Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

McEvoy questioners let me paint a picture...

Posted: 8/22/2014 8:09 PM

McEvoy questioners let me paint a picture... 


McEvoy takes the snap he fakes the handoff to Gordon and drops back his target is love on a deep post but the free safety didn't bite and either did the corner. Erickson is also locked up. The line is doing a solid job of buying McEvoy time but no one is open and the pocket begins to collapse. Now picture stave there he continues to look for an outlet but no one is there he begins to roll and gets sacked. Now back to McEvoy. The pocket begins to collapse he jab steps and breaks from the pocket. He begins to roll and the WR break off their routes. Suddenly, LB's realize either they have to give chase or McEvoy is getting a free 10 yards. They come up and McEvoy flips the ball to a suddenly open Arnesen who just came open due to the LB having to chase down the QB.

This is why the coaching staff chose McEvoy. Too often when the defense had tight coverage last year the play was effectively toast when the pocket broke. McEvoy gives you the opportunity to turn a dead play into something positive.

Last edited 8/23/2014 11:36 AM by jajulka

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/22/2014 8:51 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
I think I went to UW.... I have the diploma!!!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/22/2014 9:24 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


Stave never had the proper instincts to be a good QB. Throws too long, throws bouncing off people's helmets, throws in the dirt, sacks, throwing into coverage. I don't the the team or the coaching staff had much confidence in him. TM gives us the best chance to hang in there against LSU.
 
You come at the king, you best not miss.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/22/2014 9:58 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


TM must prove he can throw the ball, that he is not Tyrelle Pryor, Taylor Martinez or any of the many other fine athletes who are shoehorned into the QB position. He may!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/22/2014 10:18 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


If TM could give this offense what Pryor gave OSU I'd be more than happy.
CardinalWhite wrote: TM must prove he can throw the ball, that he is not Tyrelle Pryor, Taylor Martinez or any of the many other fine athletes who are shoehorned into the QB position. He may!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/22/2014 10:34 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



I'm pretty sure he's already a better passer than Martinez. Part of martinez's problem is he just made horrible decisions when pressured.

---------------------------------------------
--- CardinalWhite wrote:

TM must prove he can throw the ball, that he is not Tyrelle Pryor, Taylor Martinez or any of the many other fine athletes who are shoehorned into the QB position. He may!

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/22/2014 11:48 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
I'm hoping Tanner can be the man, I believe he can be special but what have you seen that he can make all the throws that Stave can? He hasn't taken a snap yet and your already saying what he can do, based on what? I think Tanner being mobile and having the ability to extend plays with his legs won him the job not so much his passing skills

Bo Ryan's offense is officially dead and has been figured out by the B1G. The only way he can continue to coach it is if he significantly upgrades the players.-George2k5

Last edited 8/22/2014 11:52 PM by Badger8843

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/22/2014 11:55 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/23/2014 12:18 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


Agreed that I have only seen TM  thrown in Practice but he does seem to process things a lot quicker than JS.   Arm strength is ok and although he throws kind of side arm he is still accurate.  I trust the coaches on their decision to choose who is the best Starter.  JS will need to be ready just in case  Overall just great to see an improvement from last year at the QB position .
I think I went to UW.... I have the diploma!!!
Reply | Quote
  • Bmoken
  • Sophomore
  • 2584 posts this site

Posted: 8/23/2014 6:50 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


McEvoy "haters" might be a bit strong. McEvoy "questioners" might be more appropriate.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 8:02 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



combatsports4life wrote: If TM could give this offense what Pryor gave OSU I'd be more than happy.
CardinalWhite wrote: TM must prove he can throw the ball, that he is not Tyrelle Pryor, Taylor Martinez or any of the many other fine athletes who are shoehorned into the QB position. He may!
+1...I'd take Pryor production every single Saturday...when did he become and example of a bad college QB???
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 8:31 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



EricTheeRed wrote:
Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
People on this board are taking an awful lot of liberties in describing McEvoy's abilities as a passer.
Sure...I'll take a look.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 9:27 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


Not really.  The difference between the Stave and McEvoy was quite simple.  As had been reported regarding the open portions of fall camp - Stave has good throwing mechanics, but was up and down at times in terms of accuracy; McEvoy has an unorthodox throwing style, but has a knack for big plays downfield.  He was also up and down at times.  And it is this, some kids do not look like prototypes at their respective positions, but they have "it".  The "it" is that x-factor for making plays, producing big plays.  And apparently, this is what led McEvoy to the position he may be in on Aug 30th. 

It has nothing to do with Stave's ability, everything to do with another player's knack.  McEvoy may not have command of the playbook like Stave,but if he produces plays with his arm, feet, and head that leads to points, he should be the #1 qb.
XRayBadger wrote:
EricTheeRed wrote:
Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
People on this board are taking an awful lot of liberties in describing McEvoy's abilities as a passer.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 10:22 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



jbooshey wrote:
combatsports4life wrote: If TM could give this offense what Pryor gave OSU I'd be more than happy.
CardinalWhite wrote: TM must prove he can throw the ball, that he is not Tyrelle Pryor, Taylor Martinez or any of the many other fine athletes who are shoehorned into the QB position. He may!
+1...I'd take Pryor production every single Saturday...when did he become and example of a bad college QB???
Probably when he kept throwing the ball at his receivers' feet. wink
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 10:37 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


Liberties--I have seen a few posts (from among our countless QB threads) that have referred to Stave as "brittle" and differentiate McEvoy as a more durable QB. They are built very similarly and mac also had an injury last year.
XRayBadger wrote:
EricTheeRed wrote:
Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
People on this board are taking an awful lot of liberties in describing McEvoy's abilities as a passer.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 10:44 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


With the rare exception of a few posters who seem to somehow gotten emotionally involved in their cyber relationship with a college QB (OP may fall in to that category) I find it hard to believe there are many "haters" of any QB's in the Badger program.  

Many people have an opinion on who gives the Badgers the best chance to win against LSU and for the remainder of the season but I strongly doubt that any but the truly twisted will be cheering for either QB to fail should they be in the game simply to prove an opinion right.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 10:49 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


More importantly, can he make the throws stave routinely misses. From the reports I've seen, that is questionable...


---------------------------------------------
--- Badger8843 wrote:


Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
I'm hoping Tanner can be the man, I believe he can be special but what have you seen that he can make all the throws that Stave can? He hasn't taken a snap yet and your already saying what he can do, based on what? I think Tanner being mobile and having the ability to extend plays with his legs won him the job not so much his passing skills

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 10:51 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



NewerBreed wrote: Liberties--I have seen a few posts (from among our countless QB threads) that have referred to Stave as "brittle" and differentiate McEvoy as a more durable QB. They are built very similarly and mac also had an injury last year.
XRayBadger wrote:
EricTheeRed wrote:
Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
People on this board are taking an awful lot of liberties in describing McEvoy's abilities as a passer.
Breaking a hand and breaking a collarbone are considerably different.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 11:34 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



Actually I'm completely indifferent regarding who starts. I just acknowledge the fact that if the two have similar passing ability it makes sense to go with the one that can still make a positive play if the pass isn't there. I really don't think the gap between the two was significant so it makes sense to start McEvoy.

---------------------------------------------
--- D3Badger wrote:

With the rare exception of a few posters who seem to somehow gotten emotionally involved in their cyber relationship with a college QB (OP may fall in to that category) I find it hard to believe there are many "haters" of any QB's in the Badger program.  

Many people have an opinion on who gives the Badgers the best chance to win against LSU and for the remainder of the season but I strongly doubt that any but the truly twisted will be cheering for either QB to fail should they be in the game simply to prove an opinion right.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 11:48 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



UnknownBadger wrote:
NewerBreed wrote: Liberties--I have seen a few posts (from among our countless QB threads) that have referred to Stave as "brittle" and differentiate McEvoy as a more durable QB. They are built very similarly and mac also had an injury last year.
XRayBadger wrote:
EricTheeRed wrote:
Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
People on this board are taking an awful lot of liberties in describing McEvoy's abilities as a passer.
Breaking a hand and breaking a collarbone are considerably different.
Yes, they are. But what's your point?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 12:07 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 


I just see some liberties and creative license with Joel Stave that leave me scratching my head.  That's all I am pointing out.  Tanner and Joel's body types are very similar and the statement is a false differentiation IMO but fuels the endless QB argument.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 12:14 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



Bacchus1 wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote:
NewerBreed wrote: Liberties--I have seen a few posts (from among our countless QB threads) that have referred to Stave as "brittle" and differentiate McEvoy as a more durable QB. They are built very similarly and mac also had an injury last year.
XRayBadger wrote:
EricTheeRed wrote:
Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
People on this board are taking an awful lot of liberties in describing McEvoy's abilities as a passer.
Breaking a hand and breaking a collarbone are considerably different.
Yes, they are. But what's your point?
Sorry, if you can't figure that out.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 1:45 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



Intlbadger wrote: Not really.  The difference between the Stave and McEvoy was quite simple.  As had been reported regarding the open portions of fall camp - Stave has good throwing mechanics, but was up and down at times in terms of accuracy; McEvoy has an unorthodox throwing style, but has a knack for big plays downfield.  He was also up and down at times.  And it is this, some kids do not look like prototypes at their respective positions, but they have "it".  The "it" is that x-factor for making plays, producing big plays.  And apparently, this is what led McEvoy to the position he may be in on Aug 30th. 

It has nothing to do with Stave's ability, everything to do with another player's knack.  McEvoy may not have command of the playbook like Stave,but if he produces plays with his arm, feet, and head that leads to points, he should be the #1 qb.
XRayBadger wrote:
EricTheeRed wrote:
Jackster62 wrote: Agreed plus TM will not throw at the RB feet or throw into double coverage .
Wait
People on this board are taking an awful lot of liberties in describing McEvoy's abilities as a passer.
Your post is a great example of what I'm talking about.
Sure...I'll take a look.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 5:40 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



UnknownBadger wrote:
Bacchus1 wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote: 
Breaking a hand and breaking a collarbone are considerably different.
Yes, they are. But what's your point?
Sorry, if you can't figure that out.
That you're fragile if you break your collar bone, but not if you break your hand?

A broken bone is a broken bone - there's no "injury prone" when it comes to broken bones. Guys have bad ankles, keep getting hamstring pulls or joint issues in general that can reoccur. But if something happens that breaks a bone, put any other player in the same exact position, the result is usually going to be the same.

Engage the good posters, ignore the bad, report as inappropriate the problems. Message board rules. Thanks.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/23/2014 7:54 PM

Re: McEvoy questioners let me paint a picture... 


I'm just confused at the amount of disappointment that Stave isn't the starter.  This would seem like a great thing to me from the sense that the staff has more confidence in a new guy than a guy that won us 9 games last year.  Hell before the season it seemed like the vast majority of people were pulling for Stave to lose.  Now he has lost the battle, for now, and many are saddened.  The whole thing just seems weird to me. 

Personally I'm excited as hell.  This tells me we have two viable starters.  not only that, but we have a guy that will allow GA to run the offense he wants to run going forward.  Just think about the possibilities with our running game.  Option plays with McEvoy, Clement and Gordon the field at the same time should terrify the other team.  Hell imagine a jet sweep where McEvoy keeps it with the defense overplaying to the side where Gordon is going.  This opens up so many possibilities. 

What's the worst that can happen?  McEvoy crumbles under the pressure and we go back to a more experienced and improved Stave as a back up option.  That sounds like one hell of a situation to be in compared to last year to me.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 9:46 PM

Re: McEvoy questioners let me paint a picture... 



combatsports4life wrote: I'm just confused at the amount of disappointment that Stave isn't the starter.  This would seem like a great thing to me from the sense that the staff has more confidence in a new guy than a guy that won us 9 games last year.  Hell before the season it seemed like the vast majority of people were pulling for Stave to lose.  Now he has lost the battle, for now, and many are saddened.  The whole thing just seems weird to me. 
I think it's explained by the fact that it sounded like Stave had outplayed McEvoy up to this point. Had the stories been that McEvoy was looking really sharp & was expected to win out, I think the reaction might have been pretty different. 

Maybe the early reports were off the mark. Maybe McEvoy just started off slow & things came together quickly for him. 

I'm still skeptical that it's not just gamesmanship.

Engage the good posters, ignore the bad, report as inappropriate the problems. Message board rules. Thanks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/23/2014 11:33 PM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



multimed wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote:
Bacchus1 wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote: 
Breaking a hand and breaking a collarbone are considerably different.
Yes, they are. But what's your point?
Sorry, if you can't figure that out.
That you're fragile if you break your collar bone, but not if you break your hand?

A broken bone is a broken bone - there's no "injury prone" when it comes to broken bones. Guys have bad ankles, keep getting hamstring pulls or joint issues in general that can reoccur. But if something happens that breaks a bone, put any other player in the same exact position, the result is usually going to be the same.
You can play with a broken hand which McEvoy did.  That is hardly injury prone. Many football players do each year. You can't with a broken collarbone and it is an injury that takes time. In fact, it was the cause of problems the following season. I believe most people would tend to use multiple lost time injuries as an indicator of one's propensity for injury.

Last edited 8/23/2014 11:46 PM by UnknownBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/24/2014 12:04 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



No. Most people would not use time as a determination of being injury prone.

They might use it to argue the impact of the type of injuries each sustains.

---------------------------------------------
--- UnknownBadger wrote:


multimed wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote:
Bacchus1 wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote: 
Breaking a hand and breaking a collarbone are considerably different.
Yes, they are. But what's your point?
Sorry, if you can't figure that out.
That you're fragile if you break your collar bone, but not if you break your hand?

A broken bone is a broken bone - there's no "injury prone" when it comes to broken bones. Guys have bad ankles, keep getting hamstring pulls or joint issues in general that can reoccur. But if something happens that breaks a bone, put any other player in the same exact position, the result is usually going to be the same.
You can play with a broken hand which McEvoy did.  That is hardly injury prone. Many football players do each year. You can't with a broken collarbone and it is an injury that takes time. In fact, it was the cause of problems the following season. I believe most people would tend to use multiple lost time injuries as an indicator of one's propensity for injury.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/24/2014 2:45 AM

Re: McEvoy haters let me paint a picture... 



UnknownBadger wrote:
multimed wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote:
Bacchus1 wrote:
UnknownBadger wrote: 
Breaking a hand and breaking a collarbone are considerably different.
Yes, they are. But what's your point?
Sorry, if you can't figure that out.
That you're fragile if you break your collar bone, but not if you break your hand?

A broken bone is a broken bone - there's no "injury prone" when it comes to broken bones. Guys have bad ankles, keep getting hamstring pulls or joint issues in general that can reoccur. But if something happens that breaks a bone, put any other player in the same exact position, the result is usually going to be the same.
You can play with a broken hand which McEvoy did.  That is hardly injury prone. Many football players do each year. You can't with a broken collarbone and it is an injury that takes time. In fact, it was the cause of problems the following season. I believe most people would tend to use multiple lost time injuries as an indicator of one's propensity for injury.
Well then those people are stupid. The specifics matter. The nature of the injuries make all difference in the world. Some things can be repaired better than others or heal better. Hell, a broken leg/ankle can be better than a really bad sprain in terms of long-term recovery. 

Again - a broken bone has nothing to do with propensity for injury so it makes absolutely zero difference what bone is broken. Whether you can play with it or not is a roll of the dice - pure chance. Or is a linebacker with a broken hand tougher or less "injury prone" because he can play with it in a cast while a running back with the exact same injury can't?

Engage the good posters, ignore the bad, report as inappropriate the problems. Message board rules. Thanks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/24/2014 5:52 PM

Re: McEvoy questioners let me paint a picture... 


The thing about all that reporting on the competition was that it was very focused on completions and very unclear on the decision-making accuracy and speed.  Thats not a criticism of the reporting but rather how we've been conditioned to look at it, in part part because of Stave's INT and INC problems and in part by the stats-driven trend in all sports.  It may well be that the staff feels that McEvoy can play at a speed (and under pressure) which Stave cannot and has graded out better as a result.  I do not think it is simple as completion percentages and throws.  Certainly could be gamesmanship by GA, but I suspect it is more than that.  Like everyone else here, I can only speculate.
multimed wrote:
combatsports4life wrote: I'm just confused at the amount of disappointment that Stave isn't the starter.  This would seem like a great thing to me from the sense that the staff has more confidence in a new guy than a guy that won us 9 games last year.  Hell before the season it seemed like the vast majority of people were pulling for Stave to lose.  Now he has lost the battle, for now, and many are saddened.  The whole thing just seems weird to me. 
I think it's explained by the fact that it sounded like Stave had outplayed McEvoy up to this point. Had the stories been that McEvoy was looking really sharp & was expected to win out, I think the reaction might have been pretty different. 

Maybe the early reports were off the mark. Maybe McEvoy just started off slow & things came together quickly for him. 

I'm still skeptical that it's not just gamesmanship.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >