[SuperJon]

I may not agree that Brock has given us a chance to win every game as SJ has stated, but only because I feel that he has struggled the more in the games that mattered the most (Elon, W&M, Toledo), BUT I do believe we can win the Big South Championship with him.

How can you deny that he has given us a chance? In every game except for Elon, no matter how bad he did in the first three quarters, he had the team in a position to win the 4th quarter. That's the definition of "giving us a chance to win."

[paradox]

Laugh a little -- it's just a little football talk

Oh you make me laugh a lot. Don't worry about that.

gracious

[paradox]

I may not agree that Brock has given us a chance to win every game as SJ has stated, but only because I feel that he has struggled the more in the games that mattered the most (Elon, W&M, Toledo), BUT I do believe we can win the Big South Championship with him.

How can you deny that he has given us a chance? In every game except for Elon, no matter how bad he did in the first three quarters, he had the team in a position to win the 4th quarter. That's the definition of "giving us a chance to win."

The problem here is that he's never actually won a big game for us.

The notion that he puts us in winning situations is your perception. I really don't know anyone aside from this board who would agree with that perception.

[El Scorcho]

The problem here is that he's never actually won a big game for us.

Our definitions of big must be different. I can think of two games last season (Chuck South and VMI) that were extremely important to the program that he won. They may not have been big enough to meet your definition, but they were big to me. There was a lot of pressure to win both, and no one expected us to win the first one.

[ToTheLeft]

I may not agree that Brock has given us a chance to win every game as SJ has stated, but only because I feel that he has struggled the more in the games that mattered the most (Elon, W&M, Toledo), BUT I do believe we can win the Big South Championship with him.

How can you deny that he has given us a chance? In every game except for Elon, no matter how bad he did in the first three quarters, he had the team in a position to win the 4th quarter. That's the definition of "giving us a chance to win."

The problem here is that he's never actually won a big game for us.

The notion that he puts us in winning situations is your perception. I really don't know anyone aside from this board who would agree with that perception.

Anyone who watched the Toledo game and watched him improvise that amazing play with Bolden to get halfway into Toledo territory only to have a stupid penalty call it back.

That's one example.

[El Scorcho]

The notion that he puts us in winning situations is your perception. I really don't know anyone aside from this board who would agree with that perception.

I'm curious to know how many people you know outside of this board that actually follow Brock Smith's performances that closely? Aside from the folks on FlameFans and the folks in the athletic department at LU, I know very few people who could even participate in this conversation. (Although your participation is, admittedly, questionable.) That sure does sound convincing, though.

[paradox]

One play or one game does not make a QB.

What we need is constistancy and leadership from that position. We need someone who is going to step up in the big games and confidently lead this team to victory.

[El Scorcho]

One play or one game does not make a QB.

50 plays in 30 games doesn't make a QB, for you.

How many games have you been to this season? And last season?

[paradox]

How can you deny that he has given us a chance? In every game except for Elon, no matter how bad he did in the first three quarters, he had the team in a position to win the 4th quarter. That's the definition of "giving us a chance to win."

The problem here is that he's never actually won a big game for us.

The notion that he puts us in winning situations is your perception. I really don't know anyone aside from this board who would agree with that perception.

Anyone who watched the Toledo game and watched him improvise that amazing play with Bolden to get halfway into Toledo territory only to have a stupid penalty call it back.

That's one example.

One play or one game does not make a QB.

What we need is constistancy and leadership from that position. We need someone who is going to step up in the big games and confidently lead this team to victory.

[ToTheLeft]

One play or one game does not make a QB.

What we need is constistancy and leadership from that position. We need someone who is going to step up in the big games and confidently lead this team to victory.

Well Tom Brady doesn't have eligibility left.

[FlamingChick]

I may not agree that Brock has given us a chance to win every game as SJ has stated, but only because I feel that he has struggled the more in the games that mattered the most (Elon, W&M, Toledo), BUT I do believe we can win the Big South Championship with him.

How can you deny that he has given us a chance? In every game except for Elon, no matter how bad he did in the first three quarters, he had the team in a position to win the 4th quarter. That's the definition of "giving us a chance to win."

I just do not agree with your thoughts on that. You are entitled to your opinion though, and I will respect it. I will say, however, one of the main reasons why I will not say that Brock has always given us a chance to win is because he's also given us enough inconsistency to lose. And we have. Maybe if he was a more consistent QB or a PLAYMAKER, instead of a game manager as you call him, MAYBE I would be able to agree with you on that a little. Bottom line is that he just needs to learn how to come out and play the entire game the way he plays the 4th quarter. I dont know what it is. The Brock Smith that played the last few minutes of the W&M game and in OT is the Brock Smith we need all the time, not just in the 4th quarter.

As for your "giving us a chance to win" theory, would you say the same for our Defense at Toledo?? They played great the first 3 quarters, giving us a "chance to win", but our offense did not score at all in the 4th quarter, so we lost. Does the theory go both ways?

[El Scorcho]

The problem here is that he's never actually won a big game for us.

The notion that he puts us in winning situations is your perception. I really don't know anyone aside from this board who would agree with that perception.

Anyone who watched the Toledo game and watched him improvise that amazing play with Bolden to get halfway into Toledo territory only to have a stupid penalty call it back.

That's one example.

One play or one game does not make a QB.

50 plays in 30 games doesn't make a QB, for you.

How many games have you been to this season? And last season?

[paradox]

One play or one game does not make a QB.

What we need is constistancy and leadership from that position. We need someone who is going to step up in the big games and confidently lead this team to victory.

Well Tom Brady doesn't have eligibility left.

That's a shame.

[El Scorcho]

As for your "giving us a chance to win" theory, would you say the same for our Defense at Toledo?? They played great the first 3 quarters, giving us a "chance to win", but our offense did not score at all in the 4th quarter, so we lost. Does the theory go both ways?

Your analogy is flawed because the defense failed in the fourth quarter while we were ahead. It was a defensive failure that cost us the game and when the offense tried to save it, Brock was not the one who blew it.

[ToTheLeft]

The Ravens won a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer.

and the Bucs with Brad Johnson.

Neither of those guys are even remotely close to playmakers.

But they put their team in position to win.

And the defense won.

Brock is in the same situation as those guys, but his supporting cast isn't coming through.

[FlamingChick]

As for your "giving us a chance to win" theory, would you say the same for our Defense at Toledo?? They played great the first 3 quarters, giving us a "chance to win", but our offense did not score at all in the 4th quarter, so we lost. Does the theory go both ways?

Your analogy is flawed because the defense failed in the fourth quarter while we were ahead. It was a defensive failure that cost us the game and when the offense tried to save it, Brock was not the one who blew it.

Didn't say that Brock was the one who blew it. I also said that the defense played good the first 3 quarters, I said nothing about the 4th quarter. They were worn out by the 4th quarter. What I"m asking is whether or not their efforts would be considered "giving us a chance to win"? SJ is saying that Brock has always put us in a position to win, even when he's only played good for a quarter (the 4th), so I'm just seeing how far that theory goes when it's not about Brock.

[paradox]

As for your "giving us a chance to win" theory, would you say the same for our Defense at Toledo?? They played great the first 3 quarters, giving us a "chance to win", but our offense did not score at all in the 4th quarter, so we lost. Does the theory go both ways?

Your analogy is flawed because the defense failed in the fourth quarter while we were ahead. It was a defensive failure that cost us the game and when the offense tried to save it, Brock was not the one who blew it.

This was one of LU's better games and it's something that they can build on.

We were in a position to win this game because of Grieser's interception return and Rashad's long TD run.

I think that Brock played with a lot of heart and mostly error free, however, he didn't really make anything happen either.

[El Scorcho]

As for your "giving us a chance to win" theory, would you say the same for our Defense at Toledo?? They played great the first 3 quarters, giving us a "chance to win", but our offense did not score at all in the 4th quarter, so we lost. Does the theory go both ways?

Your analogy is flawed because the defense failed in the fourth quarter while we were ahead. It was a defensive failure that cost us the game and when the offense tried to save it, Brock was not the one who blew it.

Didn't say that Brock was the one who blew it. I also said that the defense played good the first 3 quarters, I said nothing about the 4th quarter. They were worn out by the 4th quarter. What I"m asking is whether or not their efforts would be considered "giving us a chance to win"? SJ is saying that Brock has always put us in a position to win, even when he's only played good for a quarter (the 4th), so I'm just seeing how far that theory goes when it's not about Brock.

You did say that the offense didn't score in the 4th quarter, and I was pointing out that the offensive failure had nothing to do with Brock. I never said you said anything.

I did say your analogy was flawed because it is. A defensive failure in the fourth quarter does not equate to outstanding play in the rest of the game. They still didn't play well, save Greiser. Brock has been consistent enough all season to leave us in winnable positions. The defense has not.

Who do you know on the team, btw?

[Stevev]

A lot of good posts about Brock. Personally I think that Brock Smith is pretty much the status quo (Not a terrible QB but not a premier 1AA QB and probably never will be). He might be good enough to get us through the Big South but that is about it unless next year proves me otherwise, if he actually gets that chance at all. I would not want to depend on him in big games or come from behind situations against quality teams. In other words I am not totally sold on this guy based on what I have been hearing and from what I saw last year. I hope that Coach Rocco is looking to land that Blue Chip QB out of high school or maybe a 1A transfer would come our way. I like what I hear about this Mike Brown guy. Not too sure about Spencer Landis. Just my 2 cents.

[SuperJon]

Didn't say that Brock was the one who blew it. I also said that the defense played good the first 3 quarters, I said nothing about the 4th quarter. They were worn out by the 4th quarter. What I"m asking is whether or not their efforts would be considered "giving us a chance to win"? SJ is saying that Brock has always put us in a position to win, even when he's only played good for a quarter (the 4th), so I'm just seeing how far that theory goes when it's not about Brock.

The defense is what lost the game. Had the defense not lost the game for us, we would not have been in a position to need Brock to pull out a game winning drive. If the defense plays good, and gives us a chance to win, then Brock won't have to put together a last minute drive. However, when you give up 35 points, that's not giving them the best chance to win.

If the receivers would've caught the ball, if the penalty wasn't committed, if the kick went through the uprights, we'd all say Brock was a great quarterback. However, because of things that are out of his control, you say he's not good enough.

How many times do the coaches have to say, "Brock is our quarterback" or "Brock is a good quarterback" for you people to understand it? You see him one time a week. Once. Coach sees him 6 days a week. If he wasn't good, don't you think they'd change something? They benched a UVA transfer because he wasn't playing as good as another kid.

Tell me something would you take a quarterback who goes 16-27-0 for 145yds and 1TD who's team wins on a last second field goal? If not, you're saying you wouldn't take Tom Brady.

See, Dox and FlamingChick, you think that because Brock plays bad in the other quarters that he's not good. Dox is completely disregarding my Tyler Thigpen reference. The thing is, he's probably never even seen Tyler Thigpen play. Brock Smith is playing EXACTLY like Tyler Thigpen did in 2005. How do I know? I saw him play 8 games in 2005. At the end of every game, we are given a chance to win. There is not a single loss you can blame on Brock Smith. Did he contribute to the loss at W&M? Yes, he did, but he also led us back to be in a position to win. How someone can be so completely blinded by ignorance and say that Brock does not put us in a position every week is completely beyond me.

[SuperJon]

I think that Brock played with a lot of heart and mostly error free, however, he didn't really make anything happen either.

Except for completing a pass to the 38 on the last drive and hitting another receiver in the chest on the 10 on the same drive. Other than that, he didn't make anything happen.

[Schfourteenteen]

As for your "giving us a chance to win" theory, would you say the same for our Defense at Toledo?? They played great the first 3 quarters, giving us a "chance to win", but our offense did not score at all in the 4th quarter, so we lost. Does the theory go both ways?

Your analogy is flawed because the defense failed in the fourth quarter while we were ahead. It was a defensive failure that cost us the game and when the offense tried to save it, Brock was not the one who blew it.

Didn't say that Brock was the one who blew it. I also said that the defense played good the first 3 quarters, I said nothing about the 4th quarter. They were worn out by the 4th quarter. What I"m asking is whether or not their efforts would be considered "giving us a chance to win"? SJ is saying that Brock has always put us in a position to win, even when he's only played good for a quarter (the 4th), so I'm just seeing how far that theory goes when it's not about Brock.

Okay this was all brought up bc paradox said Brock is a bad clutch player. Thats why SJ said that, because, just looking at the 4th quarter, he has played well in games he needed to when he needed to. If you look back a page, weve already established that Brock is inconsistant in the first 3. No one is saying that Brock is a great player. What were saying is that in most if not all of the close losses Brock has played well enough in the 4th quarter to get us a W, and if others hadnt dropped a pass or bent over for another offense, wed have a better record. It is not his fault that we are a tick poor team in the key moments, because hes one of the few who step it up. As for how good he is any other time, theres alot left to be desired.

No one is arguing that he doesnt kill us in big games. Sometimes he does. But to say he is bad at "crunch" time is ridiculous.

Paradox - Show me a game in which he never gave us a chance. Show me a game where in the 4th quarter he kept us from winning a game. Show me where he screwed up in the 4th quarter and it cost us the game.

[El Scorcho]

I just don't get all of the focus on Brock, who has played pretty well, when it's so obvious that our defense has been abysmal? We're giving up 513 yards a game on D and everyone is talking about the QB? I just don't understand it.

It's like having a cold and gangrene at the same time, but complaining about the cold.

[SuperJon]

In other words I am not totally sold on this guy based on what I have been hearing and from what I saw last year. I hope that Coach Rocco is looking to land that Blue Chip QB out of high school or maybe a 1A transfer would come our way. I like what I hear about this Mike Brown guy.

What is it with you sucking on the nuts of every single transfer from a I-A school? We've got two of them sitting on the bench right now. Just because a kid went I-A out of high school doesn't mean he's any better than what we have.

As for what you've heard, it's because you haven't felt the team was worthy enough of your presence to find out for yourself. (Your words, not mine) You can't see Brock's leadership on the field. You can't see how he leads the team in the huddle and on the sidelines. No one who has commented on this thread and accused Brock of not being a leader can say that they have seen that.

[El Scorcho]

Paradox - Show me a game in which he never gave us a chance. Show me a game where in the 4th quarter he kept us from winning a game. Show me where he screwed up in the 4th quarter and it cost us the game.

FYI: Won't ever happen. He doesn't answer direct questions or requests for proof. Those things get in the way of his opinions.