I’ll break this up into two segments. As for where he falls in the choice/settle argument, I’m not 100% sure. It definitely seemed like we zeroed in on him and you didn’t hear a lot about other names. But whether we made the choice ourselves, or were so slow in the portal game(asking for film), it still fall to the coaches. And if players are choosing to stay at Tulane, go to Uk instead, or would apparently prefer being 3rd string at OM rather than play for your offense, that’s startling as well. Again, I don’t see how any of these aren’t laid at Napier’s feet.
As for him not being able to hit routine passes, I agree he should be able to. But again we had years of film to go off when taking him. Similar to Driskel in 2014, if he’s not getting it done, take him out and put someone else in there. Don’t have anyone else, or any decided upgrade? That’s on the staff, not Driskel or Mertz. We’ve obviously not done a great job developing that position, and our approach against even inferior opponents is to run the ball and play conservative, which means out of 120 minutes of McNeese and Charlotte, our primary backup who may actually have upside and can do those things you mention, got just under 5. That’s terrible planning, again, by the coaches.