QB Cody Kessler *

huskers1 said:
I can understand slightly changing the play calling to fit our qb's style but we don't at all. It actually seems we do the exact opposite when it comes to their strengths. I pointed out Cody Green in the TT game. I watched Lee, someone who proved wayyy too many times for my liking that he could not run the ball effectively, run the zone read and speed option and draw plays only to gain one or two yards at a time. Then when Green came in, someone who has proven to be a much better runner than passer, we passed the ball probably 70% of the time he was in there. At that point our defense was still holding them and it was still early enough that we didn't have to force the pass. If there was another Peyton Manning and we were running the zone read, option game it seems we are shifting to, why would we recruit him? In that case we would have to completely change our offense bc there is no way that someone with the speed of Manning or most other pro style passers could gain the respect that they are actually going to keep the ball. For example, the Texas game in 07', we completely shut down their offense when McCoy was in there bc he wasn't that great of a runner at that time and we could focus all of our attention on Charles. When Chiles came in we had to pay a ton of attention to him and Charles went off. I just think if we are going to commit to this zone read offense then commit to it, if not then quit recruiting guys like Green, Carnes, and Turner. Turner may be able to play a different position but Green and Carnes I don't believe will want to switch for anything.
Click to expand...
whether or not watson is an effective playcaller is an entirely different discussion. i'm just arguing whether we need to change our offense to accommodate different styles of quarterbacks, and as i said, i don't think we do. we will run an offense with a power running game and a passing attack based upon west coast principles regardless of who's in there. our coaches also recognize the value a QB run threat brings in stressing the opponent's safeties.

what can vary is the AMOUNT of QB run included. i guarantee you that the coaches would be willing to take a pure passer if he was a stud and that they wouldn't have him running the ball regularly.

and fwiw, i think green and carnes represent more of the ideal that the coaches are looking for in a QB recruit - true dual threat with high potential as a passer. i would put martinez and turner in the category i mentioned above - great athletes that get a shot to show what they can do. that would explain why we're still looking for a QB for this class - turner isn't the ideal we're after, more of a valuable wild card. otherwise, why not just sit pat with a top running QB recruit and the three other young QB's already on campus?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huskers1 said:
I can understand slightly changing the play calling to fit our qb's style but we don't at all. It actually seems we do the exact opposite when it comes to their strengths. I pointed out Cody Green in the TT game. I watched Lee, someone who proved wayyy too many times for my liking that he could not run the ball effectively, run the zone read and speed option and draw plays only to gain one or two yards at a time. Then when Green came in, someone who has proven to be a much better runner than passer, we passed the ball probably 70% of the time he was in there. At that point our defense was still holding them and it was still early enough that we didn't have to force the pass. If there was another Peyton Manning and we were running the zone read, option game it seems we are shifting to, why would we recruit him? In that case we would have to completely change our offense bc there is no way that someone with the speed of Manning or most other pro style passers could gain the respect that they are actually going to keep the ball. For example, the Texas game in 07', we completely shut down their offense when McCoy was in there bc he wasn't that great of a runner at that time and we could focus all of our attention on Charles. When Chiles came in we had to pay a ton of attention to him and Charles went off. I just think if we are going to commit to this zone read offense then commit to it, if not then quit recruiting guys like Green, Carnes, and Turner. Turner may be able to play a different position but Green and Carnes I don't believe will want to switch for anything.
Click to expand...
Save your breath. Of course you have a valid point. It is far better to have a game plan and find players to fit into it than to try and change things around to accommodate the players. If we go into a season with Carnes and Turner #1 and 2 and focus primarily on the run game with a few play action passes, then have them both go down to injury, it would be easier to put in a TMart kind of guy than a 6'5' pro style qb that runs a 5.0 forty. The latter type would force us to change the O and we woud suffer during the transition. :bs:

 
Captain K said:
huskers1 said:
I can understand slightly changing the play calling to fit our qb's style but we don't at all. It actually seems we do the exact opposite when it comes to their strengths. I pointed out Cody Green in the TT game. I watched Lee, someone who proved wayyy too many times for my liking that he could not run the ball effectively, run the zone read and speed option and draw plays only to gain one or two yards at a time. Then when Green came in, someone who has proven to be a much better runner than passer, we passed the ball probably 70% of the time he was in there. At that point our defense was still holding them and it was still early enough that we didn't have to force the pass. If there was another Peyton Manning and we were running the zone read, option game it seems we are shifting to, why would we recruit him? In that case we would have to completely change our offense bc there is no way that someone with the speed of Manning or most other pro style passers could gain the respect that they are actually going to keep the ball. For example, the Texas game in 07', we completely shut down their offense when McCoy was in there bc he wasn't that great of a runner at that time and we could focus all of our attention on Charles. When Chiles came in we had to pay a ton of attention to him and Charles went off. I just think if we are going to commit to this zone read offense then commit to it, if not then quit recruiting guys like Green, Carnes, and Turner. Turner may be able to play a different position but Green and Carnes I don't believe will want to switch for anything.
Click to expand...
Save your breath. Of course you have a valid point. It is far better to have a game plan and find players to fit into it than to try and change things around to accommodate the players. If we go into a season with Carnes and Turner #1 and 2 and focus primarily on the run game with a few play action passes, then have them both go down to injury, it would be easier to put in a TMart kind of guy than a 6'5' pro style qb that runs a 5.0 forty. The latter type would force us to change the O and we woud suffer during the transition. :bs:
Click to expand...
i suppose i'll say this one last time - most of our offense will be the same regardless of our quarterback.

we had about 9 QB carries a game last year. some of those were no doubt scrambles from called passes. even with a great running QB, we will not see more than 12-15 carries a game (even lord and crouch didn't carry more than 15-16 times a game). if the average game gives our offense 65-70 plays a game, that means the qb run game is at MOST about 20%, and more likely closer to 15% of our offense. that means that we can eliminate the qb run game entirely and still run 80-85% the SAME offense. same hand offs, same basic passing plays, same play action.

will the play calling be adjusted to fit the quarterback's skills? of course, but that's how offenses work and why we have an offensive coaching staff. it's not as if we'll be switching back and forth between the triple option and the fun 'n gun. we have an offense. we want it to include a mobile QB but would be more than fine without one IF the QB is that good of a passer. (and i don't see us out there recruiting borderline "pocket passers", we're after the difference makers.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's fine if our qb's only run about 10 times, I have no problem with that. The thing is though, having a running threat at qb isn't just about having the qb run. It's about opening up other lanes for the running back to run through. If the defense knows they don't have to respect the qb running then they can just key in on the running back every play. Sure we can eliminate the qb run game entirely but good luck running the zone read and having people actually respect the read part. That would essentially make us into an I formation running team with no point of having a dual threat qb, which again is fine with me, but then stop recruiting dual threat qb's.

 
huskers1 said:
It's fine if our qb's only run about 10 times, I have no problem with that. The thing is though, having a running threat at qb isn't just about having the qb run. It's about opening up other lanes for the running back to run through. If the defense knows they don't have to respect the qb running then they can just key in on the running back every play. Sure we can eliminate the qb run game entirely but good luck running the zone read and having people actually respect the read part. That would essentially make us into an I formation running team with no point of having a dual threat qb, which again is fine with me, but then stop recruiting dual threat qb's.
Click to expand...
yes, the QB run game does open up other things. that's why we're attempting to use it. we obviously do not agree on whether it's a big deal to change how much you use it based upon the skills of your quarterback. i guess we'll just have to see how well it works out for us. in any case, i think we've squeezed just about enough out of this argument.

 
another point to consider - if we continue to waver on our committment to either a dual threat or a pro-style QB, that big time WR we're always looking to sign will waver as well. Recruiting players to a system is easier when you have a system to sell. I'm sure the coaches are selling a representation of our offense right now, but if year after year we continue to rebuild 5 games into the season, or even rebuild in the off season to "fit" our QB flavor of the year...the validity of the product they sold is lost. It's not a reputation we want to create for ourselves...just like switching a combination of t-mart, green, carnes, turner to defense of WR could create an image that if you sign with NU, you're probably not going to be playing the position you were offered for.

 
kchusker_chris said:
if year after year we continue to rebuild 5 games into the season, or even rebuild in the off season to "fit" our QB flavor of the year...the validity of the product they sold is lost.
Click to expand...
agreed, but that's a pretty big "if". i see no reason to think we will need to rebuild our offense during the season in the future or even during the off season. we had some pretty specific and serious issues on offense this year that led to the 'just don't turn the ball over' offense we saw.

kchusker_chris said:
just like switching a combination of t-mart, green, carnes, turner to defense of WR could create an image that if you sign with NU, you're probably not going to be playing the position you were offered for.
Click to expand...
agreed, which is why it's important we actually give kids an honest shot at their preferred position. a lot of coaches would have already moved t-mart to WR or safety. we're still giving him his shot and have proven true to out word.

also, fwiw, i can pretty well guarantee you green isn't moving to any other position. he's still a front runner for future playing time and is unlikely to have the skills to play any other positions. maybe tight end? i'd bet carnes isn't a candidate for a position switch either.

 
I know everyone is caught up in the "Pro Style" tag that Rivals put on him, but Cody is a good athlete, he fits the mold of what I see a Shawn Watson QB being. Reminds me of a smaller Blaine Gabbert, he had games rushing of 102, 115 and 90 yards. Had a 78 yd TD run, and ran for 12 TD's overall, despite missing 4 games. His Rivals video doesn't SHOW him running, but a couple other videos I found show him running the zone read, it's not great by any means, but he isn't a turtle out there. If Cody was a few inches taller, he'd be all over the place, as is he's one of the top QB's in the county and a likely high 4 star.

Here's some runs from YouTube


Cody is also a darn good basketball player, he put up 29.4 PPG, 4.2 Assists and 8.4 Boards per game. Jacob Hickman was also pulled out of the same school, so there is some history there.

http://www.maxpreps....greg-paulus.htm

Cody Kessler of Centennial High School in Bakersfield, Calif., is another junior quarterback/guard combo athlete that put up big numbers as a sophomore.

"No question he has the opportunity to be Division I in both sports, and high Division I at that," Lee said of his star point guard. "He is probably going to be the best athlete to ever come out of our school. He is a big-time athlete."

Kessler, who makes his junior football debut Friday, racked up 2,251 total offensive yards and 23 touchdowns in 2008. He topped that in the winter by posting 24.6 points and 4.1 assists per outing, leading the Golden Hawks to a league title.

"He's already the best athlete in Bakersfield," Lee said. "He was already probably the best point guard last year in the (San Joaquin) Valley."

He was almost ready to commit to Washington, but changed his mind when UCLA and USC offered last week.

http://rise.espn.go.com/football/articles/2010/05/15-berkley-elite-11-first-impressions.aspx

“I was all set to make my decision and was going to commit to Washington,” Kessler said. “Now, I basically have to re-think everything. I have UW, USC, Boise State, Pitt and Alabama as my top five and I have so much going on in my head. I think it definitely affected the way I threw today.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I think another great point is that a lot of these 'pro-style' guys are athletic in their own right. Zac Lee's athletic. Mark Sanchez was. Reesing is - he broke some nice scrambles on us last year. Guys like Kessler and Suntrup probably are just fine.

Let's go video ratings here. When we're talking 'pro style', we're talking about recruits with 70-80 speed, 85 passing, and various degrees of comfort running. What a lot of people think we now want to see out of a QB is 90 speed, 60-70 passing, and 80+ running. I don't think that makes any sense. Even a guy like Green, he falls more in the former than the latter category. I'd take a 70/95/40 QB over a 90/60/90 any day. Well I mean, not in 2001 or anything, but any day now :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
^ I think another great point is that a lot of these 'pro-style' guys are athletic in their own right. Zac Lee's athletic. Mark Sanchez was. Reesing is - he broke some nice scrambles on us last year. Guys like Kessler and Suntrup probably are just fine.

Let's go video ratings here. When we're talking 'pro style', we're talking about recruits with 70-80 speed, 85 passing, and various degrees of comfort running. What a lot of people think we now want to see out of a QB is 90 speed, 60-70 passing, and 80+ running. I don't think that makes any sense. Even a guy like Green, he falls more in the former than the latter category. I'd take a 70/95/40 QB over a 90/60/90 any day. Well I mean, not in 2001 or anything, but any day now :)
Click to expand...
FWIW, Reesing was a dual-threat QB.

Todd Reesing Rivals Profile

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kessler will decide this week between Washington, Alabama, USC and Pitt.

Thinking he heads to USC is my guess.

He is in the Rivals top 100 at number 64 as a 5.9 4*

 
Back
Top