Tweet
I'm going off the assumption here that he's the likely #2 QB at this point. I know we all have some high hopes for this season, but the pessimist in me realizes that one bad hit could require that the backup QB plays a huge role. Is Lark a guy that can step in and save the season should Heaps go down? I just haven't read much about the battle for #2. I'm not asking about Riley because I feel like I've seen him and have a pretty good idea what we're in for should he be called upon.
-
-
I would put him in the Max Hall as a sophmore class. I think he is a better athlete than Max and perhaps has a stronger arm. I think the only thing between Lark and being a good college qb is experience. But he would be innexperienced when he was asked to step in and even with experience he will not make you forget Jake Heaps.Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
-General George S. Patton
I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
-DOCTOR Wuap -
The one thing that's just impossible to evaluate until you see them in games is a QB's live action football IQ, sometimes referred to as "it." And it's the distance between Joe Montana and Jim Druckenmiller. I think Max had a very high natural football IQ and great field awareness (except when playing Utah) - but if you rated him on measurables like arm strength, height and foot speed he wasn't much to get excited about.Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
I have residual concern about Lark on this front because of reports from before his mish that he wasn't picking up the offense very quickly.... but those days are long gone and the new post-mission Lark is probably a different phenomenon.
Even though I haven't been a Riley fan I think he's got pretty good field IQ - the plays he made against Washington showed that. Of course AFA was just a disaster all around, but I don't know how much of that can be blamed on him. He's just too limited physically because of arm strength and teams know they can stack the hell out of the box against him.
BTW - Ryan Hancock was another example of a guy who had great field intelligence but didn't really impress if you just saw him in a practice or a warmup.Last edited by oxcoug; 08-23-2011, 10:40 AM.Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī
It can't all be wedding cake.Comment
-
Hancock threw a 94 MPH fastball, so I would have to imagine he could impress in practice too.Comment
-
Hancock was awesome but I sometimes think BYU fans give him too much credit. When he was called into action he was very raw for a college QB. He had a cannon but didn't have great throwing mechanics. The guy battled mostly with great instinct and a lot of pluck. Fortunately he was very successful before he blew his knee. A lot of this has to do with coaching and his surrounding cast.Originally posted by GrizzledVeteran View PostComment
-
Lark has improved but as of now he hasn't overtaken Nelson. I doubt he overtakes Nelson for at least a few games for the reasons Ox has mentioned.Comment
-
So, significantly better than soph John Beck? Interesting. I don't see that from Lark, although I haven't seen much of him. Max Hall was really good as a soph.Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View PostI'm like LeBron James.
-mpfunkComment
-
At least Hancock had a fantastic armOriginally posted by oxcoug View PostDyslexics are teople poo...Comment
-
hopefully we never find out.*Banned*Comment
-
Comment