Link: The Rookie Scouting Portfolio: Blake Sims

RTR91 · Feb 9, 2015

Click

When it comes to quarterback play, the feet usually tell the story. Blake Sims’ feet say a lot about his game.

Sims’ game has an exciting element of athleticism and he has a pass-first mentality when he maneuvers a war-torn pocket. Ask him to get rid of the ball fast on plays that are extensions of the run game or isolate his decisions to a single side of the field and he displays workable accuracy for the college game that in many respects translates to the NFL.

I enjoy watching the Crimson Tide quarterback whose hometown is about 20 miles away from where I’m writing this post and I think he has an opportunity to compete in training camp for a roster spot as a developmental project.

However there is a difference between having good feet as a runner and confident, decisive, and accurate footwork as a passer that generates decisive, confident, and accurate plays in the passing game. Here are five plays where Sims’ feet say a lot about his current development.

Thought it was a good read. My only complaint comes from the writer only using Ole Miss film. Blake got better as the season progressed.

This line from the first play explains why I wish CNS would allow the backups to have solid reps during the season.

It’s a good start this passing play, but when pressure arrives from the center Sims displays footwork that lacks patience and it’s indicative of a player who either needs more experience maneuvering the pocket or loses his composure under pressure. Based on what I’ve seen from Sims, I’m inclined to believe that his issue is impatience.

KrAzY3 · Feb 9, 2015

RTR91 said:
This line from the first play explains why I wish CNS would allow the backups to have solid reps during the season.

I think that's a very complicated issue though. First is the fact that Alabama is almost always in contention, you have to go back to 2010 to find some games Alabama played in which they knew they had no chance of a title. I don't think it's coincidence either that it helped set the stage for those championship teams. There's a lot to be gained from not being forced into treating every single game like a championship is on the line, in terms of player development and what not.

For instance, I think there's no question we'd have seen some more of the younger guys if Alabama didn't always have so much on the line. They did though, so some guys who will need the experience were relegated to playing only when the game was well in hand. But, that's the first risk, the risk you run an inexperienced guy out there and (especially with the tempo some teams play now) the lead is blown.

It goes beyond just risk of throwing the game away though, the next thing, which is magnified by this now stupid long season, is injuries. You want everyone to call the dogs off ASAP. The goal is to be able to get out of running your main offense, to get both sides to not worry about the outcome and just try to drain the clock. As long as the other team has fight left in them, you have to worry they can injure your key players. Prothro for instance suffered a career ending injury on a meaningless play. You can't mitigate this somewhat by putting the entire second team out there, but you don't want those guys hurt either.

So, if you think in terms of winning this year, winning in the present, there's a lot of logic to not putting your backups in too early, or not running your full offense in a blowout. It's very risky, but on the other hand there's no question that it would benefit future teams if you did that. Most programs get the benefit of down years in which they can play whomever they want without such enormous consequence, I think it made it easier for Auburn for instance to have rebound years, they could get young guys experience and then those young guys developed... but I don't think we want those down years though, do we?

RTR91 · Feb 9, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
I think that's a very complicated issue though. First is the fact that Alabama is almost always in contention, you have to go back to 2010 to find some games Alabama played in which they knew they had no chance of a title. I don't think it's coincidence either that it helped set the stage for those championship teams. There's a lot to be gained from not being forced into treating every single game like a championship is on the line, in terms of player development and what not.

For instance, I think there's no question we'd have seen some more of the younger guys if Alabama didn't always have so much on the line. They did though, so some guys who will need the experience were relegated to playing only when the game was well in hand. But, that's the first risk, the risk you run an inexperienced guy out there and (especially with the tempo some teams play now) the lead is blown.

It goes beyond just risk of throwing the game away though, the next thing, which is magnified by this now stupid long season, is injuries. You want everyone to call the dogs off ASAP. The goal is to be able to get out of running your main offense, to get both sides to not worry about the outcome and just try to drain the clock. As long as the other team has fight left in them, you have to worry they can injure your key players. Prothro for instance suffered a career ending injury on a meaningless play. You can't mitigate this somewhat by putting the entire second team out there, but you don't want those guys hurt either.

So, if you think in terms of winning this year, winning in the present, there's a lot of logic to not putting your backups in too early, or not running your full offense in a blowout. It's very risky, but on the other hand there's no question that it would benefit future teams if you did that. Most programs get the benefit of down years in which they can play whomever they want without such enormous consequence, I think it made it easier for Auburn for instance to have rebound years, they could get young guys experience and then those young guys developed... but I don't think we want those down years though, do we?

Not at all what I'm meaning. In 2012 and 2013, why not let Blake throw more than run the zone-read every play? That's what I mean. Not just throw a backup QB out with the first team in the middle of the game.

KrAzY3 · Feb 9, 2015

RTR91 said:
Not at all what I'm meaning. In 2012 and 2013, why not let Blake throw more than run the zone-read every play? That's what I mean. Not just throw a backup QB out with the first team in the middle of the game.

Because they were trying to run out the clock and were risk adverse...

When you are making a title run, here's your top two priorities. A: Win, B: Stay healthy. The other stuff has to take a back seat.

CrimsonEyeshade · Feb 9, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
Because they were trying to run out the clock and were risk adverse...

When you are making a title run, here's your top two priorities. A: Win, B: Stay healthy. The other stuff has to take a back seat.

Krazy, gotta disagree with this one.

With Blake one play away from taking over the team, explain to me why we have him running an entirely different offense. It's almost as if the coaches didn't expect him to start at any point in his career, and if AJ got hurt, someone else was going in the game.

KrAzY3 · Feb 10, 2015

CrimsonEyeshade said:
Krazy, gotta disagree with this one.

With Blake one play away from taking over the team, explain to me why we have him running an entirely different offense. It's almost as if the coaches didn't expect him to start at any point in his career, and if AJ got hurt, someone else was going in the game.

What do you mean different offense? He had a different coordinator at the time, but he ran pretty much what Alabama backups tended to run. Which meant they just handed the ball off. I'm not sure you could compare the offense he ran beyond that, because we don't really know what he could have run if he became the starter (and I can assure you he was the guy they could have turned to).

I'd see it differently, if AJ was throwing the ball all over the place prior to starting or GMac was, but neither did. AJ threw 48 passes prior to becoming the starter. I guess it should be mentioned he was thrust into playing in a big game. GMac only threw 20 attempts though, and that covers three years at Alabama at the quarterback position. 20... This was a two year starter with a solid grasp on the job, there was no QB battle, but the guy still only attempted 20 passes prior to starting.

So, when you look at Blake and see he only threw 39 passes, well isn't that pretty much in line with the other two? It is worth noting that Jake did get more playing time, in part when it was a QB battle so he got 59 attempts, but 24 of those came in the second game. There did seem to be a bit more of an effort to let him run the offense though, but that 59 is the exception to the rule. Phillip Sims only attempted 28 passes as a freshman, and he was part of a QB battle. I agree it's good to get your backups work, but there are risks people tend to overlook associated with doing that.

I'm not saying it's a great thing that the backup QBs don't get many attempts, but it's nothing new. Coker didn't get that many attempts at FSU either, and he still suffered a season ending injury on a pass play. Keep that in mind, it's risk vs. reward. You look at it like he might have to start, and they look at it like he might have to start, with different areas of concern.

I agree completely, that thrusting young guys out there tends to reap long term rewards. But there's a short term cost to be paid. Look at Alabama in 2007, with the whole textbook thing happened, Alabama had to go without some key players, and suffered two really bad losses. But, no question that helped some other guys get experience and lead to more success down the road. My main point is Alabama doesn't get to take risks, I'm not trying to debate the pros and cons, just pointing out what is going on. You can disagree with it, but you can't produce an Alabama quarterback in recent memory that did toss the ball all over the place while still a backup.

Loam · Feb 10, 2015

I think Blake Sims has a place in the NFL. Some team could draft him and develop him and who knows, maybe he'll eventually be a starter for someone.

RTR91 · Feb 10, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
What do you mean different offense? He had a different coordinator at the time, but he ran pretty much what Alabama backups tended to run. Which meant they just handed the ball off. I'm not sure you could compare the offense he ran beyond that, because we don't really know what he could have run if he became the starter (and I can assure you he was the guy they could have turned to).

I'd see it differently, if AJ was throwing the ball all over the place prior to starting or GMac was, but neither did. AJ threw 48 passes prior to becoming the starter. I guess it should be mentioned he was thrust into playing in a big game. GMac only threw 20 attempts though, and that covers three years at Alabama at the quarterback position. 20... This was a two year starter with a solid grasp on the job, there was no QB battle, but the guy still only attempted 20 passes prior to starting.

So, when you look at Blake and see he only threw 39 passes, well isn't that pretty much in line with the other two? It is worth noting that Jake did get more playing time, in part when it was a QB battle so he got 59 attempts, but 24 of those came in the second game. There did seem to be a bit more of an effort to let him run the offense though, but that 59 is the exception to the rule. Phillip Sims only attempted 28 passes as a freshman, and he was part of a QB battle. I agree it's good to get your backups work, but there are risks people tend to overlook associated with doing that.

I'm not saying it's a great thing that the backup QBs don't get many attempts, but it's nothing new. Coker didn't get that many attempts at FSU either, and he still suffered a season ending injury on a pass play. Keep that in mind, it's risk vs. reward. You look at it like he might have to start, and they look at it like he might have to start, with different areas of concern.

I agree completely, that thrusting young guys out there tends to reap long term rewards. But there's a short term cost to be paid. Look at Alabama in 2007, with the whole textbook thing happened, Alabama had to go without some key players, and suffered two really bad losses. But, no question that helped some other guys get experience and lead to more success down the road. My main point is Alabama doesn't get to take risks, I'm not trying to debate the pros and cons, just pointing out what is going on. You can disagree with it, but you can't produce an Alabama quarterback in recent memory that did toss the ball all over the place while still a backup.

You have commented several times the younger guys were hampered by not being able to play in the fourth quarter against Florida Atlantic because they weren't able to get that experience. Why is that any different? They'd be playing bland scheme on both sides, so they're not really learning what the starters do.

AJ had little experience and was thrust into a difficult situation. How'd that work out? Not so great.

As usual, you've picked up on one point and taken the entire thread off course.

Bamabuzzard · Feb 10, 2015

I'd like to see designed series early in games for the backup quarterback. If it's only one or two per game that would be better than nothing. Most of the time when our backups come into games (during blowouts) they mostly hand off. Granted, I think Coker was one of the few times that we let the backup throw the ball during blowouts. So hopefully that was the start of a new trend at Alabama. In football you're only one hit away from the backup becoming your starter.

GreatDanish · Feb 10, 2015

Bamabuzzard said:
I'd like to see designed series early in games for the backup quarterback. If it's only one or two per game that would be better than nothing. Most of the time when our backups come into games (during blowouts) they mostly hand off. Granted, I think Coker was one of the few times that we let the backup throw the ball during blowouts. So hopefully that was the start of a new trend at Alabama. In football you're only one hit away from the backup becoming your starter.

We're not alone in that. Cardale Jones was a backup all season. He had 6 pass attempts all season as a backup. He played the second half in the Illinois game b/c Barrett got injured, and of course replaced Barrett when he had a season-ending injury. He had something like 20 rushing attempts in that same span, so he was obviously playing. Just not passing.

So, even the program that should be a poster child for "what to do with your backup QBs" seeing as how they just won a championship with one pretty much just used their backup to hand off at the end of games too.

Jacob Coker was also the #2 guy at FSU and had more pass attempts at Alabama in 2014 than he had at FSU in 2013.

Barrett Trotter was the backup behind Cam Newton and was pretty obviously going to replace him the following season. He had 9 passing attempts all season.

So, your last 6 national champions - at least - aren't really giving their backups any real practice "running the offense."

Bamabuzzard · Feb 10, 2015

GreatDanish said:
We're not alone in that. Cardale Jones was a backup all season. He had 6 pass attempts all season as a backup. He played the second half in the Illinois game b/c Barrett got injured, and of course replaced Barrett when he had a season-ending injury. He had something like 20 rushing attempts in that same span, so he was obviously playing. Just not passing.

So, even the program that should be a poster child for "what to do with your backup QBs" seeing as how they just won a championship with one pretty much just used their backup to hand off at the end of games too.

Jacob Coker was also the #2 guy at FSU and had more pass attempts at Alabama in 2014 than he had at FSU in 2013.

Barrett Trotter was the backup behind Cam Newton and was pretty obviously going to replace him the following season. He had 9 passing attempts all season.

So, your last 6 national champions - at least - aren't really giving their backups any real practice "running the offense."

But you can't correlate that by them not getting their backups meaningful time was a significant reason they won the national title. I know you didn't say that specifically but your last sentence hints at it. Whether they won the national title or not I still think the more experience your backup gets the better off you are. Granted, not to the extent that it cost you a game. But you can realistically allot certain times in a game to get them a series or two along with running the full offense in blowouts.

CrimsonEyeshade · Feb 10, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
What do you mean different offense? He had a different coordinator at the time, but he ran pretty much what Alabama backups tended to run. Which meant they just handed the ball off. I'm not sure you could compare the offense he ran beyond that, because we don't really know what he could have run if he became the starter (and I can assure you he was the guy they could have turned to).

Respectfully disagree again. AJ ran the pro-set; Blake, a zone read that bore very little resemblance to our set offense, and, I would argue, didn't fully help him prepare for what he would face as a starter.

bamaslammer · Feb 10, 2015

I actually don't think there is a way to get significantly more snaps in a season for #2 when we are always chasing a title. If I had a complaint it would be that it seems every time we face someones backup after an injury they bring in this nobody and he lights us up for 4 TD's. What Ohio State did this season with their backups was astounding. Clearly some teams are doing a better job of developing talent IN PRACTICE than we are. Saban is definately risk averse but it's hard to argue with his results and after the Superbowl everyone should know that being a gambler has a down side.

BamaPokerplayer · Feb 10, 2015

KrAzY3 said:
Because they were trying to run out the clock and were risk adverse...

When you are making a title run, here's your top two priorities. A: Win, B: Stay healthy. The other stuff has to take a back seat.

Krazy, I get where you are coming from, but couldn't we kill the clock faster by letting our Qb throw? I'm thinking about second/third and long here. I think the last title winning coach to give his backups plenty of play was Pete.

GreatDanish · Feb 11, 2015

Bamabuzzard said:
But you can't correlate that by them not getting their backups meaningful time was a significant reason they won the national title. I know you didn't say that specifically but your last sentence hints at it. Whether they won the national title or not I still think the more experience your backup gets the better off you are. Granted, not to the extent that it cost you a game. But you can realistically allot certain times in a game to get them a series or two along with running the full offense in blowouts.

I agree with that. Just pointing out that coaches that know how to win championships seem to agree that it is not important to get your backup "meaningful" snaps.
I think further evidence of this is what I've pointed to before: 5 of these 6 championships were won by QBs who had ZERO meaningful snaps the year before the championships. I can't explain it, but experience at the QB position in CFB seems to be overrated - at least based on results on the field. Not that experience is irrelevant - I don't think it is. But having an experienced QB just doesn't seem to be the asset it is often presumed to be.

scrodz · Feb 13, 2015

Another Blake Sims scouting report...

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2015/2/12/8021823/blake-sims-2015-nfl-draft-scouting-report

JeffAtlanta · Feb 14, 2015

GreatDanish said:
5 of these 6 championships were won by QBs who had ZERO meaningful snaps the year before the championships. I can't explain it, but experience at the QB position in CFB seems to be overrated - at least based on results on the field. .

It's most likely a case of the statistical fallacy called "survivor bias".

CrimsonForce · Feb 14, 2015

scrodz said:
Another Blake Sims scouting report...

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2015/2/12/8021823/blake-sims-2015-nfl-draft-scouting-report

Even though that scouting report is rather harsh, I feel like it is a spot on assessment of a scouting report on Blake as far as being a NFL QB. Blake doesn't have adequate NFL arm strength, as the scouting report points out. The report points out that Blake can throw the ball down field but it is not an effortless motion, he has to wind up and take a long stride. That's what myself and others were talking about in reference to arm strength during the spring/fall last year. A lot of Bama fans get up in arms when there are reports that Blake doesn't project to be able to play QB in the NFL. If Blake doesn't play a down in the NFL that doesn't take away anything he did at Bama. Blake was a very good college QB, statistically the best ever at Bama in several areas. I just don't think he will make it in the NFL..

GreatDanish · Feb 14, 2015

JeffAtlanta said:
I't most likely a case of the statistical fallacy called "survivor bias".

I see what you are saying but I'm not trying to say, "So, if you want to win a championship, you need a new QB" which is what survivorship bias is - saying "since winners do this, we need to do that if we are going to win."
I'm more countering the idea that you need an experienced QB if you want to win by providing examples to the contrary. Obviously you don't need to have experienced QBs to win championships, which is the argument for getting your backup a lot of meaningful snaps.

Link: The Rookie Scouting Portfolio: Blake Sims

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

Super Moderator

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

1st Team

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!