Or Mullen. That said, it's hard to say. Not sure if AR is the same AR with a security blanket like that to throw to (and better receivers and play calling in general). Not sure Trask wouldn't struggle mightily with this crew and this play calling. We can speculate all we want, but we'll never know the answer to that.
I'm not so sure. There are solid lines where breakdowns are rare and a QB can expect to have at least decent time in the pocket most of the time. What happens with us is we'll get 3 plays with great protection and then a total jailbreak where AR gets 2 seconds max. That sounds right, but who knows. I suspect at minimum that Mullen would have him run more. But our WRs are our WRs. God bless Ricky Pearsall but if you told most Gator fans a year ago he'd be our #2 receiver we'd probably have all collectively downgraded our predictions on offense.
Gonna have to still disagree on the protection. He has had time more often than not by a good margin. Now some of the route trees are pedestrian and take time to develop hut that's a different discussion. Also, Pearsall, this version of shorter and Zipp would be more than enough given the running backs and running game we have this year. Not elite but far from as bad as people are making them out to be. They have been open but AR isn't playing as instinctively as he did in Mullen's offense. AR did some bad things last year but you coach those out of him while letting him continue what he was doing otherwise. Drop back, read and fire. I agree AR can read the field if given the right play I just disagree he was better than Trask at it.
I think we're saying different things. There's "reading the field" which includes making pre-snap reads and calls, and then there's post-snap progressions. This is where I saw a lot of passes where Trask often pushed it into tight or multiple coverage where AR does not (very often). Trask probably did this because he knew the caliber of WR he had, I'll definitely give him the benefit of the doubt. Shorter as a #1 target is ... well, not ideal. I like him quite a bit but he's not elite and has trouble getting separation, not entirely unusual for a lengthy receiver. Having Copeland still would have helped a ton. Seeing Trent more would help. But I can't recall a corps at this level ... well, for a long time. Before this I think our weakest in memory was 2002, but we had Taylor Jacobs and two very active, good TEs. It's like if you took 2002 and removed those three guys.
Trask definitely forced it to Pitts at times. I'll agree with that. And we definitely need a true burner as hendersons speed doesn't seem to translate to the field but I'd take Pearsall as a slot most years. Kids a player and runs nice routes. He's under utilized at the moment for whatever reason. I just think the running game and what we have at wide out is enough even if not ideal and much of the game film has shown that receivers are open but AR is hesitant. Other than those stupid mesh routes into 4 deep secondaries.
You mean give him a defense and he's much better? That works with all QBs,but he's not going to change positions in the NFL. And I am not saying that you suggested that, but I do think AR needs to play through some of the cheap shot low hits that he's been suffering all year long. I wonder if Stricklin is even talking to the SEC about how many cheep shots/low hits that AR has been suffering this year? This is something our AD should be doing behind the scenes. Maybe he is, who knows, but we all know the last guy never defended SOS about the crappy SEC officiating when he was our HBC. One of many reasons why I don't like that guy to this day.
Me too. He's absolutely solid. But you wouldn't expect a guy like that to have the second most yards on the team at this point. Huh? I'm saying more/better receivers.
I think Trask actually spent more time under McElwain than Mullen. I'm actually easier on Mullen than the average poster here. I do think he called a pretty good offense, most of the time. His problem was recruiting and excessive loyalty to bad coaches. I believe the jury is still out on Napier in terms of development of QBs and game time coaching.
Maybe technically, but I feel like he got more "real" time under Mullen. Either way, I agree completely. Mullen could have been a star in the 80s or 90s where recruiting was only 60-70% of the equation and one could win with schemes and execution (and even pull players due to scheme). Now that it's up to 90%, and everyone pretty much runs the same offense (even NFL), guys like Mullen will struggle, especially at big programs. There is no schematic advantage to be had and play calling only gets you so far.
AR has a long way to catch Trask as a qb by any metric. Its hard to fathom anyone debating this, even intangibles at this point. Trask: 168.5 career passer rtg AR: 132.8 To put it another way, Trask has only 2 more interceptions in his entire collegiate career than AR (15 vs 13) with nearly 600 more pass attempts.
Any QB under the current system would probably be struggling given the glaring problems the defense has.
No doubt. The comp for me on AR would be Donovan McNabb. Or maybe even Jaylen Hurts. Guys who weren't natural passers in college, but had decent/good mechanics and fundamentals and, over time, were able to turn themselves into solid if not very good NFL players. Hurts has absolutely, 100% proved me wrong. I never thought he had a chance in the NFL, but he's worked his ass off and become a really nice player. That said. . . what I said before. Context matters. Who's coaching you, who's around you, matters.
There is no doubt he questions his decisions that why he is patting the ball and reloading so often. Couple that with missing on the timing and zinging the ball at warp speed to make up for the miss on timing for the route
You seem incredibly confused. Not only did I not suggest AR quit being QB, I called it a "really, really, really bad take."
