How long do we go with 3 QB's? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

How long do we go with 3 QB's?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,480
Reaction Score
20,073
I think the 3 quarterback situation is getting pretty close to being counterproductive at this point. I've seen this in other sports before, where the "competitiors" for the final slot get to the point where they pay more attention to the other guys looking for "their" spot than doing what is best for themselves or being properly prepared. While you can do this during camp, once the season starts, you need to change the focus to preparing for Iowa State, not competing against Scott McCummings. I'm not sure if I'm being clear on this, but I've witnessed similar competitons that ended badly because the competitors were more focused on the internal competition than preparing for the upcoming opponent. I still think, though, that what is going on with UCONN is not what is being publicly proclaimed...a 3-way battle, but rather, Pasquoloni is trying to gradually work Nebrich in without too much pressure, but eventually, much like Chas Dodd with Rutgers last year, the reins will be turned over to him. McCummings is a different situation. He will continue to play situationally, but really isn't in any "competition" except maybe to be the backup.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
321
Reaction Score
193
I'm not sure we have seen enough of McC or Nebrich to evaluate.

really? you don't think a combined 11 passing attempts is enough to evaluate them?

looks like you're way behind in your scouting compared to the rest of your boneyard mates.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,797
Reaction Score
4,910
If someone really believes we are crafting 3 differnt game plans each week, you're smoking the same stuff that got they guy who should be our starting QB kicked out of school. We have 1 plan - it calls for a few plays for McC, with MN and JM to "share" the balance. No f'g coaching staff creates 3 game plans.

None of us (unless we were a parent or coach) have no idea what the kids are thinking or how many reps they are getting in practice. Is it being counterproductive? Who can tell? If you think "naming" a starter would have led to a crisp O and a W the other night, then you are seeing things I am not.

You may turn out to be right that the process is messy or counter-productive, but making stuff up to support the argument is not necessarily a sure fire way to prove it. It's simply not clear to me what the staff wants - I have a guess, but i posted it before and don't feel the need to restate the same point repeatedly thinking if I say it alot it makes it true. I was not in favor of the hiring, but I have come around and I am willing to give them more than 2 weeks to assess what we have and where we go from here. I'll live with the warts, ugly as they were Sat night. I'll trust them to get us where they think we can be most successful.

BTW, there are several teams w/a "named" QB who are not successful.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
343
Reaction Score
490
I don't know. This is obviously a very tough decision but I just see so much more upside with Nebrich. I know PP wants to win right away but I think playing Nebrich now will be the better call in the long run.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,480
Reaction Score
20,073
My guess is that the next two weeks, maybe Western Michigan. If somehow JMac comes out looking like a solid, not necessarily great, but competent college quarterback this week, it might go longer, but I still think the plan is ultimately to turn things over to Nebrich at some point this season. At that point the merry-go-round ends. McCummings could well still get a few plays in certain situations, too, but I think we'll do what Rutgers did last year. make the freshman the starter at mid-season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
272
Guests online
1,771
Total visitors
2,043

Forum statistics

Threads
157,399
Messages
4,098,831
Members
9,989
Latest member
Howler


Top Bottom