Rattler - Sellers

[18IsTheMan]

He came here to play for a team. Not just to prep for the NFL. That was William P Muschamp BS. I don't want that kind of culture around here. We tried that, and it was a miserable failure.

Everything is situational. As I said, I think the most reasonable approach is to start Rattler for a few series and then turn it over to Sellers. Rattler isn't benched and isn't quitting. But you're still making preparations for the future. As long as a lame-o bowl remains a possibility, it's Rattlers' show, of course.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Ratt can look after his own interests. He's a grown man. Beamer should expect him to compete, just like every other damn player on the roster.

Of course, but I expect our head coach to exercise some wisdom. If we can no longer get a bowl, it's time to start getting ready for next year. Who cares if we're 4-8 instead of 5-7 this year? It's 100% irrelevant in every single way imaginable.

 

[Viennacock]

Ratt can look after his own interests. He's a grown man. Beamer should expect him to compete, just like every other damn player on the roster.

It's called a soft landing! This is not about Rattler. It's about doing what's best for the team's future.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It's called a soft landing! This is not about Rattler. It's about doing what's best for the team's future.

Right. Team first. Knowing what we know about Rattler, if we lose a shot at a bowl, I'd be stunned if he wasn't on board with a plan that would help prep Sellers for next year. Rattler is a team-first guy.

 

[SSIGamecock]

You are making things up. I never suggested he quit. I suggested Beamer look out for the best interest of our team moving forward and Rattler's best NFL interest.

I didn't make anything up. I simply made a statement regarding your suggestion, which I think would be a quitter's mentality, and seems you didn't like it. I didn't say you had a quitter's mentality, although, if you think this would be the correct course of action, then you do.

And IMO that's not in the best interest of our team. If it is, then you're telling every guy who has 2-4 years of eligibility left that's currently on the roster, hey, if a season doesn't pan out to be a success in the future, just go ahead and get ready for the next steps in your career if you're done here, and we'll get ready for next season. It's quite the slippery slope, and I realize that in this made up scenario, you believe Rattler is different from other circumstances, but that's putting him above the TEAM.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I didn't make anything up. I simply made a statement regarding your suggestion, which I think would be a quitter's mentality, and seems you didn't like it. I didn't say you had a quitter's mentality, although, if you think this would be the correct course of action, then you do.

And IMO that's not in the best interest of our team. If it is, then you're telling every guy who has 2-4 years of eligibility left that's currently on the roster, hey, if a season doesn't pan out to be a success in the future, just go ahead and get ready for the next steps in your career if you're done here, and we'll get ready for next season. It's quite the slippery slope, and I realize that in this made up scenario, you believe Rattler is different from other circumstances, but that's putting him above the TEAM.

Who would be exhibiting a quitter's mentality though?

 

[Celtic Riot]

If he plays vs Jacksonville State, then he'd have 2 to play. The coaches can easily figure it out.

So, we want Sellers to take over the rest of the year to get him ready for the future, but he will not play in one of the games to preserve a redshirt. lol

 

[18IsTheMan]

So, we want Sellers to take over the rest of the year to get him ready for the future, but he will not play in one of the games to preserve a redshirt. lol

I'm sure you can understand it's situational. Two things are apparent at this point: 1. We aren't burning Sellers redshirt this season and 2. Rattler will the the QB until further notice. It all depends on if we lose and when we lose and the nature of the games we are in. I'm not gonna lay out every possible scenario since you should be able to figure that out.

 

[SSIGamecock]

Who would be exhibiting a quitter's mentality though?

Beamer, Rattler, anyone who supports us telling players that it's okay to quit mid season.

 

[Deleted11512]

It's called a soft landing! This is not about Rattler. It's about doing what's best for the team's future.

I would hate to think what would happen if we lost to Clem by three to give them their 6th win, and have Sellers make a freshman mistake that lead to a Clem TD. If any players or coaches are looking for a soft landing, look elsewhere.

 

[Deleted11512]

I didn't make anything up. I simply made a statement regarding your suggestion, which I think would be a quitter's mentality, and seems you didn't like it. I didn't say you had a quitter's mentality, although, if you think this would be the correct course of action, then you do.

And IMO that's not in the best interest of our team. If it is, then you're telling every guy who has 2-4 years of eligibility left that's currently on the roster, hey, if a season doesn't pan out to be a success in the future, just go ahead and get ready for the next steps in your career if you're done here, and we'll get ready for next season. It's quite the slippery slope, and I realize that in this made up scenario, you believe Rattler is different from other circumstances, but that's putting him above the TEAM.

Agree with you 110%.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Beamer, Rattler, anyone who supports us telling players that it's okay to quit mid season.

I look at it the other way. If we are out of bowl contention, it's a totally selfish, me-first mentality by Rattler to take snaps away from our future QB, who needs the experience, just so Rattler can get vanity stats for his own NFL aspirations.

Team first. Always.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Like it or lump it. Call it quitting or use whatever other hyperbole you want.

If we were to lose a game, Sellers is going to get more snaps than he would otherwise. Mark it down. Cry all you want about it.

 

[Deleted11512]

I look at it the other way. If we are out of bowl contention, it's a totally selfish, me-first mentality by Rattler to take snaps away from our future QB, who needs the experience, just so Rattler can get vanity stats for his own NFL aspirations.

Team first. Always.

You can't be serious. Rattler would be selfish for finishing the year out if a bowl game isn't attainable?? I've seen it all now.

 

[Deleted11512]

Like it or lump it. Call it quitting or use whatever other hyperbole you want.

If we were to lose a game, Sellers is going to get more snaps than he would otherwise. Mark it down. Cry all you want about it.

So which L do you think Beamer is OK with taking if we're out of bowl contention:

UK - with the way Stoops has owned USC, and the extra smoke between Stoops and Beamer, there's no way he's putting that game in jeopardy
Vandy - You simply cannot lose that game. I don't care if if we go 3-9, one of those 3 better be Vandy.
Clem - Again, there's no justification for sitting your best players for future development and taking this L
Jax St - Same as Vandy, no matter what the record, you cannot afford to take this L

So someone show me...which one are you taking just to "save" Ratt and develop Sellers. Nonsense.

Now, I could see Sellers getting a series or two in 3 of these games. But there's no way in hell Ratt is getting benched to save him for the NFL. If he does, Beamer should be fired.

 

[kidrobinski]

Rattler will play, because Rattler is a badass.

Rattler also has a pro career ahead, and plays behind a line with close to if not THE most sacks allowed in college football, ie the WORST oline in college football. If he decides it’s too risky, I’m fine with that.

See Marcus Lattimore. Not the same scenario, but indicative of what one play can do. I’d be looking at risk-reward; college football isn’t Gil Thorpe/Gipper rah rah any longer.

 

[Viennacock]

I would hate to think what would happen if we lost to Clem by three to give them their 6th win, and have Sellers make a freshman mistake that lead to a Clem TD. If any players or coaches are looking for a soft landing, look elsewhere.

I said the last three out four for a reason. Clemson. I don't necessarily have all the answers but you need to get Sellers as much time as possible in three more games.

 

[Deleted11512]

Rattler will play, because Rattler is a badass.

Rattler also has a pro career ahead, and plays behind a line with close to if not THE most sacks allowed in college football, ie the WORST oline in college football. If he decides it’s too risky, I’m fine with that.

See Marcus Lattimore. Not the same scenario, but indicative of what one play can do. I’d be looking at risk-reward; college football isn’t Gil Thorpe/Gipper rah rah any longer.

I would be really disappointed in Ratt, and for me, would be a stain on his career here. We're now talking about going from sitting a bowl game out to sitting out regular season games. It would not be a good look for us at all to have our best player decide we're not worth finishing the season. You want to see a ton of negative recruiting we have to overcome? Let that happen.

 

[Deleted11512]

I said the last three out four for a reason. Clemson. I don't necessarily have all the answers but you need to get Sellers as much time as possible in three more games.

He doesn't need as much time as possible. Just needs SOME plays. I suspect he'll get plenty during JSU and Vandy. Not so much against UK/Clem.

 

[SSIGamecock]

I look at it the other way. If we are out of bowl contention, it's a totally selfish, me-first mentality by Rattler to take snaps away from our future QB, who needs the experience, just so Rattler can get vanity stats for his own NFL aspirations.

Team first. Always.

Well I'd argue that you aren't being team first, because Team First is win. Every. Single. Game. No matter the record.

I can reason with allowing Sellers more playing time in those games if the game plays out that way, but just telling Rattler and any other player who may want to prepare.

**Made the last comment before you responded without quoting me about "crying." It's not crying, but just allowing players to leave because they feel it's in their best interest is setting a terrible example. .

 

[kidrobinski]

I would be really disappointed in Ratt, and for me, would be a stain on his career here. We're now talking about going from sitting a bowl game out to sitting out regular season games. It would not be a good look for us at all to have our best player decide we're not worth finishing the season. You want to see a ton of negative recruiting we have to overcome? Let that happen.

Mmm, I don’t know about that. More likely the oline doing the negative recruiting for you.

 

[Viennacock]

Agree with you 110%.

Again, I never Rattler

He doesn't need as much time as possible. Just needs SOME plays. I suspect he'll get plenty during JSU and Vandy. Not so much against UK/Clem.

He needs as much time as possible. Sorry.

You would rather win 5 games this year at the expense of valuable experience / confidence going into next year.

I'm ok with 4 wins if it helps set the table for incremental wins next year. This is where we differ. You don't believe additional experience will help next year. Hard to quantify but you are wrong.

We both agree to go all out for 6 wins. When 6 wins isn't possible, play Sellers as much as possible.

 

[SSIGamecock]

Again, I never Rattler
He needs as much time as possible. Sorry.

You would rather win 5 games this year at the expense of valuable experience / confidence going into next year.

I'm ok with 4 wins if it helps set the table for incremental wins next year. This is where we differ. You don't believe additional experience will help next year. Hard to quantify but you are wrong.

We both agree to go all out for 6 wins. When 6 wins isn't possible, play Sellers as much as possible.

I don't disagree with playing Sellers as much as possible, but as a competitor, you put your best on the field to win every single game. Can't allow competitiveness fall out of the culture of the program. It is not in our best interest to not give it our best shot to win every game by playing Rattler. If we go down by 14+, sure put Sellers in and let him learn. If we are up by 21+, do the same.

Pros is different. Culture is no where near as important, so teams do that. At the college level, particularly in football, you just can't do that.

 

[Deleted11512]

Again, I never Rattler
He needs as much time as possible. Sorry.

You would rather win 5 games this year at the expense of valuable experience / confidence going into next year.

I'm ok with 4 wins if it helps set the table for incremental wins next year. This is where we differ. You don't believe additional experience will help next year. Hard to quantify but you are wrong.

We both agree to go all out for 6 wins. When 6 wins isn't possible, play Sellers as much as possible.

The whole conversation is moot b/c we're winning out.

I think it's just as dangerous to put Sellers out there. IF there's concern about protecting Ratt for the NFL, shouldn't we afford the same concern for protecting Sellers for next year? Or, we beat JSU and Vandy, lose to UK. Bowl is gone, we sit Ratt....Clem beats us 37-6 and Sellers throws 3 picks and 0 TDs. Anybody feeling good about that?? I'm not...at all.

 

[Deleted11512]

I don't disagree with playing Sellers as much as possible, but as a competitor, you put your best on the field to win every single game. Can't allow competitiveness fall out of the culture of the program. It is not in our best interest to not give it our best shot to win every game by playing Rattler. If we go down by 14+, sure put Sellers in and let him learn. If we are up by 21+, do the same.

Pros is different. Culture is no where near as important, so teams do that. At the college level, particularly in football, you just can't do that.

And in the NFL you're tanking to get a better draft pick. So there's at least something you're getting.

 

[Deleted11512]

Mmm, I don’t know about that. More likely the oline doing the negative recruiting for you.

That's kind of my point. We don't need more to overcome on the trail.

 

[SSIGamecock]

And in the NFL you're tanking to get a better draft pick. So there's at least something you're getting.

 

[Big JC]

I don't understand the obsession with Seller's redshirt. If he turns out to be really good, he'll be gone in three years no matter what his eligibility status is. If he isn't good; who cares if he runs out of eligibility, another qb will be taking his spot and the fans will be clamoring for change at the position. Either way, a redshirt year isn't worth a whole lot.

Play both qbs in all remaining games. Rattler gets the exposure and Sellers gets experience in actual games.

 

[Viennacock]

I don't understand the obsession with Seller's redshirt. If he turns out to be really good, he'll be gone in three years no matter what his eligibility status is. If he isn't good; who cares if he runs out of eligibility, another qb will be taking his spot and the fans will be clamoring for change at the position. Either way, a redshirt year isn't worth a whole lot.

Play both qbs in all remaining games. Rattler gets the exposure and Sellers gets experience in actual games.

Unfortunately none of us posters are involved in the redshirt decision. The coaches have already made that decision. Maybe you can call into Beamer's call-in show and ask why he is obsessed with redshirting Sellers?

 

[18IsTheMan]

Anyway, Doty is QB2

 

[Deleted11512]

Anyway, Doty is QB2

 

[Deleted11512]

Maybe....and follow me here....maybe, Ratt has told Beamer he wants to come back and that's reason they're "obsessed" with preserving Sellers' RS.

 

[Prestonyte]

Maybe....and follow me here....maybe, Ratt has told Beamer he wants to come back and that's reason they're "obsessed" with preserving Sellers' RS.

That's very wishful thinking