How long do we go with 3 QB's? | The Boneyard

How long do we go with 3 QB's?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,827
Reaction Score
2,219
Just saw the article that all 3 qbs will prep to play this week. Although I expected a starter to be named by opening day, I almost undertood the desire to see all 3 play in a real game....against a AA school, not a big deal....

But now we are in week 3 aNd I really don't get it. With the limited time the NCAA gives u to practice, how do you get all 3 kids enough prep time. If the old saying of having 2qbs means you have no qb, what doeshaving 3 qbs say???

I must say that I am surprised by PPs inability to name a starter.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
32,984
Reaction Score
28,825
Just saw the article that all 3 qbs will prep to play this week. Although I expected a starter to be named by opening day, I almost undertood the desire to see all 3 play in a real game....against a AA school, not a big deal....

But now we are in week 3 aNd I really don't get it. With the limited time the NCAA gives u to practice, how do you get all 3 kids enough prep time. If the old saying of having 2qbs means you have no qb, what doeshaving 3 qbs say???

I must say that I am surprised by PPs inability to name a starter.
If none of them separates himself from the others, what do you do? Let Jeff Jacobs run the team?
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,798
Reaction Score
2,459
We will always have 2 QBs - the staff has been pretty clear that Scott M will get his package. The question is whether Nebrich will continue to push JM. I personally think it would be a mistake to bench JM after last week's debacle, as I would worry it'd shatter his confidence forever. Even if the staff went with Mike, we may need JM at some point, and we don't need a 2010 Zach, who clearly lacked confidence to chuck it the way he did in 09 and played not to lose. It's a long year. I remain steadfast that the staff wants one of the pups to step up and take the job. They want a dual threat QB, not a dropback passer. Until that day comes, we may need to be prepared to see 3.

I also think the staff is looking at this OOC portion of the schedule as preseason. Why play multiple QBs, why swap in linemen, why sit Shoemate in a tight game when he is "92%" healthy? I think the staff is focused on getting this team ready for the BE slate, and will put up w/some growing pains until then. Just one man's opinion.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,093
Reaction Score
595
I agree with uconnfan68, until one guy steps up and rips the job away from the other two, not too sure if PP has much choice. Unfortunately.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,041
Reaction Score
13,919
We will always have 2 QBs - the staff has been pretty clear that Scott M will get his package. The question is whether Nebrich will continue to push JM. I personally think it would be a mistake to bench JM after last week's debacle, as I would worry it'd shatter his confidence forever. Even if the staff went with Mike, we may need JM at some point, and we don't need a 2010 Zach, who clearly lacked confidence to chuck it the way he did in 09 and played not to lose. It's a long year. I remain steadfast that the staff wants one of the pups to step up and take the job. They want a dual threat QB, not a dropback passer. Until that day comes, we may need to be prepared to see 3.

I also think the staff is looking at this OOC portion of the schedule as preseason. Why play multiple QBs, why swap in linemen, why sit Shoemate in a tight game when he is "92%" healthy? I think the staff is focused on getting this team ready for the BE slate, and will put up w/some growing pains until then. Just one man's opinion.

I think this is one of the better theories I have seen. If they can get things settled in early going and work out the kinks, that could be beneficial. While losing OOC isn't good, you can still win a Big East title and make a BCS game if you win the conference. I like it, now I can relax a little :)
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,827
Reaction Score
2,219
My concern with going with 3 QB's is the effect it has on getting ready for the game. The ncaa only allows 20 hrs (or less i believe) of practice time per week..how do you get any qb ready with 6 hrs of practice??

the nfl gives the number 1 guy 90% of the snaps in practice....and they have no time restrictions, yet we can do it in 6 hrs per player? the view that PP is playing for the BE and doesn't care much about OOC is the only plausible explanation, but have to go 6-2 in conf to be bowl eligible is a bit scary.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
20,237
Reaction Score
44,050
We will always have 2 QBs - the staff has been pretty clear that Scott M will get his package. The question is whether Nebrich will continue to push JM. I personally think it would be a mistake to bench JM after last week's debacle, as I would worry it'd shatter his confidence forever. Even if the staff went with Mike, we may need JM at some point, and we don't need a 2010 Zach, who clearly lacked confidence to chuck it the way he did in 09 and played not to lose. It's a long year. I remain steadfast that the staff wants one of the pups to step up and take the job. They want a dual threat QB, not a dropback passer. Until that day comes, we may need to be prepared to see 3.

I also think the staff is looking at this OOC portion of the schedule as preseason. Why play multiple QBs, why swap in linemen, why sit Shoemate in a tight game when he is "92%" healthy? I think the staff is focused on getting this team ready for the BE slate, and will put up w/some growing pains until then. Just one man's opinion.

I agree with all of this with one exception. "We don't need a 2010 Zach ...." Yes, in fact, at the moment it appears like we very much do.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,093
Reaction Score
595
Now can we all finally agree winning ugly (Frazer and Lorenzon) is always better than not winning??
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
2,046
Reaction Score
947
we go with 3 until we figure out who's the best. what else can you do? we really ought to beat Buffalo and WMich regardless, and winning 3 games in this big east shouldn't be tough at all if we can get even subpar-decent play out of our QB to get us bowl eligible. if we have a clear idea of whose better it should save us from having to go through this whole thing again next year.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,798
Reaction Score
2,459
Sorry to change gears, buit those of you chalking up a win over WMU might want to take another look at that team. They are a decent MAC team and will not roll over just b/c UConn showed up, this is a legit chance for them to knock off a BCS team. They played Mich tough and will challenge Illinois. Besides, with our O, I'm not sure we should be chalking up any wins.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,844
Reaction Score
11,453
Just saw the article that all 3 qbs will prep to play this week. Although I expected a starter to be named by opening day, I almost undertood the desire to see all 3 play in a real game....against a AA school, not a big deal....

But now we are in week 3 aNd I really don't get it. With the limited time the NCAA gives u to practice, how do you get all 3 kids enough prep time. If the old saying of having 2qbs means you have no qb, what doeshaving 3 qbs say???

I must say that I am surprised by PPs inability to name a starter.

I've had enough of football philosophy 101, and was going to write something very similar about the QB's, but you beat me to it.

I have no idea what's going on. I've looked at everything I can look at from TV broadcast and internet from game 1 and game 2, as well as my interpretation of things happening live.

What we've been told is that production on the field is the most important thing, and that production is ultimately measured by the ability to lead that offensve unit down the field and into the endzone. Can the QB block everybody, and carry the ball, and throw it and catch it? Absolutely not, but they do need to be the commander in charge of it all happening.

Anyway - I've looked, and what I see are three QB's, and only one of them has actually taken that ball, and offensive unit to the promised land, and only two of them have done what the QB needs to do - position specific - and that is throw it through the air such that the ball can be caught and cross that goal line. Let me 'splain.

McCummings, obviously - on a run option play fake. Not going to happen a lot, but is effective when you do catch the defense out of position in that type of offense. And Nebrich, in his only 3 down series against Vandy, and in one of his series against Fordham. Against Fordham, he threw deep go route down the sideline on a decent read, but the play got broken up. He saw an opportunity and took it. Against Vandy, he made a great read, had a wide open receiver again way downfield, and overthrew him, hit him in stride and that receiver has one man to beat to the pilon. I bet that throw has kept the kid up at night this week. He's got a strong arm, nothing left weak in his throws through two games. I just haven't seen either play ability that those guys have shown from Johnny Mac and he's had a lot more opportunity.

Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong, or I missed something. Through two games, I don't recall a single play where a Johnny Mac pass had any significant chance of resulting in a score downfield, putting the ball in the endzone. Without full field views, you can't be sure what the other receivers are doing, and what the coverages look like, but I don't see any legitimate chances to score TD's through the air on throws he's made through two games.

I don't believe that the chances aren't there on the field, because they're always there, as long as the routes are built into the play calls, and the freshman found one in a single 3 down sequence against a run heavy defensive formation against Vandy.

I love McEntee's story, I have a special place in my heart for walk ons, and I love what the kid is all about his work, his attitude, but I just don't see it on the field as to why he should continue to get the call over the other two, IF production, measured by the ability to produce TD's is the key.

i would hope, that he's strong enough mentally and emotionally, coming from where he did, to get where he did, and have the opportunity he's had, to maintain a high level of performance expectations, confidence and work ethic.

But I'm ready to see the other guys take their shots at running this ship.

BTW: I hate QB controversy. :(
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,927
Reaction Score
10,531
Mac had a deep completion in the game against Fordham -- I believe to Kashif Moore.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
230
Reaction Score
37
Sorry to change gears, buit those of you chalking up a win over WMU might want to take another look at that team. They are a decent MAC team and will not roll over just b/c UConn showed up, this is a legit chance for them to knock off a BCS team. They played Mich tough and will challenge Illinois. Besides, with our O, I'm not sure we should be chalking up any wins.

This will be a good year for MAC level teams to beat marginal AQ teams - meaning most of the BE - a la Louisville vs FIU.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
24,228
Reaction Score
27,354
We really didn't go with three QBs against Vandy. We might have won if we did.
 

CTMike

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
11,337
Reaction Score
31,190
We don't have any insight in to how this team practices. It's easy to say "Nebrich should have played more!" but Nebrich himself stated that he had a bad week of practice last week. That undoubtedly factored in to the playing time decisions made by Coach P. McCummings apparently had some issues holding on to the ball in the spring. And apparently McEntee has a tougher time in game situations than in YouTube videos.

There are no easy answers here... at all. But it's easy for us to think we know them in the little bit we see of the team each week.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,844
Reaction Score
11,453
Mac had a deep completion in the game against Fordham -- I believe to Kashif Moore.

I think you mean the first quarter to Isiah? It's about about the 16 minute mark of the espn3.com replay. If its' somethign different let me know, I'll find it, happy to look at this stuff.

The one I'm talking about, it's a deep out on the sideline out of an I formation, two wide out set. A good throw, good catch, but that completion didnt' have much chance at going into the endzone - it was a deep pass, but a horizontal route, sidelines, not vertical heading to the endzone. If you look at it, Fordham is caught in a switch on defense, and the top side receiver is single covered with the other 10 guys unbalanced, and the middle of the field wide open - meaning no deep safety in the middle. POST ROUTE - TOUCHDOWN situation. At the snap the free safety on the camera side takes off deep to try to cover the middle of the field, but he's very far away and that top side receiver is running a post. The top side receiver keeps that post pattern skinny and the QB looks where he was looking keeping that free safety looking at his eyes on that side of the field, (McEntee never took his eyes off Isaiah) and then turns and lets the ball go down the hashmarks - that's a potential TD pass read.

Can't find the free safety on the clip until the end of the play, but at that time he's still nowhere near that top side receiver on a skinny post to the end zone. I can't see where the free safety went druing the middle of the play, which is what I'm talking about about not having the adequate film - that stuff is kept locked odwn tight, but McEntee never stopped looking at Moore. my guess is that the free safety never crossed midfield.

It was the first game of the season, you'd like to see that kind of thing improve from a QB. I didn't. I did see very clearly, a read by the freshman QB on his only sequence against Vandy, that was a wide open pass route, a vertical route, heading toward the endzone, with only a safety closing from teh other side of the field to beat to the goal line - he overthrew it.

We want a vertical passing game, got to get a QB out there that's going to do it. Can McEntee do it?

I don't see practices, so I don't know, but what I've seen so far in games, the very limited bit - he's got a lot of work to do.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,844
Reaction Score
11,453
Please keep in mind, that the situation I just put up, that single play - the FOrdham defense was at fault. They were bad on that play. No way Moore should have had that much room on the sideline with the way that defense came out.

Against Vandy, if anybody's got clips you want to look at, we were looking at more traditional stacked defenses that are bringing up people to stop the run and pressure the QB - stuff we've seen for a long time now.

You just absolutely HAVE to be able to make a defense pay over the top for doing that, and you don't make them pay by throwing to horizontal patterns.

If the play calling is at fault, it's only becuase those routes weren't available in the play calls.

I doubt it.
 

uconnbill

A Half full kind of guy
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,101
Reaction Score
7,155
You can't redshirt him now unless he gets injuried and even then it might not be possible.

if nebrich is not going to play, do we red shirt him?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
517
Reaction Score
362
We've already gone too long with 3 QBS. Can't win this way. Our QB (whomever it might be) needs reps both at practice and certainly in the game. Whatever marginal benefit it might be that the opposing defense has to prepare for 3 guys is greatly negated by the ineffectiveness of the QB play in the aggregate and a large contribtuing factor to this is a lack of reps.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,798
Reaction Score
2,459
I'm not sure we have seen enough of McC or Nebrich to evaluate. I have no idea what the staff is looking at or looking for. If you look at the Nebrich INT from game 1, you should see a TE that got blown off his route and pushed in to the passing lane creating an INT. The play was there, but for a TE who allowed himself to be pushed around. We've seen 1 pass from McC and while his QB rating is impressive it is as they said in math class, astatistically insignificant. What I have seen from JM has left me underwhelmed. It would be great to see a no star kid found at a coaches conference paying his dues and having a heroic career here. And I really hope the best for him (and every kid wearing the blue and white). But we have the most tape on him, and I simply see a guy who needs a lot of time to set his feet and ready his throws, all the while staring down his targets.

(NOTE: one thing I've never been able to figure out is how much our WRs help by creating space/lanes to throw in while shielding defenders. Is it the QB, the WRs, or both. But I would love to see us push more weapons outside to spread the field and create mismatches - think the RBs, Nick W, even Griffin. Oh well, I digress.)

I actually don't understand the practice argument that I keep reading about. First, we have no idea how the reps are split at practice. Second, we can likely assume that McC gets his reps for a certain package (say 10 plays), so how much time can that take away from the starter? And guess what, if they name a starter, he is still getting those same reps. Next, regardless of who is the starter, I think any coach w/3 inexperienced QBs is going to make damn sure he has at least 2 ready. In other words, even if he named a starter, the 2 would get a lot of reps, just to be safe. So, let's stop assuming the poor play last sat night would not have happened had JM gotten a few more practice reps.

Last, and I said this on a different thread, you need to stop with the "we can't win w/3 QBs" stuff, mostly because we are committed to playing 2, period. Scott is going to continue to get reps, period. The question is whether Mike can overtake Johnny. The real question is why he doesn't get seem to get an equal opportunity on game day to prove once and for all if he can be the 1 or he is a backup. Getting reps in practice, wearing a red jersey, and having the coaches on the field talking you threw things is a bit different than putting on a game jersey under the lights and facing down 11 faces you've only seen on tape.

I don't have an answer only questions. But if PP and GD are proponents of a dual threat QB then go for it. Play the young pups and take your lumps. But frigging declare, because at this point you're confusing your own team and your fans more than you are the opponenets - who keep walking up closer and closer to the line of scrimmage.

For the record, Nebrich could still redshirt IF he got "injured" and did not play in another game. You can play in 2 games and be eligible for a medical rs so long as you participated in less than 10% (it may be 20%) of the plays, which he certainly has.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
517
Reaction Score
362
First, I wrote both game and practice reps. Second, these coaches have to construct three mini game plans each week so that each of the three QB has a package that he will run. Third, they have to construct these mini game plans simultaneously with deciding how to pare down or customize the entire playbook for this offensive team. So the pressure and constraints of this system are not only potentially detrimental to the development of the QBs or at least slowing the learning curve but likely makes the offensive coaching less effective and impacts the cohesiveness of th entire offense. The QBs have less familarity with the WRs and the oline and the players cant focus as deeply on one overriding set of offensive plays to perfect. This is not efficient and as we've seen, not effective and is far more challenging then normally allocating reps between a starter and backup. How many 3QB teams have you seen be successful?





gi post: 17034 said:
I'm not sure we have seen enough of McC or Nebrich to evaluate. I have no idea what the staff is looking at or looking for. If you look at the Nebrich INT from game 1, you should see a TE that got blown off his route and pushed in to the passing lane creating an INT. The play was there, but for a TE who allowed himself to be pushed around. We've seen 1 pass from McC and while his QB rating is impressive it is as they said in math class, astatistically insignificant. What I have seen from JM has left me underwhelmed. It would be great to see a no star kid found at a coaches conference paying his dues and having a heroic career here. And I really hope the best for him (and every kid wearing the blue and white). But we have the most tape on him, and I simply see a guy who needs a lot of time to set his feet and ready his throws, all the while staring down his targets.

(NOTE: one thing I've never been able to figure out is how much our WRs help by creating space/lanes to throw in while shielding defenders. Is it the QB, the WRs, or both. But I would love to see us push more weapons outside to spread the field and create mismatches - think the RBs, Nick W, even Griffin. Oh well, I digress.)

I actually don't understand the practice argument that I keep reading about. First, we have no idea how the reps are split at practice. Second, we can likely assume that McC gets his reps for a certain package (say 10 plays), so how much time can that take away from the starter? And guess what, if they name a starter, he is still getting those same reps. Next, regardless of who is the starter, I think any coach w/3 inexperienced QBs is going to make damn sure he has at least 2 ready. In other words, even if he named a starter, the 2 would get a lot of reps, just to be safe. So, let's stop assuming the poor play last sat night would not have happened had JM gotten a few more practice reps.

Last, and I said this on a different thread, you need to stop with the "we can't win w/3 QBs" stuff, mostly because we are committed to playing 2, period. Scott is going to continue to get reps, period. The question is whether Mike can overtake Johnny. The real question is why he doesn't get seem to get an equal opportunity on game day to prove once and for all if he can be the 1 or he is a backup. Getting reps in practice, wearing a red jersey, and having the coaches on the field talking you threw things is a bit different than putting on a game jersey under the lights and facing down 11 faces you've only seen on tape.

I don't have an answer only questions. But if PP and GD are proponents of a dual threat QB then go for it. Play the young pups and take your lumps. But frigging declare, because at this point you're confusing your own team and your fans more than you are the opponenets - who keep walking up closer and closer to the line of scrimmage.

For the record, Nebrich could still redshirt IF he got "injured" and did not play in another game. You can play in 2 games and be eligible for a medical rs so long as you participated in less than 10% (it may be 20%) of the plays, which he certainly has.
I'm not sure we have seen enough of McC or Nebrich to evaluate. I have no idea what the staff is looking at or looking for. If you look at the Nebrich INT from game 1, you should see a TE that got blown off his route and pushed in to the passing lane creating an INT. The play was there, but for a TE who allowed himself to be pushed around. We've seen 1 pass from McC and while his QB rating is impressive it is as they said in math class, astatistically insignificant. What I have seen from JM has left me underwhelmed. It would be great to see a no star kid found at a coaches conference paying his dues and having a heroic career here. And I really hope the best for him (and every kid wearing the blue and white). But we have the most tape on him, and I simply see a guy who needs a lot of time to set his feet and ready his throws, all the while staring down his targets.

(NOTE: one thing I've never been able to figure out is how much our WRs help by creating space/lanes to throw in while shielding defenders. Is it the QB, the WRs, or both. But I would love to see us push more weapons outside to spread the field and create mismatches - think the RBs, Nick W, even Griffin. Oh well, I digress.)

I actually don't understand the practice argument that I keep reading about. First, we have no idea how the reps are split at practice. Second, we can likely assume that McC gets his reps for a certain package (say 10 plays), so how much time can that take away from the starter? And guess what, if they name a starter, he is still getting those same reps. Next, regardless of who is the starter, I think any coach w/3 inexperienced QBs is going to make damn sure he has at least 2 ready. In other words, even if he named a starter, the 2 would get a lot of reps, just to be safe. So, let's stop assuming the poor play last sat night would not have happened had JM gotten a few more practice reps.

Last, and I said this on a different thread, you need to stop with the "we can't win w/3 QBs" stuff, mostly because we are committed to playing 2, period. Scott is going to continue to get reps, period. The question is whether Mike can overtake Johnny. The real question is why he doesn't get seem to get an equal opportunity on game day to prove once and for all if he can be the 1 or he is a backup. Getting reps in practice, wearing a red jersey, and having the coaches on the field talking you threw things is a bit different than putting on a game jersey under the lights and facing down 11 faces you've only seen on tape.

I don't have an answer only questions. But if PP and GD are proponents of a dual threat QB then go for it. Play the young pups and take your lumps. But frigging declare, because at this point you're confusing your own team and your fans more than you are the opponenets - who keep walking up closer and closer to the line of scrimmage.

For the record, Nebrich could still redshirt IF he got "injured" and did not play in another game. You can play in 2 games and be eligible for a medical rs so long as you participated in less than 10% (it may be 20%) of the plays, which he certainly has.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,844
Reaction Score
11,453
The bottom line is that you play to win, and I don't question the coaches if they made the call that McEntee riding out the Vandy game was the best opportunity to win.

I've explained at length, why I believe that calling for a pass play to gain at least 8 yards on a 3rd an 8 in the fourth quarter of a game in a single possession game up 21-14 on the road is the best way to give your team a chance to win the game. I believe that any time, even if your players are playing like crap all day long. You put your faith in your players and your preparation to get the job done when you need the job done. Consistency. Confidence. Yup. That's how a team that's going to be aggressive, going to go out and get after an opponent plays the game on the offensive side of the ball.

The players failed in that situaiton. The coaches failed in this game because the discipline was sloppy all over the place.

I look forward to seeing a team continue to be aggressive all over the field, and take down Iowa State on our home field.

If the coaches decide that McEntee is the best player for the QB position tomorrow, so be it. I'll be looking for answers as to why if he duplicates his Vandy performance though. Because I can't find much in the game production to warrant it - through 2 games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
600
Guests online
1,280
Total visitors
1,880

Forum statistics

Threads
171,962
Messages
4,266,097
Members
9,207
Latest member
Swoop


Top Bottom