Those are good points; a mobile QB would really help us at this point. However, I’m not really convinced that Beecher is all that great of a scrambler; he’s more mobile than Smelley, but I doubt he’s the next Syvelle. Plus, I really have to disagree about Smelley being as bad a passer as Beecher. Smelley’s interceptions were pretty bad against Vandy, and you could even say that they cost us the game b/c they aborted promising drives that could have put the game almost out of reach before halftime. However, Smelley also had some good throws, whereas I really don’t remember any good downfield throws from Beecher against NC State.

Just my thoughts. I can def. see where you’re coming from, and yeah, Spurrier has good reason to second guess himself at this point.

Honestly, what I’d really like to see is a two TE set. We have two good pass catching TEs, so bringing in Saunders might help ease the loss of Kenny in the passing game. And it would def. aid our run blocking by facilitating better blocking around the edges.

A lot of his passes were only caught because the receivers made above-average catches. Particularly during the first quarter, he was very erratic and inaccurate.

Then again, Beecher probably was worse against N.C. State.

Ugh.

It’s certainly not a choice that anyone should envy.

You know, I would be happier with the Beecher idea if we had more designed QB runs, but Spurrier seems to only value mobile QBs because they can scramble after the pocket collapses. More designed runs might keep defenses on their heels.