Not to take anything away from Thompson but...

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by b381l

If you look at the top picture, there is nobody on the right side of the field. Dylan was throwing the ball to a spot hoping Bruce would run under it and make the catch. This is what good QB do. He didn't have time to wait for Bruce's break. Most QB throw to a spot or an area.....you have trust that your WR will be there....plus there are always WR adjustments on the fly depending on where the ball is thrown in relation to the DB. Connor threw it to a spot at the back on the end zone when throwing the nice TD to Ace earlier. This is exactly what SOS has been preaching to Connor for the last couple of years, he has to throw it to a spot where the receiver will be when the ball gets there.....many times releasing the ball even before the WR has made his break. It's very hard to do which is why not many ever become really good QB.

That is not my point. You obviously are not really reading what I am saying.

I know very well what Spurrier wants QBs to do. But the point has been made in this thread and others that Dylan NEEDED to throw the ball short because there were defenders "behind and beyond" Bruce. The perception has been there that Dylan NEEDED to throw the ball short because the safety was deep and it would have been intercepted or Bruce's head would have been taken off if the ball had been thrown deeper. This is not accurate at all and can't really even be argued if you watch the videos and look at the points that I have already pointed out (09 seconds, 35 seconds, and 44/45 seconds).

That is the only point I am trying to make but it is an important one because several people (maybe not you) have a perception of how that play unfolded that is simply not accurate.

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by b381l

Your earlier post said there was no way Dylan threw it short intentionally because of the defender, implying he was lucky to throw it there. Have you asked him why he threw it short.

Again, you are not listening to what I am saying. Dylan may have thrown the ball EXACTLY where he wanted to throw it. I have no idea. I never said he threw it short of where he WANTED TO THROW IT. My opinion is that he threw it slightly short because of the pressure in his face, but I have no idea unless I ask him as you stated. Just like you have no idea what Connor would have done with the ball on that same play. Even though you act like you do know what would have happened.

But he didn't throw it short BECAUSE of a defender because there was no defender there. That would be like saying Mike Davis ran left because everyone was to the right but you watch the video and there is NO ONE on the right. That doesn't mean Mike Davis was lucky. Mike Davis might have had a very valid reason to run left. Spurrier may have told him to run left. But he certainly wouldn't have run left BECAUSE of people on the right if no one was on the right.

I said that the ARGUMENT that he NEEDED to throw it short because of defenders that were beyond Bruce are simply not true and that is impossible to argue if you watch the video.

Do you understand the difference?? Dylan may have thrown it EXACTLY where he wanted to throw it. But if he had thrown it three yards deeper, it is absolutely accurate to say that there wouldn't have been a defender there that would have caused a problem. Unless the defender was created out of thin air. There is no defender anywhere near Bruce and the goal line when he is still in full stride.

There is no way that Dylan threw it short BECAUSE of the defender because there was no defender there. Do you see the difference? I didn't say he didn't throw it short for maybe some other reasons like maybe that is where Spurrier wants him to throw it. But it certainly was not because of a defender ACTUALLY BEING PRESENT ON THAT PLAY. That can not be argued if you watch the video.

[Dizzy01]

Originally Posted by b381l

Your earlier post said there was no way Dylan threw it short intentionally because of the defender, implying he was lucky to throw it there. Have you asked him why he threw it short.

He threw it short because either:

1) he underestimated Bruce's speed and where he would be
2) he simply threw it as far as he could and hoped for the best

When you throw to a spot the ball is where the receiver is running to. A spot through doesn't require a guy to break stride, adjust the route and come back to the ball.

Again though both plays worked out and no QB is ever going to have a perfect game where every ball is on target. The problem is there is some strange desire to be critical of one guy and defend the other for what's essentially the exact same situation.

[TheUSCMike]

Originally Posted by Dizzy01

He threw it short because either:

1) he underestimated Bruce's speed and where he would be
2) he simply threw it as far as he could and hoped for the best

When you throw to a spot the ball is where the receiver is running to. A spot through doesn't require a guy to break stride, adjust the route and come back to the ball.

Again though both plays worked out and no QB is ever going to have a perfect game where every ball is on target. The problem is there is some strange desire to be critical of one guy and defend the other for what's essentially the exact same situation.

Points

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by Dizzy01

He threw it short because either:

1) he underestimated Bruce's speed and where he would be
2) he simply threw it as far as he could and hoped for the best

When you throw to a spot the ball is where the receiver is running to. A spot through doesn't require a guy to break stride, adjust the route and come back to the ball.

Again though both plays worked out and no QB is ever going to have a perfect game where every ball is on target. The problem is there is some strange desire to be critical of one guy and defend the other for what's essentially the exact same situation.

Exactly and thank you!!! The bottom line is that b381 can come up with a million reasons why Dylan threw it short, but it is simply not accurate to say that one of those reasons is because he NEEDED to because of defenders being deep. Several posters have stated that this was the case and that was my only point in what I was trying to point out. There were no defenders deep so it is an absolute impossibility that he NEEDED to throw it short to avoid them.

I also very much agree with your last sentence! Dylan did exactly what he needed to do because I am sure he saw the coverage and saw that it didn't need to be a perfect throw to connect with Bruce.

[Acockolypse Now]

I'm out.

I'm not reading one single more thread about QB play until the season starts next year.

There's just too much douche-baggery going on here.

You guy realize we went 11-2 and finally had quality QB play from more than one player, right?

Neptune's nut sacks.

[KaneisAble]

Originally Posted by cofcgamecock9

Exactly and thank you!!! The bottom line is that b381 can come up with a million reasons why Dylan threw it short, but it is simply not accurate to say that one of those reasons is because he NEEDED to because of defenders being deep. Several posters have stated that this was the case and that was my only point in what I was trying to point out. There were no defenders deep so it is an absolute impossibility that he NEEDED to throw it short to avoid them.

I also very much agree with your last sentence! Dylan did exactly what he needed to do because I am sure he saw the coverage and saw that it didn't need to be a perfect throw to connect with Bruce.

You are the Jim Garrison of Connor Shaw. Seriously.

[JoeMorrisonLives]

Originally Posted by bryarx

I don't think that one throw, or (DT's) performance in the Outback Bowl makes me forget about what Connor Shaw has done. I just think Dylan is a better passer. In turn, having a better passer in changes our play calls and opens our offense up more. This is just my opinion. If I got to pick, if we are up 10 points or less (or losing) DT should be in. If we are up over 10 points, put Shaw in.

Shaw's feet keep the chains moving and eats up clock. DT can put the ball where it needs to be and can hand off as good as anyone when we need to run. Just my opinion.

Quick scoring is actually worse in a close game, because it doesn't keep your d rested, meaning the other team can score easily, and if you waste a couple of possessions, you may lose the lead, and game.

[JoeMorrisonLives]

Originally Posted by cofcgamecock9

Ok, lets all be really honest here. These are the posts that keep this crap going. 90% of us like both QBs and want the best for both of them. 90% of us know that Spurrier will make the right decision on who plays QB.

But then you get the minority that just HAVE to find a way to insert something that is a backhanded comment about one player or the other. It has been done regarding both of them.

Why is this post wrong? Lets be honest, we all know what this poster is trying to say about Connor. Especially when you read his other posts regarding the subject.

And the fact is that the ball was NOT under thrown by 6 yards. That pass to Damiere was nowhere near as bad as a some of the "Pro Dylan" people want to say. I even went back and watched it and it was a damn good pass. Did he catch it full out on a 100% run with it barely falling into his finger tips? No, but it was by no means a "severely under thrown ball". Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Here is the rub and here is what the problem is as I see it. If Dylan makes that EXACT same throw to Damiere, then I bet it isn't under thrown. I can promise you that this guy that said it was 6 yards under thrown doesn't say a word about it if Dylan had thrown it. Why? Because it was a damn good pass. To any of you that say that ball was really under thrown, you just simply aren't being objective.

If Dylan makes the pass to Ace in the back of the endzone that was PERFECT then I bet Connor couldn't even make that pass. But Connor did make that pass. On the other hand, if Connor had been the one that had scrambled for 20 yards against Clemson and made that all important first down, then some would have said Dylan couldn't have made that run. But Dylan did make that run.

Agreed, it looked to me like he was actually trying to throw a catch-able ball, because Byrd did have to slow down for it, but he still got it right at the goal line, still moving into it, and though the safety got close not close enough to make a play or make Byrd drop it, if he lead Byrd across the endzone and Byrd had to dive for it unnecessarily, score or no, I would've been pissed that he made it more difficult, keep giving the idiots hell man!

[gripitandripit2007]

Originally Posted by b381l

How about when we had 4th and 4-5 and Shaw took off running for the sticks and just dropped the ball. Not clutch.

Or how about the play where he got hurt and scrambled out of a tackle that would have ran the clock down a lot more and would have never given Dylan a chance to throw the game winning throw. It took both...both made clutch plays...I just don't understand how some feel the need to put down one player or the other in hopes to show the other was more clutch...ESPECIALLY when that player has led us to 2 of the best seasons in Gamecock history

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by KaneisAble

You are the Jim Garrison of Connor Shaw. Seriously.

You have no idea what you are talking about... you just have a problem with anyone that doesn't want to bring down one QB to praise the virtues of another. I have said nothing negative about either QB and could care less which one plays next year as long as it is the one that gives us the best chance to win.

Just sick of fans bringing down one QB based on perceptions that are not reality. I had a great opportunity in this thread to COMPLETELY prove disprove one of those perceptions that I had been reading and I took it. It just isn't even up for debate if you watch the video.

[JohnnyB21]

Off-season.... Time for my hibernation until August....

Be happy we have two great quarterbacks and shut up. People arguing and degrading others for their opinions is childish and ridiculous. No need to mention that between the two of them our team threw for 3000 yards and 28(?) Touchdowns to 8(?) INT's.

Just for the record, I like Dylans head bob when he gets fired up. He should start.

[me4USC]

Originally Posted by JoeMorrisonLives

Quick scoring is actually worse in a close game, because it doesn't keep your d rested, meaning the other team can score easily, and if you waste a couple of possessions, you may lose the lead, and game.

Normally, I would agree with you, but there was about half a minute, 26 seconds I think, when Thompson went it. There was no clock to eat up, and there was no longer any need to rest the defense. Thompson held the ball for 40 minutes against Clemson, so he proved that he can do it. He didn't have forty minutes in the bowl. He was in for 2 minutes and 12 seconds.

At the end of the game, he was in for 15 seconds. That's all the time that was given to him to score so that we could win.

Do you still think he should have eaten up the clock? Are you truly criticizing him for getting the job done with only 11 seconds left on the clock? Should he have drawn it out for another play? What do you think Spurrier was telling him to do - eat up the clock or score a touchdown?

[KaneisAble]

Originally Posted by cofcgamecock9

You have no idea what you are talking about... you just have a problem with anyone that doesn't want to bring down one QB to praise the virtues of another. I have said nothing negative about either QB and could care less which one plays next year as long as it is the one that gives us the best chance to win.

Just sick of fans bringing down one QB based on perceptions that are not reality. I had a great opportunity in this thread to COMPLETELY prove disprove one of those perceptions that I had been reading and I took it. It just isn't even up for debate if you watch the video.

Do you even know who Jim Garrison is? I'm commenting on your dogged need to go to any length to defend, taking screengrabs to deflect any potential criticism of CS. It is possible that he has flaws. I don't "just have a problem w/ anyone that doesn't want to bring down one QB to praise the virtues of another". Some of those "perceptions" as you call them are reality. I'm sorry if it doesn't sit well w/ your need to be better than anyone who would dare discuss football on a football board.

[cofcgamecock9]

Originally Posted by KaneisAble

Do you even know who Jim Garrison is? I'm commenting on your dogged need to go to any length to defend, taking screengrabs to deflect any potential criticism of CS. It is possible that he has flaws. I don't "just have a problem w/ anyone that doesn't want to bring down one QB to praise the virtues of another". Some of those "perceptions" as you call them are reality. I'm sorry if it doesn't sit well w/ your need to be better than anyone who would dare discuss football on a football board.

Yes, I know who Jim Garrison is.

And "some" of the perceptions may be, but there are also PLENTY of them on here that get spread AS FACT that aren't reality. I thought the example of Dylan NEEDING to throw the ball short to Bruce was a perfect example.

kane, you can try and deny it all you want, but most people on here see that there is a lot of putting down one qb or the other that goes on because you are trying to prove a point about the other guy. We can all see it. And I am not talking about simply "critiquing" of the play as you like to say. I am talking about very specific situations where something is said that is not the reality of what happened or is pure speculation. So in a nutshell, here is where you and I disagree. I will give you three examples of "critiques" that you like to say are fair game and I will show you where the problem lies for me.

1. Connor was sacked five times yesterday in the game. He needs to learn
to get rid of the ball. - That is a "critique" and then your subsequent opinion on something that has actually happened. I don't know of anyone on this board that has tried to fight people like you when those types of things are discussed.
2. Connor would have not made that play and we would have lost the game. - This is pure speculation. You have no idea what would have happened. You can state it as your opinion, but you better be ready for people to fight back. They have just as much right to fight back as you have to say that one of our players is incapable of doing something based on nothing more than speculation.
3. Connor underthrew Damiere by six yards while Dylan underthrew Bruce because he NEEDED to underthrow him because of the defenders. - This is an example of a post where perception has gotten in the way of what really happened on the field and when people post this, it is going to get called out. Especially when it gets posted as a fact as occurred a couple of times in this situation. This is not what really happened ON EITHER PASS PLAY so people are going to point it out.

The problem with posters like you is not the first example. It is when you get into crititquing, as you like to put it, a player based on perceptions that didn't really happen on the field.

[trapper82]

I like turtles.

[Dizzy01]

Originally Posted by trapper82

I like turtles.

Box turtles are better than Snappers because they're easier to handle and don't look as creepy. Of course near Clemson it was scientifically proven that they hate turtles as most people go out of their way to run them over.

[KaneisAble]

Originally Posted by cofcgamecock9

Yes, I know who Jim Garrison is.

And "some" of the perceptions may be, but there are also PLENTY of them on here that get spread AS FACT that aren't reality. I thought the example of Dylan NEEDING to throw the ball short to Bruce was a perfect example.

kane, you can try and deny it all you want, but most people on here see that there is a lot of putting down one qb or the other that goes on because you are trying to prove a point about the other guy. We can all see it. And I am not talking about simply "critiquing" of the pyou are trying to prove a point about the other guy. So in a nutshell, here is where you and I disagree. I will give you three examples of "critiques" that you like to say are fair game and I will show you where the problem lies for me.

1. Connor was sacked five times yesterday in the game. He needs to learn
to get rid of the ball. - That is a "critique" and then your subsequent opinion on something that has actually happened. I don't know of anyone on this board that has tried to fight people like you when those types of things are discussed.
2. Connor would have not made that play and we would have lost the game. - This is pure speculation. You have no idea what would have happened. You can state it as your opinion, but you better be ready for people to fight back. They have just as much right to fight back as you have to say that one of our players is incapable of doing something based on nothing more than speculation.
3. Connor underthrew Damiere by six yards while Dylan underthrew Bruce because he NEEDED to underthrow him because of the defenders. - This is an example of a post where perception has gotten in the way of what really happened on the field and when people post this, it is going to get called out. Especially when it gets posted as a fact as occurred a couple of times in this situation. This is not what really happened ON EITHER PASS PLAY so people are going to point it out.

The problem with posters like you is not the first example. It is when you get into crititquing, as you like to put it, a player based on perceptions that didn't really happen on the field.

I'm sorry, what? When did I say any of the things you posted herein? I've stayed out of this thread because you're one of the most insufferable posters on this board. You act like someone appointed you the Moral Police riding high on your Horse of Judgement telling people how their opinions and observations about football plays reflects on their character and then chastise anyone who dares offer any form of critique of CS' game play like it's your paid job to do so. The condescending tone you take isn't conducive to having an actual football conversation. You're so ridiculously vehement and defensive that it makes any attempt at a discussion completely pointless (see: your total generalization of "posters like you" and "everyone here can see what YOU do"). That's some moral high ground crap. I haven't posted once in this thread and I haven't posted any of the BS you're attributing to me. The first example you cited is EXACTLY THE TYPE OF THING I'VE POSTED.

But Judge on, man. Keep fighting the Connor Shaw fight. I was simply stating that it's humorous how dogged you are in your need to Police CT. I have my opinion of his play this past season and I hope he recovers from his injuries and works to improve some of the shortcomings. And that Dylan Thompson gets a fair look.

[TheUSCMike]

Originally Posted by trapper82

I like turtles.

Me too

[qcgamecock]

Originally Posted by JoeMorrisonLives

Quick scoring is actually worse in a close game, because it doesn't keep your d rested, meaning the other team can score easily, and if you waste a couple of possessions, you may lose the lead, and game.

Really, I always wondered when quick scoring was worse, thanks??????? For the record as a football player, QB and GAMECOCK fan, I have never, ever said "wait and score the defense needs to rest" , never becuase I was yelling "run it back BRUUUUUUUUUCE" or "take it to the house Marcus"...