Give The Backup QB Meaningful Snaps In Most Games?

[GTNavyNuke]

I've been a long time proponent of playing two QBs during the course of a game and not just mop up duty. Now CPJ is putting a lot of praise on both. Here are some pros and cons I did a few months ago after Vad announced he was leaving and I was fuming about JT not being developed more last year. #3 and #6 under the pros below are probably why I like playing two QBs the most. Any other thoughts?

"Ok, here are what I can think of as the pros and cons of the following concept. When you have two QBs who are close in talent, it should be the practice to play the starter for the first two or three series and then have the backup play for a couple of series. Then stay with the QB doing the best.

Cons

1. Could mean less likelihood of winning the game that day. The increased amount of risk of losing that day would depend on the talent difference between QBs. The backup needs to have clear starting potential. Between JN and Jaybo, I’d never try to develop Jaybo. But for Vad versus TW or JT versus Vad, I would definitely play the backup more. This year, JT versus Byerly will be very close again if JT doesn’t start passing a lot better.

2. Lessens the continuity for the offense to get into a rhythm.

3. Would mean less practice time for the starter.

4. It’s not conventional wisdom. Losses would be blamed on non-conventional practices to help preserve the conventional wisdom. CPJ dabbled in this area this year, but didn’t fully commit. With Vad bolting, it has to be a regret that he didn’t develop JT more. But hind sight is 20/20.

Pros

1. Competition between players is good – makes both players better.

2. Develops the backup more for the likely injuries (or quitting) by the starter. Improves depth and robustness of the team for future games.

3. QBs play better against some teams than others. QBs have good days and bad days. This helps find the right QB for that day.

4. In our rushing offense there are many more hits on our QB. While this doesn’t often end in injury which prevents play, it does result in degradation of play and decision making by the QB. Alternating QBs results in the damage being spread out more.

5. Most other positions have a substitution, especially more physical contact ones like linemen and running backs.

6. The D has to prepare for more looks.

7. Allows the QB not playing to watch from the sideline and see what the D is doing better (CPJ has used this as a reason).

8. It gives us something to talk about."
http://gtswarm.com/community/threads/sewak.1825/page-5#post-33869

 

[wingsrlevel]

I personally think the back up QB gets his snaps late in a game when the outcome isn't in jeopardy one way or the other. You need to have continuaty with the QB/OL and RB's.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I thought Vad got to play a surprising amount during Tevin Washington's last season. I was frankly surprised that Tevin took it so well. The two complimented each other well and, in the UNC game in particular, having the two styles seemed to really confuse the defense and make the offense more productive. The irony is that it did not seem to prepare Lee at all for the following season but he may have been a special case when it comes to rule 2 for the Cons.

This year I could see both quarterbacks playing, because they could both be good, as long as the offense is hitting on all cylinders. If there are any timing issues at all or problems with the mesh, or reading the defense or any problems with motion, then we need to stick with one quarterback and one center until we get all the other bugs worked out in the offense.

 

[Ggee87]

I think its a good idea. Give the starter every chance to get his mojo going. If the drives are stalling and hes making incorrect reads, Go to the backup. Then judge at halftime who preformed better and go with that guy after half. If this isnt a viable option for CPJ. I say we use TB situationally(3rd/4th and short). I have yet to see alot of throws out of JT, But the little ive seen of TB, He has alot of touch on his passes. I do not envy CPJs position at this point. Maybe 1 or the other will seperate themselves in camp or early in the season to make the decision easier. Its definitely not a bad problem to have.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Gotta go with #1 the vast majority of snaps IMO. #2 is for spelling #1 due to injury or penalty....or possibly fatigue if #2 is pretty darn good.

 

[iceeater1969]

Gotta go with #1 the vast majority of snaps IMO. #2 is for spelling #1 due to injury or penalty....or possibly fatigue if #2 is pretty darn good.

Got to slightly disagree. Mostly a long term verses short term thing.
Short term we need to win!
Long term we need the backups up to speed by second half of year.
Surely we can have several plays that they practice the week before that they can run in the first and third quarters.
This year we should do this in spades for games 1,2,3 . Just barely winning these games with lots of experience for backups will be valuable in games at end of year where injuries could wreck us. At end of year the substitutions must be made as you suggest.

 

[JazzyD95]

It's all about confidence, you can't take that away from a starter.

 

[thwgjacket]

If the back-up is younger than the starter and brings something different to the table I would give it a "maybe." As is, JT is our starter and younger than the back-up. No real reason to develop TB for the future unless we expect JT to get hurt. As a rule I don't think you expect a guy to get hurt. You plan for it but you don't sacrifice a win only on the expectation that the starter will get hurt sometime in the future.

 

[RyanS12]

I would like to see JT in the backfield while TB is at QB. Kind of a Devin Gardner/Denard Robinson look that Michigan ran a few times under Rich Rod.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

...... As a rule I don't think you expect a guy to get hurt. You plan for it but you don't sacrifice a win only on the expectation that the starter will get hurt sometime in the future.

I think that every year we can point to QB injuries or just plan body fatigue (see pro #4). Going into the fourth quarter TW would just be slower even though he wasn't injured enough to pull. Vad was the same way - his high point was the UNC game where he played an awful lot and was dog tired at the end. I thought he would take a knee in the huddle. The problem with Vad was that after that he got something it seems in his mind that limited him.

This isn't about sacrificing a win but improving overall performance. If the starter's psyche is too weak to handle the competition, then he'll probably be too weak psychologically late in the game. Just like it makes sense for a DL or OL to take a break to get him rested for a later series where he will then be more effective (accepted football coaching strategy), it seems to be the right thing for QBs. Especially if rotation is an announced strategy and not a punishment for "bad" performance.

Are we seeing more substituting of QBs in the NFL? (I don't watch a lot of variety of NFL games.)

For coaches on this forum, is this confidence thing more important for HS or younger kids? They would seem to need to be more carefully developed since they are developing more. So it probably does apply more to some D1 CFB QBs than others.

 

[texasjacket]

There is reason one is the backup and one is the starter. If the backup is truly that good, he should be able to earn that spot during practice/preseason.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

There is reason one is the backup and one is the starter. If the backup is truly that good, he should be able to earn that spot during practice/preseason.

Agree.

Do you think a QBs effectiveness increases or decreases during a game? If you think a QBs effectiveness increases, a back up should stay a backup. If you think it decreases, there is a point at which the backup will be better.

{I think it depends on the QB, for the vast majority, I "think" but can't prove they become less effective as the game goes on. Sometimes they get on a roll, but why not see who has the hot hand?}

 

[Longestday]

The only reason to play Byerly, as a true backup, is short situation. He has less time than JT left at Tech.

Byerly could come into play if the DL is dominating the OL. This is very important key point!

JT is going to kill/smash/destroy when the OL is dominating and when teams that don't defend the option well. Byerly will be very useful if the option is well defended and or OL not performing.

I am just not sure how CPJ handles the political side of Byerly as starter. So much was promised to JT, the team politics, and the media. JT will get a shot in game time to prove he is the man. Byerly will only start if he proves consistently ability to score over JT in games.

I just hope Byerly and JT both get reps in the first 3 games.

 

[iceeater1969]

There is reason one is the backup and one is the starter. If the backup is truly that good, he should be able to earn that spot during practice/preseason.

I and gtnavynuke saying let backup qb play some. Let's break it down to first three games
Early each of the 3 cupcake games why not have a couple series where we sub 5-6 guys with special plays that they practiced? At start of second half put in starters. In fourth quarter put in subs - but- only run base plays - not Rossler dassle plays. Let them run simple plays against defense that knows they are coming..

In my company we needed to find out what the new employees can do in critical situations not just routine work.
The sooner you spot a star performer the better. Also you have to let them know that early in career they will be given a chance to see what they need to make them better. This helped in recruiting other good employees.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

There are pros and cons, but in my view, the cons outweigh the pros.

In your analysis, #2 in the cons section is HUGE... lack of continuity. Our offense, especially our offense, requires the utmost precision in timing, execution and communication (both verbal and nonverbal). None of that is possible without continuity and familiarity. You sacrifice these things and the offense breaks down.

You also risk one or both never developing/realizing their full potential or gaining confidence due to being yanked every time they screw up (you learn the best by working through you mistakes, btw) and a locker room nightmare rift among the team as to who to follow/support. It's a huge can of worms.

Most of all, I believe you never sacrifice best chance to win today for a potential better chance to win tomorrow. If playing two guys gave us, hands down, the best chance to win on any given day, then, by all means, DO IT.

 

[AE 87]

My 2 cents: Fatigue is likely a greater issue for running qbs. Being able to give the starter a breather now and again make sense when you have a reliable backup.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

In the 60s Dodd used more than one quarterback frequently. I think he always thought of one as the starter. The other would be put in situationally, such as putting in Good for King on a particular play because Good ran a better option and Kind was a better passer. But Dodd, IIRC, thought of one quarterback as the captain of his offense.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The only reason to play Byerly, as a true backup, is short situation. He has less time than JT left at Tech.

Byerly could come into play if the DL is dominating the OL. This is very important key point!

JT is going to kill/smash/destroy when the OL is dominating and when teams that don't defend the option well. Byerly will be very useful if the option is well defended and or OL not performing.

I am just not sure how CPJ handles the political side of Byerly as starter. So much was promised to JT, the team politics, and the media. JT will get a shot in game time to prove he is the man. Byerly will only start if he proves consistently ability to score over JT in games.

I just hope Byerly and JT both get reps in the first 3 games.

I like the idea of giving both lots of reps in the first 3 games. I am not worried about the political side with JT. He was not promised to be "given the job," he was promised that he would have a chance to compete for the job, as opposed to just sticking him on defense.

 

[danny daniel]

It's all about confidence, you can't take that away from a starter.

I can agree or disagree depending how the coach handles the substitution. If coach jerks the starter when a mistake is made the confidence can be erroded. If the QB2 playing time is not earned, same thing. However if both QBs really earn playing time and the plan going into the game is to play both QBs, this could be a + situation and no confidence is lost. It is all about earning the playing time and how the coach handles it.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I can agree or disagree depending how the coach handles the substitution. If coach jerks the starter when a mistake is made the confidence can be erroded. If the QB2 playing time is not earned, same thing. However if both QBs really earn playing time and the plan going into the game is to play both QBs, this could be a + situation and no confidence is lost. It is all about earning the playing time and how the coach handles it.

Agree with much of this, but.....

Having a preset plan to play a guy for x amount of series then insert guy 2 is a slippery slope. What if guy 1 is hot as fire, do you yank him because of your plan? If you do, what does that say to your team? What if guy 2 sucks and you lose, what effect does that have on your team and qb's? If you don't, what does that say to guy 2 and what does that do to his psyche?