QB Update

Discuss anything and everything relating to Bobcat Football here.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Post Reply
User avatar
codecat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: Laurel

Re: QB Update

Post by codecat » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:36 pm

technoCat wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:37 pm
catsrback76 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:21 pm
bobcat99 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:36 pm
VimSince03 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:10 pm
bobcat99 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:06 pm
codecat wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:45 am
RobertCats wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:53 am
iaafan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:21 am
The Butcher wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:30 am
RobertCats wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:11 pm
I only watched the game once as well, but I remember Rovig playing pretty good in his first career start, as a freshman, in one of the most hostile opposing environments in the FCS at SDSU. I remember a few mistakes (Ints and a fumble on a scramble) but what really sticks out in my mind were the 33 dropped passes off of pretty good throws.
I was at that game; SDSU was NOT a hostile environment. I was actually a little surprised by game's atmosphere.
And there weren’t 33 dropped passes. Did you mean 3? Rovig was 13-25-2, 164 yards and one TD vs. SDSU. Rovig is good, but I think he’ll throw some picks. Might be something you just have to live with and MSU may be able to counter them with its defense.
I'll admit I was assuming it was a "hostile" environment as I was not personally there so I have to take your word for it. All I was saying was that making your first start, on the road, was a top 5 team for their home opener in front of 15,000 fans is a lot different than making your first career start at home or on the road vs a PSU or UC Davis in front of 4,000 fans.

I was exaggerating, it felt like 33! I only watched the game once but I remember at least 5 throws where the WR had his hands on it and did not make the catch, I think one WR himself had 3 drops. So 18-25 looks a lot better than 13-25. Basically, my point is that Rovig did not play as "bad" as some say he did against the Jacks, yeah we got our a$$ kicked but that was a total team effort and his final line wasn't even that bad. Could have actually been enough to win if we mustered more than 29 yards rushing on 23 attempts and the defense didn't get carved up for 512 yards.
That's the way I remember it too, essentially he couldn't get into a rhythm from the start because of the drops - which also aided greatly in 3 and out possessions. True too that both SDSU and NDSU you showed just how far our defense needs to go.
It's hard to run the ball when you struggle to pass the ball, and your QB isn't much of a run option.

I'm worried we'll light up bad teams and struggle with the good teams, offensively.
Every "good" team we faced last year, we struggled with offensively...because we didn't have a passing threat. We still have a good offensive line and plenty of good running options. MSU needs a passing element.
I completely agree that we need a passing element. I'm just not sold we have it.
We WILL have a far more developed passing attack from what we've had and that will be a great addition to our offensive attack!

The D needs to prove they can consistently get to the edge and contain, pressure QB's all game, and get off the field on 3rd down. If the D can do that I have no fear of the Offense doing their job!
Jeez how did this go from we aren't sure if we have that all-league QB to put us over the top to we don't know anything about anyone and our defense sucks?!! :lol: :lol: :wink:
I don't think this discussion was ever about having an all-league QB (at least that's not what i have read) but about needing a legit passing threat as Vim said above, to keep defenses honest.\
Defensively, the team i saw last year fell apart when opponents got both their passing and running games going (i.e. Weber, SDSU, and NDSU to name a couple off the top of my head).


What is pro Human Rights about assisting the Cartels in promoting drug, human, and gang trafficking?

User avatar
GoCats18
Member # Retired
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:06 pm
Location: MT

Re: QB Update

Post by GoCats18 » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:36 pm

bobcat99 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:59 am
If SDSU is hostile, then WaGriz is gonna be hell for the kid.
Wagriz is pretty quiet when the griz are losing. It also helps that they can’t even afford to have a band at homes. It isn’t in the budget. Haha!!


FTG!!

TomCat88
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
Location: An endless run of moguls

Re: QB Update

Post by TomCat88 » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:22 pm

iaafan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:21 am
The Butcher wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:30 am
RobertCats wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:11 pm
I only watched the game once as well, but I remember Rovig playing pretty good in his first career start, as a freshman, in one of the most hostile opposing environments in the FCS at SDSU. I remember a few mistakes (Ints and a fumble on a scramble) but what really sticks out in my mind were the 33 dropped passes off of pretty good throws.
I was at that game; SDSU was NOT a hostile environment. I was actually a little surprised by game's atmosphere.
And there weren’t 33 dropped passes. Did you mean 3? Rovig was 13-25-2, 164 yards and one TD vs. SDSU. Rovig is good, but I think he’ll throw some picks. Might be something you just have to live with and MSU may be able to counter them with its defense.
I agree with the picks part of your post. If Rovig can keep them down, he can be an extremely effective and efficient QB for this team.

MSU needs a Stefan Cantwell.


MSU - 14 team National Champions (most recent 2011); 52 individual National Champions (most recent 2017).
toM StUber

iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4244
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: QB Update

Post by iaafan » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am

While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.



rivercat
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:26 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: QB Update

Post by rivercat » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:21 pm

iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
That's a bold prediction to have included future stats. I agree with your logic and see a balanced offense being more productive overall but lots of things can and do happen. It'll be fun to look back after the season and see how you fared. Hope it goes as you predict.👍


"...get in 21 personnel and pound people and take their souls and have fun doing that..." coach Choate

User avatar
RobertoGato
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:46 am

Re: QB Update

Post by RobertoGato » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:05 pm

cats2506 wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:00 pm
I don't get why so many are convinced that the QB run game is a signature of Choate. I think it came out of necessity, given the players available for the position the last 2 1/2 years. I think he (and MM) want a more traditional QB style and will return to that as soon as they feel they have the player for that position. All indications are that they think they have that player now.

I think we will continue to see wildcat type plays using TA and TJ, if for no other reason than to force teams to spend time gameplanning for it.
I could have missed it, but I didn't read anyone saying that the QB run game is a "signature" of Choate, by which I assume you mean his preferred style of offense. I don't know exactly what he prefers, but I'm sure it involves more balance than what the Cats have had over his tenure.

I did say that the QB run game has been the foundation of the offense since Choate took over. And that's just a fact. Whether he wants it that way or not, it's a reality that the QB run game has been the most productive aspect of MSU's offense for three seasons now.

I don't point that out to say that we must adhere to that style. What I'm saying is this: when you switch from Murray/Andersen to a player like Rovig, you have to consider not just the additions but also the subtractions. The passing game will undoubtedly be a lot more productive with Rovig. However, the QB run game will be close to non-existent compared to what the other two were able to do.

We know Rovig will add more passing value to the offense, but will it be enough that he's a net positive addition to the offense when you consider what his presence takes away? I don't know the answer to that question, obviously, but I think it's fair to ask it.

As to your last comment, there's not doubt that the staff would love to have someone who can facilitate a better passing attack. But I think there's strong evidence that they were hoping to start someone other than Rovig this season. This doesn't seem to be a popular observation, but they tried pretty hard to find an alternative.



User avatar
RobertoGato
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:46 am

Re: QB Update

Post by RobertoGato » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm

iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4244
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: QB Update

Post by iaafan » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm

RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4244
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: QB Update

Post by iaafan » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:44 pm

rivercat wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:21 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
That's a bold prediction to have included future stats. I agree with your logic and see a balanced offense being more productive overall but lots of things can and do happen. It'll be fun to look back after the season and see how you fared. Hope it goes as you predict.👍
I believe this is what the coaches envision as well. There’s really no other way to look at it. I don’t think they’re gunning to pass the ball 40 times a game. But who knows? I think this is a reasonable thing to shoot for.



User avatar
RobertoGato
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:46 am

Re: QB Update

Post by RobertoGato » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm

iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4244
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: QB Update

Post by iaafan » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm

RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.



User avatar
RobertoGato
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:46 am

Re: QB Update

Post by RobertoGato » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:19 pm

iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.
The guys they pursued seemed much more likely to start than be a #2 to Rovig.



bobcat99
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3046
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:11 am

Re: QB Update

Post by bobcat99 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:25 pm

iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.
Coaches aren't looking for a "veteran" QB for depth. And honestly, no good upperclassman wants to come to a program as a depth piece at QB.

If the coaches were looking for a younger guy, that tells you they're looking for depth.

They were/are looking for a starter.

Take Jensen or Modster. Sure, there would have been a "competition", but you don't bring those guys in and not have them start. Then Vim (who is rarely wrong) says they're looking for a veteran QB transfer, but not just anybody...I mean, that SCREAMS that they're looking for a starter. It SCREAMS that they're not content with what we have. The information available to us makes it pretty obvious.



The MICKSTER
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:55 pm

Re: QB Update

Post by The MICKSTER » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:33 pm

RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:19 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.
The guys they pursued seemed much more likely to start than be a #2 to Rovig.
Whether they're looking for a #1 or a #2, let's remember IF Rovig either doesn't work out or gets hurt, AND, neither Bauman or Beltran are up to the task (which I don't think will be the case), I think our fall back position will be let's have our unanimous Big Sky All Conference QB from last season play QB if needed. For that to happen all 3, Rovig, Bauman, Beltran, would ALL have to 'not' work out........highly unlikely IMO. However if they can land a 'starter' who beats out Rovig and the rest.....'All the Better'. GO CATS!
Last edited by The MICKSTER on Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
CelticCat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 9547
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Mt Vernon, WA

Re: QB Update

Post by CelticCat » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:36 pm

bobcat99 wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:25 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.
Coaches aren't looking for a "veteran" QB for depth. And honestly, no good upperclassman wants to come to a program as a depth piece at QB.

If the coaches were looking for a younger guy, that tells you they're looking for depth.

They were/are looking for a starter.

Take Jensen or Modster. Sure, there would have been a "competition", but you don't bring those guys in and not have them start. Then Vim (who is rarely wrong) says they're looking for a veteran QB transfer, but not just anybody...I mean, that SCREAMS that they're looking for a starter. It SCREAMS that they're not content with what we have. The information available to us makes it pretty obvious.
To me it means they would only take someone they thought would be obvious, immediate improvement at QB, but they haven't found that person yet. Maybe there isn't that big of pool, but you'd imagine with the transfer portal there are plenty of guys with good pedigrees out there. The fact that they haven't brought anyone in yet to me means they haven't found anyone they like better than Rovig, which would be an indication that staff would feel plenty comfortable heading into to this season with Rovig at the helm.


R&R Cat Cast - the only Bobcat fan podcast - https://anchor.fm/rrcatcast
Twitter - https://twitter.com/rrcatcast @RRCatCast

User avatar
WalkOn79
Member # Retired
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Bozeman

Re: QB Update

Post by WalkOn79 » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:40 pm

Good luck Chris. It was fun while it lasted :)


"The pride and tradition
of Montana State football
will not be entrusted to
the timid or weak!"

Cliff Hysell, RIP

User avatar
RobertoGato
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:46 am

Re: QB Update

Post by RobertoGato » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:45 pm

CelticCat wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:36 pm
bobcat99 wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:25 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.
Coaches aren't looking for a "veteran" QB for depth. And honestly, no good upperclassman wants to come to a program as a depth piece at QB.

If the coaches were looking for a younger guy, that tells you they're looking for depth.

They were/are looking for a starter.

Take Jensen or Modster. Sure, there would have been a "competition", but you don't bring those guys in and not have them start. Then Vim (who is rarely wrong) says they're looking for a veteran QB transfer, but not just anybody...I mean, that SCREAMS that they're looking for a starter. It SCREAMS that they're not content with what we have. The information available to us makes it pretty obvious.
To me it means they would only take someone they thought would be obvious, immediate improvement at QB, but they haven't found that person yet. Maybe there isn't that big of pool, but you'd imagine with the transfer portal there are plenty of guys with good pedigrees out there. The fact that they haven't brought anyone in yet to me means they haven't found anyone they like better than Rovig, which would be an indication that staff would feel plenty comfortable heading into to this season with Rovig at the helm.
They did find candidates that they presumably liked better and they offered them. Those guys just chose other options.



BleedingBLue
Member # Retired
Posts: 2243
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:00 pm

Re: QB Update

Post by BleedingBLue » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:11 pm

RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:45 pm
CelticCat wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:36 pm
bobcat99 wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:25 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.
Coaches aren't looking for a "veteran" QB for depth. And honestly, no good upperclassman wants to come to a program as a depth piece at QB.

If the coaches were looking for a younger guy, that tells you they're looking for depth.

They were/are looking for a starter.

Take Jensen or Modster. Sure, there would have been a "competition", but you don't bring those guys in and not have them start. Then Vim (who is rarely wrong) says they're looking for a veteran QB transfer, but not just anybody...I mean, that SCREAMS that they're looking for a starter. It SCREAMS that they're not content with what we have. The information available to us makes it pretty obvious.
To me it means they would only take someone they thought would be obvious, immediate improvement at QB, but they haven't found that person yet. Maybe there isn't that big of pool, but you'd imagine with the transfer portal there are plenty of guys with good pedigrees out there. The fact that they haven't brought anyone in yet to me means they haven't found anyone they like better than Rovig, which would be an indication that staff would feel plenty comfortable heading into to this season with Rovig at the helm.
They did find candidates that they presumably liked better and they offered them. Those guys just chose other options.
That was Celtic's exact point. Those 2 would have been major upgrades over anything we have had in Choate's time. And I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree. The point now is that there have not been more offers (that we've heard about) and that in itself is saying if somebody like Jensen or Modster isn't available and interested, then there is no use in bringing them in. To me that is not a knock on TR at all. Nobody really knows what he can do. It'd be foolish not to bring in somebody who the coaches know can push this team over the top.



User avatar
CelticCat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 9547
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Mt Vernon, WA

Re: QB Update

Post by CelticCat » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:15 pm

Modster for sure was a reach by the staff in terms of a low likelihood he would commit here (as he signed with FBS Cal) and while Jensen would have been an improvement most likely over Rovig, I highly doubt Choate told Jensen it would be his job to lose, and Jensen took a lot of flak on egriz for not wanting to compete with Sneed.


R&R Cat Cast - the only Bobcat fan podcast - https://anchor.fm/rrcatcast
Twitter - https://twitter.com/rrcatcast @RRCatCast

User avatar
technoCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Bozeman

Re: QB Update

Post by technoCat » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:28 pm

BleedingBLue wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:11 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:45 pm
CelticCat wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:36 pm
bobcat99 wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:25 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:12 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:53 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:11 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:01 am
While it’s true that there’ll be a drop off in rushing yards with Murray or Andersen not at QB, it’s important to recognize that neither were deft at misdirection running read-option plays. Murray and Andersen are simply good at running. Murray had moves; Andersen had strength. Both were very fast.

Point being their running didn’t necessarily setup Ifanse and the run game for success as much as you think. The run game, via RBs, is more apt to be setup for success with a QB that keeps defenses out of the box.

Teams stacked the box against MSU last year with reckless abandon. The extra time it takes to get the ball to a RB was enough to blow up running plays often. You get one less tackler off the line by being a legit threat throwing the ball and you could see Ifanse and other RBs run for considerably more yards.

Last year MSU ran for just over 3000 yards in 13 games. 1,637 by QBs. This year that’ll only be about 400, most from Jonsen. That’s about 1,200 less. However, the pass yards will increase by about 1,000 and the RBs will go from about 1,400 to close to 2,000. That’s a net gain of about 400 yards (35-40/game), which could be significant.

If the turnovers (namely interceptions) are kept in check, then this will definitely be an improvement. Another 40 yards a game moves MSU into the top half in yards per game. Last year saw #1 Weber; #3 EWU on the schedule. As well as SDSU and NDSU. None of them are on the regular season schedule. WIU is on the schedule again and they were #3 in the MVFC last year. SDSU was sixth, but only allowed 385/game, which would’ve been third in the BSC.
I think that's a fair point regarding Andersen, but not Murray. He was pretty skilled at running the read option-- it wasn't just pure running skills with him.

But more to the point, the above is, I think, the kind of exercise that can create some realistic expectations. As opposed to "we've got a passing game now so all is solved."
I thought both Murray and Andersen kept the ball too often. Maybe it was the right read.

Regardless, if Rovig can keep the ball out of the defenders hands, I think you’ll see a net gain overall. A lot of people are saying we won’t make up for the loss of QB running yards. But I think the gains passing and gains from RB runs will do just that IF Rovig is efficient. He doesn’t need to throw for 300 a game. He needs to keep the picks down and get 175 a game passing.
I agree with that. I'm just unsure of whether or not he will be that guy. And I mean that literally-- by "unsure," I'm not saying he won't be good. I'm just not nearly as convinced as many based on the limited sample. And the efforts to find a different starter by the coaching staff don't inspire a lot of confidence.
I think they’re looking for another QB, because there are only four and one is a true frosh, two others are RS frosh. Since they’re looking they are looking for someone that can at least be the #2 guy. So I’m not discouraged about Rovig due to the search. What Rovig needs to do is limit his picks. He doesn’t need to be a 70%, 300 yards a game guy.
Coaches aren't looking for a "veteran" QB for depth. And honestly, no good upperclassman wants to come to a program as a depth piece at QB.

If the coaches were looking for a younger guy, that tells you they're looking for depth.

They were/are looking for a starter.

Take Jensen or Modster. Sure, there would have been a "competition", but you don't bring those guys in and not have them start. Then Vim (who is rarely wrong) says they're looking for a veteran QB transfer, but not just anybody...I mean, that SCREAMS that they're looking for a starter. It SCREAMS that they're not content with what we have. The information available to us makes it pretty obvious.
To me it means they would only take someone they thought would be obvious, immediate improvement at QB, but they haven't found that person yet. Maybe there isn't that big of pool, but you'd imagine with the transfer portal there are plenty of guys with good pedigrees out there. The fact that they haven't brought anyone in yet to me means they haven't found anyone they like better than Rovig, which would be an indication that staff would feel plenty comfortable heading into to this season with Rovig at the helm.
They did find candidates that they presumably liked better and they offered them. Those guys just chose other options.
That was Celtic's exact point. Those 2 would have been major upgrades over anything we have had in Choate's time. And I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree. The point now is that there have not been more offers (that we've heard about) and that in itself is saying if somebody like Jensen or Modster isn't available and interested, then there is no use in bringing them in. To me that is not a knock on TR at all. Nobody really knows what he can do. It'd be foolish not to bring in somebody who the coaches know can push this team over the top.
This. I never got the feeling the coaches were trying to bring in a guy to "replace Rovig". They were just trying to hedge their bets given we don't know what we have with 3 underclassmen that have a collective 2 starts between them in D1 ball. Rovig might end up being better than either of those guys but I bet Choate would have like to have that bird in hand. This is kind of the "take the next step" season where expectations are getting back to where they should be imho and a step back could kill the momentum Choate has built over his first 3 years.


DIE HARD CATS FAN SINCE 01/05/1984

Post Reply