SEC Position Rankings: QB's

[dovervolz]

Highly recruited and he played well that's the reason.

Soooo this is based on what he did I high school and his potential. Not what he's done in college.

 

[dovervolz]

Highly recruited and he played well that's the reason.

He was a 3 star by ESPN and scout, # 21 qb in his class.

 

[Rooster1]

I honestly think 7-9 should be tied. USCjr and UGA haven't proven much. And personally Coker should be lower, but comes with typical Bama hype

Thompson from SC has played a bunch, Shaw was forever getting dinged up. Thompson even started some games the past few seasons, including @Clemson and @Mizzou as well as some home games. Don't think he has lost a game as the starter yet. Spurrier thinks well of him. He might be really good as the fulltime starter. Has passed for about 2,000 yds and 14 TD's as the backup.

 

[DiderotsGhost]

Ranking the quarterback units for every SEC team - ESPN



I am actually a little surprised we were this high with all the uncertainty, but it seems the experts and media is pretty high on Worley and/or Dobbs being serviceable for the upcoming season. I am in agreeance, but what say you VN?

Thoughts?

Sounds about right to me.

Worley was certainly "serviceable" last year and that was with a very young and inexperienced receiving corps that lacked depth. This year, the WRs should improve significantly, so Worley could have a better year.

Not sure about Peterman or Dobbs. We saw very little of Peterman and Dobbs struggled a lot, but both should get a bit better this year. Still, my money would be on Worley for now.

Though, Texas A&M at 12th is surprising. Difficult to think of any Kevin Sumlin coached team with that poor QB play, so that might end up being too low.

 

[oregonvol]

it seems the experts and media is pretty high on Worley and/or Dobbs being serviceable

such an odd, odd turn of phrase.

Yes! They think we're serviceable!

Considering, Worley ranked at the bottom of starting SEC QBs, statistically, even in his "best" games last year, and considering that Dobbs was even worse than that, it is somewhat surprising we are ranked as high as 9th. But, I really don't think it's anything to get excited about. 9th means our offense will probably look really bad again.

 

[Rooster1]

such an odd, odd turn of phrase.

Yes! They think we're serviceable!

Considering, Worley ranked at the bottom of starting SEC QBs, statistically, even in his "best" games last year, and considering that Dobbs was even worse than that, it is somewhat surprising we are ranked as high as 9th. But, I really don't think it's anything to get excited about. 9th means our offense will probably look really bad again.

The aTm QB, whoever it is, will throw for 3,500+ yards and well over 20 TD's. This player/unit should be ranked much higher. The kid at Mizzou is really talented and showed it in his play last year. UT does not have a QB on the roster with that level of talent. MSU and UM have good QB's returning, the only teams that should be ranked lower than UT are UK and Vandy (unknown if their QB transfer will be good or not). Maybe Arkansas as well.

 

[OrangeMagic]

I'm in agreeance, too, even though that is not a word.

Oh, but it is.... agree with the opinion that it's use is pretentious...

Origin:
1540–50; agree + -ance

Word story
Agreeance is a word that seems to be continually reinvented and recycled. The term first appeared in the 16th century and enjoyed its greatest popularity in the 18th and early to mid-19th centuries. Since then it has fallen into disuse. Most likely unaware of the word's history, modern writers who recoin the term seem to like how it sounds, even though it adds nothing in meaning to its workhorse counterpart, agreement. The suffix ‐ance indeed is used in English to form many nouns from verbs: for example, appearance, acceptance, performance, and remittance. So while there is no rule preventing the formation agree + -ance, the coinage may sound quaint or pretentious to some people.

 

[UGADawg4Life]

So according to the author, Worley is behind a GA qb to has only taken a couple of snaps after Murray went down against tech. Sounds about right (sarcasm).the must be dawg grad.

A lot of folks thought Mason should have started over Murray. Murray tended to force throws, particularly earlier in his career. Mason will be more conservative and will probably not need to throw as much as Murray did. He'll also have more experienced targets. I'm not worried about Mason. He's solid. I'm much more concerned about our DB situation.