re: Brennan or Daniels? Can we get back to that?

quote:

---

Brennan has been loyal to LSU

---

uh, Southern Miss bro.

Anyway, loyalty should have zero to do with who plays. Best man up, period.

quote:

---

I don’t shill for anyone, I just post the numbers which you guys always want to dismiss or ignore. Daniels was an average QB at ASU vs PAC-12 competition who regressed as a passer the more DCs saw him. Nuss and Brennan are more talented, Brennan’s produced better numbers and both looked better than him in spring. There’s just no objective argument for Daniels, the only argument is hoping he improves enough to blow past the other 2 guys because you have some personal preference for him for whatever reason.

---

There is no question that Daniels regressed from 2019 to 2021 (it's really hard to judge him for 2020 given the Pac 12 was as disjointed as any conference and ASU only played 4 games that season). But has Brennan really done anything in 5 years to conclusively say he is much better than Daniels? He's started 3 games...ever. In his first he had somewhat of a disjointed performance (some really good, some really bad) vs a weak Miss St team. He improved the next week vs. a terrible Vanderbilt team. He looked really good vs. an average Missouri team...then hasn't played since. Does that mean he is terrible and shouldn't be considered for the starting role? Of course not. But I don't know if those games, against 3 of the weaker teams in the SEC that season, really established he is a great player either.

Daniels is the most experienced QB on the roster by far. He also is a threat in the running game whereas Brennan simply isn't. Brennan is not going to be a guy who can make a lot of "off script" plays. He's going to need the timing and execution around him to be great whereas a more mobile QB has a better chance of making something happen even if the play breaks down. Of course, escaping pressure and keeping a play alive is irrelevant if you cant ultimately hit your receiver or, worse, throw the ball to the other team.

Kelly showed a preference for QB's who at least have some escapabilty. Denbrock had a QB last season who could make plays on the ground. LSU had 3 QB's on the roster before Daniels came in. If LSU felt strong about 1 or more of those guys for next season it's likely they wouldn't have recruited Daniels at the risk of causing one of the other QBs to consider leaving (something not uncommon in college football at that position). For Daniels, he was a three year starter. I doubt, with only 2 years of eligibility remaining, he was looking to transfer to a school where the odds of him starting weren't very high. So I'm willing to bet the LSU staff gave him strong assurances that he would, at minimum, have a very real shot of winning the starting job.

Personally, I don't really care who is the starting QB as long as LSU wins. I just don't think Brennan has shown enough to definitively state he is heads and shoulders above the rest. In reality, I think many LSU fans want him to be the starter because they feel he has "earned" the job simply by staying at the school for (now) 6 years in an era where QBs who aren't starting transfer after a year or two. While admirable, the the starting job shouldn't be a lifetime achievement award. Whoever is the best QB should start. That my very well be Brennnan. But 2.5 good games in 5 years isn't a great sample size to unequivocally say he is the best QB on the roster.

quote:

---

It shows the ignition 80% of football fans

---

When you’re dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge facts there’s no baseline for discussion. It’s not surprising these same people argue that running ability should be the #1 attribute a QB is judged on.