Article ( QB discussion)

[Paul C]

I think it's just that we are entering the year with an unproven QB. That's all. It's not "the sky is falling" it's just an uncertainty....

FWIW, I know the coaches really like the kids we have and that gives me comfort/confidence, but the fact is just the fact that whoever lines up under C on 8/31 will be an unproven commodity, at least to us, the fans.

[gofurman]

Jackal - I don't care if Grainger is a R-Fr or a Soph, I'd be equally concerned. Not to rehash the arguments made but regardless of his classification he's raw, inexperienced, and full of potential.

Agree with the point about Lincoln, if he was the answer they wouldn't have tried to get him to switch positions. And also agree that any decent QB we'd have recruited would have been scared away by the depth chart....so smart to save that QB spot for this year's class.

And I like where we are at QB...rarely, if ever, have we had 3 QB's with the potential and/or pedigree of Grainger, Sisson and Shiflett on the roster at the same time. It's just that unless Grainger has made some big steps in the offseason (which is very very possible) we might still have to endure some growing pains at the most important position on the field. The good news is that all 3 of them have 4 more years in the program (if Shiflett RS's this year).

So hopefully this is the last year for some time that we have this offseason concern...

Jackal. I agree w some of your AND others points

To wit.
QB 1- Grainger. As Paul said, we can classify Grainger whatever we want but it remains a fact he has a total of FOUR games experience ... Is highly athletic and tall and supposedly has a great arm but is REALLY loose with the ball. Until he cleans the fumbles up he can't stay on the field. As you once said, Grainger has a high Ceiling but a low floor (fumbles etc). I.E. POTENTIAL. Glad we can keep him 4 more years w the new redshirt rule. HUGE disadvantage for Grainger - now this is seriously an inexperienced QB - ONE year of HS QB experience.

QB2 - Sisson. Again as Jackal said, HIGHER FLOOR LOWER CEILING. I would agree from what little I know. Ranked the #188 best FCS recruit the year we got him. Seems a game manager. Steady guy. Though he was put in tough situation at Citadel last year. Big advantage he has on Grainger is FOUR years of HS QB experience.

QB 3. Shiflett. I would say HIGHER CEILING like Grainger. Difference here between the two (Granger and Shiflett) is Grainger has one year of HS QB and Shfflett has 4 years HS QB. but Grainger has a year in OUR system.

[Paul C]

Jackal. I agree w some of your AND others points

To wit.
QB 1- Grainger. As Paul said, we can classify Grainger whatever we want but it remains a fact he has a total of FOUR games experience ... Is highly athletic and tall and supposedly has a great arm but is REALLY loose with the ball. Until he cleans the fumbles up he can't stay on the field. As you once said, Grainger has a high Ceiling but a low floor (fumbles etc). I.E. POTENTIAL. Glad we can keep him 4 more years w the new redshirt rule. HUGE disadvantage for Grainger - now this is seriously an inexperienced QB - ONE year of HS QB experience.

QB2 - Sisson. Again as Jackal said, HIGHER FLOOR LOWER CEILING. I would agree from what little I know. Ranked the #188 best FCS recruit the year we got him. Seems a game manager. Steady guy. Though he was put in tough situation at Citadel last year. Big advantage he has on Grainger is FOUR years of HS QB experience.

QB 3. Shiflett. I would say HIGHER CEILING like Grainger. Difference here between the two (Granger and Shiflett) is Grainger has one year of HS QB and Shfflett has 4 years HS QB. but Grainger has a year in OUR system.

I think you're overplaying the "only played one year of QB in HS" point. He's 2 years removed from HS, he's had a reasonable level of game and practice experience at college level. Last year his general lack of experience was probably a negative but now I don't think there's a difference between his readiness if he had started 2 or 3 years in HS....

[The Jackal]

Jackal. I agree w some of your AND others points

To wit.
QB 1- Grainger. As Paul said, we can classify Grainger whatever we want but it remains a fact he has a total of FOUR games experience ... Is highly athletic and tall and supposedly has a great arm but is REALLY loose with the ball. Until he cleans the fumbles up he can't stay on the field. As you once said, Grainger has a high Ceiling but a low floor (fumbles etc). I.E. POTENTIAL. Glad we can keep him 4 more years w the new redshirt rule. HUGE disadvantage for Grainger - now this is seriously an inexperienced QB - ONE year of HS QB experience.

QB2 - Sisson. Again as Jackal said, HIGHER FLOOR LOWER CEILING. I would agree from what little I know. Ranked the #188 best FCS recruit the year we got him. Seems a game manager. Steady guy. Though he was put in tough situation at Citadel last year. Big advantage he has on Grainger is FOUR years of HS QB experience.

QB 3. Shiflett. I would say HIGHER CEILING like Grainger. Difference here between the two (Granger and Shiflett) is Grainger has one year of HS QB and Shfflett has 4 years HS QB. but Grainger has a year in OUR system.

I think you're overplaying the "only played one year of QB in HS" point. He's 2 years removed from HS, he's had a reasonable level of game and practice experience at college level. Last year his general lack of experience was probably a negative but now I don't think there's a difference between his readiness if he had started 2 or 3 years in HS....

High School experience is a red herring.

We've had all Americans that didn't play a snap at their position in high school.

[gofurman]

I still think HS experience matters at least some. I mean the best 3 players since 2000 I THINK all played their same position in HS. Ingle I think was a QB in HS. I assume Felton was a Fullback in HS? Though RBs need less experience than QBs and OL. I assume Dozier was an OL in HS? In any case I think OL and QBs need experience the most vs, say, RBs and WRs. Reading defenses isn't easy as I see great QBs get fooled. I would prefer a a QB have run a system similar to ours in HS vs one who has not.

That said, I get your point. HS experience is not everything. Agree. College experience in OUR system means a TON as Roberts showed last year by helping winning a conference title despite perhaps not being as athletic or gifted as Grainger / Sisson.

[cavedweller2]

Agree with PC. Regardless of the arguments this season is unique and we have never entered the season without a QB being in the program more than a year.

I guess I just don't get all the teeth gnashing. .

These QBs will have more talent around them than probably any Furman QB since Ingle Martin.

I’m with The Jackal.

[THPaladin]

It will all sort itself out. I think Grainger and Sission will start out in the top two spots. I would not expect CH to insert new guy right into top spot .....but i would not be surprised if after a few weeks he is given a chance... the question is will the coaching staff be able to resist the urge due to his athleticism to not prematurely get him on the field at another position. At MTSU he played safety, RB, wr, qb, and punter. Found this on MTSU twitter.

[apaladin]

Remember, he didn't come to Furman to play another position. If he was ok playing another position he would/could have stayed at MTSU.

[apaladin]

Agree with PC. Regardless of the arguments this season is unique and we have never entered the season without a QB being in the program more than a year.

I guess I just don't get all the teeth gnashing.

Watch the second half of last year's Sammy game.

[The Jackal]

Remember, he didn't come to Furman to play another position. If he was ok playing another position he would/could have stayed at MTSU.

There are dozens of reasons why a player may opt to transfer.

I imagine he'll be given a shot to win the QB job. If he doesn't, then everyone is going need to make a decision about whether he's best utilized on the bench or in the game at another position.

[The Jackal]

Agree with PC. Regardless of the arguments this season is unique and we have never entered the season without a QB being in the program more than a year.

I guess I just don't get all the teeth gnashing.

Watch the second half of last year's Sammy game.

I'm not sure what you want me to say.

The Samford game really illustrates the point I am trying to make. Grainger entered the game with Furman down 10-3. Midway through the third quarter, Furman was winning 19-10. At that point, Grainger had completed only 3 passes, 2 of which were dump-offs to running backs.

Put it another way - Furman scored 16 points and took a double-digit lead against a good Samford team while getting very little production in the passing game from their QB. Why? Good defense, strong running game (incidentally, Grainger DID contribute significantly in the running game), and good kicking game.

Now, assuming that our QBs are not the exact same player in August 2019 as they were in October 2018 (a safe assumption, I think) we will be fine.

You can win football games without needing your QB to throw for 230 every afternoon. In 2013 we won a SoCon title (and a playoff game) with a pretty bad offensive football team supported by a decent running game (basically running behind Dakota Dozier), good defense, and a good kicker.

That 2013 team started Dillon Woodruff at QB. They also played Duncan Fletcher, Terry Robinson, and Richard Hayes back there. THAT team won a conference title. Our 2019 team, I think, is far deeper and more talented than that team.

Again, just my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, what good is it to worry about all of that at this point?

[youwouldno]

Agree with PC. Regardless of the arguments this season is unique and we have never entered the season without a QB being in the program more than a year.

I guess I just don't get all the teeth gnashing.

Watch the second half of last year's Sammy game.

I'm not sure what you want me to say.

The Samford game really illustrates the point I am trying to make. Grainger entered the game with Furman down 10-3. Midway through the third quarter, Furman was winning 19-10. At that point, Grainger had completed only 3 passes, 2 of which were dump-offs to running backs.

Put it another way - Furman scored 16 points and took a double-digit lead against a good Samford team while getting very little production in the passing game from their QB. Why? Good defense, strong running game (incidentally, Grainger DID contribute significantly in the running game), and good kicking game.

Now, assuming that our QBs are not the exact same player in August 2019 as they were in October 2018 (a safe assumption, I think) we will be fine.

You can win football games without needing your QB to throw for 230 every afternoon. In 2013 we won a SoCon title (and a playoff game) with a pretty bad offensive football team supported by a decent running game (basically running behind Dakota Dozier), good defense, and a good kicker.

That 2013 team started Dillon Woodruff at QB. They also played Duncan Fletcher, Terry Robinson, and Richard Hayes back there. THAT team won a conference title. Our 2019 team, I think, is far deeper and more talented than that team.

Again, just my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, what good is it to worry about all of that at this point?

If the goal is to be highly competitive in the weakened SoCon, you are right. If the goal is to be highly competitive nationally, you're wrong. Strong QB play is required. Maybe it will be there, maybe it won't, but it's a huge question mark.

[fufanatic]

Remember, he didn't come to Furman to play another position. If he was ok playing another position he would/could have stayed at MTSU.

There are dozens of reasons why a player may opt to transfer.

I imagine he'll be given a shot to win the QB job. If he doesn't, then everyone is going need to make a decision about whether he's best utilized on the bench or in the game at another position.

So we keep talking about how much of a presence Shiflett had at MTSU, but in looking at the stats, even though he played in all 14 games, he had 7 receptions for 47 yards, 1 rush for 0 yards, and four punts for a 35.5 average. So while any true freshman seeing playing time on the college level is impressive, there's a decent chance that he transferred to FCS and Furman to get more playing time. So while I'm sure he would love to be the starting QB, I can't imagine that he wouldn't be able to step on the field right away (and wouldn't turn down the opportunity) at other positions if he's as athletic as we've been told. At returner or receiver or back-up punting.

At the end of the day, the coaches will put the best QB on the field, and if the others can contribute in another meaningful way, they'll hopefully be given that opportunity.

[The Jackal]

Remember, he didn't come to Furman to play another position. If he was ok playing another position he would/could have stayed at MTSU.

There are dozens of reasons why a player may opt to transfer.

I imagine he'll be given a shot to win the QB job. If he doesn't, then everyone is going need to make a decision about whether he's best utilized on the bench or in the game at another position.

So we keep talking about how much of a presence Shiflett had at MTSU, but in looking at the stats, even though he played in all 14 games, he had 7 receptions for 47 yards, 1 rush for 0 yards, and four punts for a 35.5 average. So while any true freshman seeing playing time on the college level is impressive, there's a decent chance that he transferred to FCS and Furman to get more playing time. So while I'm sure he would love to be the starting QB, I can't imagine that he wouldn't be able to step on the field right away (and wouldn't turn down the opportunity) at other positions if he's as athletic as we've been told. At returner or receiver or back-up punting.

At the end of the day, the coaches will put the best QB on the field, and if the others can contribute in another meaningful way, they'll hopefully be given that opportunity.

Maybe. That doesn't tell you much, though.

Example - Avery Armstrong. Armstrong has 5 career receptions for 82 yards. He has played in nearly every game the last two seasons and is on the field constantly.

Just because a guy doesn't put up numbers doesn't mean he's not playing.

[The Jackal]

Agree with PC. Regardless of the arguments this season is unique and we have never entered the season without a QB being in the program more than a year.

I guess I just don't get all the teeth gnashing.

Watch the second half of last year's Sammy game.

I'm not sure what you want me to say.

The Samford game really illustrates the point I am trying to make. Grainger entered the game with Furman down 10-3. Midway through the third quarter, Furman was winning 19-10. At that point, Grainger had completed only 3 passes, 2 of which were dump-offs to running backs.

Put it another way - Furman scored 16 points and took a double-digit lead against a good Samford team while getting very little production in the passing game from their QB. Why? Good defense, strong running game (incidentally, Grainger DID contribute significantly in the running game), and good kicking game.

Now, assuming that our QBs are not the exact same player in August 2019 as they were in October 2018 (a safe assumption, I think) we will be fine.

You can win football games without needing your QB to throw for 230 every afternoon. In 2013 we won a SoCon title (and a playoff game) with a pretty bad offensive football team supported by a decent running game (basically running behind Dakota Dozier), good defense, and a good kicker.

That 2013 team started Dillon Woodruff at QB. They also played Duncan Fletcher, Terry Robinson, and Richard Hayes back there. THAT team won a conference title. Our 2019 team, I think, is far deeper and more talented than that team.

Again, just my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, what good is it to worry about all of that at this point?

If the goal is to be highly competitive in the weakened SoCon, you are right. If the goal is to be highly competitive nationally, you're wrong. Strong QB play is required. Maybe it will be there, maybe it won't, but it's a huge question mark.

It's part of the game. Every team in college football loses their starting QB at some point. They have to turn the offense over to a guy that doesn't have as much experience.

Yes there's a question mark. There are question marks at every spot on every roster in football not manned by a long-time starter. I just don't see the point in worrying about it. The coaching staff doesn't seem worried about it, why should the fans be? Who has more at stake?

Let's do this. Let's just wait and see what happens, shall we?