Who knew Nova was so important?

[RUich]

In trying to figure out how USA Today could have Rutgers rated so low in their rankings, the only thing I could come up with was the QB issue. After four years of "Good Nova" and "Bad Nova" and the fact that we never really showed any significant backup for anyone to hang their hat on, this has to be the really biggest factor in down grading RU. Sure, we lost some on the OL and some others, but so does everybody. Looking at the teams rated ahead of us and how we fared against them last season, how else can we explain the rating of #76? My guess is that our schedule is in play here also. We may well have a very tough time in getting to six wins and if they are simply looking at projected final records, this may be in play.

#28 PSU with their top QB still in place but certainly a lot of lingering issues to make even their fan base still worried. They only beat us by a late surge 13-10 when we most certainly had the bad Nova.
All this still begs the question of how can they have catapulted to such heights so quickly?

#32 North Carolina who we absolutely crushed ( 40-21) in the bowl game. Had we learned how to defend the on-side kick, it would have really been brutal for them and yet they are so much higher than us. What has happened is such a short time to make them so much better than us?

#50 Navy. Really??? Not trying to beat up on an academy, but it is not the 1940's. And, we did win the game. Other than trying to not get hurt with their blocking scheme, this looks ridiculous.

#64 Michigan. Yes, they have hired a top level coach. Who the hell knew that by simply bringing in a big hire, you can just turn everything around in such a short time? Still, we did get our first ever BIG win against them. No question that they have more talent depth than us could be the reason too. Being an iconic program helps.

#71 Maryland who we had, I believe, a record setting second half come back to beat 41-38. And, their team has lost a ton of players! If there is one team in this group that I am sure we should be ahead of, it is them. Yeah, it is only 5 places higher than us but still makes no sense.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

I guess I have 3 general comments:

1. That list is terribly done.

2. To just about anyone but Rutgers fans, Gary Nova was a pretty good college QB. Especially to someone who doesn't watch the games and looks up the stats. So his graduation could (should) be viewed as a big factor.

3. Many people still view Rutgers with an historic perspective. We are a team temporarily doing okay, but will soon return to our rightful place at the bottom of the heap. When you start with that perspective and see the loss of a QB with big stats and the end of the Schiano recruits, they think that surely means a big step back.

 

[wheezer]

we were 7 plus points road underdogs against Washington state, Navy, and Maryland, all resulting in outright victory for RU....the quarterback play in each of those games was paramount....

can we count on such quarterback play this year?....how can anybody think we could match that with so much unknown?....based on that alone, I could understand being ranked low on the national chart

we are all hoping for a near senior play out of our starter this year, but cannot expect it.

 

[CuredbywinningRU]

Three things:

First - who cares about these polls. Meaningless to recruits and the world in general unless you're top 25 and then it might help you.

Second - until we win something that matters, or play in a bowl game that matters or even play in a bowl game vs a ranked team (not a very high bar), we will be considered, rightly or wrongly, a mediocre program at best (aberrantly prominent for a moment in 2006+), irrespective of our conference affiliation.

Third - who cares. All that matters is what takes place on the field, not masturbatory prognostications.

 

[PaKnight]

Three things:

First - who cares about these polls. Meaningless to recruits and the world in general unless you're top 25 and then it might help you.

Second - until we win something that matters, or play in a bowl game that matters or even play in a bowl game vs a ranked team (not a very high bar), we will be considered, rightly or wrongly, a mediocre program at best (aberrantly prominent for a moment in 2006+), irrespective of our conference affiliation.

Third - who cares. All that matters is what takes place on the field, not masturbatory prognostications.

I agree with points 1 and 3, but you can apply the same standards in point 2 to UNC, MD, Navy and many other schools that are ranked ahead of us, and they would come up short as well.

 

[RUChoppin]

I think a lot of people see last year as a fluke. Our only "decisive" regular season wins were against Howard, Tulane, and Indiana. Of games decided by a TD or less, we were 4-1.

We need to keep momentum going this year - if we fall back to 5-7, then everyone will assume last year was a fluke. If we can finish at 7-5 or better, I think some opinions will start to shift.

 

[CuredbywinningRU]

I agree with points 1 and 3, but you can apply the same standards in point 2 to UNC, MD, Navy and many other schools that are ranked ahead of us, and they would come up short as well.

Fair point. While not dispositive, our dismal (lack of true national profile in anything but WBB) overall sports profile may contribute to this.

 

[kjb32812]

I think a lot of people see last year as a fluke. Our only "decisive" regular season wins were against Howard, Tulane, and Indiana. Of games decided by a TD or less, we were 4-1.

We need to keep momentum going this year - if we fall back to 5-7, then everyone will assume last year was a fluke. If we can finish at 7-5 or better, I think some opinions will start to shift.

I was a little confused by your low rating as well. From what I've read on here, you have concerns at QB, OL and especially DB. Just how concerning is your OL situation?

 

[IMARUFAN]

I'll never understand why schedule is taken into consideration when the "experts" rank teams. A team is either good or bad, regardless of who they play.

If you trying to rank teams based on the record you expect them to end the season with, then that's an entirely different issue from how "good" a team is.

 

[IMARUFAN]

I think a lot of people see last year as a fluke.

I think you are absolutely correct.

But it seems that every time Rutgers finishes the season with a winning record, it's considered a fluke. It's been a fluke in 8 of the past 10 years now. Gets a little tiring.

 

[derleider]

I guess I have 3 general comments:

1. That list is terribly done.

2. To just about anyone but Rutgers fans, Gary Nova was a pretty good college QB. Especially to someone who doesn't watch the games and looks up the stats. So his graduation could (should) be viewed as a big factor.

3. Many people still view Rutgers with an historic perspective. We are a team temporarily doing okay, but will soon return to our rightful place at the bottom of the heap. When you start with that perspective and see the loss of a QB with big stats and the end of the Schiano recruits, they think that surely means a big step back.

Well Nova was a good college QB last year. Before that he was terribly inconsistent and even his best games werent that great - he was below average for a BCS QB prior to last year.

The thing is - even WITH Nova last year - we were in the 40-50 range in teh computers. And that was also with a more experienced OL.

Its not unreasonable at all to think the team will take a step back. If we were looking at PSU or MD with this situation (SR QB gradautes, backups with no experience and OL with lack of experience, plus consistently bad secondary for past 3 years) we would say - yeah thats probably a border like 6-6 team with this schedule.

Certainly I dot get why UNC and PSU are ranked so high. PSU #28. Maybe they will get there because they will have big wins - but I think people are getting caught up in their big recruiting this year and last, but those guys will still be young.

 

[mdk01]

The thing is - even WITH Nova last year - we were in the 40-50 range in teh computers.

Its not unreasonable at all to think the team will take a step back.

55 to 65 would be a step back. 76 is a giant leap back. And did UNC pull in the football equivalent of the "Fab 5" to get to #32?

 

[wheezer]

I think you are absolutely correct.

But it seems that every time Rutgers finishes the season with a winning record, it's considered a fluke. It's been a fluke in 8 of the past 10 years now. Gets a little tiring.

-----------------

I don't think of it as a fluke....I went to the away SMU game a few years back, and a SMU fan asked my how I thought RU would do once we began the big 10 schedule.....I said to him that I expected us to win a few, because we would have a seasoned senior qb....despite the good
nova/ bad nova thing, we won several

 

[kapyoche]

It is how you finish that counts so why pay attention to these predictions unless to psych us out that we are such losers and there is no point even showing up.

 

[mdk01]

It is how you finish that counts so why pay attention to these predictions unless to psych us out that we are such losers and there is no point even showing up.

Because working your way up the polls, when it does count, is a process. You don't want to start too far behind where you really should be because you'll never completely catch up.

 

[derleider]

55 to 65 would be a step back. 76 is a giant leap back. And did UNC pull in the football equivalent of the "Fab 5" to get to #32?

Not really in that range - the teas are so tighly bunched. Either way, it is what it is - people dont think a team that was middle of the road will even be that good this year, after losing its SR QB. Thats not unreasonable.

Like I said - I have no idea what UNC did to deserve its rankings. I know why people like PSU (easy schedule, a year older on a team that had a great D), I just dont think it will quite payoff this year.

 

[knightfan7]

I was a little confused by your low rating as well. From what I've read on here, you have concerns at QB, OL and especially DB. Just how concerning is your OL situation?

I think it's true that most feel there is a lot of talent in all 3 groups. It's the lack of real game experience playing together that worries many. As you know from what PSU went thru last year, it's hard replacing multi year starters especially along the OL where there's no substitute for continuity.

The saving grace imo is RU has a lot of experience and talent at the offensive skill positions. Hopefully they'll be able to carry the day.

 

[RUChoppin]

I think you are absolutely correct.

But it seems that every time Rutgers finishes the season with a winning record, it's considered a fluke. It's been a fluke in 8 of the past 10 years now. Gets a little tiring.

Well, I think in prior years it has been "yeah, but who did they play?" It was easy to downtalk the Big East (after Miami, VTech, and BC left), and even easier to downtalk the AAC. They weren't "real" football conferences in the national mindset.

Stepping into the Big Ten, though, erases that "who did they play?" question - because our conference schedule is loaded. So, in the first year against "real" competition, we managed to do fairly well, but I think there's still quite a bit of a "let's see if they can keep it up" mentality.

 

[MADHAT1]

My opinion
pre-season-polls give slack to traditional powers and rate them higher than they should be at times.
Also HCs have a lot to do with where a school is placed, if they are considered very good/great their program, is given the benefit of doubt , even if depth problem in a couple of positions) and that HC will be the reason why his program's is ranked higher than its weaknesses would have had it ranked under a HC not as respected by the so-called experts rating schools before season begins.

Rutgers won't fare well in pre-season polls until it establishes itself as a competitive program against all of its opposition not just the programs that are considered good but not elite..
So Rutgers overachieving and exceeding expeditions were lessened because of the way it lost to the best of the B1G and full credit for having a program on the rise because of how it played against the second tier B1G programs wasn't given when the pollsters made out this year's poll.
Also Flood hasn't proved himself as a coach that will have his program overcome losses to major players like name brand HCs are considered able to do.
So Flood being RU's HC won't move RU up higher just because of his name . like some other programs have done fior them because their HC is a name brand.

Until RU establishes itself as a top program that can take on anyone every year and not be over matched, don't expect RU to be ranked as high as we think it should be in pre-season polls and when Flood starts getting credit for being a good HC ,RU fans will see the RU FB program be given a little more respect in future pre-season polls.





7

 

[urbanecane]

I was a little confused by your low rating as well. From what I've read on here, you have concerns at QB, OL and especially DB. Just how concerning is your OL situation?

Not as bad as it looks on paper. I expect RT play to be as good, if not better, than last season. Losing reliable 3-4 year starters at LG and C will hurt, but they are being replaced by highly recruited RS-SO and RS-JR's. Simply put, I don't expect the unit to be better than last year but the OL should at least be slightly above average.

The one thing that truly bothers me about these polls is UNC's ranking. They looked dysfunctional during that bowl game last year, we were CLEARLY the better team. UNC could be returning everyone and I would still be supremely confident we are the better team.

 

[kjb32812]

Not as bad as it looks on paper. I expect RT play to be as good, if not better, than last season. Losing reliable 3-4 year starters at LG and C will hurt, but they are being replaced by highly recruited RS-SO and RS-JR's. Simply put, I don't expect the unit to be better than last year but the OL should at least be slightly above average.

The one thing that truly bothers me about these polls is UNC's ranking. They looked dysfunctional during that bowl game last year, we were CLEARLY the better team. UNC could be returning everyone and I would still be supremely confident we are the better team.

It's amazing how much of a darling UNC is despite everything over the past several years that has come out. It is like everyone is rooting for them to be relevant in football. I don't know if it is because they have cool unis or what, but it is odd.

Ryan Switzer though? Legit.

 

[RUbacker]

In trying to figure out how USA Today could have Rutgers rated so low in their rankings, the only thing I could come up with was the QB issue. After four years of "Good Nova" and "Bad Nova" and the fact that we never really showed any significant backup for anyone to hang their hat on, this has to be the really biggest factor in down grading RU. Sure, we lost some on the OL and some others, but so does everybody. Looking at the teams rated ahead of us and how we fared against them last season, how else can we explain the rating of #76? My guess is that our schedule is in play here also. We may well have a very tough time in getting to six wins and if they are simply looking at projected final records, this may be in play.

#28 PSU with their top QB still in place but certainly a lot of lingering issues to make even their fan base still worried. They only beat us by a late surge 13-10 when we most certainly had the bad Nova.
All this still begs the question of how can they have catapulted to such heights so quickly?

#32 North Carolina who we absolutely crushed ( 40-21) in the bowl game. Had we learned how to defend the on-side kick, it would have really been brutal for them and yet they are so much higher than us. What has happened is such a short time to make them so much better than us?

#50 Navy. Really??? Not trying to beat up on an academy, but it is not the 1940's. And, we did win the game. Other than trying to not get hurt with their blocking scheme, this looks ridiculous.

#64 Michigan. Yes, they have hired a top level coach. Who the hell knew that by simply bringing in a big hire, you can just turn everything around in such a short time? Still, we did get our first ever BIG win against them. No question that they have more talent depth than us could be the reason too. Being an iconic program helps.

#71 Maryland who we had, I believe, a record setting second half come back to beat 41-38. And, their team has lost a ton of players! If there is one team in this group that I am sure we should be ahead of, it is them. Yeah, it is only 5 places higher than us but still makes no sense.

Most sensible fans knew how importantly nova was . The haters and know nothing fans were just kidding themselves and bothering the hell out of normal fans on this board.

 

[realhoops2]

Most sensible fans knew how importantly nova was . The haters and know nothing fans were just kidding themselves and bothering the hell out of normal fans on this board.

While I know full well how important Nova was I also believe that there are plenty of negative, glass half empty fans out there that view Nova in that way. It was interesting watching the RU vs Mich game on BTN yesterday and how impressed the announcers were when noting that Nova surpassed 8,000 career yards in that game.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

While I know full well how important Nova was I also believe that there are plenty of negative, glass half empty fans out there that view Nova in that way. It was interesting watching the RU vs Mich game on BTN yesterday and how impressed the announcers were when noting that Nova surpassed 8,000 career yards in that game.

You guys are nuts. Nova was not a good QB. "Good Nova" might have been.. but "Nova" had a good lump "Bad Nova" out there with him in almost every game. "Good Nova" sometimes succeeded despite doing the wrong thing. A good QB stands in the face of a rush and delivers a strike to a WR knowing he was going to get hit... that in no way describes Nova.

Hopefully you will see what its like to have a competent and consistent QB who shows good judgement on almost every down. You will see it in the next couple years if not this year... then you will know the difference.

 

[realhoops2]

You guys are nuts. Nova was not a good QB. "Good Nova" might have been.. but "Nova" had a good lump "Bad Nova" out there with him in almost every game. "Good Nova" sometimes succeeded despite doing the wrong thing. A good QB stands in the face of a rush and delivers a strike to a WR knowing he was going to get hit... that in no way describes Nova.

Hopefully you will see what its like to have a competent and consistent QB who shows good judgement on almost every down. You will see it in the next couple years if not this year... then you will know the difference.

Sounds good on paper but how many QB's, even on the pro level, actually stand in there and deliver a strike with the rush in his face. Ask Hackenberg, Eli Manning, and Tom Brady if being unwilling to take that punishment means they are not good QB's? Senior year Nova was a good QB by any measure!

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Sounds good on paper but how many QB's, even on the pro level, actually stand in there and deliver a strike with the rush in his face. Ask Hackenberg, Eli Manning, and Tom Brady if being unwilling to take that punishment means they are not good QB's? Senior year Nova was a good QB by any measure!

Hell.. how about how many TRY to deliver a strike in the face of a rush? Nova never tried.. he often rushed passes before the route could possibly be completed just because there was a rush. He back-peddled and unloaded... and that could be the play-by-play description for most of his INTs. Nova was given every advantage here.. 4 years of being totally supported by the head coach. Sure he showed some improvement.. anyone would with that much support. But he had too many flaws to rise tot he rank of a "good" college QB. Way too inconsistent.

 

[RUChoppin]

Out of sheer curiosity, can you give some examples of "good" college QBs? Not "great" or "elite" QBs, but those that you'd define as just being "good".

 

[rutgersdave]

Hell.. how about how many TRY to deliver a strike in the face of a rush? Nova never tried.. he often rushed passes before the route could possibly be completed just because there was a rush. He back-peddled and unloaded... and that could be the play-by-play description for most of his INTs. Nova was given every advantage here.. 4 years of being totally supported by the head coach. Sure he showed some improvement.. anyone would with that much support. But he had too many flaws to rise tot he rank of a "good" college QB. Way too inconsistent.

If Nova was so bad then he should have been replaced by the two backup QB that we had. We didn't even allow the backup get any experience. Flood must be a terrible coach to keep him in. you can not have a good HC if he keep a bad QB in the game.

 

[RUbacker]

You guys are nuts. Nova was not a good QB. "Good Nova" might have been.. but "Nova" had a good lump "Bad Nova" out there with him in almost every game. "Good Nova" sometimes succeeded despite doing the wrong thing. A good QB stands in the face of a rush and delivers a strike to a WR knowing he was going to get hit... that in no way describes Nova.

Hopefully you will see what its like to have a competent and consistent QB who shows good judgement on almost every down. You will see it in the next couple years if not this year... then you will know the difference.

This is one stupid poster and a hater with no class or football knowledge . Time for you to move on

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Out of sheer curiosity, can you give some examples of "good" college QBs? Not "great" or "elite" QBs, but those that you'd define as just being "good".

Not going to play that game because the next step is to compare the stats of guys on my list to Nova and so on.

But look at it this way... Nova was a 4 year starter and he still has long time fans like me questioning his value. And I am far from alone. Does that sound like a good college QB to you? Every year he was here you had people pointing out that he should be benched. Does that sound like a good college QB to you?

I see in the posts after your we have someone who wants me to slam Flood now for keeping Nova in games and starting him for 4 years. That's juts baiting. And then we have someone calling me a "hater".. suggesting that I need to "move on" even though the QB we are talking about has "moved on". as if that actually makes a positive case for Nova's "good-ness". I remember one season we had someone defend Nova by calling out the critics as being "Anti-Dominican".. I kid you not. I had thought the kid was Italian. It is crazy the lengths some of you are willing to go to to clean up Nova's QB rep.

Obviously, Nova had all the tools to be a good college QB because when "Good Nova" showed up he looked quite good in spots. But that is far from the full picture. And when you have a 3rd year starting QB throw.. what was it, 6 INTs vs Kent State on Homecoming and he is kept in the game.. and that gets followed up with the Head Coach protecting his ego vs Army by running the ball against a team that was proven to not be able to defend the pass... well, that is not a description of a good college QB. And maybe the turnover of offensive coaches hurt him... but I keep going back to his weird handling of pressure... throwing the ball while already sacked on the flat of his back.. more than once.. dumping the ball to random locations at the first whiff of pressure... sorry, not my idea of a good college QB.

I can see I haven't been a very good Rutgers fan in this thread, the kid did pick Rutgers and played 4 years. But you guys have to stop this white-wash of Nova's QB abilities. He had serious flaws.

 

[RUChoppin]

What I'm trying to understand is the distinction between elite/great/good/average/poor. Elite QBs have few if any flaws and are incredibly consistent... though even they make bad decisions at times and have off games. Great QBs may have some minor flaws, but they are also mostly consistent... still, with bad decisions and games at times.

But what is a "good" college QB? You mention people questioning his value... well, outside of teams with elite/great QBs, the most popular guy on the team is usually the one carrying the clipboard. Plenty of teams with "good" QBs have fans who question their value and want them benched at times.

You also mention consistency... if Nova was consistently "good Nova" he would have been a "great QB", so not sure where the parameters of "good QB" begin and end. I'd imagine "good" QBs are less consistent than "great" QBs, and have more off games. But at what point do they fall from "good" to just "average"?

Is "good QB" a club without any members? Are there actually any "good QBs", or are there just "great QBs" and "average QBs"?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

What I'm trying to understand is the distinction between elite/great/good/average/poor. Elite QBs have few if any flaws and are incredibly consistent... though even they make bad decisions at times and have off games. Great QBs may have some minor flaws, but they are also mostly consistent... still, with bad decisions and games at times.

But what is a "good" college QB? You mention people questioning his value... well, outside of teams with elite/great QBs, the most popular guy on the team is usually the one carrying the clipboard. Plenty of teams with "good" QBs have fans who question their value and want them benched at times.

You also mention consistency... if Nova was consistently "good Nova" he would have been a "great QB", so not sure where the parameters of "good QB" begin and end. I'd imagine "good" QBs are less consistent than "great" QBs, and have more off games. But at what point do they fall from "good" to just "average"?

Is "good QB" a club without any members? Are there actually any "good QBs", or are there just "great QBs" and "average QBs"?

Looking back at this thread I can see where I went wrong.. here are the comments directed toward Nova.. it starts out simply enough... (4 different members quoted below):

"To just about anyone but Rutgers fans, Gary Nova was a pretty good college QB. Especially to someone who doesn't watch the games and looks up the stats. "

"Well Nova was a good college QB last year. Before that he was terribly inconsistent and even his best games werent that great - he was below average for a BCS QB prior to last year."

Those are fair.. even though the use of "pretty good college QB" was in there, I read right past that because it was balanced. But then you have these gems..

"Most sensible fans knew how importantly nova was . The haters and know nothing fans were just kidding themselves and bothering the hell out of normal fans on this board."

"While I know full well how important Nova was I also believe that there are plenty of negative, glass half empty fans out there that view Nova in that way."

And I reacted to these.. over-reacted, in hindsight.. where I just should have ignored the nonsense. The use of "good college QB" is too nebulous. You say if the "good Nova" showed up every day he'd be a great college QB. You can easily flip that and suggest the non-good version of Nova showed up more often, so what does that make him? I think I have been pretty clear that I don't think Nova's average level of play rose to the level of good. If there are people who disagree, fine. Go on thinking Nova was a good college QB while I hope to finally see a good college QB under center for Rutgers.

 

[PaKnight]

Hell.. how about how many TRY to deliver a strike in the face of a rush? Nova never tried.. he often rushed passes before the route could possibly be completed just because there was a rush. He back-peddled and unloaded... and that could be the play-by-play description for most of his INTs. Nova was given every advantage here.. 4 years of being totally supported by the head coach. Sure he showed some improvement.. anyone would with that much support. But he had too many flaws to rise tot he rank of a "good" college QB. Way too inconsistent.

Was having 4 different coordinators having every advantage?

Never tried? I remember specifically the game winning throw to beat Temple and the big TD at the of the first half against Michigan,

He was good last year.

 

[RUChoppin]

That's fair.

Personally, I think that last year Nova rose to the level of "good college QB". He had a good season, not a great one. If he had managed to limit the mistakes against TTFP and pulled out a win, it would have arguably been a great season. In prior years, Nova was an average/inconsistent QB - but last year, I think he took a step forward to become a good QB. Junior Year Nova would have lost to WSU and Maryland, for instance.

If "good Nova" showed up every week, he'd have been one of the Top 5-10 QBs in the country. If "bad Nova" showed up every week, he'd have been one of the worst 5-10 QBs in the country. Last year, we saw much more of good Nova than bad. He limited the mistakes that he made much more frequently as a soph/junior and was very productive for us from a numbers perspective (putting up one of the best statistical seasons in school history against arguably the hardest schedule in school history). An average QB would have gone 5-7 last year or worse, imo.

Overall, he had an average career here. As a senior, though, I think he had emerged as a good QB.

 

[T2Kplus10]

This is not just about Nova, it's about the importance of the QB position. Look at the stats, when Nova played well, we won. When he didn't, we lost. Pretty simple. You can't win without good QB play in D1, especially not in the B1G. To have a question mark at QB is a serious problem.

 

[rutgersdave]

Looking back at this thread I can see where I went wrong.. here are the comments directed toward Nova.. it starts out simply enough... (4 different members quoted below):



Those are fair.. even though the use of "pretty good college QB" was in there, I read right past that because it was balanced. But then you have these gems..



And I reacted to these.. over-reacted, in hindsight.. where I just should have ignored the nonsense. The use of "good college QB" is too nebulous. You say if the "good Nova" showed up every day he'd be a great college QB. You can easily flip that and suggest the non-good version of Nova showed up more often, so what does that make him? I think I have been pretty clear that I don't think Nova's average level of play rose to the level of good. If there are people who disagree, fine. Go on thinking Nova was a good college QB while I hope to finally see a good college QB under center for Rutgers.

There were many many years we had terrible to below average offensive lines. I would blame the offensive line for Savage leaving. Pass protection wasn't great and when we needed to run in the big games, it didn't happen.

I hope Mitch Browning can get this new offensive line working pass protection and running. This was mentioned in an article about Browning coming to Rutgers.

Flood is hoping Browning brings him that final piece.

Rutgers returns all five starters from last year’s team, which allowed 35 sacks and finished 100th nationally in rushing.

 

[realhoops2]

Looking back at this thread I can see where I went wrong.. here are the comments directed toward Nova.. it starts out simply enough... (4 different members quoted below):



Those are fair.. even though the use of "pretty good college QB" was in there, I read right past that because it was balanced. But then you have these gems..



And I reacted to these.. over-reacted, in hindsight.. where I just should have ignored the nonsense. The use of "good college QB" is too nebulous. You say if the "good Nova" showed up every day he'd be a great college QB. You can easily flip that and suggest the non-good version of Nova showed up more often, so what does that make him? I think I have been pretty clear that I don't think Nova's average level of play rose to the level of good. If there are people who disagree, fine. Go on thinking Nova was a good college QB while I hope to finally see a good college QB under center for Rutgers.

I think it's pretty obvious Nova's performance his first 3 years is clouding your perception of his 2014 performance. His efficiency rating (145.3) was 3rd in the B1G behind only JT Barrett and Connor Cook and 28 nationally. If you don't consider that good (certainly above average) you obviously don't know the game nearly as well as you think. Not perfect, not great, but certainly good!

 

[rutgersdave]

I think it's pretty obvious Nova's performance his first 3 years is clouding your perception of his 2014 performance. His efficiency rating (145.3) was 3rd in the B1G behind only JT Barrett and Connor Cook and 28 nationally. If you don't consider that good (certainly above average) you obviously don't know the game nearly as well as you think. Not perfect, not great, but certainly good!

2013-2014 offensive line performance 35 sacks and ranked 100 rushing nationwide. The previous years haven't been much better. Penn State excused Hackenburg performance due to the line last year.

 

[j_rc_93]

Having a QB with no experience would downgrade any non-elite team in the Big 10. But, the lake of faith in Rutgers isn't only about losing Nova, I am sure it has something to do with what we did on the field. Why shouldn't Rutgers be trusted to replicate?

56-17; 42-24; 37-0; 45-3
before you talk about how good the team who beat us were, in 2013 we had
49-14; 52-17; 41-17; 31-6 and gave up 50+ points in 2 victories.

Until Rutgers returns to playing defense where blowouts don't happen, we can't realistically expect anything better than a "believe it when I see it" attitude about Rutgers predictions.

I am not saying Rutgers is going to be horrible, but I do think, there is plenty of reason why people should be suspicious of what we will do.

 

[PaKnight]

Having a QB with no experience would downgrade any non-elite team in the Big 10. But, the lake of faith in Rutgers isn't only about losing Nova, I am sure it has something to do with what we did on the field. Why shouldn't Rutgers be trusted to replicate?

56-17; 42-24; 37-0; 45-3
before you talk about how good the team who beat us were, in 2013 we had
49-14; 52-17; 41-17; 31-6 and gave up 50+ points in 2 victories.

Until Rutgers returns to playing defense where blowouts don't happen, we can't realistically expect anything better than a "believe it when I see it" attitude about Rutgers predictions.

I am not saying Rutgers is going to be horrible, but I do think, there is plenty of reason why people should be suspicious of what we will do.

UNC lost by 20 to the team that had all those bad losses and they are ranked 32.

No one is saying that we should be ranked in the top 25.