Toggle sidebar

Dynamic of having 2 Elite QBs In College

If I recall correctly Steve Spurrier actually had his QBs rotating in and out in the same series. It was a mess. I don't really recall it ever working in the strictest sense. As has been pointed out, Florida 2006 wasn't truly a dual QB system as Tebow operated as a glorified fullback.
 
CajunCrimson said:
If you have a running QB who can pass

And

A passing QB who can run.... why not?
Click to expand...

Who has that situation exactly?

Ohio State is the only team recently that had something like that with Braxton Miller(Runner who could sort of pass), Cardale Jones(Passer who could sort of run), and JT Barrett(Guy who can sort of run and sort of pass). That only worked out because guys got injured for the next man up to take over. It didn't work by switching them in and out all game for a season.

Alabama has 2 passing QB's that can run and 1 Pro-style passing QB red-shirting.

Of the 2 playing one is the defined starter with an 18-1 record battle tested and gets better every week and the other is the 0-0 back-up who gets better every week through quality playing time, but has yet to face a daunting situation.

Barring injury CNS is smart enough to keep managing the situation that way. Play the Starter....prepare the Back-up. Nothing more or less.

People from coaches to former QB's say repeatedly that if you have 2 starting QB's you really have No starting QB's. It's a unique position that does not lend itself to success with 'Co-Starter' status or equal playing time. It splits the team loyalties and is just a disruptive divisive situation.

When it's tied 17-17 in the 4th qtr in Baton Rouge(or AU, UT, MSU etc. take your pick) with 100K+ drunk corndogs (barners, cowbell clangers, hillbillies etc) shaking the foundation of the ground the HC NEEDS to know who is THE GUY.....and that QB needs to know that HE IS the guy....and the team has to know who is THE GUY to lead them. It's hard for all parties involved to know if you're flip flopping them.

Hypothetically.... you probably want the guy in there who's been there before and could stare down an oncoming train over a 'young-un' with a gunslinger mindset who could be baited into a bad throw with a disguised coverage.

Again just a hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
1 issue I see that is not mentioned, if you have a pocket passer and a duel threat, there is no surprise when you put one in. Pocket passer, hand off or throw, conventional, dual threat read pass option, like so many today. The upside is, if one can kill a certain defense then use him. Most defenses do better against one type or the other. Find their weakness and exploit it, but as mentioned above practice time and rhythm is key to a QB so dueling QB,s usually are not ideal. The team needs to get in a rhythm, and that is hard swapping QB'S
 
RT27 said:
1 issue I see that is not mentioned, if you have a pocket passer and a duel threat, there is no surprise when you put one in. Pocket passer, hand off or throw, conventional, dual threat read pass option, like so many today. The upside is, if one can kill a certain defense then use him. Most defenses do better against one type or the other. Find their weakness and exploit it, but as mentioned above practice time and rhythm is key to a QB so dueling QB,s usually are not ideal. The team needs to get in a rhythm, and that is hard swapping QB'S
Click to expand...

When Lloyd Carr tried that against CNS, what happened? Point is the only time it ever works is if you have an experienced starter and a guy that is a physical runner. The Brady-Henson fiasco is the reason why you dont do it with two pure throwers, or an inexperienced thrower. Yeah Tua looks great now, but what if we try that crap that Carr did against a team like LSU. You either go with experience or you take your lumps with a freshman, you dont do both.
 
The problem with 2 QB systems is rhythm. Other than bringing in a QB to run a wildcat type of play, it breaks the flow of the game. And when your starter can already do that, why would you risk breaking the rhythm of the game?

QB and O-line require continuity for optimal performance. Not saying that it can never work, but a team as strong as Alabama wouldn't risk it.
 
Others have covered many issues related to the uncertainly for the QBs and players. Also, at a crunch time moment (e.g., 2014 AU, 2016 OM) it provides the coach with a more certain path until it becomes painfully obvious a change might help.

Another issue is the fanbase. It does not help to have the fanbase bickering over who the starter should be. And the fanbase does affect the program, as CNS has made clear, it is part of the program. Message boards are public, they are not like talk at the water cooler, living room, etc. I might say anything on those platforms, but not on message boards which are monitored by the media, players, player's parents, yes, and even coaching staffs. The latter obviously not looking for advice :), but for the temperature of the fanbase. When the media refers to the fans saying this or that, I would guess they are primarily referring to message boards. Local radio programs monitor these boards to see what is of greatest interest to their audience.
 
I think it was Lou Holtz that said, "If you have two quarterbacks, you don't have one."

I do think that would apply to a situation where both are not that great and/or can't separate from each other. It's probably a situation where winning isn't happening and the situation is clear as mud.

Without mentioning any names, our situation isn't at all like that. We have a clear #1 and a pretty dynamic #2 the HC is training for later. There's clear separation in terms of who is the leader and undisputed winner, but his backup is so good he'd probably start at over half the schools in our conference, maybe more.
 
One thing I suppose it would be fair to add, is saying stick with the starter isn't one and the same as saying that guy has to be the starter for his entire collegiate career. For one, it is possible for a quarterback to have a complete meltdown and need to be replaced. From what I've seen though, sometimes coaches have made things worse by yanking someone and then ending up with an even messier situation. So you don't do this unless you really have to.

The other is that there's really nothing wrong with a pre-season quarterback battle. Just because you had the job last year doesn't mean you just have to show up. If someone else has earned their shot, by all means give it to them. It just becomes dangerous to let that go too far into the regular season. It isn't and shouldn't be easy to unseat the incumbent though.
 
KrAzY3 said:
One thing I suppose it would be fair to add, is saying stick with the starter isn't one and the same as saying that guy has to be the starter for his entire collegiate career. For one, it is possible for a quarterback to have a complete meltdown and need to be replaced. From what I've seen though, sometimes coaches have made things worse by yanking someone and then ending up with an even messier situation. So you don't do this unless you really have to.

The other is that there's really nothing wrong with a pre-season quarterback battle. Just because you had the job last year doesn't mean you just have to show up. If someone else has earned their shot, by all means give it to them. It just becomes dangerous to let that go too far into the regular season. It isn't and shouldn't be easy to unseat the incumbent though.
Click to expand...
This is interesting to me. I often wonder if coaches give incumbent QBs too much cushion simply because they are the incumbent. I understand the reasoning and agree with Krazy here that it should not be easy to unseat an incumbent but I still wonder if coaches take that too far.
 
I would not think so, coaches lose games they lose jobs. You would be crazy to play anyone but the best one.
 
RT27 said:
I would not think so, coaches lose games they lose jobs. You would be crazy to play anyone but the best one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. Have you seen some of the games lost by certain SEC coaches this year and yet they are still employed?
 
I think 2 QB systems fail because they have to sub the QBs in and out. When you have a runner and a pocket passer, I don't think you really gain an advantage outside of a couple trick plays every once in a while when the pocket QB runs or the running QB throws deep and you mostly cause headaches for yourself and your O-linemen who have to get used to a different cadence and everything.

What I think would be interesting is if you had a player skilled enough to lineup at slot receiver or RB and be moderately effective there. Otherwise once the pocket QB goes off you're going to see an extra lineman or LB on the opposing defense. If you could break the huddle with both and legitimately use all 11 players (not like the QB lining up at WR when the wildcat was in vogue) you would terrify defensive coordinators. All of this said, I can't think of a talent that you would legitimately be able to do that with outside of Lamar Jackson, and I would question any strategy that puts the ball in his hands less.
 
bamaslaw said:
I think 2 QB systems fail because they have to sub the QBs in and out. When you have a runner and a pocket passer, I don't think you really gain an advantage outside of a couple trick plays every once in a while when the pocket QB runs or the running QB throws deep and you mostly cause headaches for yourself and your O-linemen who have to get used to a different cadence and everything.

What I think would be interesting is if you had a player skilled enough to lineup at slot receiver or RB and be moderately effective there. Otherwise once the pocket QB goes off you're going to see an extra lineman or LB on the opposing defense. If you could break the huddle with both and legitimately use all 11 players (not like the QB lining up at WR when the wildcat was in vogue) you would terrify defensive coordinators. All of this said, I can't think of a talent that you would legitimately be able to do that with outside of Lamar Jackson, and I would question any strategy that puts the ball in his hands less.
Click to expand...

Ardarius Stewart (a WR who played QB) and Blake Sims (a QB who played RB) could have done a lot of confusing things.
 
cbi1972 said:
Ardarius Stewart (a WR who played QB) and Blake Sims (a QB who played RB) could have done a lot of confusing things.
Click to expand...
The problem is you might not just be confusing the other team. Those guys practiced with the team and both obviously practiced as quarterback. The issue is risk/reward. In Blake's circumstance, he could have done a two QB system with AJ, but take the ball out of AJ's hands. One of the best college QBs, that's kind of a big deal. At the time mind you I was suggesting Blake do some wildcat or what ever, but really Blake was more an elusive runner anyway. Stewart? Not polished enough as a QB, big risk there to. It reminds me of Maze. If we're talking Blake and Stewart at the same time, a trick play here or there may be. Same with Hurts and Stewart. We know who the real QB was in both those situations.

It can work. But Maze threw one TD and one INT in two passes. I do think though that kind of stark contrast in skill sets is the only reasonable situation you go with two QBs though. It can't be oh this guy can throw this route better. There's also I think kind of a point you blur the line between just trick plays and playing two quarterbacks though. I mean David Palmer could do a lot of interesting things to, but do you sit a healthy Barker to let him do that? It's just hard to justify any two QB system and even the trick plays can be disastrous.
 
Last edited:
KrAzY3 said:
The problem is you might not just be confusing the other team. Those guys practiced with the team and both obviously practiced as quarterback. The issue is risk/reward. In Blake's circumstance, he could have done a two QB system with AJ, but take the ball out of AJ's hands. One of the best college QBs, that's kind of a big deal. At the time mind you I was suggesting Blake do some wildcat or what ever, but really Blake was more an elusive runner anyway. Stewart? Not polished enough as a QB, big risk there to. It reminds me of Maze. If we're talking Blake and Stewart at the same time, a trick play here or there may be. Same with Hurts and Stewart. We know who the real QB was in both those situations.

It can work. But Maze threw one TD and one INT in two passes. I do think though that kind of stark contrast in skill sets is the only reasonable situation you go with two QBs though. It can't be oh this guy can throw this route better. There's also I think kind of a point you blur the line between just trick plays and playing two quarterbacks though. I mean David Palmer could do a lot of interesting things to, but do you sit a healthy Barker to let him do that? It's just hard to justify any two QB system and even the trick plays can be disastrous.
Click to expand...

I still say Maze was robbed. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back