We can go back and forth on this, but the simple fact is that Hurts had a great game, and came through when needed. I think that should be easy to accept. That's one issue I have with the context of some discussions. Hurts had bad games, absolutely. The Miss. State game wasn't one of them. But, Daboll always loved the deep ball. One of the first things he did when he arrived was strip the underneath and institute more deep stuff. I'm not buying the idea that in year one Hurts was ok with the underneath and in year two he said screw this, I'm throwing downfield more and I absolutely refuse to throw underneath stuff. It doesn't make any sense to me that Hurts forgot to do something he was very good at during the year one, it seems much more likely that Daboll simply drew up different plays. That aside, on the most important play of the game, Hurts actually shortened a route, so once again we have Daboll trying to draw up a long pass.
I'm not saying Hurts wasn't without his flaws and I openly say now Tua should be the starter, but he played a great game against Miss. State and there clearly, obviously, were changes to the offense made from Kiffin to Daboll. I think that there had to be some issues with the Daboll/Hurts relationship, as it felt like square peg round hole. One big reason Tua looked so great against Georgia is that's how Daboll's offense was designed to work. It wasn't like Tua was always safe in the pocket either, but a lot of the best stuff was sit back there and wait for a long play to develop, and it clearly suited Tua better. The problem with that? Hurts was the starter, not Tua...