clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Thursday Question - One of Quarterbacks

I know this is generally Ivory Tower's baby, but there's a pertinent question that most of us are mulling around in our brains right now, and it might be moot as early as this afternoon.

Would you rather have Jevan Snead or Nathan Stanley under center?

 

Read after the jump for my answer and analysis. Post your answers in comment form.

Obviously, this question should not even be rational, and to some of you it probably isn't. Like many of you, as late as two days ago I cast this question off as if anyone who would pose it is an idiot. Jevan Snead, though he may throw picks, has two years of experience under his belt as the starting quarterback of an SEC school with 18 wins and only 8 losses. He's a leader, and he can put a lot behind the ball.

Then I posed a question to Ivory Tower that got me thinking. "If Georgia, in an obvious rebuilding season, had a sophomore quarterback who was only slightly worse than senior Joe Cox (who made poor decisions in this hypothetical), would you have wanted them starting him?" Ivory was perplexed by the question and had trouble with it. Georgia was 7-5 in the regular season this year, and a senior Joe Cox completed 55% of his passes, throwing for 2500 yards, 24 TDs, and 15 INTs. Those aren't great numbers, considering the existence of 53 catch, 808 yard AJ Green. So was it worth it? In other words, what's the big difference between a 6-6 season under Jevan Snead where we win the Liberty Bowl versus a 5-7 year with Nathan Stanley where we stay home for hte holidays but have a quarterback under center with some experience for the future?

I posit that in a year where we're certain we will not return to the cotton bowl or better, why not prepare for the long term? Our senior and junior classes next year are tiny. Let's use the year to prepare those quality sophomores and freshmen for the future. The best way to do that is to let a young quarterback grow and get us 5 or 6 wins, building chemistry with players like Pat Patterson, Ferbia Allen, Vincent Sanders (fingers crossed), Jesse Grandy, and Ja-Mes Logan.

But at the same time, Jevan Snead has started 26 games for the Rebels. He doesn't make great decisions with the ball, and he has significant troubles with accuracy, but Jevan Snead would not throw across his body over the middle on third down in a close game on his own twelve yard line. I know that Nathan Stanley had a pretty nice looking scramble, but he was only 2/7 for 3 yards passing.... and there was the pick. Jevan Snead brings leadership, a cannon arm, and a winning attitude to the table. While you can't really say that we know what we're getting with Jevan at the helm, we certainly don't know what we're getting under Stanley. I've heard people say things like, "well, it can't get much worse." Those people are idiots. It can get a lot worse than Jevan Snead.

Anyway, what I'm saying is this. I flip flop all the time as to which one that I want under center. Even though Jevan Snead could help us try to maintain our place in the SEC West pecking order, it would be fleeting. Nathan Stanley is young and could use significant experience for the future. I think that you have to go with a player like that. I'm not saying Stanley should necessarily start every game next year, but I think he should be given a legitimate chance at the position. If he's good enough for Nutt to call the position up in the air, why not go with the Sophomore over the Senior?