Start Lamb

[Gonzo]

Satterfield in the W-S Journal:

“We knew going in that we wanted to see both guys play,” Satterfield said. “We’re going to need two quarterbacks, no question.… There’s no drop off with Taylor. The offense continues to roll when he’s in there. We’re still evaluating those guys, and we told them that last week, and they’ll need to bust it every day in practice. They’re going to continue to battle, and whoever gives us the best chance to win is going to play.”

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... b2370.html

Anyone still thinking this thread topic is absurd???

I just really hope we don't revert to a duel-QB set as an actual strategy again. That was agonizing.

YES!!! - Because you started this after the first game of the season ---

Well there you have it.

You are just a stubborn old fool.

[AppState2014]

While I agreed that Lamb was probably the better guy and will be the starter I think one game like Michigan for us is not a good enough gauge to know for sure.

Let me first say that I believe Lamb should be and will eventually be our starter. With that said, those of you who think Campbell is clearly a great gauge are just living in the moment. Let's see what they both do against USM and in practice the next two weeks. If Lamb does what I expect in the next two weeks then I think he will/should be our starter.

[AppSt94]

Satterfield in the W-S Journal:

“We knew going in that we wanted to see both guys play,” Satterfield said. “We’re going to need two quarterbacks, no question.… There’s no drop off with Taylor. The offense continues to roll when he’s in there. We’re still evaluating those guys, and we told them that last week, and they’ll need to bust it every day in practice. They’re going to continue to battle, and whoever gives us the best chance to win is going to play.”

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... b2370.html

Well this quote sounds like SS has openly conveyed that this is an evaluation/competition for the starting job with the players. I for one am glad that he is handling it this way. I agree with WV. The day-to-day competition will make both of them better. I thought both played well. It has been said on this board that Lamb is clearly better than Kam. Kam manages the game well. He avoids the negative plays and he continually puts the ball where only his guy can catch it. Lamb does have a stronger arm than Kam without question, but despite the fact Kam doesn't throw the ball with zip, he doesn't deliver the ball late on timing routes. He doesn't run as well as Lamb, but I think we saw last night what a running QB presents in terms of risk. We are lucky to have both QB's but if one of them gets hurt then we see a noticeable dropoff in talent with Hallock. There is no reason to take the redshirt off Caruso unless all other options are exhausted.

[Gonzo]

The future is now.

[moehler]

Old saying in football, when you have two starting qbs' you really don't have one, not a big fan of the duel qb system, seems to create more problems than solutions, but since we probably aren't going to win a lot of games this year, and Lamb looks like the future qb, getting him some playing time isn't such a bad thing.

[Gonzo]

I don't think we're doing the duel QB thing. I think we'll start the best QB we have on Saturday and I think he'll be our starter for a few years.

I'm a big fan of his first name too.

[Yosef10]

Is this you hinting that Lamb is starting Saturday gonz?

[Gonzo]

Is this you hinting that Lamb is starting Saturday gonz?

I have a strong suspension. I guess we'll see.

[APPARJ]

Is this you hinting that Lamb is starting Saturday gonz?

I have a strong suspension. I guess we'll see.

Drugs? PEDs? Domestic assault?

[NewApp]

Satterfield in the W-S Journal:

“We knew going in that we wanted to see both guys play,” Satterfield said. “We’re going to need two quarterbacks, no question.… There’s no drop off with Taylor. The offense continues to roll when he’s in there. We’re still evaluating those guys, and we told them that last week, and they’ll need to bust it every day in practice. They’re going to continue to battle, and whoever gives us the best chance to win is going to play.”

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... b2370.html

Anyone still thinking this thread topic is absurd???

I just really hope we don't revert to a duel-QB set as an actual strategy again. That was agonizing.

YES!!! - Because you started this after the first game of the season ---

Well there you have it.

You are just a stubborn old fool.

And exactly what kind of fool are you?

[NewApp]

Old saying in football, when you have two starting qbs' you really don't have one, not a big fan of the duel qb system, seems to create more problems than solutions, but since we probably aren't going to win a lot of games this year, and Lamb looks like the future qb, getting him some playing time isn't such a bad thing.

I have my pessimistic thoughts from time to time, too, but I'd wager we win more than we lose, barring some really critical injuries. Anything over .500 should be considered an accomplishment in a transition year.

[NewApp]

Satterfield in the W-S Journal:

“We knew going in that we wanted to see both guys play,” Satterfield said. “We’re going to need two quarterbacks, no question.… There’s no drop off with Taylor. The offense continues to roll when he’s in there. We’re still evaluating those guys, and we told them that last week, and they’ll need to bust it every day in practice. They’re going to continue to battle, and whoever gives us the best chance to win is going to play.”

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... b2370.html

Well this quote sounds like SS has openly conveyed that this is an evaluation/competition for the starting job with the players. I for one am glad that he is handling it this way. I agree with WV. The day-to-day competition will make both of them better. I thought both played well. It has been said on this board that Lamb is clearly better than Kam. Kam manages the game well. He avoids the negative plays and he continually puts the ball where only his guy can catch it. Lamb does have a stronger arm than Kam without question, but despite the fact Kam doesn't throw the ball with zip, he doesn't deliver the ball late on timing routes. He doesn't run as well as Lamb, but I think we saw last night what a running QB presents in terms of risk. We are lucky to have both QB's but if one of them gets hurt then we see a noticeable dropoff in talent with Hallock. There is no reason to take the redshirt off Caruso unless all other options are exhausted.

Didn't someone say Hallock is out for the remainder of the season or is it just a temporary thing?

[AppSt94]

Satterfield in the W-S Journal:

“We knew going in that we wanted to see both guys play,” Satterfield said. “We’re going to need two quarterbacks, no question.… There’s no drop off with Taylor. The offense continues to roll when he’s in there. We’re still evaluating those guys, and we told them that last week, and they’ll need to bust it every day in practice. They’re going to continue to battle, and whoever gives us the best chance to win is going to play.”

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... b2370.html

Well this quote sounds like SS has openly conveyed that this is an evaluation/competition for the starting job with the players. I for one am glad that he is handling it this way. I agree with WV. The day-to-day competition will make both of them better. I thought both played well. It has been said on this board that Lamb is clearly better than Kam. Kam manages the game well. He avoids the negative plays and he continually puts the ball where only his guy can catch it. Lamb does have a stronger arm than Kam without question, but despite the fact Kam doesn't throw the ball with zip, he doesn't deliver the ball late on timing routes. He doesn't run as well as Lamb, but I think we saw last night what a running QB presents in terms of risk. We are lucky to have both QB's but if one of them gets hurt then we see a noticeable dropoff in talent with Hallock. There is no reason to take the redshirt off Caruso unless all other options are exhausted.

Didn't someone say Hallock is out for the remainder of the season or is it just a temporary thing?

Hallock is done for the year. The post was written before we knew that to be the case.

[Appftw]

Satterfield in the W-S Journal:

“We knew going in that we wanted to see both guys play,” Satterfield said. “We’re going to need two quarterbacks, no question.… There’s no drop off with Taylor. The offense continues to roll when he’s in there. We’re still evaluating those guys, and we told them that last week, and they’ll need to bust it every day in practice. They’re going to continue to battle, and whoever gives us the best chance to win is going to play.”

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... b2370.html

Anyone still thinking this thread topic is absurd???

I just really hope we don't revert to a duel-QB set as an actual strategy again. That was agonizing.

Yes.

If Satt had make a knee-jerk decision immediately after the Michigan game (like you were calling for), it would have been laughably stupid.

[Gonzo]

Satterfield in the W-S Journal:

“We knew going in that we wanted to see both guys play,” Satterfield said. “We’re going to need two quarterbacks, no question.… There’s no drop off with Taylor. The offense continues to roll when he’s in there. We’re still evaluating those guys, and we told them that last week, and they’ll need to bust it every day in practice. They’re going to continue to battle, and whoever gives us the best chance to win is going to play.”

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... b2370.html

Anyone still thinking this thread topic is absurd???

I just really hope we don't revert to a duel-QB set as an actual strategy again. That was agonizing.

Yes.

If Satt had make a knee-jerk decision immediately after the Michigan game (like you were calling for), it would have been laughably stupid.

I merely opened a discussion on the issue.

I guess we'll gauge the absurdity Saturday, buddy. When we do I'm sure you'll argue that running up the score on a non-scholly is far more telling than a B1G game.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is absurd and laughably stupid. Especially when 90% of the posters in the thread agree on it.

[WER4ASU]

90%???

[WVAPPeer]

90%???

Yeah we all must says thanks that Gonzo is in Law and not developing defense algorithms
---

[Appftw]

We'll gauge the absurdity of your 3 week old post by what happens on Saturday? Only in Gonzo-world could that possibly make sense.

[ASUMountaineer]

Just remember, Gonzo and GoApps70 are on the same team when it comes to Lamb. They're both driving the train.

[Gonzo]

I just went back through the thread. I didn't include people who were unsure and wanted to see more competetion to decide (all of whom would agree that this was a fair question now and at the time), but those who formed an opinion and posted it in this thread broke down as follows:

Pro:
Gonzo
Bcoach
BeauFoster
App72
AppinVA
AppAttack
SixToes
AppSt89
Yosef10
ASU1978
TractorApp
WataugaMan
AppARJ
TheAnnoyingPeasant
Rick0714
AppBio91
GoApps70
App91
Appbio91

Anti:
WVAppeer
AppSt94
AppDaze
Hapapp (Still seemed a bit undecided)
Clayton
Appftw

That's 19-6 (76%) of those who voiced a clear favorite after week one with another large group eager to debate the topic and decide after another week of evaluation. Not quite 90%, but a clear majority to say the least.

The most absurd thing posted in this thread is that the very question of our starting QB after week one was absurd.