Not sure about that at all

Dec 18, 2024
1:31:09pm

2FarGone No One of Consequence

It is very possible, and even likely, that Retzlaff's struggles last year are exactly what led him to his vast improvement this year.

Report problem with this ad

2FarGone

Bio page: 2FarGone
Joined: Mar 2, 2001
Last login: Dec 18, 2024
Total posts: 51,274 (688 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

I love CB that will argue over the craziest things. It is not slander to say that Slovis was not good for BYU.

kimdaddy35 Former Fly Half

1:23pm

But BYU would have been better with a healthy Slovis than newbie JR in the final

mudpupper

1:25pm

Not sure about that at all

2FarGone

1:31pm

Long term yes. But for that year, Slovis was easily the better option

mudpupper

1:37pm

Slovis did take over during a time of pathetic OLine play

donnerstag

1:29pm

This. We failed Slovis, not the other way around.

tacallaway

1:35pm

I am not trying to make Slovis a scapegoat. I know our O-Line was crap. But even

kimdaddy35

1:38pm

It’s much more likely both were true. It was a ba offensive line and Slovis was a bad QB

TCuz

1:38pm

In retrospect, it was a mistake for both BYU and Slovis

donnerstag

1:49pm

For being a senior, I was surprised at some of his bad habits

Huge Manatee

1:34pm

For how highly touted he was ... I was surprised how inaccurate he was.

AsianCoug

1:51pm

Yes, I think a big part of that was his footwork

Huge Manatee

2:04pm

He was putrid in ARod's system.

BlueFever

1:37pm

Someone not afraid to say the truth.

kimdaddy35

1:38pm

Interesting how a player can look both bad and good in a “system” — almost as though there isn’t a “system” but rather

Zach Morris

1:43pm

Slovis is almost strictly a pocket passer; Retzlaff is almost the opposite.

BlueFever

1:47pm

It’s not a “system” but it is skillset oriented. Slovis just wasn’t very good regardless of the “system”. It’s similar

Zach Morris

2:36pm

A coach has to have some kind of system or there's no point in having a coach.

BlueFever

3:04pm

If 122 is putrid is 139 bad?

Charles Darwin

1:48pm

No it is 55th out of 119 qualifiers. A 122 rating would be 103rd.

kimdaddy35

2:00pm

Just looking for cutoffs in these categories

Charles Darwin

2:06pm

A rating isn't like yards where it is a 14% increase in production.

kimdaddy35

2:17pm

The rating is explicitly based on production. The NFL uses a different one than

Charles Darwin

2:52pm

Did 81% mean GMs rating? It’s not a percentage.

Charles Darwin

3:26pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad