Should Purdy Redshirt this year?
- Thread starter Cyclone27inQC
- Start date
Not like this, it is quite different. That staff had a few fluky wins which was better than the previous staffs. This staff has beat their last 3 ranked opponents on the road.
Purdy’s fakes and ball handling skills were superb. His decisions and performance were exceptional yesterday. Even a drop off from yesterday’s performance is a vast improvement in our QB play. And the team has an extra spring in their step with Brock Purdy at QB.
Play Purdy now. So he leaves as a senior. Redshirt him and he might leave as a RS Junior. Plus the next QB recruit might even be better.
Play Purdy now. So he leaves as a senior. Redshirt him and he might leave as a RS Junior. Plus the next QB recruit might even be better.
Let's say Purdy starts and wins the WVU game, in a close win. Then we get the bye week and Kempt is now ready to play again. Who starts the TT game? Go with the hot hand or the starter who is back from injury?
If you say Purdy, as I would, then Kempt is now the number 2. Personally, if Mitchell is healthy and has progressed, I would like to see him run a couple of series in at least one of the next two games, to see what he does in meaningful snaps. I much prefer the dynamic of a mobile, running QB who can take shots downfield, so perhaps Mitchell, after having a limited role, would be a number 2 ahead of Kempt and Noland. I just don't like the thought of going back to a game manager with no run option and defenses loading up on our RB's again. That got us 1-3 start, though it was against some of the better teams we will face.
I also liked seeing two RB's in the game at the same time against OSU.
If you say Purdy, as I would, then Kempt is now the number 2. Personally, if Mitchell is healthy and has progressed, I would like to see him run a couple of series in at least one of the next two games, to see what he does in meaningful snaps. I much prefer the dynamic of a mobile, running QB who can take shots downfield, so perhaps Mitchell, after having a limited role, would be a number 2 ahead of Kempt and Noland. I just don't like the thought of going back to a game manager with no run option and defenses loading up on our RB's again. That got us 1-3 start, though it was against some of the better teams we will face.
I also liked seeing two RB's in the game at the same time against OSU.
How crazy is this new redshirt rule? You could start 3 different QBs, 4 games a piece, a whole season, and still redshirt them all...
I don't think we've seen anything like Purdy. This kid is legit. This isn't Sam Richardson or Jared Barnett.
It was a good idea by the NCAA, but it has also become college football free agency now too.
Kids can play the first 4 games of the year and showcase what they have, and then transfer to a better school if they wish.
As for Purdy, you play the hot hand. If he keeps playing like he did yesterday, then there isn't even a question, you keep playing him and burn his RS, why wouldn't you?
Even if Kempt is able to come back, you still start Purdy if he's playing like yesterday, not even a question at all. Kempt is a great story, but he's very one dimensional. And you never sit a QB that is playing as well as Purdy is right now.... never.
Yeah, I'm no NCAA eligibility expert, so someone smarter may know, but I'm not sure it works that easy. Wouldn't they still have to sit out a year of residency, or whatever it's called?
So not really gaining anything different than playing their whole freshman season, then transfer and redshirt at their new school. Which is the way it was before. Only difference would be with grad transfers.
They still have to sit out a year at the new school. No different than now but now their decision to transfer may be based on more solid evidence as to their future at their current school. Win-win.
Next season might line up to be a nice season so getting them in now can only help. CMC's mantra was for the players to make him play them, so that's what they're doing.
If the depth is really there in 3 years, then waiting for development doesn't need to be an option if they're really ready.
I'm not 100% sure how it works either, but it's been a pretty big story recently on ESPN about how this rule has turned into a kind of "college football free agency".
Damn it M-town, that made me laugh, but it so close to the truth it kind of hurt at the same time.
They’d have already burned their redshirt and would lose a year of eligibility waiting out the year. Granted, they’d still have 3 seasons, but they’d only have 3 to play them. It’d be pretty risky for a player to burn that much time to transfer to a better school where they risk getting recruited over (do you think an Alabama or Michigan or Ohio State is going to assure anything to a kid that will have waited a season and a half without playing?)
We are having problems with the QB depth? Oh man. When did that happen before?
He was a #3 on depth chart when season opened and becoming #1 even after KK returns. Enjoy the ride. BP is legit. His throws were on point, like WRs didn't even have to try and just fell into their arms.
He was a #3 on depth chart when season opened and becoming #1 even after KK returns. Enjoy the ride. BP is legit. His throws were on point, like WRs didn't even have to try and just fell into their arms.
Pretty sure it would be no different than if they stayed at their current school and RS'd. It could be really rough on g5 schools. A kid can show flashes at UAB and then announce he's transferring after his 4 games and end up RS the next season at an SEC school without losing an eligibility.
I don't know if questions like these should irritate me like they do, but why are we having thes thoughts?
1. In every other program, you want the best players playing. Purdy seems like a guy that they wanted to make sure was ready to go. If he gives you the best chance to win, why would you keep him off the field for next year?
2. Why are we thinking next year? I suppose it's in the human condition to think about the future, but this season isn't even half over. Yes it has been an odd season, front loaded with tough games, but this team, WITH PURDY, could run the table. WVU isn't elite and Grier is turning the ball over quite a bit.
IF the coaching staff thinks Purdy is the guy, start him this year. Why "limp" through the season when this could still be an another amazing year.
1. In every other program, you want the best players playing. Purdy seems like a guy that they wanted to make sure was ready to go. If he gives you the best chance to win, why would you keep him off the field for next year?
2. Why are we thinking next year? I suppose it's in the human condition to think about the future, but this season isn't even half over. Yes it has been an odd season, front loaded with tough games, but this team, WITH PURDY, could run the table. WVU isn't elite and Grier is turning the ball over quite a bit.
IF the coaching staff thinks Purdy is the guy, start him this year. Why "limp" through the season when this could still be an another amazing year.
I'm repeating over and over again just hoping it catches--the Big Ten does not have good defensive teams.
I do think Iowa's OK, but they let Wisconsin throw on them, so...
My only thinking for next year is to just who ever is the best for the team and it only makes the next season better (theoretically).
This is also a skill position which is different than the years it can take an Olineman to get to a 'required' size.
