Dynamic of having 2 Elite QBs In College

Was Leake an elite QB?

Pretty cut and dry to me. If you have a pocket passer and a dual threat then you can possibly mix and match at times. If you have 2 pocket passers or 2 dual threats then you pick one and go with it..

I'm saying thing emphatically, NO.

davefrat said:

Was Leake an elite QB?

Click to expand...

davefrat said:

Was Leake an elite QB?

Click to expand...

Depends on your standard, obviously, but he took over at Florida as a freshman, persevered through Zook's worst year, had 3 OCs in 3 years. His junior year, there was talk of him winning the Heisman. By the time he was done, he had set a school record for career passing yards while sharing time with an unquestionably elite college QB that did win a Heisman. He was Offensive MVP in the championship game in which they wrecked Ohio State 41-14. He went undrafted in 2007, and then jumped around four separate professional football leagues. (I didn't even know there were that many)

The hard part about this is how much do can you account for "convention." It's conventional to only use one QB and only use 2 QBs if they have clearly different skill sets like mobile vs pocket passer. But, because that's conventional we don't really have many great (if any)modern examples of 2 elite pocket passers or 2 elite mobile QBs sharing time. It seems possible that done the right way you could have success with 2 QBs even if they have a similar skill set. Normally, when there are 2 QBs playing with similar skill sets its because neither have proven to be elite so those examples aren't really helpful.

Anyway, all of this to say that I think its probably possible if not likely that there is a way to use a 2 QB system and have it be very effective even if the QBs have similar skill sets. But it would take experimentation and the right situation. I think one of the hardest parts would be getting the team and QBs to fully buy in. Up until recently it was conventional wisdom that a good RB needed 20+ touches in a game so they could "get in a groove" or whatever, but now both the NFL and CFB have realized how silly that really is and use multiple backs. Some teams even use multiple RBs with similar skill sets.

I'm hesitant to say this because it may condemn this topic which is an interesting subject matter but if this becomes another Tua-Jalen topic then I'm moving into that megatopic.

Oh my lanta

Spurrier tried this back in the nineties at Florida. At that time he was a QB "whisperer" and would get top qb recruits. Can't keep all the names straight from then, but I remember when he kept going back and forth between whoever had the hot hand. Does anyone remember who the 2 QBs were and how successful it was. Selma maybe or someone with a better memory than me.

I think it could work very well and really make us even harder to defend, but it would take a lot of buy-in, not only the QB's but the rest of the team as well. Instead of any kind of competition with each other, it would have to be more working together, eliminating any ego driven feelings about it and just working strictly for the team and winning. If the staff could get that type of buy-in I think we we cruise thru the season with not a lot of problems. One other thing I think needs bringing up also is that the game plan would need to call for both QB's to play in each game regardless of whether there are problems that call for the second guy. That could be changed if one is totally ineffective that day, that's doubtful though. I sure would love to see it myself.

The closest we came recently was Zow and Watts. It was not managed very well, but our coaches at the time were not running similar offenses during their time. It can create fan discord worse than politics on the NS board.
I even remember Coach Bryant getting some criticism for his handling of two good QBs against Notre Dame in our Sugar Bowl loss when he swapped Todd and Rutledge during the game.
Thankfully Alabama has a starter that is winning with a backup that is learning.

I can't remember many teams or coaches having much success using two QBs in starting rolls. It's always best to have your starter that plays until the game is won. At that point you can get him out to keep him healthy and give the backup some experience.

The Leake and Tebow situation is an example of two QBs with different skill sets. Leake was the better passer. Had all things stayed the same at UF Cam Newton would have been the very type QB Mullen likes to lead his offense, but neither one stayed.

Personally I feel you need to stay with your starter without question unless he gets hurt or kicked off the team. At that point you just hope the backup can continue to win.

Fortunately you may get a chance to see how Kirby handles his QBs the next few years, as I've been told both are good quarterbacks.

Coach Meyers was able to keep 3 QBs on his team at the Ohio State for at least a year or two. Won a Championship even though his starter got hurt toward the end of the year. He may have some ideas on this subject.

Hopefully the team you pull for sticks together and plays as a team. If you can get top receivers to block downfield it's a good indication they are playing as a team and enjoy winning regardless of who's starting.

My issue with the "dual QB" approach is that, by the nature of the position, the QB is the leader of the offense and frequently of the team. There is really no comparison in any other sport. It is not a position that you can plug and play like RB, WR, or TE. The QB runs and executes everything. The QB has to develop continuity, timing, confidence, and trust with the offense to be really effective. And with limited practice time, this is hard enough to do with one QB. I think the old adage, if you have two QBs you have no QBs, has a lot of truth in it.

The only time I have seen a 2 QB system "work" is when one QB is a veteran and the dominant player with the majority of the playing time, and the other QB is younger and only runs select packages for his skill set. Pretty much 2006 Florida. Otherwise the team has two competing leaders at the same position and the offense has a very hard time being consistent. Bateman and Coker splitting reps was a nightmare of uncertainty.

I'll even say that it is almost always more beneficial to ride one QB through his slumps than constantly switch QBs every time one of them makes a mistake. You are just breeding uncertainty into your team.

IMALOYAL1 said:

The closest we came recently was Zow and Watts.

The Leake and Tebow situation is an example of two QBs with different skill sets. Leake was the better passer.

Click to expand...

Interesting that both of these examples defy the stereotype of the black athlete as the dual threat.

The problem with using the Leak-Tebow reference is that Leak was the clear starter and Tebow was just a fullback that threw. Our situation is more like the Brady-Henson situation in that we are talking about a starter that has gotten his feet wet and a fan favorite talented freshman that has huge upside, but no experience. Our situation is way different than Urban's in 2007.

I kind of wanted to leave this topic alone. So far though it hasn't been a repeat of other threads, and since it did make it to a second page, what the heck...

I think the first thing to look at would be good excuses as to why you'd end up with a two QB situation in the first place.
A: Injuries or suspensions.
I'd argue this is the most excusable two quarterback situation. One is unable to play, you play another, you can end up muddying the water a lot and get all mixed up on the starter/backup dynamic.
B: Two radically different skill-sets.
The one scenario that people seem to universally agree a two-QB system worked was Leak/Tebow. It is important to remember how different they were though. Leak was a veteran QB, good but not great. He needed to run the offense most of the time, but he wasn't so good that removing him was a major liability. Tebow on the other hand was competent enough at QB that he could handle the basics of the position, and was just unstoppable in short yardage situations. That's the key though, it wasn't that Tebow was a bit better at something than Leak, Tebow was remarkably better. Had Tebow been just an average dual-thread QB, a bit better runner, the way he was used wouldn't have worked.
C: Both your QBs suck.
This is a terrible situation, but it happens every now and then. A team has no good options at QB, so they keep running a couple guys out there trying to figure out who sucks the least. I understand and empathize with this situation, but I still think it is better to figure out your guy and work on developing them.
D: You are trying to keep the backup happy.
I felt like this is kind of what Spurrier did with his two QB system. You want to keep your talented QBs around, you don't want them to transfer, you're trying to keep them engaged, so you swap them around. When has this ever really seemed to benefit the team though?

So, I get some reasons you might end up with a two quarterback system. But, here's why I think you need to pick one if at all possible. Quarterback is a fairly unique position. It isn't just how it impacts the individual but the team as a whole. Part of having a starter is providing the entire team with leadership. This is our guy, he's our quarterback, follow his lead. If there is uncertainty or that changes it can make things more complicated. In the past we've even heard of divided locker rooms. So, even if the quarterback themselves are mentally capable of handling the situation, it doesn't mean the rest of the team is. Remember in quarterback battles Saban has mentioned winning the locker room.

It goes beyond that though. A starter and a backup have to prepare themselves differently. A starter has to be in win now mode at all times pretty much. Every choice he makes (during the season) needs to be with focus on the task at hand, winning the next game, and he can't really be distracted from that. Carrying the clipboard can allow for another sort of development. The player can focus on learning the offense, and developing as a quarterback more. In that scenario, both can be focused on the task at hand and the team can be better for it. The starter is focused on winning, the backup is focused on becoming a better quarterback. Once that's all mixed up though, the focus can be thrown off. A backup should always be ready to play, but the immediacy usually isn't there. On the other hand, if you were the starter and now you're the backup, how do you step back into the role of developing as a passer as a primary focus?

That's not the only issue though. Mentally it can become more tasking to manage the game itself. For instance, if I know I'm the starter and I have utter confidence in that, I don't play with any clutter in the back of my mind. If I'm down a few touchdowns, I can look up at the clock and go, ok, I have plenty of time. I got this. I don't play thinking is my next mistake the one that gets me pulled? Do I have to score on this drive to stay in? It introduces doubt that doesn't need to be there. Some quarterbacks can handle this, but the goal isn't to mentally tax them more. On the other hand, a backup who has more uncertainty isn't necessarily helped either. He's supposed to be focused on his task at hand, on playing his role, and while he should be ready to go on, he shouldn't spend the entire game wondering if he's about to get his shot. Likewise, when he does is he not under the same cloud of uncertainty? Does he have the rest of the game or just a couple of drives? Does he get yanked if he makes a mistake? Think about it like this, as fans we usually can tell when the backup is about to come in. This means just about everybody on the field knows it to. A two quarterback system can turn that into a confusing mess.

There's a lot of reasons to pick a guy and then give him every opportunity to succeed. He should know the offense best. He should have all the first team reps. He should be the most prepared. He should be a leader. If disaster strikes, the backup is there. But if disaster doesn't strike? Well, you don't do something that could create one...

Skeeterpop said:

I ask that everyone who participates in it will stay on topic and not take this conversation somewhere we ALL know it should not go.Do not discuss any current Bama players in this thread. .

Click to expand...

Good luck.

Skeeterpop said:

Exactly. And the two dont have to be Elite for this conversation. Can you have a 2 headed QB system and consistently be successful?

Click to expand...

They both don't have to be elite in a thread about managing two elite QBs on the same roster? Ok then.

2-QB Systems just don't work. The Florida 2006 situation is the only time it's been beneficial vs detrimental on a championship caliber team. That wasn't even really a 2-QB system. Tebow was brought in like a FB in the wildcat to pick up 3rd and 4th down conversions. It was a specialist running role.

The last thing you want is the 1997-2001 Fla QB situation. Spurrier didn't so much 'go with the hot hand' but rather he yanked the guy who made some mistakes. He didn't have Danny Wuerrfel out there perfectly executing his Fun-n-Gun anymore.

He had Doug Johnson and Jesse Palmer constantly looking over each other's shoulder. The result was more times than not they both played tight fearing a mistake to get them benched back and forth.

Then when Johnson graduated it was assumed Palmer would be the guy but they also had Rex Grossman coming in and Spurrier kept going back and forth from Palmer to Grossman ....though Rex won the job outright at some point.....I think.

All of it kept the Gators offensive situation chaotic and they lost 2-3 games every year because a guy would throw a Pick and Spurrier would sling his visor and send the backup in......who would throw a Pick and the Visor would be slung and the Starter came back in.....rinse and repeat....no continuity or confidence being maintained.

There must be something in the water in FLA because now CJM is doing the same thing with Franks, Del Rio, and Zaire. You have to choose ONE guy and go with him through up and downs.

In 2009 Greg McElroy had about the worst MONTH of October possible yet he wasn't directly putting the team in danger of losing. CNS stuck with him..... and in November Greg had GREAT games against both LSU and MSU followed by a really solid game against AU (when they somehow shut Mark down) including 'The Drive' that ended with the TD Pass to Upchurch. That was then followed by a Masterpiece performance against FLA in the SECCG where he was the MVP of the game. He broke/cracked a rib(s) in that game btw and still toughed it out to lead the team against Texas.

How well do you think the final months of Nov, Dec, Jan that season would have gone if CNS had yanked Gmac back and forth for Star Jackson or AJ (burning his RS)? My guess is at best we would have finished 10-2 hoping to go to the Citrus Bowl.

Unless your starting QB is causing you to lose games from extremely poor play and catastrophic turnovers in meltdown mode you've gotta stick with him. You can't successfully keep switching guys in and out......it just does not work.