I'm just watching the spring game now. Couple things:
Can't wait to go to my first game this fall!
Tommy Armstrong looks awful. System or no system, I hope the staff doesn't feel an allegiance to him. He doesn't look like a quarterback
I agree. I don't understand why the experience factor would play to TA's odds of being the starter this fall. If anything, with his experience he should have been far ahead of all the other QBs yesterday. Instead, after starting over 20 games, he looked like the 3rd best QB out there, and I don't see much upside for him.
Because experience is the difference between throwing an interception on 3rd and 3, against a real team with the game on the line, or making a play with your feet/finding a more open receiver. I would've thought experience and it's usefulness would have been a bit obvious? I stand corrected.
While his numbers may not have jumped off the page, he led three scoring drives - more than any other QB Saturday.
If they were ALL freshman learning to play at the college level for the first time then I'd be more open to the suggestion that he's the third best quarterback. But you have to think about this all reasonably and logically - it's going to take significant evidence for someone to supplant TA. I'm not saying that won't happen, because it certainly could.
But, it is equally as foolish to discount experience as it is to discount a back up.
You act as though TA did not throw INTs in clutch situations or make bad decisions in the past season. You are supporting the point I was trying to make in that TA should look substantially better out there in his 3rd season compared to the other QBs because of his experience, and he simply did not. I do still think that TA's "experience" factor will give him the edge for the opening game, but what I'm saying is that I don't believe that should be a deciding factor UNLESS all other things are equal with the #2, which does not appear to be the case. TA's advantages compared to someone like Darlington are his running ability and that he's played in 20-plus games. His disadvantages are his footwork, mechanics, and accuracy, and I would even say that ZD flashed better vision of surveying his open receivers than I've really ever seen from TA.
If Riley and company truly want a passing QB this early in their tenure, and ZD continues to impress in the fall, then they will make the change. If they don't want to rock the boat and are ok with a QB that prefers to run, then TA will remain on top of the depth chart.
As for the scoring drives, I would be interested to see how many minutes and drives TA had relative to ZD. Outside of 2 nice passes, I didn't see a lot of good things from TA throwing the ball yesterday.
Now you're contradicting yourself, though. You just said experience shouldn't be a deciding factor unless all things are equal, but then go on to say experience is TA's advantage. How can something be an advantage on one QB's resume but not worth taking into consideration for making a depth chart? Things will never be equal. Find me one QB battle in the history of... oh... ever... where each player was 100% equal.
If you're an employer and are looking at two guys for a position, and one guy has two years experience and the other is fresh out of college, you'd evaluate that guys experience level relative to his work.
ZD certainly may have better raw skills and may be the best guy for the job in the coaches eyes. I'm not debating that. I think you're misunderstanding my argument as a defense for TA being the starter. I don't give a damn who the starter is as long as they're the best guy on the team for the job. If that's ZD, great. If that's TA, great. If that's Fyfe, great. My point is that experience has to be part of the evaluation process, and it will be. That doesn't mean TA still can't lose his job.
However, I've seen multiple sports reporters locally say they think TA has a pretty firm grasp on the job as of right now. Could things change? Absolutely.
