ADVERTISEMENT

Why 2 QBs could work...

pboiler18

All-American
May 13, 2014
4,433
3,640
113
Now i'm sure people will jump all over me for this...but hear me out. For 2015, I think it would be smart for Purdue to take the 2 most ready QBs on the roster and roatate them in the lineup.

That said, I am not a fan of how it has been done in the past by this staff (let a guy flounder and flounder and only pull him when things are past repair in a game/season). I am also not a fan of how Hope and Co. did it....(ie give a QB a set # of reps or drives and then pull him out regardless of performance).

I think that we go into practice and whoever practices better and executes the gameplan for the week better should be the one who gets the start. From there, if it appears they are out of sync...not making the right reads or whatever we take them from the game and put in the next man up. If he becomes ineffective....well, time to rotate back. Obviously this is unconventional....but I think its what this team needs until a clear cut #1 makes himself know. Give the guys who are capable the reps to get it done...and then make a decision from there. We won't know how good a guy is until game action...so why not give us a control (2 guys playing vs. the same team) to let us know who executes better? Then, if you want to decide on a guy....you can decide on the guy who has played better on the average up to that point.

Seems pretty easy to me.

It will certainly HELP get us out of the carosuel of QB uncertainty we have had in the program since 2009! If not, then we aren't doing anything different than we have done the past 6 years (with playing multiple QBs) it would just be doing it in a different way.
 
The generalization I hear against an approach like that is the qb's always feel they are walking on eggshells, and that leads to conservative and ultimately ineffective play.
 
No offense, but I hate this idea. The only time I've been on board with rotating is when you have very different styles of QB - and even then I'm not a fan. All of our QBs are essentially pocket passers. I see no benefit in rotating.

That said, I do agree that I've not liked the way the QBs have been handled. If the team is down big and the QB is not doing anything - shake it up.
 
i kinda like the idea. use a relief qb if the starter doesn't have it that day. better than baseball relief because he can come back if the sub doesn't perform.

don't just leave the guy out there if he doesn't have it that day. he can even start the next game. it has to be a confidence killer if he doesn't perform well. not to mention the pine time could work wonders
 
If you don't have a true starting QB, then you don't have one at all.

Having 2 QB's means that you really don't have a starter.
 
Other than goal line or formation scenario's properly preparing two QB's is next to impossible at just about every level of football. Split reps during the week with different QB running the same plays will cause problems of execution and success!

Now if you are only going to use the #2 QB on plays say inside the 10/20 yard line or on 3rd or 4th and short, or run a wildcat or some other special formation... that can work since your #1 would not be taking those reps during the week and the team would be used to it, if you simulate in your practices.

jmo
 
I'm worried it would lead to very conservative play.

However, last year when it was clear that one guy was not getting the job done and the game was still in reach, I thought it would have been ideal to give the back up a series or two to see if the shake up would have worked. Iowa comes to mind, I think there was a game where AA started and couldn't move the ball as well.

Since it appears the guys are so close in talent level (completely different from when Hope should have just started Marve), the idea of going with the "hot hand" really isn't horrible. Would splitting reps going late into the season hold the offense back? Probably, and that's why I think Hazell will stick with AA from the begining of summer in such a critical year.
 
Originally posted by FearTheTrain:

I'm worried it would lead to very conservative play.

However, last year when it was clear that one guy was not getting the job done and the game was still in reach, I thought it would have been ideal to give the back up a series or two to see if the shake up would have worked. Iowa comes to mind, I think there was a game where AA started and couldn't move the ball as well.

Since it appears the guys are so close in talent level (completely different from when Hope should have just started Marve), the idea of going with the "hot hand" really isn't horrible. Would splitting reps going late into the season hold the offense back? Probably, and that's why I think Hazell will stick with AA from the begining of summer in such a critical year.
Iowa would have been a sure fire win IMO if AA was given a shot. I think we had utterly dominated that game up through the 2nd Quarter....average starting field position was in Iowa territory....and we had 10 points....the offense accounted for 7 of them. We lost because the D wore down late from all of our 3 and outs on offense.

On the other hand, I think that Etling might have been able to help the passing game in some of those last 3 games in pinch hit relief.

That said, im not sold on Etling factoring in on the decision to be in the mix come August IMO. If he still has the "yips" and is still scared to take a hit and gets as shell shocked as he did last year when he got hit....no amount of talent in the world can save him. I do think Etling is the best of the bunch at this point.....but is a totally different guy (and not in a good way) when the ball goes live and the defenders are coming at him.
 
have one QB who is the main guy, they gotta keep in the flow of the game, very hard to come in and play well later in the game
 
Unless it is two completely different styles, it is pointless

If you could have a guy who is a great runner to bring in, especially in goal line or red zone situations, I think it can work... kind of like the "Bell dozer" at Oklahoma. But as a whole? I disagree. If you have two guys with similar skill sets, I fail to see the point. Appleby and Etling for the most part are similar. Both do different things well, but it is not like one is an outstanding passer and one runs sub 4.5.

If you have two quarterbacks you have none. Looks like we have three quarterbacks. Oh brother. 3-9 here we come.
 
I would be surprised at this rate if we have a clear #1 going into the season. I suspect they will be very close. Which means every single week and every single three and out, someone on this board will start a thread "I think it's time we gave $)(&% a shot". I hated what Hope did in his platoon style but I wouldn't be surprised to see a fairly quick leash on whoever gets the starting nod. And if they truly are that close I might be onboard.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
God I hope not at least until you are sure your #1 is not the man...who ever he is! Confidence, a good game plan and reps with the first team are needed with this still very young team for awhile!
 
Originally posted by ghostoffatjack:
God I hope not at least until you are sure your #1 is not the man...who ever he is! Confidence, a good game plan and reps with the first team are needed with this still very young team for awhile!

Totally agree with you. I hope that's how it plays out.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
This was one of Hope's big failures. Couldn't pull the trigger on a starting QB and contributed to the overall confusion that reigned during his time and continues today.
 
I wouldn't mind a QB rotation since we have no established QB yet. Seems like nobody can pull away eachother and if we rotate them in a game I feel one of them will elevate their play and then we let them stay in for the season.
 
Originally posted by SIBoiler2:
This was one of Hope's big failures. Couldn't pull the trigger on a starting QB and contributed to the overall confusion that reigned during his time and continues today.

I don't think anyone here is advocating the Hope train wreck of a rotation plan. I still think we beat ND if he starts Marve in the second half.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by BoilerBulldog:

Originally posted by SIBoiler2:
This was one of Hope's big failures. Couldn't pull the trigger on a starting QB and contributed to the overall confusion that reigned during his time and continues today.

I don't think anyone here is advocating the Hope train wreck of a rotation plan. I still think we beat ND if he starts Marve in the second half.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
Tend to agree. The wind was much stronger that day than I would imagine came through TV. Marve has a couple throws across his body to the flat against the wind that dropped my jaw. He was awesome.
 
Originally posted by boiler17:



Originally posted by BoilerBulldog:


Originally posted by SIBoiler2:
This was one of Hope's big failures. Couldn't pull the trigger on a starting QB and contributed to the overall confusion that reigned during his time and continues today.

I don't think anyone here is advocating the Hope train wreck of a rotation plan. I still think we beat ND if he starts Marve in the second half.


Posted from Rivals Mobile
Tend to agree. The wind was much stronger that day than I would imagine came through TV. Marve has a couple throws across his body to the flat against the wind that dropped my jaw. He was awesome.
He was definitely super talented. Once he learned how to play within the system he was pretty good. Definitely single handedly took us to a bowl in Hope's last year.

I am not advocating the random pulling and starting of QBs. That said, we can all tell when something isn't working. If its not working....you have nothing to lose by rotating the next guy in there. Maybe he doesn't win, but if he looks better that is in game experience you are giving your guy so that he's potentially better off and better prepared to be the QB of the future. When you have as many potentially gifted guys as we do, truly the only way to separate them IMO is put them in some live fire game action.
 
I hate the fact we don't have a clear cut #1. I hate the shuffling of QB's as it doesn't let a guy establish himself as the guy and gain his footing. It's tough with the guys on the roster because they are so close in terms of ability. I think Sindelar is the future at QB just from watching his throws and what not in his limited action, just think his ceiling is much higher than the rest. I hope Saturday goes well and we get a good look at all three, but I hope during the summer and camp someone puts themselves ahead and we have a clear cut #1. I think it's AA's job to lose but anything can happen. I've always been a believer that when you have 2 QB's you have none.
 
Personally, Im sick of watching young guy after young guy come in all over this team.

Start Applebe, hand Blough the clip board, and let Etling and Sindelar shirt. Deal with what you have this year, and groom everyone else. Ive seen 'next man in' philosophies work, but its not with this staff.

Thats what I wish would happen; i expect more of the same we have had at qb behind a better running game that at times looks like a promising offense, but still wins 2 games.
 
ADVERTISEMENT