Question

[Finwad32]

I'm typically very positive, but, I'm confused. If the quarterback battle is as close as advertised, then why in the world are we wasting time on a one and done QB for these type of results? Is Hunt not in the future plans at all?

If these are the types of results we're going to see, IMO, it's a no brainier to develop a younger kid.

 

[Crusty]

I'm typically very positive, but, I'm confused. If the quarterback battle is as close as advertised, then why in the world are we wasting time on a one and done QB for these type of results? Is Hunt not in the future plans at all?

If these are the types of results we're going to see, IMO, it's a no brainier to develop a younger kid.

I agree - unless Allen is much better play Hunt.

 

[supp]

I'm typically very positive, but, I'm confused. If the quarterback battle is as close as advertised, then why in the world are we wasting time on a one and done QB for these type of results? Is Hunt not in the future plans at all?

If these are the types of results we're going to see, IMO, it's a no brainier to develop a younger kid.

That may in part be linked to their future recruiting plans...so that they can tell prospective recruits this year that the job is open next year. Just my speculation. The problem there is that if you lose all your games with the short-term guy, you're probably not helping your recruiting in the future.

You're right, though. Usually coaches go with the younger player in a close competition with the theory that the younger kid has more upside.