So, this is a good time for everyone to put their predictions in writing. I don’t want to hear any criticism from anyone who doesn’t put their own predictions here in writing.

Mine: I do think Luton is better than Collins or DG. His completion % at the JC level concerns me. His 15 INTs at the JC level and self-proclaimed “Gun Slinger” mentality do concern me. I don’t see how that style is a good fit. I foresee a lot of interceptions. If he plays the full season, maybe 20INTs. I see Derek Andersen 2003-2004 type numbers in a best case scenario. Click that link. Do you see more upside? If so, what’s your argument?

Again, if you don’t write your exact thoughts on Luton and McM here, you have no base to criticize later. Because I’m sure if Luton turns out to be efficient (seems so unlikely) and productive (possible) I’ll never hear the end of it. Yet, when Seth tanked, Jake Thompson tanked in huge games, et al (hundreds of players I nailed now) not a single person acknowledged it. It’s super lame and cowardly by the butt hurt brigade. Man up and put what you think in writing.

I’m going with something like DA circa 2003-2004. Good yardage and TDs but tons of INTs and highly inefficient.

I understand GA is a defensive coach, but you’d think being around football for 40 years you’d be able to at least somewhat understand offense and what makes a good QB. If not GA, then his offensive staff, who also continually botch the QB position. Why is this?

My theory is they want to force their will on the position. They get hung up on potential rather than results. For example, if Collins had maxed out potential he’d be the guy they envisioned, yet it was pretty obvious he was never going to do that. They’re doing the same with Luton. Sprague, Machado, etc are saying Luton is the starter. Why? What did Luton do to earn that job? Well, he is big, tall, reportedly has a big arm, etc. So once again they are in love with potential rather than results. Luton could be an absolute disaster game 1 vs CoSt and cost a win. Why not go with results — the guy who has done it? Because he’s smaller, a “game manager” reputation, etc. It’s not sexy. They fall for sexy/potential every time, and it’s why they can’t figure out the QB situation. You know who else does this? Bad pro franchises. It’s actually the #1 reason they’re horrible and stuck as perpetual bottom feeders.

Alright, on to Fall camp. I’m almost certain that wasn’t Craig Evans in the photo NiceBeaver posted. So question one needs to be: does the ever play for the Beavs?

If he doesn’t start from game 1, I knock off at least one win, but maybe two. He’s that important.

The other interesting bits are how Tyner will fit in at RB. He could be a beast if he’s in shape and stays healthy. Secondary could be really good this year and a team strength, so I’m interested to see Irvine, Walace, et al develop. People are worried about the OL, and I get why, but I think they can mix and match there to get a decent line. Depth is thin, but there are some young guys from the past two classes who look the part already. I think they can make do.

Obviously the final interesting bit is how the QB situation shakes out. Nall slipping up and saying that Luton is the starter is odd. Don’t know what to make of that. But in any event, the past three seasons Gary Andersen has managed to pick the wrong QB, dating back to Wisconsin. Again, this could cost us games.

If the Beavs don’t win 6 this year, I think it will come down to errors in personnel/management and Evans not playing the full season (if at all). If everything goes right, which is rare, I think they win 7 games. I just have no faith in GA/McGiven in analyzing QBs and/or starting the correct one.