If Purdue goes this route, I'd like to seee Burton as one of the two. I lke the added running dimension.
Playing Multiple QBs
- Thread starter pulax78
- Start date
There’s a problem with this logic as applied to burton or plummer. “Well they are faster than Oconnell.” Yeah, but first, you have to be really good at distributing the football.
without being at least on oconnells level in that regard, it doesn’t matter.. you should say “okay, he can throw it at least as well as Oconnell AND he’s a running threat.” But if you’re meh throwing the ball, you have to be a special special special runner to be at Oconnell’s level.
does burton either throw the ball like Oconnell or run like Michael Vick? If so, I’ll take him .. if not, come back when he or any other QB who can run does throw it like Oconnell
I would say that it an almost certainty that we will go with 2 QBs again, which seems to be a Brohm specialty.
I don't like the 2 QB system, because the starter is always looking over their shoulder afraid that they could be going out at any time. That causes them to be too conservative or too aggressive to "save" their starter designation. It does not allow the QB to get into a rhythm.
With us being the Cradle of QBs, both Brohms being NFL QBs, and we have an offense that favors a throwing QB, I still do not understand why this position is still a work in progress. I guess Allen saw that he had the ability to come in next year and be the possible starter Day 1.
I don't like the 2 QB system, because the starter is always looking over their shoulder afraid that they could be going out at any time. That causes them to be too conservative or too aggressive to "save" their starter designation. It does not allow the QB to get into a rhythm.
With us being the Cradle of QBs, both Brohms being NFL QBs, and we have an offense that favors a throwing QB, I still do not understand why this position is still a work in progress. I guess Allen saw that he had the ability to come in next year and be the possible starter Day 1.
Our offense is way too complicated for a true freshman QB to come in and play short of major injuries and defections.
One arguement in support of a mobile QB is the O-line. It may be necessary to have a more mobile QB. AOC has shown zero mobility. - I'm assuming Burton has a good arm and is in close competition for the startig spot. I've never seen him throw, only know what I read on the site. Not saying he should be the starter, but maybe.
His accuracy percentage is 0.1% higher for their careers.
AOC chucks it towards bell and hopes he catches it. Remember the acrobatic catches Bell made in the 2019 bucket game? Those were shitty throws.
New Orleans coach Sean Payton says, "Hello".
While I never liked seeing Drew Brees in the W.R. position and Taysom Hill as the QB, there was no denying it was effective. A handful of plays per game allowed combinations of run/pass and N.O. scored TD's multiple times and at a minimum chewed up a lot of yardage and moved chains.
Effective = Yes. Not a fan unless we have success with it.
I don’t think that’s an accurate summary of Oconnell throwing the ball. Plummer holds onto it too long and doesn’t seem to throw to large areas of the field.
Ok, I agree with that. But reads are not such an issue in a simple offense, are they?
Nah. It's irrelevant.
These guys all know there's a battle for PT.
They also don't have thin skin.
It's really no different than the starting pitcher who sees the reliever warming up in the bullpen.
If the "threat" of someone taking your position has you afraid, you're in the wrong place.
They are. If you havent seen the blitzes you see in the big ten, youre going to get your ass kicked (Remember Etling's freshman year). QB has to make the calls.
Which part. My comment on completion percentage is factual. My view of him chucking is based on what ive seen. Bell covers up a lot of mistakes. THere is a reason AOC threw to him on more than 50% of his attempts.
bell covering up a lot of mistakes doesn’t mean Oconnell isn’t the more accurate passer. If he wasn’t, would it even be a close race with Plummer’s size and speed edge. And yet it’s not only close, I bet oconnell starts
It would if AOC is better at processing the game, which he is. Doesnt matter how talented you are if the game moves too fast.
Ok .. yes I don’t think plummer is inaccurate on the plays where he sees it and makes a confident throw.. the root of the difference is the speed of the game
dueling Qbs is NEVER a good idea. look at our past history and the constant swapping of Qbs. remember Sindelar and Blough? who starts this week? how long of a leash do we give them?
The best example against it was Michigan when they had Brady and that OTHER guy rotating every other quarter their senior year. . Yes, they both had NFL talent, but as a team, you could see they lost all momentum when they switched Qbs each quarter.
and then there's the stupid concept of bringing in the running QB for those stupid wildcat formations. The opposing team knows the exact play you're going to try when you switch.
The best example against it was Michigan when they had Brady and that OTHER guy rotating every other quarter their senior year. . Yes, they both had NFL talent, but as a team, you could see they lost all momentum when they switched Qbs each quarter.
and then there's the stupid concept of bringing in the running QB for those stupid wildcat formations. The opposing team knows the exact play you're going to try when you switch.
Stanley Jackson and Joe Germaine say, HELLO!
Stanley didn't like it, while it got Ohio State to one helluva place in the national rankings.
I'll admit: I have no idea. I think the coaches should decide what works best for their team.
let the "yeah, but" rationalization begin.
I think there are far more examples of it not working than the one (and potentially few) that did.
It really seems odd that it has been an issue every year, aside of the one where Sindelar was the unquestioned choice. I can't imagine Brohm ever having been on board as a player with the concept.
In Purdue's case, especially last year...and potentially again...some of the issue stems from guys around the QB as much as the actual QB...the OL issues...no great RB...those impact the offense in general, but, directly impact the QB as well.
I think you hit on it in the thread about who should start...I don't really care...I just want to see Purdue win games. If there is not one guy that has separated from the others, that is either concerning in that nobody gives Purdue a better chance, or, it is encouraging in that anybody is capable of doing the job well enough for Purdue to win...and, both could be true...on their own, or, again...with consideration of the OL and RB positions.
The real issue, to me at least, is that Purdue does not have an elite guy at the position, and, for Purdue to have high level success, it needs someone elite. That may not be the case if it had a really good/above average OL and RB, but, it is more so the case absent that/those...and, if it had an elite QB...with a good/above average OL and RB, then Purdue would indeed be poised for some high level success (assuming the defense is not as awful as it was a year ago).
It can work either way and I believe Brohm who sees the qbs every day is in the best position to decide what is best for the team.
Neither of our qbs with experience has shown the durability to last a whole season yet so it is probably smart to get both ready to play.
Neither of our qbs with experience has shown the durability to last a whole season yet so it is probably smart to get both ready to play.
If so, I admittedly was not aware of it...I was pretty sure that he was "the guy". I don't remember him splitting time with anyone, and, if he did...then the impressive numbers that he posted there are far more impressive.
Well, except for the fact that he got it wrong twice already...and, no way to really know if he got it right last year either.
Having both ready to play makes complete sense...both have experience already as well, which is a bonus (more so in that they have significant experience), but, not having one established as a starter is not a case of not having both "ready to play". That said, given the first point where he has struggled in making the right decision in the past, maybe it is better that he has not made a decision. I just know that it generally creates both friction, and, undue stress when you have two guys.
I said it somewhere else...I would be interested if the fact that there are two guys (at least) opposed to one is more the case that both are so good, it does not matter which one plays, or, neither is good enough, so, both have to potentially play. O'Connell has the better track record, and, Brohm had an affinity for him even before he took over following injuries to Sindelar and Plummer...which makes it more puzzling to an extent that he is not the starter, but, I am not sure if that is an indictment of him and/or his limitations, or, Plummer has improved to the point of being deemed as good/capable, or, better.
I don't agree that Brohm prefers a 2 QB system. He has typically settled on a primary starter each season until an injury hits or the offense isn't moving. I do think he struggles, as many coaches do, with making a decision early in camp and tossing the keys to the car to a #1 guy when their is no clear cut #1 guy.
Yeah, but what you are saying makes no sense, except for the part about coaches deciding on what works best for their team.
I am not trying to argue here, but has he gotten it wrong twice?
Sindelar was the clear starter 2 years ago and pretty sure that was correct. Plummer backed him up probably because he had more practice snaps to that point over the walk-on O’Connell. O’Connell finished the year pretty well and when Sindelar opted not to return there was an open competition which O’Connell won. He the played and won 2 of 3 games before being injured for the year.
I don’t see a bad decision in the last two years at least.
Going back to the Blough/Sindelar days I don’t really see how you can say he made bad choices there either. Both were very good qbs and both made their mistakes. Injuries have forced Brohm to make most of the qb changes he had made, not poor play.
He did...he went with Sindelar ahead of Blough...twice...and, both times, Blough ended up ultimately being the better of the two and becoming the starter...and, it cost them a critical game in one case (Northwestern in '18).
So, this situation has existed for 4 of the 5 years that Brohm has been at Purdue...he got it wrong twice...and, we have no real idea if he got it right or wrong a year ago.
Based on that, to your point that "I believe Brohm who sees the qbs every day is in the best position to decide what is best for the team", I don't necessarily agree.
I'm not sure Brohm has necessarily gotten it wrong. The biggest concern I have is him moving back and forth on QBs year over year. No QB has gotten any kind of stability of an entire season. Yes, some of that is injury related. But if he starts Plummer or Burton this year, it'll be 3 years in a row where we've seen a new QB to start the season. At some point, you need to have a QB get old in your system as someone who's played a full season.
Well agree to disagree. I think the best qb play have seen under Brohm was Sindelar leading up to the Bowl win. I don’t agree that Blough was clearly the better qb. Unfortunately due to injuries we will never know the levels Sindelar could have gotten to.
Imo neither Blough or Sindelar was super consistent. Both demonstrated times I would have pulled them as a coach.
*** edit - I went back and looked at the numbers and I will give you a “mistake” in year 2 because Sindelar came out and threw 3 ints which basically reopened the competition. But the way 2017/2018 ended I certainly don’t fault Brohm for entering the next season with Sindelar as the starter. He finished the previous year looking very good while playing on the knee injury.
Last edited:
"I think there are far more examples of it not working..."
You could be right, but I doubt we have a metric for that, nor do we have a metric for what the alternative would have been.
Aside from that detail, here was the original point to which I was responding: "dueling Qbs is NEVER a good idea." (Emphasis mine) That highly questionable statement (no surprise) was just a like a fish in a barrell... a "sitting duck", as it were... a statement void of logic and reason, just begging to be pointed out as intellectually dead.
Well, that response makes no sense.
There are clearly examples of it working, so my reply was spot-on.
In the absence of a clear-cut starting QB, and(!), when the two QBs present substantially different challenges for the defense, it's "un-knowable" whether or not it's a good idea to play 2 QBs.
Yes, agree. Bad joke on my part.
I was getting the 'yeah, but' rationalizations you expected underway for you.
Did anybody watch the Michigan/Purdue game from 1999? I watched the first few series. The announcers kept mentioning that Tom Brady would start the game, but Drew Henson would play also. This was Brady's senior year and he hadn't clearly won the starting job yet. The point being it's not as easy to evaluate qb talent as we would like it to be.
Similar threads
Purdue recruiting Purdue to host 2026 running back
