QB co-starters...

[supp]

Meant to post this a while ago. For anyone who has the ACC digital network (it's on Sony's web tv package but maybe also on Roku, Apple TV, etc.), they have an interview there with Scott Shafer where he discusses the possibility of a QB platoon. Not sure when it's from but he looks pretty tan so I'm guessing it's a fairly recent video.

 

[OrangePA]

I would have no problem with that.

At least to start the season.

 

[SWC75]

I've never understood why you have one quarterback attempt 471 of 473 passes as Nassib did last eyar. Even if you have an obvious #1, do you really want a back-up who has thrown one pass?
http://www.suathletics.com/cumestats.aspx?path=football&year=2012

I realize playing a lot of close games is a factor and if the team is going good or you are facing a critical situation you don't want to mess around. But I would think you could get your back-up one series a game, let your starter view the game from the sidelines for a bit. And if you have two guys who could start for you, (as I think we have, as opposed to two inadequate guys), why not use both?

 

[spo023]

I've never understood why you have one quarterback attempt 471 of 473 passes as Nassib did last eyar. Even if you have an obvious #1, do you really want a back-up who has thrown one pass?
http://www.suathletics.com/cumestats.aspx?path=football&year=2012

I realize playing a lot of close games is a factor and if the team is going good or you are facing a critical situation you don't want to mess around. But I would think you could get your back-up one series a game, let your starter view the game from the sidelines for a bit. And if you have two guys who could start for you, (as I think we have, as opposed to two inadequate guys), why not use both?

Because QB's get into a rythym, so you don't want to take your starting QB out and jeopardize the momentum. All it takes is one fumbled snap from the backup, who doesn't have the game experience exchanging snaps with the center, to change field position and possibly the course of the game.

Also, since it takes time to get used to the speed on the field, having the backup in for one series a game will do nothing. What if it's a 3 and out and his one throwing attempt he has to throw it away or takes a sack? What's the point of definitely hurting your season the current year for the slim, mere possibility of doing better the next year? Also, a backup throwing the ball 20-30 times one season doesn't mean anything for how good or bad he will be the next season. If he's good enough, he will be fine the year he starts.

 

[kcsu]

I agree. You pick a starter and go with the starter unless things are going poorly. With a comfortable lead it is good to get the second some playing time

 

[syr02esq]

The NFL doesn't do this for a reason.

 

[All4SU]

I've never understood why college football doesn't (rarely) incorporate multiple QBs on the field from time to time. These guys are athletes first and foremost. Wildcat, halfback option, etc. this isn't the pros where being conservative wins the day. Be inventive. Mix it up.

 

[JoeSU]

I have mixed feelings about this, but mostly negative ... our limited success using the "2-headed QB" approach in the past immediately comes to mind, as does Rutgers more recently, although maybe that was because both of their QBs sucked. On the other hand, Northwestern used this approach successfully against us last year. Also, our offense seems to move the ball best when it got in a rhythm, and I think changing QBs messes with that pace.

If neither QB creates any separation by the PSU game, I think it would be worth playing both. Sometimes QBs perform differently under live fire. It's one thing to stand in the pocket and deliver a pass on a practice field when you're wearing a green jersey and both sides of the ball know the routs and coverages, and quite another when the opposing D is throwing different looks to confuse you, while trying to pound you into the turf in front of 50K screaming fans, and 1 mistake can cost your team the game.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I've never understood why college football doesn't (rarely) incorporate multiple QBs on the field from time to time. These guys are athletes first and foremost. Wildcat, halfback option, etc. this isn't the pros where being conservative wins the day. Be inventive. Mix it up.

Absolutely. In my dreams offenses just scheme to shred a defense by having three different players on the field at any time throwing passes. I'd love to see box scores with 3 or 4 players on the same team recording pass attempts.

 

[jekelish]

Absolutely. In my dreams offenses just scheme to shred a defense by having three different players on the field at any time throwing passes. I'd love to see box scores with 3 or 4 players on the same team recording pass attempts.

This is why I'm still astonished (although it could change since he's only a sophomore) that we didn't ever run any plays for Ashton that at least threatened to have him throw the ball. He's a superb athlete, yes, but he also played a whole lot of quarterback. He should always be a threat to run a halfback pass sort of play.

 

[SWC75]

I have mixed feelings about this, but mostly negative ... our limited success using the "2-headed QB" approach in the past immediately comes to mind, as does Rutgers more recently, although maybe that was because both of their QBs sucked. On the other hand, Northwestern used this approach successfully against us last year. Also, our offense seems to move the ball best when it got in a rhythm, and I think changing QBs messes with that pace.

If neither QB creates any separation by the PSU game, I think it would be worth playing both. Sometimes QBs perform differently under live fire. It's one thing to stand in the pocket and deliver a pass on a practice field when you're wearing a green jersey and both sides of the ball know the routs and coverages, and quite another when the opposing D is throwing different looks to confuse you, while trying to pound you into the turf in front of 50K screaming fans, and 1 mistake can cost your team the game.

I think it makes a difference is you have two quarterbacks who are both positives and bring different things to the game vs. two quarterbacks, neither of which is really good enough. Take a look at Northwestern who effectively used two QBs last year:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/77/northwestern-wildcats
One was the better passer, the other the better runner. They went 10-3 because they were both good quarterbacks.

 

[SWC75]

The NFL doesn't do this for a reason.

And that's why the Colts had to go with Curtis Painter, who had never thrown a pass in a real game in the NFl, to defend their perfect record in 2009 when they opted to sit Peyton Manning down until the playoffs.

Don Shula made a career of having good back-up quarterbacks: Gary Cuozzo, Earl Morrall, Don Strock. The Rams won three straight Western Conference titles and one NFL title with Bob Waterfield and Norm Van Brocklyn. I'm sure I coiuld find other examples with more time.

They key is that both have to be good quarterbacks.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This is why I'm still astonished (although it could change since he's only a sophomore) that we didn't ever run any plays for Ashton that at least threatened to have him throw the ball. He's a superb athlete, yes, but he also played a whole lot of quarterback. He should always be a threat to run a halfback pass sort of play.

Agreed.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[spo023]

And that's why the Colts had to go with Curtis Painter, who had never thrown a pass in a real game in the NFl, to defend their perfect record in 2009 when they opted to sit Peyton Manning down until the playoffs.

Don Shula made a career of having good back-up quarterbacks: Gary Cuozzo, Earl Morrall, Don Strock. The Rams won three straight Western Conference titles and one NFL title with Bob Waterfield and Norm Van Brocklyn. I'm sure I coiuld find other examples with more time.

They key is that both have to be good quarterbacks.

It's hard to have two good quarterbacks when there are only about 20-25 quarterbacks who are good enough to handle NFL defenses. That's why the Jets have to start Sanchez, the Jaguars run with Gabbert, Vikings go with Ponder, Cowboys have Romo, etc.

 

[Aweart23]

Absolutely. In my dreams offenses just scheme to shred a defense by having three different players on the field at any time throwing passes. I'd love to see box scores with 3 or 4 players on the same team recording pass attempts.

Spurrier is working on playing two QBs in the same backfield this year.. Connor Shaw and Dylan Thompson..in one of his post practice media sessions, which are fabulously entertaining, he wished he could put five QBs out at the same time...Gold, Jerry! gold!

 

[SWC75]

It's hard to have two good quarterbacks when there are only about 20-25 quarterbacks who are good enough to handle NFL defenses. That's why the Jets have to start Sanchez, the Jaguars run with Gabbert, Vikings go with Ponder, Cowboys have Romo, etc.

Still, you could have a veteran back-up who wants to play a couple more years instead of a raw kid like Painter who had never played.

And, (back to the point), we aren't in the NFL and may have two good college quarterbacks.

 

[Tobias Funke]

The key to any success with 2 qb's is they should be drastically different in their styles, this keeping the defense guessing. If they are similar you just go with the guy who plays the best.

 

[SWC75]

The key to any success with 2 qb's is they should be drastically different in their styles, this keeping the defense guessing. If they are similar you just go with the guy who plays the best.

What if they seem equal? What if one has been with your program for two years and is your presume quarterback of the future, if not the present? What if the other guy transferred were because this is last shot at impressing the NFL? Why not use them both?

 

[Phillymoose]

Just because our 2 QB prospects are neck and neck, does not make them good. That part remains unknown.

If you platoon in the early going, it is merely to discover the better player... and then you stick with him.

 

[Hoov50]

Unless you have two QBs with different skill sets I don't think it makes sense to play two QBs. If both QBs are pocket passers or both are runners, why play two? I think if you have one of each it makes sense to play them both depending on the situation and game. It sounds like Hunt may be more mobile than Allen. If so, playing both of them may help SU win games.

I also think it comes down to priorities when playing a backup QB. College football is a win now profession. Sure, coaches want to plan for the future, but they aren't going to risk losing games just to get a backup some reps. As others have pointed out last season we were in a lot of close games which don't lead to backups playing unless necessary.

 

[All4SU]

I am speaking only in the hypothetical, not in SU's case specifically. But putting more, diversified talent on the field at one time would seem to be an advantage to me. What if we could have put McNabb and Donnie McPherson on the field together? Vick and McNabb? Too much specialization these days.

 

[Tobias Funke]

What if they seem equal? What if one has been with your program for two years and is your presume quarterback of the future, if not the present? What if the other guy transferred were because this is last shot at impressing the NFL? Why not use them both?

If they are neck and neck you play the guy with more eligibility. I believe that a big key to being an effective leader as a Qb the ball needs to be in your hands the majority of the time. Also getting into a Rythym is a big piece. You can do it but I prefer they stick with one guy unless they are both that good hat they need to be on the field. Also the idea that we are Allen's last shot at the NFL should play absolutely nothin into the decision.

Just my opinion.

 

[FAL]

Also the idea that we are Allen's last shot at the NFL should play absolutely nothin into the decision.

Correct! If we are his last shot, it's up to him to step it up. Still would not be surprised to see action by both him and Hunt.

 

[FAL]

Plus Broyld is going to be a serious wild card...in a good way.

 

[SmilinBob]

Whatever wins games I'm for.

Some kids just don't play well when they are constantly looking over their shoulder and as good as Spurrier has been as a coach he has ruined his qb's confidence time and time again. This is part of the reason why Nassib played so much, he knew it was his show and if he made a mistake he didn't get yanked out. Confidence is a big factor along with obviously talent but as far as I can see the two top qb's really aren't that different talent wise and the things that they can do. If one ran a 4.5 40 and couldn't pass while the other is a statue but has a heck of an arm then yes, I could see a two headed qb but not the way SU has it now.

My question is going to be how the coaches will handle it if the qb they picked to start struggles. This...is where they are going to have to earn their money and figure out as the season progresses how they can juggle the qb position. Will they ride a qb for x amount of games or constantly flip flop? I'm hoping whoever they pick just takes off and we never look back.