What's with this "well enough" crap? He touches the ball on every offensive snap and he led his offense to 17 points, while throwing 2 interceptions. If your suggestion is that the defense is somehow at fault for surrendering 23 points on the road at Georgia, I don't know what to say. It's modern football. The QB is BY FAR the most important player in the field. He has to play like it.
Shea Patterson made plays when asked to in that monsoon. Hung in for a nice TD throw and took a hit. Scrambled for key first downs. Why does Ian need you to excuse him for 8-25 in that game?
Was Ian's fumble at midfield against Clemson the fault of his receivers? Was his brutal overthrow to a wide open Boykin for a touchdown the fault of his receivers? Was his terrible miss to a wide open Boykin on a 4th down slant route route the fault of his receivers. Was his bad downfield miss to Finke on the option route deep in the Clemson red zone the fault of his receivers?.. Yeah, his receivers could have played better. The Claypool and Mack drops were not good. But none of that excuses how poorly and skittish Ian played in that game. Particularly in the first half when the game was still tightly contested.
I've been extremely fair to Ian Book this year. I've praised him when he's played well, but I'm not going to blow smoke up people's asses who try to tell me that he played well when he didn't.
Newsflash... He got a "go back to school" grade by the NFL as a senior. He doesn't impress anybody when the lights get bright and the competition gets tough. He had a legitimate NFL WR and a legitimate NFL tight end to pass to.this year as well. They made all kinds of plays for him. I don't want to hear any crap about the talent surrounding him.
Flat out, if Ian wants to be one of the best QB's in the country he has to play at the level he does vs Duke and Navy when he plays Clemson, Wisconsin and USC next year.. Nobody expects the exact same numbers in those game, because they understand the rise in level of competition but we (I at least) want a QB who we can define as better than "fine" and having played "well enough" in those games. How about "he was a star vs Wisconsin" and "he was the catalyst in beating Clemson"...? That would be a nice change.