Old Friend

You are correct...and I have no clue where my brain was...I deviated from my point about east coast ties.. Wow... I know what he's saying, but I never said he wasn't. I said he was hired for his east coast ties....and he was.

Very, very different players.

Who's "he?" Miller or Flint? Flint was hired for his east cost relationships (which Miller mentioned early on); and also because of some coaches he knows around here. Of course he can recruit around the area. I never said he couldn't. What's your point other than to argue? I never said anything about anyone's ability to recruit Indiana, and in fact have been very complimentary so far. What is your point?? I'm not ignoring anything. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You put words in my mouth...I called you on it. Move on. For the love of God, man.

There's always an assistant attached. Flint was not hired because he can recruit Indiana. Don't kid yourself. Based on what I know, the first recruit Miller contacted after Langford was Phinisee. Why would you doubt a head coach's role in recruiting? Even Knight took the lead on mission-critical kids much of the time; and he hated recruiting. I never used the word "only." You did.

The lead recruiter on Phinisee was Archie Miller. Like I said, the kid might be terrific and a perfect fit. Flint may end up having value; but the reason he was hired was because of his east coast ties. The entire university has gone that direction, as has the Big Ten. I'll never understand it, nor like it; but that's my opinion.

Sorry.... I was referring to whether or not this recruitment somehow means Morgan is leaving.

This would disappoint me. A lot. Not sure if this comes as a guess or whether you know something; but if this is the case, I'm leery of the methodology.

I was not impressed with the Bruiser Flint hire, so I'm skeptical and I still have no idea why we feel the need to go to Philadelphia to find the #37 ranked PF in the country. BUT....He runs the floor well, he's bouncy, he shows lots of potential fundamentally and seems to understand spacing and help side defense based on the 4 videos I just watched (he opened the right way in a screen/roll, for example..many kids don't). If he stays 3-4 years, I can see him making an impact. Bruiser Flint and his connections scare me because I just don't think he's that great. Guy won 53% of his games and never did a thing as a head coach. In his last 2 seasons, his Drexel teams went 17-44 ; and he never made the NCAA tournament in a horrible Colonial Athletic Conference. Welcome to the kid....hope he's terrific.

What holds no weight is Zander was never asked to throw the ball much. We had a FAR better running game when he was here; and generally speaking he was a substitute to run the read option. You really think that's an equal comparison?

That was for those who said Zander couldn't make the throw to Hale. People above made comparisons based on one throw, saying Zander couldn't make that throw and the comparison was absurd. If you're objective at all...you know as well as I do this video refutes that claim. Yes. He could have made that throw. He wasn't asked to make lots of throws. He was a read option QB. The video does in fact say all you need to know; but context matters. Help me understand how making statements based on one throw is an accurate or reasonable thought process, when a video disproves what they were saying? You lost me. Serious answer. He was never asked to.

Think you're overestimating what he'd do when teams prepare for him. There's a reason Indiana used Diamont as a change up a year ago. He was effective that way. As a full time starter? Not so much.

Here you go fellas. Selective memory aside; there are a couple of pretty solid throws here. You're making statements based on one throw, AND saying Diamont couldn't make them? Damn these highlight reels. They take away so many narratives when you so badly want someone else to be wrong. Check out his HS stats at the beginning. We're not taking about a kid who couldn't throw it.

With the receivers we have? We're going to need throws outside the numbers. We just are. We need to be multi-dimensional; but we need arm strength better than what Ramsey gives them. Diamont's strength was the read option and speed. Same with Ramsey. His throw to Hall was simply an out and up with no safety help. He had to throw it ~ 35 yards. Any good college QB can make that throw over a smaller corner. Lagow's arm will be needed. What we need is a running game to keep the defense honest. When he was in the game both this week and last, we didn't have that. Game plan changed....and playbook changed when Ramsey came in. Lagow threw no screens or delayed drags. He was asked to make tough throws from the pocket, and today, he didn't make them. Last week, he did. I like the change up; I just don't think this needs to be "bash Lagow and sit him forever" because teams can take Ramsey away and his arm can't bail him out. What we really have are two incomplete QB's. If we start Ramsey, defenses will key on the read option with ends and linebackers playing very differently than they did today with Ramsey in the game. Ends were crashing w Lagow, and linebackers either dropping into coverage or filling A/B gaps. Perfect for an option QB, and Virginia clearly wasn't ready for that. I just think it's a lot more complicated than saying "Lagow sucks, sit him;" and I think some are kinda' over stating how much better Ramsey is than Diamont was.

I said give Lagow a week or two....and he made NFL throws a week ago against the #2 team in the country. Not like being "pro Lagow" was that outlandish. I disagree with you that Ramsey gives them so much more than Lagow can. His arm's not close; and you can take away that read option very easily. This is not Randle El we're dealing with. I think you WAY over estimate what Ramsey is right now because he looked good against a defense clearly ill prepared for his skill set. You think he does that against WIsconsin when they're prepared for him? I think UVA was not prepared to play against the read option or a screen game, and the coaches made a great decision making the change. Ramsey averaged 8 yards per attempt, and a lot was after the catch. That's very average; and he made only one or two difficult throws. Very different playbook than Lagow had, and that's just truth. They're gonna' need both QB's this season, and I would simply tell you if you believe Ramsey is the answer and Lagow just needs to sit, I think you're wrong. I'm not gonna' argue with you. Lagow was bad today. No doubt. But they're going to need him down the road.

Two very different offensive game plans with 2 very different quarterbacks. One played poorly, the other had a nice start and brought a very needed burst of energy. Virginia was prepared for one QB; not the other. Indiana's defense and special teams won that one. When you have 2 QB's, you really don't have one. Ramsey is clearly far more athletic with his legs, but he was not asked to make the throws Lagow was asked to make. Completely different playbook. Lagow was bad. No question. I just hope the coaches don't think Ramsey is the answer. He's a little better than Diamont, but not that much. Teams who prepare for him will take away what he does well.

I will happily eat my crow this week. Lagow was awful. Play calling and a dropped ball didn't help him; and game plan not nearly as sound with him in the game as it was last week; but he has to be better than that. Different set of plays w/Ramsey in the game. UVA prepared for one; not the other.

I have no attachment to this kid at all. I do laugh at "excuses." Reasons are not excuses. See above. The game plan was very clear....find one on one matchups on the outside and throw the ball to that player; especially Cobbs. It ended up being Hale much of the time, also. When OSU doubled the outside, he frequently found Timion on crossing routes; but he was not going through progressions. No\t deciding where to throw the ball; and in fact audibled out of running plays to throw into 1 on 1 coverage multiple times. That was the game plan. I don't yet think you're wrong. I even said you may be right given time. But after that game, and that game plan,...in which decision making was taken for the most part away from him; I don't think it's fair to make the statements you made. Basically? Me, my boyfriends, and my hissy fits think you're making statements without knowing what you were watching. I'll be here next week and after if you turn out to be right, and I'll even give you credit. In turn, where will you be? Context matters.

This is where you're missing the point I and others have made. This was not a progression read game plan. This was "find the 1 on 1 and throw it" game plan. Lagow was not given an opportunity to value the ball. He was told to let his receivers make plays in 1 on 1 matchups; especially w Cobbs. We did not have time to go through normal progressions. He did not have time to make decisions. In essence, decisions were taken out of his hands much of the time.

Good Lord. Grow up. He's a kid. He was executing a game plan, and had turnovers any QB on the planet would have had, and you're so convinced you need to be critical you resort to this childish garbage hoping for a laugh from the rest of the people who don't understand this is a brand new offensive staff, game planning against by far the best team he'll see, putting him in position to make mistakes, but also succeed. The first INT was a tipped ball. Defensive guy made a play, and you still feel like you need to blame him. The other INT happened when the game was decided and he was trying to make a play. This is a new season and I promise you he and everyone who works with him focused on the turnovers. It's like you all think he's an idiot incapable of learning lessons. He's not, and he does get the benefit of the doubt from me because he's the quarterback. He is not under pressure from anyone better, and I know absolutely that he's aware of last season and focused on being better. That's not my opinion; and I didn't see a kid prone to mistakes; I saw a kid playing against an incredible team that pressured our entire offense; and we STILL had a lead in the middle of the 3rd quarter. I think time will show OSU is no ordinary football team; and our line still has some developing to do. That pressure was far more than he'll see again, and I didn't think he played that poorly under that duress. It's not like he threw 4 INT's because of pressure. Maybe he threw one. You do understand the throws he made to receivers with 1 on 1 coverage were asked of him, right? Not his decisions. Not because of pressure. That's the context you miss. He threw 65 balls. Two were picked. One was his fault, but the game was already decided at that point. Context. Again, let's see where he is next week. My boyfriends and I have a date and we're all wearing his jersey with crimson eye make up. May we buy you a lemonade?

So you can emininate context and game plan and the fact Indiana couldn't run the ball. You can ignore the eyeball test. You can take 4 players projected in 2 rounds of one draft (let alone others projected in others or in later rounds), and just ignore it in favor of criticism? Got it. You're like the old men in the balcony of the Muppet Show. Just complaining for the sake of it and applying facts without context so you convince yourself you're right. You may be. But if you you really don't think context and game plan mattered this week, I tbink you're foolish.

All I'm saying. I hope I'm right, too. I think he executed the game plan a lot more than he made several poor decisions. In 65 throws, not all will be perfect. Several were.

At the end of the day, worrisome, why? Until he costs us a game we should win, this is a 6-8 win team either way. He is by far the best we have, so why be so uptight about a couple of bad throws in 65 attempts? Why be upset over "forced throws" when the game plan was to throw it up and ask receivers to make plays? He may be exactly the same as he was.....but I also think after that game, when we simply could not run the ball and played against a far superior and deeper team, making blanket statements is premature, especially given his production when the game still mattered. I know he had 3 turnovers, but that's a very simplistic and incomplete way to look at it in my mind.

Context matters. Talk to me in a week or two. Let's see how he does against "everybody." OSU is not "everybody." There's nobody behind him close to better, and Indiana is absolutely a 6-8 win team if they stay healthy; so you all are just bitching for the sake of bitching.

He was asked to make those throws this week. Asked to let his receivers make a play. That was very clearly the game plan. I'm telling you I don't see that as an issue this season yet. You need to grasp that before you make blanket statements. Let's have this conversation again in a week or two. I'm not telling you you're wrong; but I think making a blanket judgement based on that game is premature.

It is one game. This season. He had 3 TD's, over 300 yards, and 1 INT on a tipped ball during the time in the game when it mattered. Against the #2 team in the country. OSU has 4 players on defense projected in the top 2 rounds of the 2018 NFL mock draft. Laughable...how, exactly?