Jason Smith moves to QB

[lionheartkc 6,150]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I'm just glad certain posters here are no longer assuming that Smith is in the doghouse.. 

But Jeff... every time a player isn't seeing the field, it means Gus has a personal issue with him... didn't you know? </sarcasm>

[McLoofus 35,182]

LOL. I wouldn't call it "assuming" when several people close to the program have said that it's a fact that Smith is in the doghouse. 

But, yeah, when our most talented guys don't see the field despite being healthy- as was the case with Jovon last year- or when your 3rd leading WR completely disappears while 13 other guys get ample playing time ahead of him... well, I usually turn to my friend logic in those times. 

Stay gold, though, jeffery. You never cease to steal a little bit of fresh air from the room. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

LOL. I wouldn't call it "assuming" when several people close to the program have said that it's a fact that Smith is in the doghouse. 

For one, it's an assumption to assume your sources valid (if anything was even said to begin with.)

Lashlee has said this of Smith:  "He's been good, especially the last couple of weeks he has had a really good attitude."

Sounds to me he's not in the doghouse.

 

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

 

Stay gold, though, jeffery. You never cease to steal a little bit of fresh air from the room. 

If my benign post did all of that, then you have issues.

[Tiger 8,853]

16 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

For one, it's an assumption to assume your sources valid (if anything was even said to begin with.)

Lashlee has said this of Smith:  "He's been good, especially the last couple of weeks he has had a really good attitude."

Sounds to me he's not in the doghouse.

 

If my benign post did all of that, then you have issues.

It feels like if Lashlee has to specifically point out that "in the last couple of weeks" he's had a good attitude that insinuates that his attitude has been worse than it's current state prior to these last few weeks. I wouldn't say it's a stretch to think that he was in the dog house prior to these few weeks if 1) Lashlee mentioned his attitude/effort being an issue 2) Lashlee is saying how his attitude and effort has improved since then. 

[Charhair 345]

15 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

For one, it's an assumption to assume your sources valid (if anything was even said to begin with.)

Lashlee has said this of Smith:  "He's been good, especially the last couple of weeks he has had a really good attitude."

Sounds to me he's not in the doghouse.

 

If my benign post did all of that, then you have issues.

With Lashlee actually having to come and say something about it

 he said "ESPECIALLY the last few weeks"

and the fact that Lashlee mentioned Smith's attitude when talking about him

And you know we've got insiders that are allowed to post un-cited info because of how consistent their info is thanks to their connections that say he was

but yeah might as well say he wasn't based off your knowledge to rustle some other posters 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, Tiger said:

It feels like if Lashlee has to specifically point out that "in the last couple of weeks" he's had a good attitude that insinuates that his attitude has been worse than it's current state prior to these last few weeks. I wouldn't say it's a stretch to think that he was in the dog house prior to these few weeks if 1) Lashlee mentioned his attitude/effort being an issue 2) Lashlee is saying how his attitude and effort has improved since then. 

 

2 minutes ago, Charhair said:

With Lashlee actually having to come and say something about it

 he said "ESPECIALLY the last few weeks"

and the fact that Lashlee mentioned Smith's attitude when talking about him

And you know we've got insiders that are allowed to post un-cited info because of how consistent their info is thanks to their connections that say he was

but yeah might as well say he wasn't based off your knowledge to rustle some other posters 

^There's good ol' logic, again. Friend to most, enemy to some. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

15 minutes ago, Tiger said:

It feels like if Lashlee has to specifically point out that "in the last couple of weeks" he's had a good attitude that insinuates that his attitude has been worse than it's current state prior to these last few weeks. I wouldn't say it's a stretch to think that he was in the dog house prior to these few weeks if 1) Lashlee mentioned his attitude/effort being an issue 2) Lashlee is saying how his attitude and effort has improved since then. 

That's another assumption. Maybe his attitude was the result of no playing time not vice versa? Maybe it wasn't an attitude. Maybe Smith was disappointed then and now Smith is fine with not playing. When did Lashlee ever say Smith's "attitude/effort" was an issue? 

Lol at Mcloofis calling more assumptions logic! 

 

[Tiger 8,853]

12 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

That's another assumption. Maybe his attitude was the result of no playing time not vice versa? Maybe it wasn't an attitude. Maybe Smith was disappointed then and now Smith is fine with not playing. When did Lashlee ever say Smith's "attitude/effort" was an issue? 

Lol at Mcloofis calling more assumptions logic! 

 

In an article after one of our first few games it mentioned someone asked CRL why Jason Smith wasn't playing. Lashlee responded with something to the effect of "the players that show the best effort/attitude will see the field" (loose quote). I can't speak for @McLoofus and @Charhair but I'm assuming () that is also where they got their insight from as well.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

Since everyone is piling on, in Jeff's defense, over the past couple of year, people have been quick to pull the "he's in the doghouse" trigger whenever a player of any note isn't on the field... even when the coaches are giving other reasons. I still am of the opinion that we aren't going to hold anyone off the field unless they are injured, have done something worthy of suspension, or there are better options.

I think in Smith's case, the buzz about attitude was far less about him being in the dog house than it was about him not putting in the effort to earn a spot... both because I don't think we play the "your not playing because of your attitude" game and because that's what I've heard from more than one source.

For the record...  I also think Jovon not playing last year was more about him not being 100% or showing out in practice than it was about punishing him for being a hot head with authority issues.

7 minutes ago, Tiger said:

In an article after one of our first few games it mentioned someone asked CRL why Jason Smith wasn't playing. Lashlee responded with something to the effect of "the players that show the best effort/attitude will see the field" (loose quote). I can't speak for @McLoofus and @Charhair but I'm assuming () that is also where they got their insight from as well

He also mentioned Smith's attitude when talking about him taking reps at QB in a recent interview, but again, I think it's more about effort than acting out.

[aujeff11 6,243]

13 minutes ago, Tiger said:

In an article after one of our first few games it mentioned someone asked CRL why Jason Smith wasn't playing. Lashlee responded with something to the effect of "the players that show the best effort/attitude will see the field" (loose quote). I can't speak for @McLoofus and @Charhair but I'm assuming () that is also where they got their insight from as well.

  You're pretty cool so I'm assuming you're not making this loose quote up. I've yet to see that quote though.I do believe it is still possible that other players just earned PT over Smith because they applied extra effort. I don't consider that being in the doghouse. I consider that getting out what you put in.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Tiger said:

In an article after one of our first few games it mentioned someone asked CRL why Jason Smith wasn't playing. Lashlee responded with something to the effect of "the players that show the best effort/attitude will see the field" (loose quote). I can't speak for @McLoofus and @Charhair but I'm assuming () that is also where they got their insight from as well.

Yep, that was part of it. 

8 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

I think in Smith's case, the buzz about attitude was far less about him being in the dog house than it was about him not putting in the effort to earn a spot... both because I don't think we play the "your not playing because of your attitude" game and because that's what I've heard from more than one source.

For the record...  I also think Jovon not playing last year was more about him not being 100% or showing out in practice than it was about punishing him for being a hot head with authority issues.

He also mentioned Smith's attitude when talking about him taking reps at QB in a recent interview, but again, I think it's more about effort than acting out.

You're splitting hairs. Effort, attitude, doghouse... it's all the same thing. A guy doesn't have to commit a crime to piss the coaches off. Slacking in practice is enough. 

"You're not playing because of your attitude" isn't a game. It's a sound coaching and team management strategy. 

[Charhair 345]

We do realize that the "dog house" isn't a physical place that Gus actually sends players, right? Lmao

the coaches don't have a list of good boys and dog house players

do any D1 coaches use the term dog house when referring to their own players?

"what are you doing with all your gun toting, weed possessing players?"

saban: "I tossed em in the dog house"

i cant remember the last time Gus said someone's lack of playing time was attitude related. Correct me if I'm wrong but even people like Jovon/Dyer just were "having issues seeing the field" as far as I can remember. 

So in that case, you'd have to assume every time someone was in the dog house. 

I got my information of Smith being in the dog house from this board's insiders on a thread regarding smith a week or two ago. I'm guessing @McLoofus saw the same thing, if not something similar, on this board.

its like telling a stockbroker that he doesn't know what he's talking about because he's assuming. There aren't many ways to get some types of information other than assuming but when someone is proven to be a better, more reliable and more credible assumer than most everyone else, it's safe to assume they at least know what they're talking about. Instead we are arguing the old: the insiders aren't always right so I'm going to take a stance opposite of them that will cause friction because I know the board will agree with the insiders due to their history of being closer to the program than the rest of us

[DAG 34,555]

43 minutes ago, Tiger said:

In an article after one of our first few games it mentioned someone asked CRL why Jason Smith wasn't playing. Lashlee responded with something to the effect of "the players that show the best effort/attitude will see the field" (loose quote). I can't speak for @McLoofus and @Charhair but I'm assuming () that is also where they got their insight from as well.

He also said consistency too, so it is just not his attitude that has caused him to not play. It is a mix of having an effort issue and also not performing to standards. I think that is where Jeff is getting at. It is an influx of both. When he doesn't see the field at QB either, should we assume that it's just his attitude that has caused it ?

[lionheartkc 6,150]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You're splitting hairs. Effort, attitude, doghouse... it's all the same thing. A guy doesn't have to commit a crime to piss the coaches off. Slacking in practice is enough. 

"You're not playing because of your attitude" isn't a game. It's a sound coaching and team management strategy. 

I still think it's more of lack of effort allowing others to outperform than it is, "your the better player, but your being an a$$, so you aren't playing".

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, Charhair said:

We do realize that the "dog house" isn't a physical place that Gus actually sends players, right? Lmao

the coaches don't have a list of good boys and dog house players

do any D1 coaches use the term dog house when referring to their own players?

"what are you doing with all your gun toting, weed possessing players?"

saban: "I tossed em in the dog house"

That made me laugh but it's also totally on point. 

Now, I will point out that Mike Leach allegedly had that shed... wth 

[Charhair 345]

11 minutes ago, DAG said:

He also said consistency too, so it is just not his attitude that caused him to not play. It is a mix of having an effort issue and also not performing to standards. I think that is where Jeff is getting at. It is an influx of both. When he doesn't see the field at QB either, should we assume that it's just his attitude that has caused it ?

The way i remember it being talked about earlier in the year was that with smith's experience and play making ability, he would be an early go to guy at WR considering most of our talent was young and inexperienced.

with the lack of effort/possible attitude on Smith's part, he lost his playing time to the younger guys (Slayton, K/R Davis, etc) which allowed them to get one of the things they were missing (experience) and thus boost them over Smith. 

Although nothing, except for the dog house part, was confirmed by insiders. 

From what I've seen, I do believe a player like Kyle Davis is a better receiver than Jason Smith but I do not believe the new guys we brought in, and guys like slayton and r davis, would have been good enough to immediately cause Smith to be benched. 

Kind of hard to see any other reason he went from one the most experienced returning WR to not playing a snap the entire season outside of some off the field issues. 

If he did get passed up on the depth chart so quickly, how didn't others like Hastings and MDavis get passed just as quickly? 

[DAG 34,555]

4 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

I still think it's more of lack of effort allowing others to outperform than it is, "your the better player, but your being an a$$, so you aren't playing".

I tend to ASSUME that he got salty when the other players outperformed him in practice and the coaches took notice. Just my opinion. I think the example of being an A$$ probably applied to JR .

[Charhair 345]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That made me laugh but it's also totally on point. 

Now, I will point out that Mike Leach allegedly had that shed... wth 

I forgot about that shed. That was really strange...

you might be on to something here. We need to get 23 to go looking around auburn for a dog house, whether or not Jason is in it may be the only way to truly get to the bottom of this. 

[DAG 34,555]

1 minute ago, Charhair said:

The way i remember it being talked about earlier in the year was that with smith's experience and play making ability, he would be an early go to guy at WR considering most of our talent was young and inexperienced.

with the lack of effort/possible attitude on Smith's part, he lost his playing time to the younger guys (Slayton, K/R Davis, etc) which allowed them to get one of the things they were missing (experience) and thus boost them over Smith. 

Although nothing, except for the dog house part, was confirmed by insiders. 

From what I've seen, I do believe a player like Kyle Davis is a better receiver than Jason Smith but I do not believe the new guys we brought in, and guys like slayton and r davis, would have been good enough to immediately cause Smith to be benched. 

Kind of hard to see any other reason he went from one the most experienced returning WR to not playing a snap the entire season outside of some off the field issues. 

If he did get passed up on the depth chart so quickly, how didn't others like Hastings and MDavis get passed just as quickly? 

Probably because those two guys have better attitudes AND they competed for  their positions instead of being salty about it and letting it not only affect your mindset but play as well .  That is just my opinion . 

[Charhair 345]

Just now, DAG said:

Probably because those two guys have better attitudes AND they competed for  their positions instead of being salty about it and letting it not only affect your mindset but play as well .  That is just my opinion . 

I completely agree with that opinion, that's pretty much mine too.

but we have to assume that Jason had a bad attitude and/or wasn't competing for his job like he was supposed to. From what we've seen since the Duke incident, effort and attitude problems can be enough to keep our players on the bench and lead to their dismissals.

[DAG 34,555]

6 minutes ago, Charhair said:

I completely agree with that opinion, that's pretty much mine too.

but we have to assume that Jason had a bad attitude and/or wasn't competing for his job like he was supposed to. From what we've seen since the Duke incident, effort and attitude problems can be enough to keep our players on the bench and lead to their dismissals.

I agree but unlike Duke and JR, it wasn't both that kept them in the doghouse . Those two were by far the best at their positions imo . Basically, what I am saying is yes, I do believe effort played a part in it. I also believe that we have better guys than him at QB and WR. Should he be barely seeing any PT? probably not , but even with a better attitude , I don't see him getting significant PT, either . 

[McLoofus 35,182]

 

3 minutes ago, Charhair said:

The way i remember it being talked about earlier in the year was that with smith's experience and play making ability, he would be an early go to guy at WR considering most of our talent was young and inexperienced.

with the lack of effort/possible attitude on Smith's part, he lost his playing time to the younger guys (Slayton, K/R Davis, etc) which allowed them to get one of the things they were missing (experience) and thus boost them over Smith. 

Although nothing, except for the dog house part, was confirmed by insiders. 

From what I've seen, I do believe a player like Kyle Davis is a better receiver than Jason Smith but I do not believe the new guys we brought in, and guys like slayton and r davis, would have been good enough to immediately cause Smith to be benched. 

Kind of hard to see any other reason he went from one the most experienced returning WR to not playing a snap the entire season outside of some off the field issues. 

If he did get passed up on the depth chart so quickly, how didn't others like Hastings and MDavis get passed just as quickly? 

Thank you. 

To the question that was asked in the quote you responded to: Jason probably won't see meaningful time at QB and it's not because of his attitude. It's because he's jumping in midseason behind a burgeoning stud at QB1 and another guy who's been getting, at worst, QB2 reps since spring while he's been busy disappearing from the WR corps. He could absolutely overtake JFIII on the depth chart eventually if he stuck with it through next year, but he won't be the starter as long as Sean's healthy. He missed that boat last season, not that he's to be blamed. 

Maybe he can "help the team" this season, show that his heart's back in the right place, and then try to go win a WR job back in the spring with a renewed commitment.  

[lionheartkc 6,150]

2 minutes ago, Charhair said:

From what we've seen since the Duke incident, effort and attitude problems can be enough to keep our players on the bench and lead to their dismissals.

That's where we get into a really dangerous area, bringing up Duke in the same sentence as Jason.  Duke had real issues.  For all we know, Jason just takes a few plays off in practice and is otherwise a model citizen.  And let's face it... the guys who are currently on the field are playing as well or better than he did last year.

[Charhair 345]

1 minute ago, DAG said:

I agree but unlike Duke and JR. it wasn't both that kept them in the doghouse . Those two were by far at their positions imo . Basically, what I am saYing is yes, I do believe effort played a part in it. I also believe that we have better guys than him at QB and WR. Should he be barely seeing any PT? probably not , but even with a better attitude , I don't see him getting significant PT, either . 

I don't see him getting much more playing time with better effort either

but something clicked for Tony even though many thought it never would. 

I imagine Jason's role would have diminished as the season went on but i do think that if he hadn't been "in the dog house" that we would have seen much more of him early on against Clemson and others due to his experience and play making ability 

[Charhair 345]

2 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

That's where we get into a really dangerous area, bringing up Duke in the same sentence as Jason.  Duke had real issues.  For all we know, Jason just takes a few plays off in practice and is otherwise a model citizen.  And let's face it... the guys who are currently on the field are playing as well or better than he did last year.

I wasn't comparing Jason's issues to Duke's, I was saying that ever since Gus had to deal with the craziness that was Duke Williams, he's seemed to learn that it's better to address the problem and fix it rather than to let them continue the behavior because they're a star on the field or to even kick the player off before it goes to far, like with JR.