"Davis is not playing well in practice and is not ready for the toughest part of the schedule."
Ultimately it could be as simple as this. None of us are in practice. Davis might be hitting guys in their shoelaces or floating passes ten feet over their heads. He may have poor practice habits. He might not be learning. He might be a disaster ten times worse than Crane. But, he's all we have. The staff has deemed him the next best option after Crane. They want to keep Tuggle's redshirt. Crane's play dictates that you try something else.
Even if Davis is the worst practice player ever with a thin understanding of the offense, you take a shot. Some players perform differently when it is game time. Some rise to the occasion. Plus getting him out there forces the other team to adjust and prepare for two QBs. Even if the staff thinks he is terrible, Clemson, Notre Dame and Maryland don't know that. They just see another tall athletic QB across the line.
If Davis gets out there and looks terrible or turns the ball over, you put him back on the bench. One turnover is not going to be anything worse than the mistakes that Crane has made.
Later in the week I'll get into the Crane upside argument.
Posts
6 comments:
Does anyone know anything more about the decision to switch Codi Boek to fullback?
As my old man would say (with me replacing the names):
"What we don't know is if Dom Davis is the answer. What we do know is that the answer is clearly not Chris Crane."
I'm sure Chris is a great guy, and I have zero doubts he's trying really hard, playing really hard, and wants to win. It's simply not working. We need to try something else.
The staff has been more than patient with him, and has given him every opportunity to win. Don't give me the "Chris is a winner" line, either. The team won several of those games in spite of Crane's performance, not because of it. You can make the argument that Crane won the NCSU game. He's lost two.
Give Davis a chance now. At least we'll know heading into next season what we have to work with, or if we'll need to start a true frosh or throw Tuggle out there as well.
The Davis discussion continues to revolve around two schools of thought.
One is I can't take it any more I will try anything put Davis in or my head will explode. Or, I refuse to believe Jags and Logan don't know what they are doing so Davis must be really shaky and please don't put in someone worse or my head will explode.
I am in the later camp with the additional proviso that Jags is worried about winning 8 regular season games. So this is not the time for any consideration of next year.
We're still in the ACC hunt, which I presume is why Crane is still playing. He probably knows the playbook better, has practiced with the 1st team more and (here's the scary part) is better period than Davis.
But Jags and Logan didn't think so little of Davis to dismiss the thought of playing him at all this year. He's seen the field in three games. So why didn't he play during blow out time Saturday?
Just because one guy is starting over another doesn't mean he is the better or more deserving player. Yes, we don't see the practices, but giving coaches the benefit of the doubt on those grounds is foolish. Anybody who has played sports at the high school or college levels knows that there are guys who excel in practice, but have no game sense when the whistle blows for real. In other words, some guys get "it," some guys don't, and the proof is in the pudding on gameday. I know it was a prior administration, but to underscore this point, in the very recent BC past we have seen Scott Mutryn beat out Matt Hasselbeck in the Spring, Quinton Porter beat out Paul Peterson, and Porter beat out Matt Ryan. All of those decisons were horrible. We also saw [some guy whose name I can't remember] beat out Derrick Knight, who eventually won the starting job in week three and went on to be the second leading rusher in the nation. The coaching staff is not beyond reproach for picking the wrong starter. Mistakes are made, and it is indeed looking like Crane is a mistake. How much more evidence do you need? A creampuff schedule and he has had one good game. I say let someone else have a chance, first Davis and maybe Boek if Davis can't get the job done. We simply can't expect to win many games with Crane's turnover problems, and I am starting to wonder whether he won the job in the first place on "good soldier" credentials, rather than merit.
AE - I get the frustration. But I think you give this coaching staff the benefit of the doubt because they have shown that they will play whoever they feel is best suited for the job, not who has been around the longest. If this were the previous staff, I'd think otherwise.
That said, if DD can't supplant Crane, I'm very worried for next year.
Post a Comment