Holy smokes, somebody's got some 'splaining to do.

[SUFan44]

I also think its a factor which team you're playing with out there. If they were dead set on getting Allen reps to accelerate his learning curve, then its a big step down to be playing with the second team OL [for example], given our personnel. So those type of considerations might have held Hunt back.

True.

In any event, if Hunt starts the game next week like he played against Wagner - and the staff pulls him in the 2nd quarter to get Allen reps - I will be extremely disappointed.

 

[cuseinchina]

Two things: I think the fact that the staff wanted (maybe to a fault) to get Allen more snaps/prep work hurt Hunt. And I think mobile QBs always struggle in practice/scrimmages because for the most part they are not allowed to use one of their main weapons. I'm sure a few plays that Hunt made against Wagner would have been whistled dead in a scrimmage/practice.

I've made this point before, but think about what our pass defense looked like the first two games - I'm sure that Allen, playing against that, looked good throwing deep sideline passes - McD being a wide receiver guy probably really liked that.

 

[upperdeck]

if he starts the tulane game and we get up 34-0 in the 2nd i dont care if they pull him out.. really if hunt is playing well and the team is winning then getting allen functional is the best thing the coaches can do.

 

[CuseOnly]

We're we not told several times publicly I might add that the competition was "neck and neck"?

If that was truly the case, Allen should never have started the NW game after the Allen PSU performance. Hunt should have been given a shot against NW IMO.

 

[orangenirvana]

Again, my contention is he was promised the position.

It's becoming pretty apparent that was the case.

The team wanted Hunt. Coaches had a promise to keep. And now they have no choice and will have to do some damage control on a few fronts.

And the coaches CANNOT break that promise.

Otherwise, it would destroy the pipeline we just created to that recruiting hotbed called Oklahoma University.

I mean think about it...what if OU has another redshirt junior who has been sitting on the bench holding a clipboard since high school??? Kiss our chances of landing that guy goodbye!

 

[IthacaMatt]

I would put Allen back in soon. Hunt is clearly our guy now without question, but I think putting in Allen would be a good idea to get his confidence back up (we always need a viable backup), and to not risk injury to Hunt.

I agree. I think you have to start Hunt now, but I think Allen should get a couple series, just so we have a confident back-up. He's only 1 play away from being the man again, so let's not see him completely go in the tank. Kid has to really be down on himself after he got Wally Pipped. This was his one shot, as Eminem would say.

 

[IthacaMatt]

im not saying i believe it or that its not crazy- it is just hard to fathom hunt/allen being neck and neck in practice and then having such a delta between them in game situations.

Ethan Cole.

 

[SUFan44]

I agree. I think you have to start Hunt now, but I think Allen should get a couple series, just so we have a confident back-up. He's only 1 play away from being the man again, so let's not see him completely go in the tank. Kid has to really be down on himself after he got Wally Pipped. This was his one shot, as Eminem would say.

I disagree actually. Unless it's mop-up duty, I do not want to see Allen on the field. Hunt needs as many reps as possible.

 

[IthacaMatt]

True.

In any event, if Hunt starts the game next week like he played against Wagner - and the staff pulls him in the 2nd quarter to get Allen reps - I will be extremely disappointed.

Not if we're up 28-0. Then get Allen some more reps.

 

[SUFan44]

Not if we're up 28-0. Then get Allen some more reps.

Put the foot on the throat. There will be plenty of reps in the third and fourth quarters.

 

[TheCusian]

I think it's all of the above:

1. They were neck and neck in practice/scrimmage situations.

2. Drew won the job based on tape study, prep, older, pedigree, etc. Most of which comes from being a career backup.

3. Hunt has a lesser arm and didn't study as well as Drew.

4. Drew gets mentally overwhelmed in game situations.

5. Hunt seems to rise to challenge in games in every way.

So if you're a coach and you only have the info from 1-3, isn't Drew you're choice? Now that we have live game tape to study - it's a much clearer picture. 4&5 trump 1-3. But it's near impossible to know all of that prior to this week.

 

[MikeSU02]

And the coaches CANNOT break that promise.

Otherwise, it would destroy the pipeline we just created to that recruiting hotbed called Oklahoma University.

I mean think about it...what if OU has another redshirt junior who has been sitting on the bench holding a clipboard since high school??? Kiss our chances of landing that guy goodbye!

Yeah, it's not that simple.

The promise to start is used a lot more than most people think. It is also something that recruits use in deciding where to go and if your ability to make that promise isn't there, it creates a trust problem.

If he was promised the start, what is happening now has real consequences with the team's trust and on the recruiting trail. The coaches went all in on Allen and got burned. It happens. But the fallout won't be as simple as not getting another career backup from Oklahoma.

 

[Pyle]

If he was promised the start, what is happening now has real consequences with the team's trust and on the recruiting trail.

Team's trust? I think there was a problem with the team's trust when Allen won the job. If you weren't there on Sat then you don't know but the team plays for TH, not for DA. As for recruiting, you can play that card both ways. If we keep Allen as the starter then other schools can use that against you too. "Don't go there, doesn't matter if you're better or not, coaches play politics and play their favorites, not worth the risk when you can come here and have an honest chance at being the starter".

 

[TheCusian]

Yeah, it's not that simple.

The promise to start is used a lot more than most people think. It is also something that recruits use in deciding where to go and if your ability to make that promise isn't there, it creates a trust problem.

If he was promised the start, what is happening now has real consequences with the team's trust and on the recruiting trail. The coaches went all in on Allen and got burned. It happens. But the fallout won't be as simple as not getting another career backup from Oklahoma.

Nope. They went all in and he bombed. Any player/recruit knows, promise or not - in the end - if you fail to produce (esp this dramatically) then you lose your job.

 

[All4SU]

The offensive system has a lot more to do with where he is on the depth chart. Pro style is what he was recruited for and it was abandoned. Couple that with the rb coach and OC in love with the young speedsters and they've drawn their line for their system and future. There are many factors involved, and it's not purely who will perform better in games right now or get you the first down. I think Hunt has given an example.

I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I just don't agree with this. Honestly, no offense. I don't see the offense we are running as being that dissimilar to what we ran last year. Add the pistol? Okay. But Allen hasn't been asked to option run. It's mostly control passing with some power running and screens. We are trying to run it uptempo like we did last year, and frankly he didn't seem comfortable in that format at all. Perhaps SU was a bad choice for him. But I don't think it was because our offense changed so drastically. Just my opinion.

 

[All4SU]

Why can't you believe they would make a promise to Allen?

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I will give my opinion.
-Because it's a stupid move. You would be leveraging your own success or failure on the performance of one player. A player who never earned a start at his old school.

- Unless of course you were lying. Which I don't happen to think Shafer is built like that. Just my gut feeling.

 

[MikeSU02]

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I will give my opinion.
-Because it's a stupid move. You would be leveraging your own success or failure on the performance of one player. A player who never earned a start at his old school.

- Unless of course you were lying. Which I don't happen to think Shafer is built like that. Just my gut feeling.

Again, I don't have a smoking gun, so maybe you are right. But just to be clear where we stand on this, you do believe that promises are made, you are just saying it didn't happen in this instance, correct?

 

[ssbriefcase]

I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I just don't agree with this. Honestly, no offense. I don't see the offense we are running as being that dissimilar to what we ran last year. Add the pistol? Okay. But Allen hasn't been asked to option run. It's mostly control passing with some power running and screens. We are trying to run it uptempo like we did last year, and frankly he didn't seem comfortable in that format at all. Perhaps SU was a bad choice for him. But I don't think it was because our offense changed so drastically. Just my opinion.

Not talking last year to this year. Talking the pro style that was originally ran with Hackett and then changed right before camp ended. Him not fitting the new offense came out of the coaching staffs mouths not his. He could care less what we ran, he'd be game for any offense to run in

 

[Rocco]

Are you serious? Bad call on the staff's part that they actually put AAM on the field.

Maybe the staff wants him to move on and maybe the feeling is mutual. Just saying.

 

[Scooch]

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I will give my opinion.
-Because it's a stupid move. You would be leveraging your own success or failure on the performance of one player. A player who never earned a start at his old school.

- Unless of course you were lying. Which I don't happen to think Shafer is built like that. Just my gut feeling.

I imagine the same kind of "promise" we made to Paulus was made to Allen.

It's not a promise of "you will definitely start, no matter what".

More a 'promise' of "we're not comfortable with our current QB options -- we think you can come in and win this job and we will give you every opportunity to do so".

I don't think anything nefarious occurred. And I don't think Allen being benched will have one ounce of impact on future recruiting.

 

[tep624]

I imagine the same kind of "promise" we made to Paulus was made to Allen.

It's not a promise of "you will definitely start, no matter what".

More a 'promise' of "we're not comfortable with our current QB options -- we think you can come in and win this job and we will give you every opportunity to do so".

I don't think anything nefarious occurred. And I don't think Allen being benched will have one ounce of impact on future recruiting.

This sounds about right to me. From Day 1 under Marrone, the thing was "you'll have an opportunity to come in and compete" whether you were a 4 star high schooler, underrecruited, JUCO, or johnny walk on. I just don't see Shafer abandoning that philosophy for a 1 and done transfer who had little if any game experience.

Now if it was Russel Wilson Part 2 - maybe under that scenario you sacrifice your principle, make the promise, and live with it - live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[RF2044]

I imagine the same kind of "promise" we made to Paulus was made to Allen.

It's not a promise of "you will definitely start, no matter what".

More a 'promise' of "we're not comfortable with our current QB options -- we think you can come in and win this job and we will give you every opportunity to do so".

I don't think anything nefarious occurred. And I don't think Allen being benched will have one ounce of impact on future recruiting.

That makes sense, and is very likely close to what happened. However, the one thing I'd like to point out is that option 2 isn't really a promise to start [Scooch, I know you denoted it with parenthesis to make that same point].