Page 1 of 3
QB Question

Posted:
Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:48 pm
by crazy horse
DMN reports that Mark Hodges has moved to TE. Is Tate still a QB going into spring or has he moved as well?
I apologize if this has already been discussed. Trying to catch up on all the personnel news.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:41 am
by The PonyGrad
Is a Bennett quote somewhere, maybe on one of the QB recruit pages, that all four would be considered as possible starters. That is: Bartel, Wallis, Meeks, and Phillips.
So to answer you question it appears Wallis will be given a chance but that looks like a formality to me barring some amazing improvement in his passing.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:39 am
by StangEsq
In the conference Coach B said something to the effect that all of the QBs would get a chance to compete, including Meeks and Phillips
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:15 am
by boulevard bum
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by StangEsq:
<B>In the conference Coach B said something to the effect that all of the QBs would get a chance to compete, including Meeks and Phillips</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He also said that Meeks and Philips feel that they are on about the same page as Wallis and Bartel and Bennett seemed to agree. Bartel has started 7 games and Wallis has started 4. It makes sense. Listening to Bennett in person gives you the idea that he could be hoping for Philips or Meeks to step in and win the job. He may just be trying to spark curiosity but that's what his stance seemed to be. He also seemed much more confident in Bartel than Wallis. I think someone said that saying Tate would be given a chance but that was a formality. That is pretty close to the truth I think. I really think Meeks and Philips have a good shot at taking to starting position. We'll just have to wait and see.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:51 pm
by Corso
Other way around. Bartel started 4 games, Wallis started 7.
I think.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:54 pm
by StangStud05
My personnal opinion is that Wallis will sit the bench. Bartel will start the first few games. And that the rest of the year will be split by Meeks and Phillips.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:02 pm
by ponybuster
There you guys go again talking about things you know nothing about. Bartel is starting QB. He EARNED IT and he will start and finish every game unless he gets hurt. Ricky Joe and whoever else comes in will have to wait their turn cause Bartel is going to tear it up!
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:17 pm
by Dooby
Is Bartel playing baseball this summer? Or am I confusing him with Wallis? Or am I just confused?
If he (and Wallis) are playing baseball how does that impact who starts?
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:03 pm
by McAndless
First of all, I'm proud of our entire recruiting class for making SMU their destination, but if the two QBs have to come in expected to compete for the starting job, the ponies could have a loong season ahead. There is too much proof of kids not being ready, especially here at SMU, but they were thrusted into the lineups anyway and ended transferring or joining some garage-band.
I also appreciate your support StangStud05 for your brother, that is neat and respectable, but if your assessment proves correct, the one of the freshman QBs that does play, more than likely will not do so effectively and probably end up leaving like in the past.
I think Bennett knows how to work this situation with the media and his players and turn it into as much of a positive as he can.
Bartel is his starter, Tate is a dependable option backup that can hand it off to stay out of trouble, and one of two freshman will redshirt while the other will be third team and redshirt at the end of the year if all goes well.
Bennett's no idiot, he knows how to motivate players and push Bartel and make sure the incoming kids work hard this spring and summer.
[This message has been edited by McAndless (edited 02-07-2003).]
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:43 pm
by SMUFinns
Wait.... Before we waste our redshirts for the incoming QB's I'm sure that Coach B stated that he would like to redshirt All if he could but would give anyone a shot if they could contribute ( not just a few plays but a major contribution )
He also stated the these young men were just high school players. Meaning (to Me) that they will need time to develop. I'm sure if we are doing O.K or just average Coach B will not take off the redshirt just for the sake of it. Even if a Fosh QB looks like he can go as the back up would Coach B get him in the game for experience and lose a redshirt "I think Not"
We want the best for the team NOW but let's also look ahead. Bennett will get it on track.
Now don't forget that we still have QB's from last year who have been learning the system. We all know about Bartel & Wallis, what about the others and could Nixon move back to QB?
13 Richard Bartel QB 6-4 205 FR-RS Grapevine, Texas (Grapevine) Proposed Starter
11 Tate Wallis QB 6-3 216 FR-RS Ennis, Texas (Ennis) Proposed back up
9 Duke Hasson QB 6-4 185 FR-HS Austin, Texas (Westlake) ??
8 Mark Hodges QB 6-4 200 FR-HS Mesquite, Texas (Mesquite) ??
10 Chuck Zars QB 6-1 178 SR-0L San Antonio, Texas (Alamo Heights) Graduating ?
Go Mustangs
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:53 pm
by PerunaPunch
While I do think Bartel will get the start (and deservedly so), to set the record straight, Bennett DID say that in his opinion he had 4 inexperienced QBs. Given the context, I think it's safe to infer that he was talking about Bartel, Wallis, Meeks and Phillips. I'm not going to speculate as to what that means for the likelihood of Hasson, Hodges and Zars seeing playing time.
Although Bennett was crystal clear that he wouldn't waste a redshirt year like Cavan did to John Hampton, if one of these freshmen QBs comes in and lights the practice field up, there's a very real possibility (if remote) that Bennett will start them.
Again, he was clear on the point that he wouldn't waste a redshirt, but the #1 priority was winning quickly. He specifically pointed out a couple of kids like Desmond Jones who he felt would be called on if he felt they could contribute.
Bennett's no dummy and he know how to motivate ("Son, you show up in shape, whip your man, and you'll get to play"), but on the other hand, don't be surprised if a couple of these kids are on the field any given Saturday.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:16 pm
by JasonB
This is obviously just speculation, but I think you will see Bartel start, with Wallis as the backup. After a few games, either Meeks or Phillips will win the backup job (I would guess Phillips because of his mobility, and because Meeks played 3A I believe in high school), and the other will redshirt. This way the two players will be seperated by a year in the long run.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:06 pm
by The PonyGrad
Unless Wallis really improves his passing I doubt he will even be the back-up. Bartel on the other hand needs work on the option but it is not the same kind of game killing weakness.
It will be interesting to see how the new QBs develop.
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:11 pm
by DallasDiehard
JasonB, your thought on the freshman QBs is interesting. You give Phillips the nod over Meeks, because Meeks played 3A ball. But how does 3A compare to private school ball? I would guess that they're fairly similar in terms of competition, although I certainly don't know that to be true.
Can anyone shed some light on the subject?
Re: QB Question

Posted:
Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:13 pm
by money
JasonB
I've met Meeks and his dad(who coached him) and they are both outstanding men. Ricky Joe is very mature and knowledgeable of the game and a great leader. His presence will be felt. Good luck Ricky Joe! Go Mustangs!
If you think Ricky Joe can't get the job done because he played 3A ball, you are sorely mistaken. Who put that idea in your head. Good luck to all involved. May the BEST man get the job.
[This message has been edited by money (edited 02-07-2003).]
[This message has been edited by money (edited 02-07-2003).]