Psst: Upchurch, thailleagle, et. al.

[Rick Mons]

Brewster disagrees with your assessments of Weber. Per Youngblood's article tonight:

The Gophers went into the (Purdue) game determined to run the ball. They knew the weather wouldn't lend itself to a passing attack. And don't forget, much of the running success had to do with Weber's ability at times to check to the right run to fit the front he saw.

"I think Adam is a very self-confident player," Brewster said. "His leadership skills, his leadership, his understanding was outstanding against Purdue. From a statistical standpoint, it wasn't a great [passing] game. But it was a 35-20 victory. Quarterbacks are judged on winning."
Full quote and article linkhere​

Earlier and after the Purdue win, ThaillEagle asked for a "Weber supporter" to tell him why Weber was still starting. Brewster apparently heard him and replied.

 

[Khaliq]

That quote doesn't say much of anything. Of course he's going to publicly support his QB if he doesn't have another option on the roster he can go to and this:

"From a statistical standpoint, it wasn't a great [passing] game. But it was a 35-20 victory. Quarterbacks are judged on winning."

I'll just say I hope he doesn't actually think this.

 

[Schnoodler]

I hope he does.

 

[Khaliq]

Well, that would explain the crux of our disagreements if that's the case.

I am fine with judging things on more than a purely statistical basis in a game like football, but happening to be on the field when a win occurs does not necessarily mean you were instrumental in that win. Coaches need to look deeper than that.

 

[Schnoodler]

I think that's his exact point. There is more to being a QB than putting up great stats. The bottom line is the ability to lead a team to victory. The coaches know best which QB is most likely to do that.

 

[Khaliq]

If coaches always knew which guy was best there would never be any turnover in the coaching ranks.

 

[Schnoodler]

Can't argue that point. But let's assume that Brew does know what he's talking about, and he is going to be successful. Or really there is nothing to talk about, just waiting.

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

I will take a QB with great leadership skills anyday over one with great stats. Adam Weber will take care of his own critique, thank you.

 

[PlayHosea]

If your QB doesn't attempt a pass and you win, that's not a bad thing. Problem is the day is going to come where you're going to need your QB to complete a number of tough passes or you're going to lose. I don't think Weber's a bad QB, but if he keeps throwing picks (like the one he had on the drive that could have put the game away), it's time to look elsewhere.

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

Finally. We got a W in a game when Weber's stats were bad. That is a good sign.

 

[gopher7]

I think that's his exact point. There is more to being a QB than putting up great stats. The bottom line is the ability to lead a team to victory. The coaches know best which QB is most likely to do that.

+1

 

[Khaliq]

I will take a QB with great leadership skills anyday over one with great stats. Adam Weber will take care of his own critique, thank you.

This is a false dichotomy because I'll take one with both.

 

[Gopherprof]

Can't argue that point. But let's assume that Brew does know what he's talking about, and he is going to be successful. Or really there is nothing to talk about, just waiting.

You could talk about whether Brewster knows what he's doing. Being a fan usually consists of more than completely blind loyalty.

I'm not saying I want Gray starting now, I don't. Nor do I have a problem with Brewster as coach. But I reject the premise that we must always asume the coaches know what they are doing.

 

[Rick Mons]

I am fine with judging things on more than a purely statistical basis in a game like football, but happening to be on the field when a win occurs does not necessarily mean you were instrumental in that win. Coaches need to look deeper than that.

Seems to me that Brewster' is looking "deeper than that." He credited Weber with sizing up Purdue's defense and checking on running plays that would be more effective (much of the running success had to do with Weber's ability at times to check to the right run to fit the front he saw)

You've acknowledged previously that there's no one who should start ahead of Weber: there's no one else on the roster to go to at this point.. Today you write (Brewster is) going to publicly support his QB if he doesn't have another option on the roster he can go to

Yet you continue to complain about Weber and imply that he should be replaced. Seems like you're trying to straddle two different points of view ... and talking out of both sides of your mouth. Care to clarify?