CrottyKid said:

---

I will be done. It will signal that NIL is more important than production on the field.

---

Do you really think Reed is not starting Saturday? Interesting

Good luck with that one.

CW IS OUR LAST QB1 EVUH. QB2 is always preferred by the fans who don't believe in developing QBs in game.

But we also prefer OC2 and HC2..

greg.w.h said:

---

CW IS OUR LAST QB1 EVUH. QB2 is always preferred by the fans who don't believe in developing QBs in game.

But we also prefer OC2 and HC2..

---

And bevel, we prefer letters with bevel

As it has probably been discussed at length, while this is reeds first game of the season what I noticed about him is how he was able to stretch the field and was a real threat down range. This opened up many other ways to attack Florida. And when he threw the ball they were such tight spirals. Could this be because his arm is uninjured... Possibly, but I felt there is a lot of potential in Reed that I don't want to lose and would like to see mature under our coaches

vander54 said:

---

If Conner is close to 100% I have no issue starting him with a short leash.

---

This.

Good coaches don't bench a starter b/c of an injury and ONE good performance against a bad Florida team by QB2.

Even is Conner Starts Saturday, Reed will still see a lot of playtime.

The Arkansas game will tell us what is really going to happen. If Conner starts, I'd expect him to be on a very short leash. If the offense goes no where for two series, against a not great ARK defense, I'd expect them to put in Reed and let him finish the game.

If the Conner led offense runs all over Ark like they did against FL with Reed playing, then Conner will remain the starter.

Hey look everyone. Vander has a friend.

D minus on your attempt at whatever you are trying to accomplish.

The football coach I most respect once told me that if you have two starting quarterbacks, you actually have zero starting quarterbacks.

Reed has played the best this year. He should start the next game. Not losing your starting job to injury is fine an dandy when you're in the NFL, but this is college - the season is short, the players can leave any time they want to, and the coach is constantly on the hot seat.

A quarterback who is a threat to run should be our MO every week with a inexperienced offensive line and defense that gets worn out when its constantly on the field.

Reed should have the job until he loses it.

We'll see how much of an influence CW's sponsor (Cotton) and the fact his dad is employed by them plays a role…

Cotton sponsors the LoneStar Showdown with Learfield who also owns Longhorn Network

I haven't read the entire thread, but has it been discussed the player camaraderie for lack of a better word that Reed had with the entire team during the game vs CW who is more reserved on the sidelines?

Reed would get the offense together on the sideline and celebrate touchdowns and was actively engaged and talking it up. It was great energy that I haven't seen in CW.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Ragnar Danneskjoldd said:

---

ViewFromTheSidelines said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

ViewFromTheSidelines said:

---

It's a little crazy that we are even discussing this after Florida game.

---

Not really, FL was really bad. Look at the week prior. Each got a half, Conner looked great, Reed looked meh.

I don't expect Conner to be healthy this week and Reed will play so getting to see another game of what we have in Reed would be nice.

---

The week before we played McNeese, which was 10x worse than Florida. No way you don't start Reed, no way.

---

they both featured td passes where there wasn't a defender anywhere near the receiver.

---

Reed hit one after going through the full route tree and hitting the 4th read, and the second TD he rolled to the left, squared his body, and threw downfield hitting the guy in stride.

---

Ball was underthrown, WR had to slow down to catch it, but better than over throwing wide open guy. Not exactly hitting in stride, really shows how good Cyrus is on locating and positioning, he timed it very well to continue his movement

CrottyKid said:

---

If Weigman starts again in front of a healthy Reed, I am done with Aggie football. Everyone and their mother can see the offense runs better with Reed.

---

the offense runs better against a really bad defense with a qb that isnt playing hurt, at least.

antman8504 said:

---

If Reed had the same career that Connor has had up to this point at A&M and Connor was waiting on the bench and came in and looked the way Reed has, NO ONE would be arguing for Reed to continue to get chances.

Just show how obsessed some of you are with high school stars, SMH

---

Very different players and skillsets, can't compare because marcel absolutely would not have played the same as CW. But if we take a look at the injury aspect, I would agree. Conner's accuracy with an AC sprain is as good as Marcel, so if Marcel had an AC Sprain, plus a history of other injuries (would not want him to run as much), then you definitely sit Reed and play Weigman. Again, Reed ran with 1s against a tired McNeese team and underperformed compared to CW

cevans_40 said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

vander54 said:

---

If Conner is close to 100% I have no issue starting him with a short leash.

---

Why?

I'll tell why I would have an issue with it. Play calling and playbook. Klein did not use it all with CW. He did with Reed. Looked like his offense at K State.

I have several other areas as well but just this one alone makes it an obvious choice.

That being said. I will be surprised if Reed is not the starter Saturday.

---

And yet Reed wasn't the starter because the coaching staff didn't think he was better than Conner. Maybe he is now, but to just make a decision that puts your starter one foot out the door to appease a fan base isn't very smart.

---

I get why Conner got the initial start. And it was not to appease the fan base. LOL

As I also pointed out Klein did not run all his offense with CW. This is a problem. If it was bc they were using kid gloves bc he's coming off the injury in the first game. And the second game he had another injury in his shoulder.

I also think Reed is starting so not really getting bent out of shape on this one.

---

Sorry, but you have no idea if this is true because you have no idea what plays we have put in for what personnel groupings.

---

The Zoo rarely knows anything for certain, but EJ did say in the press conference that we have barely opened the book, and based on how bland the plays were against ND... seems legit

looch says there's no qb controversy at this point. I take that to mean that if he's healthy CW plays. If it goes 3-4 games without CW and things are firing then you'd have controversy.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Reed has played the best this year.

---

Check the McNeese tape for a head to head comparison (wrong)

CW is injured and should sit until he is 100

Start Reed against BG and if CW is healthy for Arky play both

You base your QB1 selection on preseason. You use that to select your QB1 for the FIRST game.

QB1 went down and QB2 stepped and DURING THE GAME, was a better fit on dynamics, plays, etc.. Stuff that is hard to predict until the first game.

I think starting the game is different than coming in at garbage time (McNeese).

Reed had better start so that we ride the momentum until the momentum goes away.

W said:

---

here's the problem with starting Connor on a short leash...

if that had been the approach vs. Florida...

Reed's 30-yard scramble on the opening drive doesn't happen

and his scramble was arguably the biggest play of the 1st half

---

If we started CW it would have been because he's healthy and ready to go and in that case, we would have passed 1 or 2 times in the first set of downs, instead of the 2 rushes, 2 penalties, and a scramble

Nice to know Marcel can do that for us, but would not have been in the same position with CW to make this comparison

Ragnar Danneskjoldd said:

---

looch says there's no qb controversy at this point. I take that to mean that if he's healthy CW plays. If it goes 3-4 games without CW and things are firing then you'd have controversy.

---

Don't agree at all with this. And I'm not even taking into account anything as far as results. I don't agree with this take at all based on what Elko stated after the ND game and what he stated after the Florida game.

After ND everyone heard him state the whole practice reps Vs game rep thing.

Yesterday he stated we will play the QB that gives us the best chance to win.

That is a night and day different response.

LB12Diamond said:

---

Ragnar Danneskjoldd said:

---

looch says there's no qb controversy at this point. I take that to mean that if he's healthy CW plays. If it goes 3-4 games without CW and things are firing then you'd have controversy.

---

Don't agree at all with this. And I'm not even taking into account anything as far as results. I don't agree with this take at all based on what Elko stated after the ND game and what he stated after the Florida game.

After ND everyone heard him state the whole practice reps Vs game rep thing.

Yesterday he stated we will play the QB that gives us the best chance to win.

That is a night and day different response.

---

I dunno. I have opinions, but I think looch knows more than I do.

If you are going with that as your reasoning. Thats fine. I'm going with what I'm seeing from our head coach. He's not Jimbo, he speaks it for all to see.

Can you at least see the difference in those two statements. If what you were saying about CW being healthy were true. Elko would have stated it that way. As many coaches have in the past.

But when coaches state it like Elko did yesterday, I have seen many QBs not get the job automatically back even when they are healthy.

I don't think a coach has uttered a sentence used to convey meaning in the history of press conferences.

Interesting

I pick up on things all the time by not just what they say but how they say it. Don't need no middle man Looch to help me figure out things.

Ragnar Danneskjoldd said:

---

I don't think a coach has uttered a sentence used to convey meaning in the history of press conferences.

---

Spike Dykes once told me in an interview that A&M's offense "knew how to get the electricity to the dynamite."

LB12Diamond said:

---

Interesting

I pick up on things all the time by not just what they say but how they say it. Don't need no middle man Looch to help me figure out things.

---

You think youre more plugged into the program and what the coach is saying than looch? I havent watched a coaches press conference since i was a student, so it helps to have someone give me the gist of notable things in 5 minutes.

As far as Looch talking about the QBs

Of course he's going to state there is no controversy. Did you actually think he would state there was a controversy right now?

Does not mean anything that you inferred from it. He most likely just meant there's no issues in the QB room.

Ragnar Danneskjoldd said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Interesting

I pick up on things all the time by not just what they say but how they say it. Don't need no middle man Looch to help me figure out things.

---

You think youre more plugged into the program and what the coach is saying than looch? I havent watched a coaches press conference since i was a student, so it helps to have someone give me the gist of notable things in 5 minutes.

---

LOL

I clearly stated out all the details. And instead of answering my question you just deflected by stating coaches PCs don't mean anything.

And now you are stating I'm implying I'm more plugged in than Looch. Wowzers

Done here, if you cannot actually talk about things maybe you should move on.

LB12Diamond said:

---

Ragnar Danneskjoldd said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Interesting

I pick up on things all the time by not just what they say but how they say it. Don't need no middle man Looch to help me figure out things.

---

You think youre more plugged into the program and what the coach is saying than looch? I havent watched a coaches press conference since i was a student, so it helps to have someone give me the gist of notable things in 5 minutes.

---

LOL

I clearly stated out all the details. And instead of answering my question you just deflected by stating coaches PCs don't mean anything.

And now you are stating I'm implying I'm more plugged in than Looch. Wowzers

Done here, if you cannot actually talk about things maybe you should move on.

---

I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not your internet arguing partner. Im not here to debate you.

OMB100GAS said:

---

W said:

---

here's the problem with starting Connor on a short leash...

if that had been the approach vs. Florida...

Reed's 30-yard scramble on the opening drive doesn't happen

and his scramble was arguably the biggest play of the 1st half

---

If we started CW it would have been because he's healthy and ready to go and in that case, we would have passed 1 or 2 times in the first set of downs, instead of the 2 rushes, 2 penalties, and a scramble

Nice to know Marcel can do that for us, but would not have been in the same position with CW to make this comparison

---

Not sure how you can know this?

1 or 2 passes, if that were the plays called, could have been incomplete. They may have dialed up running plays to establish a dominant run game. How do you know we wouldn't have 2 penalties under CW (are you saying those were MR's fault)? So far, this season, I don't believe I've seen CW rip off a 30 yard scramble. How could you possibly know that our first drive would not have occurred exactly the same but without the scramble for the first down?