forums

QBS in the Portal as of 11/28

SCarolina Ibis said:
Part of it though is that our QB classes went Jacurri, Emory, and Judd.

Remember, Emory was supposed to be the second QB in his own class.

He literally had no competition for that backup job.
Click to expand...
I guess we could go with Emory over paying Mendoza while paying for defensive starters with the QB money we would have paid Mendoza and run the Adrian Martinez offense???

If we can bring in Mendoza and still upgrade the defense the same then that’s fine I guess.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
RVACane said:
I guess we could go with Emory over paying Mendoza while paying for defensive starters with the QB money we would have paid Mendoza and run the Adrian Martinez offense???

If we can bring in Martínez and still upgrade the defense the same then that’s fine I guess.
Click to expand...
Think if we end up with Emory as our QB next year (which I don't think is going to happen):
  • decision not spend "excessively" on the HS class we just signed becomes a huge mistake
  • portal money should go first towards assuring that we have the best tuff & fyzikal run offense possible, second to finding defensive players with 3+ years of elgibility who our esteemed evaluators of talent think have high upside
  • give tons of playing time to the young pups at WR and across the defense next year, taking our lumps when they come
  • think it's a coin-flip at best that Emory would still be our QB at the end of the year over Nickel
If Emory is our starting QB next year it's a waste of money to spend on expensive upperclassmen to start on defense. Better to stock up on underclassmen portal talent and give playing time to the young talent already on the team.
 
flips said:
Think if we end up with Emory as our QB next year (which I don't think is going to happen):
  • decision not spend "excessively" on the HS class we just signed becomes a huge mistake
  • portal money should go first towards assuring that we have the best tuff & fyzikal run offense possible, second to finding defensive players with 3+ years of elgibility who our esteemed evaluators of talent think have high upside
  • give tons of playing time to the young pups at WR and across the defense next year, taking our lumps when they come
  • think it's a coin-flip at best that Emory would still be our QB at the end of the year over Nickel
If Emory is our starting QB next year it's a waste of money to spend on expensive upperclassmen to start on defense. Better to stock up on underclassmen portal talent and give playing time to the young talent already on the team.
Click to expand...
I think we have enough OL talent recruited that we need to go with who we have and upgrade the defense but that’s just my 2 cents. We can’t afford to not fix the defense. This defense plus Emory or Mendoza would be lucky to get 6 wins.
 
RVACane said:
I think we have enough OL talent recruited that we need to go with who we have and upgrade the defense but that’s just my 2 cents. We can’t afford to not fix the defense. This defense plus Emory or Mendoza would be lucky to get 6 wins.
Click to expand...
I think if Emory is our QB we'd need to kick #61 inside to guard and either play Samson at RT or get a RT in the portal to have the best run blocking unit possible. We'd still need a Center. I'd spend big on that Fluff guy at RB if Martinez leaves, and have a really good 3-man rotation at RB. Would add a beast of blocking TE as well to pair with Williams too.

If we were to spend a ton on top line junior/senior defensive starters with Emory how many more wins is that going to get us? 2? I don't think there's enough money that we could spend in the portal on defense to get us from 6 wins to playoff contention, so it'd be better spent on backfilling the failures from the HS class we just signed with underclassmen portal talent.

I pray this is just an academic discussion.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
I guess we could go with Emory over paying Mendoza while paying for defensive starters with the QB money we would have paid Mendoza and run the Adrian Martinez offense???

If we can bring in Martínez and still upgrade the defense the same then that’s fine I guess.
Click to expand...
I really want to agree because you're absolutely right. Paying 7 digits just to be slightly better than Emory is not worth it. Full stop.

Then I take a step back.. and I still can't talk myself into Emory.

I posted in this thread that I'd be on board with whoever they pick.

But I added that "we better have a plan at DB ... because a game manager isn't going to be able to dig us out of the holes our current DBs would put us in."

And therein lies the problem. We would HAVE TO upgrade multiple positions if we go that route at QB. The Emory savings plan doesn't actually save money.
 
flips said:
Think if we end up with Emory as our QB next year (which I don't think is going to happen):
  • decision not spend "excessively" on the HS class we just signed becomes a huge mistake
  • portal money should go first towards assuring that we have the best tuff & fyzikal run offense possible, second to finding defensive players with 3+ years of elgibility who our esteemed evaluators of talent think have high upside
  • give tons of playing time to the young pups at WR and across the defense next year, taking our lumps when they come
  • think it's a coin-flip at best that Emory would still be our QB at the end of the year over Nickel
If Emory is our starting QB next year it's a waste of money to spend on expensive upperclassmen to start on defense. Better to stock up on underclassmen portal talent and give playing time to the young talent already on the team.
Click to expand...
This is another post I really want to agree with, because you're absolutely right on points 1 and 3 if we go the Emory route.

Point 4 is kind of a side note. If we've gone from Emory to Nickel in 2025, the wheels have likely fallen off.

But I just can't get behind a philosophical reset of literally the best O in the nation, just to better suit Emory's "strengths". He's not worth it.
 
flips said:
I think if Emory is our QB we'd need to kick #61 inside to guard and either play Samson at RT or get a RT in the portal to have the best run blocking unit possible. We'd still need a Center. I'd spend big on that Fluff guy at RB if Martinez leaves, and have a really good 3-man rotation at RB. Would add a beast of blocking TE as well to pair with Williams too.

If we were to spend a ton on top line junior/senior defensive starters with Emory how many more wins is that going to get us? 2? I don't think there's enough money that we could spend in the portal on defense to get us from 6 wins to playoff contention, so it'd be better spent on backfilling the failures from the HS class we just signed with underclassmen portal talent.

I pray this is just an academic discussion.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we’re winning more than 8 games max anyhow unless we fix the defense legitimately
 
Advertisement
SCarolina Ibis said:
I really want to agree because you're absolutely right. Paying 7 digits just to be slightly better than Emory is not worth it. Full stop.

Then I take a step back.. and I still can't talk myself into Emory.

I posted in this thread that I'd be on board with whoever they pick.

But I added that "we better have a plan at DB ... because a game manager isn't going to be able to dig us out of the holes our current DBs would put us in."

And therein lies the problem. We would HAVE TO upgrade multiple positions if we go that route at QB. The Emory savings plan doesn't actually save money.
Click to expand...
I get it man. We’re better with Mendoza but Mendoza without fixing a number of problems on defense, won’t end well either.
 
RVACane said:
I get it man. We’re better with Mendoza but Mendoza without fixing a number of problems on defense, won’t end well either.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Spending on Mendoza is not the answer.

Let's say we go with an inexpensive QB. Doesn't even have to be Emory. We can all agree that we're probably not winning more than 8 though. But the savings would allow us to spend money on positions of need.

I'm not making a case for or against. I'm honestly just asking. How should we spend it? Does it make sense to invest in 1 year, impact players?

@flips made a really interesting point. "If we end up with Emory as our QB next year the decision not spend "excessively" on the HS class we just signed becomes a huge mistake."
 
SCarolina Ibis said:
I completely agree. Spending on Mendoza is not the answer.

Let's say we go with an inexpensive QB. Doesn't even have to be Emory. We can all agree that we're probably not winning more than 8 though. But the savings would allow us to spend money on positions of need.

I'm not making a case for or against. I'm honestly just asking. How should we spend it? Does it make sense to invest in 1 year, impact players?

@flips made a really interesting point. "If we end up with Emory as our QB next year the decision not spend "excessively" on the HS class we just signed becomes a huge mistake."
Click to expand...
Im concerned that that we aren’t targeting the right cornerbacks. Like Memnon said, we need guys with skills who can cover not more of the same “physical with length” (pause) crap that’s gotten us nowhere. Whoever has been running our CB evals for years now, is awful, and if it’s multiple people, they’re all bad.
 
Advertisement
SCarolina Ibis said:
This is another post I really want to agree with, because you're absolutely right on points 1 and 3 if we go the Emory route.

Point 4 is kind of a side note. If we've gone from Emory to Nickel in 2025, the wheels have likely fallen off.

But I just can't get behind a philosophical reset of literally the best O in the nation, just to better suit Emory's "strengths". He's not worth it.
Click to expand...
Totally fair. I think Dawson is way less likely to stick around if Emory is our QB for one. He's not going to want to design game plans anything like Clemson or FSU from last year ever again.

If Emory is our QB I think we're screwed, but the best chance we would have to have a passable offense would be to have an elite run blocking OL and run 40+ times a game. I don't want that to happen to be clear. I love what our offense was like this year.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
For real though, Mendoza > Emory ok but how much better??? I don’t think he’s that much better where we should spend what appears to be the fewer NIL funds we have on him when we desperately need two starting quality corners plus additional help on defense. They’ve been developing Emory for two years now. Unless we’re getting a Mateer or someone similar, Mendoza plus our defense without massive upgrades is a waste in my opinion.
Click to expand...
WAY BETTER ..emory isn’t starter level on any team..Let alone a team trying to compete for the acc or p4

If we cant get a qb and upgrade the defense then we just aren’t a serious program that’s trying to compete at a high level consistently. What did we flop in hs recruiting for? To roll with emory and be mid again?

Goin with emory and upgrading defense is basically fixing one big leak and creating another one
 
816Cane said:
Every quarterback in history has been the back-up until they aren't. Why aren't we saying that Oregon and Ohio State need quarterbacks as well with Dante Moore and Julian Sayin in the wings? What have they proven? Moore played like **** at UCLA.

I'm not claiming Emory is the answer, I'm just saying he deserves a real chance before being written off.. which I think he will get this year regardless of who they bring in, and that's how it should be.
Click to expand...
They have talent you can bet on, emory does not

And btw idk 100% but osu and Oregon are still trying to bring in a portal qb

And i don't think its a does emory deserve a chance situation, who cares. Its simply is he good enough for us to compete at a high level? I don’t think he is, so **** near any qb who has proven to be solid at the p4 level is miles better to me
 
Advertisement
Back
Top