Re Al
- Thread starter Knownothing
- Start date
Brock is 6'1", 210lbs. That makes him small compared to most NFL QBs. Size is one of the things that pro sports rarely overlook. Teams will often take a guy who's 6'4" and 230lbs and assume they can coach him up over a guy who's Brock's size but a more polished QB.
I think he'll have the talent and resume to get a shot in a couple years, but any team that looks at him will list his size as a negative. He might get a little heavier, but it's unlikely he'll get any taller.
Joe Scates, Darren Wilson and Darien Porter are three examples.
Who have all played wide receiver all of their lives, and are working their way into the rotation. I chose not to add Leonard Glass to that list for that reason.
And you want Re-al to take practice reps away from improving his skills and knowledge as the backup quarterback, to start out at ground zero at a brand new position? Genius.
Those guys aren’t at Mitchell’s level, particularly Wilson and Porter in terms of wiggle. They also don’t facilitate the multiple factor that Mitchell does. But did you notice they, as backups, still play because of their athletic ability. We can do the same with Mitchell.
Nice false dilemma. Reps that get Mitchell on the field are inherently more valuable to the team than otherwise. I’d imagine some, if not most, of those reps would be beneficial to what we’d run if Mitchell were forced to be the starting QB.
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see what he could do coming motion like Jones in those situations. We got pretty predictable with Joel, but he generally was able to get the first down. Just putting it in his hands once with a run/pass option would gain a lot of attention from the defense, setting things up nicely for Purdy to keep on future downs.
I agree with this. Brock Purdy has been comparable to, or better than Trevor Lawrence has been in their careers thus far. But I'd guess if someone suggested that Lawrence's backup should get some snaps for any reason, nearly everyone would laugh at them.
My question would be how they could use Mitchell that would actually provide enough value over alternative options that would actually make it worthwhile. For instance, I think some people think that Mitchell should be used in a way similar to Jones, but would Mitchell actually have any value over Jones in that role? Or if Mitchell comes in on short, running situations, is his running ability really enough better than Purdy's to trump Purdy's presumed decision-making advantage, plus the passing advantage? I might be wrong, but I don't think the answer to either of those questions is yes.
I was trying to find a name that someone with the username “KnowNothing” would recognize.
That and the fact that A. Montana didn’t have the arm that Marino and Elway did, B. Jerry Rice wasn’t s peed burner, but Montana had a knock for hitting his receivers in stride—which Brock also does.
Oh, then there was the totally extraneous fact that Montana spent a lot of time handing off and passing to native Iowan Roger Craig—Breece Hall’s cousin,
If Clemson had a demonstrated struggling to score, including scoring just 1 TD in regulation against UNI with no big plays, they likely would find away to put potentially their best athlete on the field in some fashion. We harp on being multiple, getting Mitchell on the field is that.
Yeah seeing Re al yesterday was good feels for knowing that there's legit talent behind the starter.
Conversely it provided the Meltdown Melvins around CF to turn on Purdy as soon as he has a tough outing.
I DO wonder if Brock works his way up or Hall too but I also don't have issues with who's out there.
Fair enough, but is there any reasonable expectation that those stalled drives would have finished differently if Mitchell had gotten it? Would the penalties have not happened? Would Mitchell have made a better read on the couple of 3rd and 4th and short plays against UNI?
I don't disagree that he should get on the field in some way. But it's not a simple as just putting him in and it will make the offense better. Plus, having some sort of "trick" package with him takes up practice time that could potentially be better used.
The only spot that it makes sense to use him is MAYBE kickoff return. I don't know if he's ever done that in his life though.
Depends on the quality of the staff. Given the ability to make people miss, not too mention create schematic numbers advantages, there should be. Certainly worth trying, as the practice reps we spend are far less than what future opponents would spend on the same play.
Is there a reasonable expectation that those practice reps would have such a high cost? We do practice limited use plays as it is, might as well be one in which it’s getting one of the best athletes on the field and giving the defense something to prepare for. There’s also overlap with it getting Mitchell prepared.
Lol at people comparing it to using Lanning. Guys like Lanning, Bell, or earlier Tebow weren’t put into those situations on 3/4 and 1 because of their blazing speed or elusiveness like Re-al. They were put in because they were bruisers that ran north-south and just falling forward would get them the yard needed. Re-al is not that guy.
It's no small thing. Purdy is still young, so you know he still can improve a bunch with decision making, but he puts the ball where his receivers can get it as good as anyone in college football, and the sample size is growing.
ISU is in good hands. Feels good.
Lol, no one is calling for LanRam for Mitchell. Lanning has been brought up mostly by those thinking the fact Mitchell isn’t 230 like Lanning means Mitchell can’t be used.
Did we have a quarterback of Purdy’s ability with Lanning was being used?