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.
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.