I don’t think he was giving any promises on starting. I just think Zack had enough confidence in himself that he would win the starting job. That is what I mean when I say he knew.
Yep. Like I said, I don't think the idea is invalid at all. I'm not sure I buy it myself, but that doesn't mean it's not in the realm of possibility. It certainly could be right on the money.
When you say, "go in and compete directly at a school that traditionally puts QB’s into the NFL," are you referring to IMG? The football program that's existed for a total of 5 years? That's funny stuff.
Sure literally he is wrong. But in a (much more) general context, I'm pretty sure that private "sports academies" in Florida have been churning out elite football recruits for years (decades?). That's setting aside the NFL part of it, and just talking about high level CFB recruits.
What I am assuming is this.
Last year we had co-QB's. Both were listed as the starter. Make a bad mistake, we'll use the other starter.
PJ said that is not the case this year. Although it was close, ZA won the job, so it's his.
No short leash means to me means ZA will play the whole game for the first few games unless the following happens.
1. ZA gets injured
2. ZA implodes horrifically. Repeated fumbles / interceptions. Deer in the headlights. Starts making 100 level mistakes repeatedly.
3. We are either leading or losing by a lot and PJ decides TM just needs to get reps to be prepared should ZA need a replacement down the line.
I think that's what PJ means.
If you disagree with any of my three suggested points, you can explain.
This is too far the other way, for me. I can't get on board with this. Now of course, that doesn't mean that it won't happen. Could be exactly correct. We will see.
But I just think it would be foolish not to give TM meaningful game reps with the offense in the NM St game. Now sure ... if we end up being in a shootout 70-70 tie going late into the 4th qtr with ZA having led touchdown drives on each of 10 drives ... fine, keep him in there. But I see two likely possibilities for the NM St game, at least when it comes to our offense:
- we're in comfortable control of the game after the first say 4-5 offensive drives (think like 21-0, 21-3, 21-7 something like that), and so it wouldn't hurt anything to give TM a drive or two to see what he can do
- after first 4-5 offensive drives, we're in a dogfight with NM St (perhaps tied 7-7 or something like that). But that could mean ZA hasn't had a ton of success on those drives. Or maybe they just stalled out ... but in any case, that would seem to warrant giving TM a shot, right?
So either way in those cases, I just can't see TM riding the bench the whole game.
Now you're saying "well wait a second now ... a) that's how it works when you name a starting QB! He gets to play the whole game, then you reassess, and b) Fleck said it wouldn't be a short leash! That would be a short leash in my book!"
Not wrong. But here's the kicker/reason why: NEITHER have ANY game experience. None. It'd be one thing if TM was a redshirt junior this year, and we had an idea of what he was all about in games. But we don't know how either will do in games. There is only so much you can tell by practice. Sometimes, a kid is just a gamer. And also sometimes, a kid looks great in practice but wilts in a game. You don't know, until you try it. That's why ...
I rest my case.
