I think Marc hit the nail on the head. I like JR but he seem to look down reciever and not go though his reads. Basically it looks like JR stairs down areciever until he convinces him self they guy is open. This is a bad thing because the qb satirs at a guys so does every db.
Look, please don't believe everything coaches say. I mean, I remember Les Miles saying that the Bama game could have just as easily been a two touchdown win for us. I was like, "What game was he watching???" Coaches are full of it sometimes. JR does not do more than those QBs in terms of audibles. I've heard analysts say that Jimbo wasn't exactly right with that comment. Oh, he might be calling the "most" audibles. But that doesn't mean he's calling a ton of different audibles. When eight defenders are stacked in the box with a run called and JR audibles a run in a different direction, it's still going to get stuffed. Calling all kinds of audibles that exploit the defense the best would be "doing much more." We obviously didn't do that because our offense struggled hard in a lot of games. So, a QB can call 3,000 audibles, but it doesn't mean anything unless the audible is successful. And yes, Matt Flynn has without a doubt proven to me in one full game that he's a better on-the-field thinker than JR. That was obvious to anyone who is unbiased. The throw-aways, the runs when there were no receivers open, the plays being called with plenty of time to spare on the clock, etc. And it doesn't matter how simple an offense is...it's how you manage the offense (whether easy of difficult) that makes it successful. And yes, I agree, our whole team played better and it helped the QB. But he played great as well and it helped them. And trust me, the offense wasn't watered down that much. Still, JR had a pretty good season and junior year seems to be when most guys hit their real stride. So, I hope JR just gets better because he's definitely a grade A competitor.
You missed the point of my entire post. All I was talking about were the posters who claim that MF is so much smarter than JR. This, without a doubt, proves that theor to be wrong. I'm not speculating on who's better. That's correct, but if MF wants to beat out JR next season, he'll have to do it in practice. He'll never step on the field if he doesn't beat him in practice. True. And Flynn had a team that had 272 yards rushing behind him against Miami, while JR had Vincent with 20 carries for 56 yards and 2.8 per carry against Bama. Yet, JR was still able to lead the offense to the comeback victory, without any running game. And we didn't run so good against Miami because Flynn was passing so well, it was the exact opposite, the great running set up Flynn to be successful. Had Russell played, we still would have ran the ball effectively, and the passing game would have been opened up for him as well. Agreed.
Miles expressed an opinion there - hardly the same thing as accusing him (or other coaches) of lying about facts. I happen to agree that we could have beaten Bama by 2 touchdowns. Jimbo has repeatedly said that JR makes as many reads as any QB he's ever had. He's never said anything about how good JR is at it. And it is obvious that he isn't as successful as Mauck, but this was his redshirt sophmore year - he will improve. Our offense struggling was not a direct result of JaMarcus's lack of success at audibles though, it was merely a part of the struggles. Key words: In one game. How simple an offense is does very much so matter. It didn't in this game, but one time the game will be on the line & it will. We will never know how watered down the offense was for Flynn, but I can guess that with his lack of experience compared to JR - it was substantial.
I didn't really accuse Les of lying about facts. I said he was full of it when he stated that he thought we could have just as easily won by two touchdowns against Bama. I don't believe he really thought this from the bottom of his heart. I think he was just trying to make the fans seem more confident in him by saying this. I see that you happen to agree that we could have beat them by two touchdowns. Yeah, I agree we could have won by 40 if we had played near flawless on offense and defense, but we didn't. If you really believe we could have just as easily won by two touchdowns based on the game, give me some solid reasoning for your opinion. Les didn't give any good reasons at all. And don't even tell me about if we had made all of our field goals because they were nearly all super-long attempts. That team dominated us in the first half and we basically did the same to them in the second half. We won on an ad-libbed play in OT. I think you will be hard-pressed to come up with great evidence that we could have won by two touchdowns in that one because you're the first person I've heard agree with that statement. Still, even though I totally disagreed with Miles' comment, I thought he did a great job coaching the team back into that game. I agree with you on the audibles part. I just think some people misunderstand what Jimbo is saying that's why I commented. And we can sort of disagree on the simple offense thing. I agree that you want to have more options on offense if you're in a tough situation. And yes, I have stressed that this was just "one" game before. However, you know part of the reason why a simple offense didn't come back to bite them in this game? Because they executed that simple offense nearly as well as you can do it. When everybody executes, you can get away with playing a simplified offense in a number of games because you won't need further options. Matt Flynn proved to me (IMO) in the Georgia game actually, that he was a better on-the-field thinker. He did that simply by throwing the ball away a few times and taking off immediately when he saw no one open after his first bunch of plays. I rarely ever saw JR do that the whole season. These things are important. And I still feel that although the offense may have been watered down some, it wasn't that much different in reality. I saw a wide variety of plays go to a bunch of different receivers and running backs. Sure, maybe they didn't use as many plays that had slight differences. But as a person who watches the game like anybody, it was LSU's offense and I thought the timing of certain calls was great.
I meant that you implied an accusation of him lying about facts, because you said that in reference to him lying about whether they simplified the offense for Flynn. The reason I agree we could have won by 2 touchdowns is simple. Miles left the comments open for interpretation. If only we hadn't come out flat in the first half, if only we would have executed a couple plays better, if only we would have made all of our fieldgoals, etc. I feel like we could have won almost all of our games by 2 touchdowns if we had just executed well - not even perfectly, just well. And yet some here think the only reason our offense worked was because Flynn was at the helm. But like you say, it was because the team was executing, which really wasn't about Flynn. The truth of the matter is that the whole team isn't going to execute as flawlessly every game & to win the tough ones, you need a bigger playbook (but this is relatively unimportant because if Flynn becomes the starter the playbook would be opened up). Yes. But there's a lot he didn't prove.
Unfortunately, he never quite had the chance last season to gain game experience and prove himself in other areas.....however, he looks to me quite promising. ________ EXTREME VAPORIZER
Which everyone agrees to. He basically proved everything he could have possibly proven in one game. Some people here just like to put too much emphasis on that single game.
Actually I wasn't expecting too much out of Flynn because of his "compromised" position going into the PeachBowl against a top rated defense. However, he did open the eyes of a lot of fans with his solid and steady performance that made fans react to that single game by wanting to see him more. ________ Preteen nonude
