something to think about re:QBs

[WoadBlue]

Jim Harbaugh may play 2 QBs every game.

We have 3 QBs. 2 are RS freshmen who each should have been given a shot no later than the debacle at ECI last year (Game #2). We also have a high 4* true freshman who probably is better prepared to play than any true frosh QB we've had since Trubisky.

It may be that one of them takes over, fully and very well. But it may be that each could shine in certain games against certain Ds. It could be that the QB who looks great in the 2nd half of a game is simply not on his game the next week, when another of our QBs would have the hot hand if he is played.

We may be best served, especially for the future, by playing at least 2 of them in almost every game, with all 3 getting action.

 

[illinihorn]

Likely future of managing QB’s

 

[tarheel0910]

Sounds like a great way to make sure none of your QBs are happy.

 

[JimmyinVA]

every now and then the issue of QBs sharing pt comes up, and for once i am not alone in my opinion that it's not necessarily a bad thing. when one QB is clearly superior, by all means, relegate the subs to mop up. but when there is no clear hierarchy of what they bring to the table, woadblue's suggestion has merit. QBs transfer when they no longer believe they have a chance to earn the starting spot. if both are getting quality pt they are still in the mix, no need to transfer. quality pt for nearly equal QBs has other advantages as well. it gives opposing defenses more variables to prepare for, because, in all likelihood the QBs have different strengths, weaknesses, and styles. it also enables an experienced QB to come in if the other guy is injured or having a bad day. i have never bought the usual argument that being subbed causes the starter to lose confidence or prevents him from finding his rhythm. if anything, knowing that a dependable backup can take over reduces the pressure on the starter, and less anxiety = MORE confidence and a more relaxed rhythm. another argument against shared pt is that a team needs a leader. where is it written that a team can't have multiple leaders if they're capable? so, i hope mack plays the guys who look good in practice, without a slavish adherence to the one guy only idea.

 

[tarheel0910]

knowing that a dependable backup can take over reduces the pressure on the starter, and less anxiety = MORE confidence and a more relaxed rhythm.

It will do the exact opposite. They will play tight and nervous knowing if they make one mistake, they could get pulled. This type of system is the exact opposite of what a QB wants.

 

[JimmyinVA]

It will do the exact opposite. They will play tight and nervous knowing if they make one mistake, they could get pulled. ..

what you are describing is more akin to a frightened child than a tough minded leader.

 

[tarheel0910]

what you are describing is more akin to a frightened child than a tough minded leader.

Doesn't make it less true. History says it doesn't work out most of the time and QBs have said that they don't like it for the reason I stated. I honestly don't know why anyone thinks it's a good idea to do it. At the very least it makes it hard to get in a rhythm.

 

[WoadBlue]

Likely future of managing QB’s

Because of all the QB transfers, I think so too. I think more coaches are going to discover a public reason to play a 2nd team QB fairly often (in case the starter is injured) that is valid and that also covers the main reason of keeping a 2nd very good QB from transferring.

Mack lost a 2nd National Championship because Bama knocked Colt McCoy out of the game and Texas had no reserve with experience. If arranging for a 2nd team QB to have that experience also keeps him from transferring, then it can be a double win.

 

[WoadBlue]

Doesn't make it less true. History says it doesn't work out most of the time and QBs have said that they don't like it for the reason I stated. I honestly don't know why anyone thinks it's a good idea to do it. At the very least it makes it hard to get in a rhythm.

There is some truth to that, but it also used to be a hard and fast rule about RBs: the starter must have rhythm and so cannot be fearful of getting pulled every time he misses a block or fumbles or drops a screen or is arm tackled.

Now everybody wants to play at least 2 RBs every game for multiple snaps and carries.

 

[Archer2]

I think you want to have a clear number one quarterback, with the two back up quarterbacks sharing time.

 

[Archer2]

I think you want to have a clear number one quarterback, with the two back up quarterbacks sharing time.

I think most coaches would agree.

My take is this. I'd like to see one of the three establish himself as the clear leader for the starting spot. I think a team responds better when that is the case and I think it allows the team to develop chemistry faster and also allows more plays to be in the game plan.

Now I realize that you're only one injury away from having to go to the bench and you want to develop some experience there so that the backup(s) isn't thrown to the dogs if he has to play. So I think you need to get your backups some reps in practice and also every opportunity that presents itself in live game action.

There's a very thin line that has to be walked in order to do this. And It's only exacerbated if there is no clear cut leader, no one separates himself from the other QB's. We are blessed to have three talented young QB's, but all three combined have only attempted 70 passes in their college careers. So all three are very green. When you consider that they're learning a new system, in addition to playing under a new position coach and a new OC, that complicates things further. And our brutal early schedule doesn't help either.

While I don't want to see Mack pick one guy and say "This is my guy regardless", and I don't think he will, I don't want to see a revolving door either. It's important to let young prospects play through some mistakes. Mack said settling the QB question was the biggest issue to resolve between now and August 31, and he wasn't kidding. I'm glad it's not my decision.

 

[uncboy10]

It will do the exact opposite. They will play tight and nervous knowing if they make one mistake, they could get pulled. This type of system is the exact opposite of what a QB wants.

I played QB in a two man system and you’re exactly right. It is way harder to get into a rhythm, and every time you miss a throw or make a bad read you have to worry about not seeing the field for the rest of the half.

It has nothing to do with being afraid of making mistakes or not being tough minded. Everyone makes mistakes, especially QB’s. But you will get tight if you think you’re going to lose playing time every time you make one. Then you also create resentment in the locker room, and create factions of guys who like one guy better than the other.

The only time this works is if you have one guy who runs a goal line package the way that Tebow did his first year at Florida. Someone like Quise would have been perfect for that if he wasn’t already the starter. A two QB system almost never works out well.

 

[Archer2]

Then you also create resentment in the locker room, and create factions of guys who like one guy better than the other.

The only time this works is if you have one guy who runs a goal line package the way that Tebow did his first year at Florida.

I agree with both observations.

 

[blazers]

People crucified Fed's rotation of Quise and Mitch but we won a crapton of games and prepped Mitch for an awesome next season.

Double-edged sword...

 

[tarheel0910]

People crucified Fed's rotation of Quise and Mitch but we won a crapton of games and prepped Mitch for an awesome next season.

Double-edged sword...

Mitch didn't play that much though. One or two series a game and he looked average when he played because he couldn't really get any rhythm going. MW also looked better once he stopped having to look over his shoulder and the team rallied around him.

 

[Raising Heel]

We also have a high 4* true freshman who probably is better prepared to play than any true frosh QB we've had since Trubisky.

Except your boy-god Trubisky didn't play as a freshman; he redshirted. And in his redshirt freshman season, he was 42 of 78 (53.8%) with 5 TDs and 4 INTs, including a back-breaking pick six at the end of a 17-3 first half against VT that effectively put the game out of reach. His QB rating of 114.2 that season was one of the worst marks in the Fedora era.*



*ETA 1: Thanks to months of intensive therapy, I had forgotten about the 2017 and 2018 seasons. I’ll have to check later to see if anyone registered lower QBRs either season. The point remains that Trubisky struggled terribly until his third season in the program.

*ETA 2: Brandon Harris had a QB rating of 72.3 (!) in 2017. Cade Fortin had a QB rating of 101.4 in 2018. I've updated my initial comments accordingly.

 

[lerario]

Except your boy-god Trubisky didn't play as a freshman; he redshirted. And in his redshirt freshman season, he was 42 of 78 (53.8%) with 5 TDs and 4 INTs, including a back-breaking pick six at the end of a 17-3 first half against VT that effectively put the game out of reach. His QB rating of 114.2 that season was 20 points lower than any other QB in the Fedora era.

Yeah there’s no way woads post was anything other than a troll. No one can be that dumb.

 

[WoadBlue]

Yeah there’s no way woads post was anything other than a troll. No one can be that dumb.

Wait - are you saying that the last diehard pro-Fedora people - such as those who agreed that even if 2018 were as awful as 2017, Fedora had earned the right to be back in 2019 - might have naturally settled in on one something to cling to forever as proof that they were right about Fedora, and that any slight to that one something could drive them to delightful paroxysms of defense?

Surely not.

 

[Raising Heel]

Wait - are you saying that the last diehard pro-Fedora people - such as those who agreed that even if 2018 were as awful as 2017, Fedora had earned the right to be back in 2019 - might have naturally settled in on one something to cling to forever as proof that they were right about Fedora, and that any slight to that one something could drive them to delightful paroxysms of defense?

Surely not.

My issue here is not with Fedora or Williams or Trubisky. It’s with you. It’s with your constant and hyperbolic characterization of Fedora and Williams as some sort of blight on the program, all while fellating Trubisky with whatever remaining breath you have. Once you stop trying to define UNC football history for everyone according your often ridiculous opinions, people will stop calling you out for it. Cheers.

 

[blazers]

Mitch didn't play that much though. One or two series a game and he looked average when he played because he couldn't really get any rhythm going. MW also looked better once he stopped having to look over his shoulder and the team rallied around him.

Like I said, it is a double-edged sword, you want the young guy prepped enough that he can throw the TD vs UVA in the redzone when Marquise helmet comes off (Mitch's only play of the game), but you don't want to kill the rhythm of your starter.