are bad, or that our RB's are bad. In fact, I think that most of would have to admit that we are actually pretty good in those three areas.

I wouldn't say they're bad either. I wouldn't even say they're pretty good. Our special teams, O-Line and our RB's are outstanding! Our QB and receivers are pretty good. Our defense is bad.

[Iwasneverhere]

[paradox]

That was a great effort for Rashad and he deserves a lot of credit. I hope that it continues.

However, this game does not negate or change any of the past history. Hopefully, this is not an aberation and we'll see more of it against the better teams.


...

He did the same thing at W&M. He's healthy, and he's running against good teams. Your theory is shot to Hell. Time to move to the next myth we can bust.

W&M was among THE WORST run defenses in the nation last year. Everyone and his mother ran on them last year.

..

To clarify, I always favored a combination of Zach and Rashad. I'm just more on the Zach side of things because he more versitile and creates more problems for the better defenses.

Again, I favor a combination, with Zach getting a slightly higher number of touches.

[paradox]

I would'nt say that our O-line is bad, or our recievers are bad, or that our RB's are bad. In fact, I think that most of would have to admit that we are actually pretty good in those three areas.

I wouldn't say they're bad either. I wouldn't even say they're pretty good. Our special teams, O-Line and our RB's are outstanding! Our QB and receivers are pretty good. Our defense is bad.

Ok, so our whole offense is "outstanding" except for the QB.

And yes, our defense is not very good and I think that it would be safe to say that the opposition has pretty much figured us out there.

[SuperJon]

No one is blaming the other positions for being bad.

How can you, logically, say Brock is not getting it done when these are the reasons our last minute drives have failed in the Rocco era:

Towson - We start on our 39 yard line, down 10-3. Brock completes three straight passes, along with a Rashad run, to get us down to the 11 yard line. On the next play, Brock completes another pass (his 4th in a row) but the receiver fumbles.

W&M - Brock moved us from our own 15 to the W&M 20 yard line, on a drive that chewed up most of the clock (7 minutes worth). We were set up for the 37-yard go-ahead field goal that was missed.

G-W - Tie game, Brock goes 2-2 on the last drive trying to set up the go-ahead score. Our rushing game let us down on this drive. We punt, G-W kicks the game winner.

W&M - Brock completes 7 of 9 passes to score the touchdown with 16 seconds to go. He then completes a pass on the 2-pt conversion to tie the game. In the first overtime, we score on the first play from Rashad. In the 2nd overtime, Brock completed both of his passes. The two runs after it didn't get the five yards needed.

Toledo - Brock completes a 28 yard pass, called back for ineligible player downfield. It would've put us at the Toledo 32 yard line. The next play, he hits a receiver in the chest at the 10 that the receiver drops. He completes the 3rd and 12 for five yards, and the final pass was incomplete.

[paradox]

Wow, there must be a conspiracy of the gods against Brock.

[SuperJon]

I'm trying to debate you logically, but everytime I argue one of your points with a logical argument, you either change the subject or say something that doesn't make any sense. Defend your case that Brock not playing good cost us those games, or that Brock did not give us our best chance to win.

[paradox]

Your breaking everything down to a couple of plays in each game and then say that you have logic on your side?

Almosts, maybes, could-haves, and should-haves are the true evasions.

[SuperJon]

No, see, I'm arguing your point. Now that I have argued it, and proved it wrong, you are changing your thesis. You said, multiple times, that Brock was not delivering in the clutch.

When a QB repeatedly fails to deliver in the crunch, he usually gets benched.

There's always some kind of excuse, but the bottom line is that once this teams falls behind the game is over--and we all know it. And this falls squarely on the shoulders of the QB. Even an average QB is gonna pull a game out for his team from time to time. Heck, even Kordell Stewart did that a time or two for the Steelers.

Bottom line: this team's history tells us that once we fall behind against a good opponent, the game is over, and we end up on the losing end.

Once we fall behind, it's over. I wish it wasn't so, but that's what this team is.

I have shown you that in every instance of us falling behind, the quarterback has delivered in the "crunch," taken us down the field, and given us our best chance to win.

Brock has done the same things that Tyler Thigpen did in 2005 when Coastal came back to beat JMU, SC State, G-W, and a few other games. The difference is Thigpen had a sure handed, never drop a ball receiver in Jerome Simpson and they had one of the best kickers in America in Josh Hoke. Brock has thrown some balls that were better than the ones that Thigpen threw in those comebacks (I've been there for all of them from both quarterbacks) but the receivers haven't caught them like Simpson did. Brock has taken us down the field to get into field goal range, but we didn't have a field goal kicker with the confidence of Josh Hoke to nail a kick in the "crunch."

You cannot argue that Brock has not given us our best chance to win in the "crunch."

Does Brock make mistakes the other three quarters of the game? Yes, he does. Thigpen did the same thing during those years. He stared receivers down, overthrew receivers, and made bad decisions. But in the end, when it mattered, he led the team down the field, just like Brock Smith.

[paradox]

If your syllogism is:

Premise 1. Brock performs
Premise 2. Team lets him down.

Inference: Brock is a come from behind type of QB.



At best, maybe one of your premises is at least partially true. But the argument falls short nonetheless.

[SuperJon]

I don't think Brock is a come from behind quarterback. I just think he's a quarterback who gives us a chance to win in every game.

You say my "argument falls short nonetheless" but you give no reasons for to back that up. Why not? Do you have facts (stats, actual plays, etc) to back up why that argument falls short, or are you just simply giving a baseless opinion?

[Schfourteenteen]

W&M - Brock completes 7 of 9 passes to score the touchdown with 16 seconds to go. He then completes a pass on the 2-pt conversion to tie the game. In the first overtime, we score on the first play from Rashad. In the 2nd overtime, Brock completed both of his passes. The two runs after it didn't get the five yards needed.

Just a side note and Jon dont take this the wrong way - Brock put us in a good position to lose that game as well. INT in the endzone dotdotdot. Not saying youre wrong, because youre right. Personally I find that the 4th is his best quarter, its just the other 3 im worried about.

And if were talking about in the crunch time remember one of those 2 passes in OT2 was for -5 yards in which everyone of us said why the flock did he throw it there?

Dox in the 4th quarter Brock plays much better than the other three. I dont know why that is, but to say he sucks it up and implodes then is ridiculous. Our D is losing us games - not Brock. Is Brock a subpar QB at times? Absolutely. But we cant blame him for 500 yards allowed.

With the power running game idea - Most of the time in order for that to work you need to have a good D, because youre most likely not going to put up 30 to 40 points a game. Brock even as a game manager has been eh at times, specifically WM and Elon(not there). His job is not to lose us the game and in all of our losses(minus WM I put alot of that on him although its not just him) he hasnt failed us in the 4th.

[paradox]

I don't think Brock is a come from behind quarterback. I just think he's a quarterback who gives us a chance to win in every game.

You say my "argument falls short nonetheless" but you give no reasons for to back that up. Why not? Do you have facts (stats, actual plays, etc) to back up why that argument falls short, or are you just simply giving a baseless opinion?

Stats? Are you serious how many TD's and yards has this guy thrown for in his career. His stats are pedestrian at best.


Also, if you are acknowledging that he is not "come from behind" material, then there is no need to debate further because that was my primary point concerning our current situation with the QB position.

"Chance to win" and "come from behind" are insperable as far as I'm concerned. To me, they're the same thing.

[SuperJon]

Just a side note and Jon dont take this the wrong way - Brock put us in a good position to lose that game as well. INT in the endzone dotdotdot. Not saying youre wrong, because youre right. Personally I find that the 4th is his best quarter, its just the other 3 im worried about.

Look back to one of my other posts. I said that he is shaky during the other quarters in games. It was during my Tyler Thigpen comparison. When I was at Coastal, we would beg for the backup for three quarters, only to have Thig pull something out in the 4th quarter to win the game.

And if were talking about in the crunch time remember one of those 2 passes in OT2 was for -5 yards in which everyone of us said why the flock did he throw it there?

Just for the issue of being right, the play was only a loss of one yard, and honestly, I don't know how much of that is on Brock and how much of it is on the receiver. Having seen that other play before in both practice and games, I'm not 100% sure if the receiver was in the right spot.

No problem with anything else you said.

[El Scorcho]

I would'nt say that our O-line is bad, or our recievers are bad, or that our RB's are bad. In fact, I think that most of would have to admit that we are actually pretty good in those three areas.

I wouldn't say they're bad either. I wouldn't even say they're pretty good. Our special teams, O-Line and our RB's are outstanding! Our QB and receivers are pretty good. Our defense is bad.

Ok, so our whole offense is "outstanding" except for the QB.

And yes, our defense is not very good and I think that it would be safe to say that the opposition has pretty much figured us out there.

You sir, are a snake. That is NOT what I said. I put our QB on the same level as our receivers, which is the truth. Responsibility for incompletions this year has been shared at both ends of the pass. Our receivers have great speed and can make some really great moves, but their hands are only average. I've seen quite a few passes hit them right where they were supposed to that have still ended up incomplete.