Sewak

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree, that the better QB should get the majority of the snaps. Like 60/40 or 65/35, not 90/10 with the 10 being in mop up or hopeless situations.

There is no perfect solution, only the least worst which provides for the best long range outcome. In 2012, it would have been better to play Vad more since TW was leaving. In 2013, it would have been better to play JT more since Vad left. I have no idea about 2014 and 2015 except that they won't go according to script.

I disagree. You play whomever gives you the best chance to win, period. It's hard enough to win games as it is. Having a revolving door at your most critical position is a recipe for disaster, especially if one guy hasn't earned it yet. That said, if there is negligible drop off between the two, I'd say rotate and stick with the hot hand.

Another good use of the backup is when the starter completely falls apart on the field and loses confidence. But this just goes back to using the guy that gives you the best chance to win.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I disagree. You play whomever gives you the best chance to win, period. It's hard enough to win games as it is. Having a revolving door at your most critical position is a recipe for disaster, especially if one guy hasn't earned it yet. That said, if there is negligible drop off between the two, I'd say rotate and stick with the hot hand.

Another good use of the backup is when the starter completely falls apart on the field and loses confidence. But this just goes back to using the guy that gives you the best chance to win.

DCS, we've been over this before on GTSportsTalk and I understand what you are saying, and I think you understand me. For the sake of everyone else, I think it comes down to taking the course which will win the most games in the long term, no just that day. Again, I wish we had played Vad more two years ago and JT last year.

I just went back and looked and it appears that Vad played about 85% of the time. I don't know how much since I only know their rushes and passes, not their pitches (reverse passes) or hand offs. Vad ran 182 times and passed 180 times (didn't realize that much) while JT ran 33 times and passed 17. Again, a lot of the time JT was in was junk time with the second or third string. Not the best way to develop talent for the long term.

JT was a lot better rushing with 7.09 ypc versus 2.82 for Vad, but again Vad faced better defenses. Vad was a better passer (scary) with a rating of 128 versus JT's 114. So are they close enough in talent that JT should have played more?

 

[AE 87]

fwiw, I don't know of any team that risks losing a game to get their back-up QB time on the field. It could be that Nuke has a winning strategy that no major coach has considered

 

[91Wreck]

fwiw, I don't know of any team that risks losing a game to get their back-up QB time on the field. It could be that Nuke has a winning strategy that no major coach has considered

That is a fair point. I can't think of one major college football team that does that. And there is the old adage that if you have two quarterbacks, you don't have one. But Johnson tends to do things differently than other major football coaches. Maybe this is a strategy that he needs to adopt.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

fwiw, I don't know of any team that risks losing a game to get their back-up QB time on the field. It could be that Nuke has a winning strategy that no major coach has considered

LOL. There are a lot of coaches who play more than one QB, especially in the NFL where we are getting more situational QBs. You would play the starter for two or three series and then the back up for two or three series. Stay with the one who is doing best that day. One of the big problems with TW and Vad are that they got tired and really beat up from the running game. Keeping them fresher helps a lot, not only for that game but later games.

Come to think of it, CPJ did start Vad for several series and then put JT in for two or three series in several games this year, so maybe there is hope.

I guess I'll have to stay away from controversial ideas - kind of like how with a running game like ours we should go for 2 points every time (except near game end) - works in video games real well when the odds of converting are around 60-65%.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

LOL. There are a lot of coaches who play more than one QB, especially in the NFL where we are getting more situational QBs. You would play the starter for two or three series and then the back up for two or three series. Stay with the one who is doing best that day. One of the big problems with TW and Vad are that they got tired and really beat up from the running game. Keeping them fresher helps a lot, not only for that game but later games.

Come to think of it, CPJ did start Vad for several series and then put JT in for two or three series in several games this year, so maybe there is hope.

I guess I'll have to stay away from controversial ideas - kind of like how with a running game like ours we should go for 2 points every time (except near game end) - works in video games real well when the odds of converting are around 60-65%.

I'm fine with using two qb's if it is strategic in winning the game and not just trying to give the back up experience for the future. Those are two completely different scenarios.

 

[AE 87]

LOL. There are a lot of coaches who play more than one QB, especially in the NFL where we are getting more situational QBs. You would play the starter for two or three series and then the back up for two or three series. Stay with the one who is doing best that day. One of the big problems with TW and Vad are that they got tired and really beat up from the running game. Keeping them fresher helps a lot, not only for that game but later games.

Come to think of it, CPJ did start Vad for several series and then put JT in for two or three series in several games this year, so maybe there is hope.

I guess I'll have to stay away from controversial ideas - kind of like how with a running game like ours we should go for 2 points every time (except near game end) - works in video games real well when the odds of converting are around 60-65%.

Again, fwiw, I'm actually philosophically in favor of playing more than one QB if it helps us win. However, it seems you may have missed my point regarding risking a loss. You argued in favor of potentially winning more games long term rather than focusing on just that day. I disagreed with that. I think a team should always try to win the game they are playing not the next game or series of games. Your reference to the use of situational quarterbacks doesn't support the suggestion that you just need to get the back-up playing time. Teams use multiple qbs and situational qbs to try and win the game they're playing, imo.

 

[stylee]

Stylee - I think the correct read would be to give to the B back. The unblocked end ignored the B back and charged the QB.

Once he kept (mis-read), I would speculate that CPJ would not be happy with that pitch. Once the QB is in the defenders hands, the play is over. Protect the dang ball.

In spite of the good result, that play is an example of forcing something that isn't there (wrong read + a forced pitch on the same play)...


/

I think the thing to do is to quick pitch it to the AB; OLB fires, so there's no outside man

 

[Fatmike91]

I think the thing to do is to quick pitch it to the AB; OLB fires, so there's no outside man

Fair enough. I trust your read (more than mine). My key point was to pitch when in the grasp is a mistake.


/

 

[Mack]

fwiw, I don't know of any team that risks losing a game to get their back-up QB time on the field. It could be that Nuke has a winning strategy that no major coach has considered

I agree but when you have blowouts and we have had a few time to get the second guy in there.I agree to play the hot hand for the win but in a blow out lets get the guys off the bench and get some expierence. Hey Nuke aint no dummy and he may have the key.

 

[CornerBlitz]

What facts do we have that support saying Sewak isn't doing his job of coaching up the OL?

We can't pass block?
Against good teams, the OL gets blown up and we can't make the edge?

I really don't know how much is a talent issue and how much is coaching. For pass blocking, I'd think it's coaching and lack of practice while the other team faces OLs that predominantly pass block. For the run game, we do well against average or lousy teams. It's just when the talent on the other side is overwhelming, that our mediocre talent doesn't overcome their talent.

Unfortunately, this is true. We had some boys playing men at times last year. I have asked this before, but why all the hate on Sewak? Does anyone hear have some information that does not just rely on newspaper observations? I am asking, because I don't know.

 

[Mack]

Unfortunately, this is true. We had some boys playing men at times last year. I have asked this before, but why all the hate on Sewak? Does anyone hear have some information that does not just rely on newspaper observations? I am asking, because I don't know.

Sewak will catch heat this year since last year it was the DC.He has been offensive line coach several times in his career and of course when we win nobody says much but when we lose this year ........he is in barrel.I still think Corner has it right.We do well vs the little lads but when the big uns come into the stadium we are over matched in size and strength.I doubt PJ will make a chance since both of them have been close for years.Sewak has a ring or two from his days at Southern so he is probably pretty safe.

 

[AE 87]

I agree but when you have blowouts and we have had a few time to get the second guy in there.I agree to play the hot hand for the win but in a blow out lets get the guys off the bench and get some expierence. Hey Nuke aint no dummy and he may have the key.

Mack, the content of your post agrees with me not nuke. Or, I agree with you and understood Nuke to be saying we should play the backup more with the hope of a great future season even if that means not making a bowl game this season.

 

[Squints]

LOL. There are a lot of coaches who play more than one QB, especially in the NFL where we are getting more situational QBs.

What? Where do you see that?

EDIT: Should clarify talking about in the NFL here.

 

[Mack]

Mack, the content of your post agrees with me not nuke. Or, I agree with you and understood Nuke to be saying we should play the backup more with the hope of a great future season even if that means not making a bowl game this season.

I thought that I was seconding the motion on your response. I see too many times a school has new qb for coming year with little experience..of course nobody wants to lose to prove a point but when you are in the lead or even if you are in a big game there are times you can use a backup to get some experience.I still see JN coming into the game and everybody in the world knew he was going to run the football.He would run the ball and then run off the field.....not good in my opinion.Sorry for confusion sometimes I jump the gun.......

 

[Boomergump]

I guess I'll have to stay away from controversial ideas - kind of like how with a running game like ours we should go for 2 points every time (except near game end) - works in video games real well when the odds of converting are around 60-65%.

I have often wondered with our offense and effectiveness near the goal line why we don't do this very thing. In my mind, if you are better than 50%, why not make it what you do in a routine sense? Obviously, near the end of games, the situation would dictate what you do. It is an interesting question. Why nobody does this?

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I have often wondered with our offense and effectiveness near the goal line why we don't do this very thing. In my mind, if you are better than 50%, why not make it what you do in a routine sense? Obviously, near the end of games, the situation would dictate what you do. It is an interesting question. Why nobody does this?

The people who did moneyball for baseball, along with others, have looked at "practices" in the NFL and CFB. Coaches in the NFL supposedly have their sheets of when to go for it on fourth down and when to go for 2. Why the practice isn't changing faster I don't know. The people doing statistics think that this is one area which will change once someone is successful at it. It will certainly make the game a lot more exciting to watch.

I think the reason it isn't done is the risk associated with not following convention. People have a very strong herding mentality and the losses associated with not following conventional wisdom are remembered and punished than those following conventional wisdom.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

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.

 

[Mack]

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.

Good Point my friend.......my point is when a coach knows or should know his starter is leaving due to graduation or even injuries why not work you backup in the mix so he can play some...I know you play the hot hand to win but I would like to see playing time for the backup so when he gets his chance he has some idea about how the game is really played.I go back to Chan and Reggie as big example and the ridiculous (my opinion only) idea of letting Nesbitt come in a game and run from the spread........Of course when you cant run you find the qb that can throw and if you cant throw find a runner but coaches seem today to be reluctant to use backups.....

 

[stylee]

Fair enough. I trust your read (more than mine). My key point was to pitch when in the grasp is a mistake.


/

Very true. Never ever pitch when in danger