SHEFFIELD OR POTTS FOR TECH?
By mark rogers
March 8, 2010
Taylor Potts or Steven Sheffield? Who should start at QB?
All Potts did last year was throw for 313 yards/game (3rd in the nation), complete 66% of his passes (11th nationally) and rack up a 137 efficiency rating (37th nationally). Yet he is the unpopular choice in Lubbock to start the 2010 campaign under a new coaching staff.
Sheffield was spectacular when he came in. He ended up with a 14:4 touchdown to INT ratio. He completed 74% of his passes, averaged 203 yards/game and had a 178 passer rating. He also led TT to a huge road win at Nebraska, a game which he fractured his foot. That injury definitely hindered him the rest of the year.
Because of Sheffield's efficiency and dramatic play, Red Raider nation is largely on his side to start the campaign in the fall. He has completely won over the majority of Raider nation.
Of course, I'd like to see Potts start and think he would take the Raiders as far as they can possibly go next year...but only because I know him personally.
When you look at it objectively, it really is going to be a fun battle to watch. They are both currently listed as the starter entering the spring. Each have a '1' next to his name on the spring depth chart.
And they may come out of the spring with the same ranking. It may take fall camp in August to finally find a winner. Either way, both players are capable and (barring any freak injuries) should both be able to give it everything they've got from now until the first game of the 2010 regular season.
Its an exciting time in Lubbock. New coaches. New mind set. Much-improved defensive talent. Recent dominance (even if only short-lived). All ingredients that add up to huge expectations and anticipation.
And it will be even more exciting as these two fine athletes battle it out on the field for a spot to start for the Red Raiders.
As I mentioned earlier, spring practice starts March 22 in Lubbock...just two weeks away.
Previous Entry:
« WHAT'S GOING ON WITH FOOTBALL RIGHT NOW?
Next Entry:
LEACH LEGAL UPDATE »
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below.