IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Game snaps for backup players is a problem at every position -- think about corners and safeties, where mistakes due to inexperience can cost you 6 points. And how often does the third guy on the O-Line depth chart get in? But one injury to a starter, and Mr. Third is the primary backup.zirge said:
All that being understood, snaps for the backup QB are the most critical. I can’t think of any coach that has a good answer.
The 2008 Virginia Tech (sorry, but I don’t know of a FCS equivalent) had the most extreme in one direction -- a two-QB system for the entire season. They made it work during the regular season (Probably because the QB’s job in the V-Tech system is to “manage the game” -- defense and special teams will win it.) However, it seemed to me neither guy got in sync in the Orange Bowl. They threw three picks between them (one a pick-six), which gave Kansas 17 of their 24 points.
Of course, another variation is to have a “running” QB and a “passing” QB. This has probably been made to work -- I even seem to recall the Griz have tried it at times, although I don’t think under Hauk. Anyway, I can’t recall any long-term successes. The idea works in small doses, but any decent defense soon catches on and kills you. (Personally, I’m partial to the halfback pass, but that’s another story.)
Lots of coaches (NOT just Hauk) tend to stick with their starting QB, no matter what. They seem to figure that -- no matter how bad the guy is doing -- he’ll come through, somehow. Even a guy as smart and talent-rich as Pete Carroll at USC does it.
If the starter is doing well, coaches -- across the board -- leave him in for at least one series beyond where any reasonable person would say the game was out of reach for the opponent. (I know, we’ve all seen miracle comebacks, but those are damn rare.) This eggs-in-one-basket approach, where the backup gets no even semi-important game snaps, is usually disastrous when the starter goes down in a crucial game.
I definitely favor, and believe long-term experience supports, an approach where the backup gets significant game experience. If he’s good enough, maybe as much as a full quarter. Plus, he should play some when the game is still on the line, at least to some extent. (Sure, that could backfire -- and we’d all scream about what an idiot the coach/offensive coordinator is.) But if you’ve got a lead and the defense is playing well, why not put the backup in for a couple series?
Obviously, this approach gives your backup more real experience to bolster him (and the team) when he has to start, or come in on short notice. Related to that is the fact that it’s safer to take the starter out for several plays to recover from a minor ding. How many times have we seen a somewhat gimpy QB get hurt worse on the next play?
Equally important, it gives the coach credibility to say: “You’ve earned the starting spot, and you’ll get the most PT, but we’ll sit you down if you’re having a really bad day.” If the starter’s “tender ego” can’t handle that, then you have to question whether or not he should be starting anyway. Any guy with the moxie to be a starter should be able to get his head together with a series or two on the bench. If the backup catches fire, so much the better. It’s called COMPETITION, baby!
ff: , somewhat]: ]The 2008 Virginia Tech (sorry, but I don’t know of a FCS equivalent) had the most extreme in one direction -- a two-QB system for the entire season. They made it work during the regular season (Probably because the QB’s job in the V-Tech system is to “manage the game” -- defense and special teams will win it.) However, it seemed to me neither guy got in sync in the Orange Bowl. They threw three picks between them (one a pick-six), which gave Kansas 17 of their 24 points.
