Just reported on Upon Further Review

[007]

Both guys will see time. Shafer is not going to the route of Doug. I truly believe that which ever QB starts the other guy is going to see the field.

Have you heard anything or are you just speculating? Not trying to be a , just that this kind of reminds me of your Loeb "guarantee."

I have zero inside info, but I really hope that SS names one starter and stays with him unless he flops.

 

[All4SU]

From what I read on a TOS site McDonalds' offense will still be up-tempo but also has a lot of similarities to that of Oklahoma, the same concepts just different terminology. So not surprising Allen has an advantage.

Is it uptempo like SU ran last year? You know, when Hunt was here?

 

[SaltineWar]

What if we run the same offense as last year?!

I hope this is the case.

 

[All4SU]

If you take the 50,000 foot view of running a program- you don't bring in a 5th year guy from outside the program unless you fully intend on playing him...

Disagree only to the extent that maybe they felt they needed TWO reliable QBs. If, hypothetically, SS felt he had only one in Hunt, why not bring in another guy to challenge, and to be a starter OR insurance policy? I just don't think bringing him in is a definite anything

 

[kcsu]

Have you heard anything or are you just speculating? Not trying to be a , just that this kind of reminds me of your Loeb "guarantee."

I have zero inside info, but I really hope that SS names one starter and stays with him unless he flops.

No this one is pure speculation i have not heard a thing. My gut tells me that in a situation like this where it is so close that i doubt Shafer would stick with one player unless they were playing well. If the team falters as a result of poor qb play i fully expect a switch to be made.. I also wonder if he might want to go with two players to keep them fresh as my thought is that we might end up seeing more running out of the position this year. But again no i have not heard a thing other than i think i might have been wrong on Charlie!

 

[Chip]

Both guys will see time. Shafer is not going to the route of Doug. I truly believe that which ever QB starts the other guy is going to see the field.

Didn't Marrone, when faced with almost this exact situation, play both QBs the first year? Nassib had 68 passing attempts. That's a pretty sizable # for a backup when the starter was never injured. I think Paulus was only benched once (2nd half against WVU when they were up 27-0 at halftime).

 

[Moontan]

Didn't Marrone, when faced with almost this exact situation, play both QBs the first year?

Yup.
Nassib was out there for 2-4 series or drives per game, if I recall correctly.

 

[kcsu]

Yup.
Nassib was out there for 2-4 series or drives per game, if I recall correctly.

My point was the last three years. I dont think that any other QB played at all. Maybe a snap or two by Charlie but even in sure wins Nassib stayed in the game which is something that i do not think we will see under Shafer

 

[Scooch]

No this one is pure speculation i have not heard a thing. My gut tells me that in a situation like this where it is so close that i doubt Shafer would stick with one player unless they were playing well. If the team falters as a result of poor qb play i fully expect a switch to be made.. I also wonder if he might want to go with two players to keep them fresh as my thought is that we might end up seeing more running out of the position this year. But again no i have not heard a thing other than i think i might have been wrong on Charlie!

Remind me when Marrone had 2 QBs "so close" and decided not to play one when the other was playing so poorly as to have the team falter?

 

[Scooch]

My point was the last three years. I dont think that any other QB played at all. Maybe a snap or two by Charlie but even in sure wins Nassib stayed in the game which is something that i do not think we will see under Shafer

I've never understood this argument. How much better would Hunt be today if he took 25 snaps in blowout time last year?

 

[007]

No this one is pure speculation i have not heard a thing. My gut tells me that in a situation like this where it is so close that i doubt Shafer would stick with one player unless they were playing well. If the team falters as a result of poor qb play i fully expect a switch to be made.. I also wonder if he might want to go with two players to keep them fresh as my thought is that we might end up seeing more running out of the position this year. But again no i have not heard a thing other than i think i might have been wrong on Charlie!

Thanks kc

 

[kcsu]

I've never understood this argument. How much better would Hunt be today if he took 25 snaps in blowout time last year?

Way better not even close. If you played college sports you would know that there is nothing like taking the field in a real game situation. Nothing can prepare you for the experience of actually playing in a real game. 25 snaps would make a world of difference in my opinion.

 

[Scooch]

Way better not even close. If you played college sports you would know that there is nothing like taking the field in a real game situation. Nothing can prepare you for the experience of actually playing in a real game. 25 snaps would make a world of difference in my opinion.

We'll just disagree then, since I can rattle off a dozen guys who's mop up time led to nothing.

 

[kcsu]

We'll just disagree then, since I can rattle off a dozen guys who's mop up time led to nothing.

Do you think that it hurts them to get some playing time. Is there any downside to letting the subs see some real game action. For one it builds moral, guys bust their ass all season long and to not even see the field when it is obvious that the game is in hand one way or the other is poor coaching as far as im concerned. It provides needed game experiance for the younger guys while giving your starters rest and protects them from injury. I see more upside in giving game time than not

 

[CuseLegacy]

Is it uptempo like SU ran last year? You know, when Hunt was here?

My post was more to the point that folks keep stating that Allen would be behind Hunt in the learning of this offense but if it is conceptually the same as Oklahoma with a lot of carryover Allen could have an advantage in that area. Besides why does everyone seem to think these new guys didn't have the playbook to study before they got on campus.

 

[Scooch]

Do you think that it hurts them to get some playing time. Is there any downside to letting the subs see some real game action. For one it builds moral, guys bust their ass all season long and to not even see the field when it is obvious that the game is in hand one way or the other is poor coaching as far as im concerned. It provides needed game experiance for the younger guys while giving your starters rest and protects them from injury. I see more upside in giving game time than not

First, I'm speaking only about QB. Second, how many games did we have locked up late last season? UConn? Louisville? I just don't get the outcry, comes off to me as bitching just to bitch about Marrone -- a guy everyone knows you didn't like. Projecting what SS will or won't do seems silly to me.

 

[kcsu]

First, I'm speaking only about QB. Second, how many games did we have locked up late last season? UConn? Louisville? I just don't get the outcry, comes off to me as bitching just to bitch about Marrone -- a guy everyone knows you didn't like. Projecting what SS will or won't do seems silly to me.

I didnt mind Doug just thought that he was arrogant to a fault and that the way he left was less than professional. As far as getting other guys sometime i felt that he could have played in a minimum of 4 games

 

[TheCusian]

Didn't see this anywhere... If you watch all of Shafer's press conf, he compares himself to Hunt when he was not named the starter and how he grew up as a man from the experience. Didn't have time to find the link - but it was at about the 5:00 min mark.

 

[CUSU]

Didn't see this anywhere... If you watch all of Shafer's press conf, he compares himself to Hunt when he was not named the starter and how he grew up as a man from the experience. Didn't have time to find the link - but it was at about the 5:00 min mark.

This and also the interview of the two players that aired in the news last night. The tones of the two players and wording leads me to believe Allen is the starter for the 31st.

 

[BlazeOrange]

I've never understood this argument. How much better would Hunt be today if he took 25 snaps in blowout time last year?

It doesn't just deal with today. Those 25 garbage time snaps would've been very valuable if Nassib got injured while we were holding a slim lead. Instead of a deer in headlights debut, you'd have a player with some experience getting playcalls from the coaches in front of a live (maybe hostile) crowd and running a huddle against a game clock (I'm sure they practice that way, but you'll see less of a mental letdown from the remaining players if someone comes in that they've actually competed with before), not to mention running plays against an unfamiliar defense. Could be the difference between a game-changing series (the bad way) while the new guy gets his feet wet and continuing to run business as usual. [although it would've been IGLQBCL going in instead of Hunt last year, the idea applies going forward.]

That said, I don't see the need to bring in the backup so late in the game that they just run the Victory formation. But if there's enough time that you'll need to run some sort of drive to kill the clock, get the backup some experience. Ideally, we'd have enough faith in QB2 to give him a real series earlier in the game too, maybe running some of the scripted plays to evaluate how the defense adjusts to certain formations (added benefit of having the starter on the sideline discussing what is seen with a coach). That may not have been the case last year though.

 

[SU2NASA]

This is all meaningless speculation.

It's going to be Broyld.

 

[Faegan]

This is all meaningless speculation.

It's going to be Broyld.

Kinder by a mile.

 

[RF2044]

It doesn't just deal with today. Those 25 garbage time snaps would've been very valuable if Nassib got injured while we were holding a slim lead. Instead of a deer in headlights debut, you'd have a player with some experience getting playcalls from the coaches in front of a live (maybe hostile) crowd and running a huddle against a game clock (I'm sure they practice that way, but you'll see less of a mental letdown from the remaining players if someone comes in that they've actually competed with before), not to mention running plays against an unfamiliar defense. Could be the difference between a game-changing series (the bad way) while the new guy gets his feet wet and continuing to run business as usual. [although it would've been IGLQBCL going in instead of Hunt last year, the idea applies going forward.]

That said, I don't see the need to bring in the backup so late in the game that they just run the Victory formation. But if there's enough time that you'll need to run some sort of drive to kill the clock, get the backup some experience. Ideally, we'd have enough faith in QB2 to give him a real series earlier in the game too, maybe running some of the scripted plays to evaluate how the defense adjusts to certain formations (added benefit of having the starter on the sideline discussing what is seen with a coach). That may not have been the case last year though.

I get that playing a backup QB is beneficial for their development. But the reality of the situation was that we weren't in a position the last two years to get the backups appreciable snaps. Two years ago, we were in a lot of tight games early--often struggling even though we got wins--then we went on a 5 game losing streak at the end.

Last year, we started off 2-4, and while we made a bowl that wasn't a sure thing. I thought we were toast after we lost the cincinnati game in terms of getting to .500. It wasn't until we scored an unlikey, come from behind win on the road @ Missouri that we even qualified for a bowl.

The staff's goal both years was to get to a bowl--not to worry about getting the backup QB any snaps.

Now, hopefully this year we'll have leads and be able to get a guy like Hunt [if Allen has indeed won the starting role] some meaningful snaps. And long term, that would probably be beneficial to Hunt's developmental curve. At the very least, it would be better for him to get some PT [all things being equal] than to not get snaps.

But borrowing a page from Jim Boeheim's coaching playbook, I'd prefer to win games first and worry about developing the next QB as a secondary consideration. Win the game at hand.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

This was over as soon and Shafer and Allen said thier "I do's".

 

[dollarbill44]

First, I'm speaking only about QB. Second, how many games did we have locked up late last season? UConn? Louisville? I just don't get the outcry, comes off to me as bitching just to bitch about Marrone -- a guy everyone knows you didn't like. Projecting what SS will or won't do seems silly to me.

Further to your point, when we did put a backup in, it was Loeb. I'm not sure how Loeb getting 25 snaps a game last season would have helped Hunt.