Can we talk about the athleticism of Thorne?

Heat Miser wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

I saw he had rushed for 91. I’m guessing he fell short?

60 of it was 1 play early in the game.

Take away that run and he only rushed for 31. Take away the rest of the runs and boom, zero. Which sucks. We're better off without him.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

60 of it was 1 play early in the game.

Take away that run and he only rushed for 31. Take away the rest of the runs and boom, zero. Which sucks. We're better off without him.

Can you subtract this without adding

aualum06 wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Take away that run and he only rushed for 31. Take away the rest of the runs and boom, zero. Which sucks. We're better off without him.

Can you subtract this without adding

I've never been good at word problems.

Motown Spartan wrote:He looked great today.

Thats the player we know, cold then hot

Win tonight with him, he wasn't great but don't see how anyone can be happy he left

Heat Miser wrote:

aualum06 wrote:Win tonight with him, he wasn't great but don't see how anyone can be happy he left

Coulda/woulda/shoulda. Doesn't matter.

Now that Tucker has proven just how dumb he was telling Thorne it was an open QB competition was dumb

aualum06 wrote:Win tonight with him, he wasn't great but don't see how anyone can be happy he left

Don't know how anyone can predict how different QBs would play. He found plenty of ways to lose too.

Not happy he left but anyone who thinks he was by himself a difference maker needs to check themselves.

We could talk about the women we almost married and the children we may have had too.

Peyton Thorne decided that he couldn’t play for Tucker for whatever reasons including Tucker saying the #1 QB spot was undecided after Thorne started for 2 seasons.  

It doesn’t take long for WOTS of a 2 year starting QB being unhappy for calls and texts from interested teams to start and if schools didn’t have Peyton’s cell number they had his father’s.  

Throw in some Auburn/SEC NIL money made Peyton Thorne’s decision much easier.

My hunch is Thorne recognized Tucker’s locker room had become dysfunction junction sooner than others.

aualum06 wrote:Win tonight with him, he wasn't great but don't see how anyone can be happy he left

I’m happy he left.

My answer is always the same for 10-15 years of this now. If the team is in competition for absolutely nothing, not a championship or even a decent bowl, then there’s no reason to play a marginally more talented senior over a younger player that can help you next year when you might be able to compete. None. Playing the seniors who suck too but just suck a skooch less gets you to end of Matt Patricia Bob Quinn lions. You’re chasing that one win that might save your job instead of building for the future. Draft the corner that might be able to help you tomorrow way too high instead of the more valuable player that can help you in two years when you won’t be here anymore either, that kind of thing. 

In short, I’m happier being 2-3 with hauser getting experience (which, you know, needs to happen) than being 3-2 with Thorne facing the gauntlet end of our schedule with many losses ahead no matter who is playing.

DWags wrote:

aualum06 wrote:Win tonight with him, he wasn't great but don't see how anyone can be happy he left

Lots of people were. I guess it was based on seeing Kim in mop up duty last year.  Now I’m reading Spartans want someone named Sam playing.  I guess it’s based on seeing him in warm ups.

This staff took a proven QB in our league and made him feel some type of way. I hope after our last home game in Detroit they head straight to Metro.

You must understand my point though, right dwags? It isn’t about who is better to start against Minnesota. I don’t really care. It’s about who is better to start next year. The guy that will be working the counter at Avis or the guy that will still be on the team

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

Lots of people were. I guess it was based on seeing Kim in mop up duty last year.  Now I’m reading Spartans want someone named Sam playing.  I guess it’s based on seeing him in warm ups.

This staff took a proven QB in our league and made him feel some type of way. I hope after our last home game in Detroit they head straight to Metro.

You must understand my point though, right dwags? It isn’t about who is better to start against Minnesota. I don’t really care. It’s about who is better to start next year. The guy that will be working the counter at Avis or the guy that will still be on the team

So losing Thorne was OK, because Hauser will be starting next year?

Want to make sure I’m following along. Maybe I’m not.

At this point, I don’t think we have any idea who will be QB (or even who will be on the team).

Yeah but in it you’re still referring to Thorne as if you wish he was here. I’m saying it’s a good thing he’s gone so you don’t Have to awkwardly put him on the bench while playing the other guys.

NigelUno wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You must understand my point though, right dwags? It isn’t about who is better to start against Minnesota. I don’t really care. It’s about who is better to start next year. The guy that will be working the counter at Avis or the guy that will still be on the team

So losing Thorne was OK, because Hauser will be starting next year?

Want to make sure I’m following along.  Maybe I’m not.

At this point, I don’t think we have any idea who will be QB (or even who will be on the team).

I don’t know who will start either, but I do know who it won’t be. It won’t be Thorne, because hed have been a senior. So giving him experience in a lost season would be throwing good money after bad, as cold as it is. It’s good that he left because we would still be in the same spot but have learned less at this point.

For instance, we have a pretty good idea for what Kim is now. If Thorne were here, and starting, we would have no idea. How many games into next season would we have wasted finding that out?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

So losing Thorne was OK, because Hauser will be starting next year?

Want to make sure I’m following along.  Maybe I’m not.

At this point, I don’t think we have any idea who will be QB (or even who will be on the team).

I don’t know who will start either, but I do know who it won’t be. It won’t be Thorne, because hed have been a senior. So giving him experience in a lost season would be throwing good money after bad, as cold as it is. It’s good that he left because we would still be in the same spot but have learned less at this point.

For instance, we have a pretty good idea for what Kim is now. If Thorne were here, and starting, we would have no idea. How many games into next season would we have wasted finding that out?

Might as well sit all the seniors then.

NigelUno wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I don’t know who will start either, but I do know who it won’t be. It won’t be Thorne, because hed have been a senior. So giving him experience in a lost season would be throwing good money after bad, as cold as it is. It’s good that he left because we would still be in the same spot but have learned less at this point.

For instance, we have a pretty good idea for what Kim is now. If Thorne were here, and starting, we would have no idea. How many games into next season would we have wasted finding that out?

Might as well sit all the seniors then.

Yeah.

I mean, yeah. Probably. Or at least for non qb positions heavily heavily rotate them.

DWags wrote:

DWags wrote:

Someone made a thread about that.

First, if we’re 4-1 we aren’t pulling Thorne.   Even 3-2.

But, as I said in the above thread last week, I’m playing the guy who is going to be here longest.  But we know nothing of Kim’s academics, he could be doing big things after football.

Look it’s a silly conversation in the ether because it’s all just made up fantasy land, but I don’t think that there’s a chance in hell that we would have beaten Maryland with Thorne. I also don’t think we would have won last night, though that’s more debatable. I can’t seem to get through enough to you for you to remember how brutally bad Thorne was last year, and continues to be at auburn. 4-1 is silly. 3-2? Maybe I guess.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

First, if we’re 4-1 we aren’t pulling Thorne.   Even 3-2.

But, as I said in the above thread last week, I’m playing the guy who is going to be here longest.  But we know nothing of Kim’s academics, he could be doing big things after football.

Look it’s a silly conversation in the ether because it’s all just made up fantasy land, but I don’t think that there’s a chance in hell that we would have beaten Maryland with Thorne. I also don’t think we would have won last night, though that’s more debatable. I can’t seem to get through enough to you for you to remember how brutally bad Thorne was last year, and continues to be at auburn. 4-1 is silly. 3-2? Maybe I guess.

I’ll go along with that. I mean…we didn’t beat Maryland with Thorne, Reed, and Coleman last year.

DWags wrote:Was Thorne hurt last year? Never mind.

The question was, who should we play from here on out because our season is in the tank. I don’t believe it would be in the tank just yet and we might still be fighting for bowl eligibility if we had an experienced quarterback. Especially last night. 18 more practices for the new guy.

So while I sincerely don’t believe we’d be asking this question yet, like I posted last week in another thread, I’d play the guy will be with us longest.

But we might have the biggest collection of dumb ass coaches ever assembled. So… they won’t.

But sure play that Sam guy. Start him. I’ve read he’s the best QB on the roster. These internet guys must watch a shit ton of practice film.

Since the whole staff will be gone Haller, Izzo and Hawkins need to sell their souls to keep Jordan Hall here. The rest of these players I wish the best for. But I won’t miss them.

I think we may have had a better chance with Thorne last night.

But, Tucker somehow screwed that up.

As far as playing a guy for next year...I have no idea how good any of the backups really are. You can't sacrifice games this year for next year (at this point...with this coaching staff), or might as well sit all the seniors and tell them thanks.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Throwing the Sr's under the bus doesn't instill confidence in the underclassmen.

The players know what's up. You can't start playing for next year. You'd lose the locker room. And there's no incentive for the current coaching staff to do it.

DWags wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Throwing the Sr's under the bus doesn't instill confidence in the underclassmen.

While this is true, do you think the staff at Colorado gave a fuck?  The players at half time were told the the staff was looking for play makers period end of story. They put a freshman in at WR and he tore it up.   Had that game been 5 minutes longer, usc loses.

I don’t know, maybe get that OC from them. Bring that attitude here.  

I’m all for these kids getting paid.  But with that should come the cold reality of business.

DWags loves modern coaching.    

NigelUno wrote:

I think we may have had a better chance with Thorne last night.

But, Tucker somehow screwed that up.

As far as playing a guy for next year...I have no idea how good any of the backups really are. You can't sacrifice games this year for next year (at this point...with this coaching staff), or might as well sit all the seniors and tell them thanks.

This year is already toast, if you can make plays, you should be on the field, if not, you shouldn't, regardless of how many years you've been in the program.
But I know this won't happen and good players will transfer

I.B. Fine wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

I think we may have had a better chance with Thorne last night.

But, Tucker somehow screwed that up.

As far as playing a guy for next year...I have no idea how good any of the backups really are. You can't sacrifice games this year for next year (at this point...with this coaching staff), or might as well sit all the seniors and tell them thanks.

This year is already toast, if you can make plays, you should be on the field, if not, you shouldn't, regardless of how many years you've been in the program.
But I know this won't happen and good players will transfer

I don't think the issue is that we're sitting good players (who can make plays). The issue is we don't have enough good players period.

NigelUno wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

This year is already toast, if you can make plays, you should be on the field, if not, you shouldn't, regardless of how many years you've been in the program.
But I know this won't happen and good players will transfer

I don't think the issue is that we're sitting good players (who can make plays). The issue is we don't have enough good players period.

That is certainly the bigger problem at the moment.

There is sometimes a narrative that the backup QB can make big plays (or has a bigger arm, or is more athletic, or whatever). And that teams might as well try the big play guy (and live with any possible mistakes). That may be true in this case. But, it's more likely that we're just hoping he's a big play guy.

If the QBs were really that close in preseason, then Houser should get some snaps. Seems like the QB "competition" may not have really been one.

We’ll still have the same O-line, right?

Do some people actually think that Thorne, who has averaged roughly 65 yards/game against power 5 competition, would be making a difference here this season?

StylesGShmooth wrote:Do some people actually think that Thorne, who has averaged roughly 65 yards/game against power 5 competition, would be making a difference here this season?

Maybe we can get him back after hits the transfer portal again