The positives and negatives of playing 2 QBs

[Hector.sixpack]

When Tyler Russell was sent into the game against Auburn as RSFr I was surprised. We were sputtering on offense but the timing seemed off, I think we had just had ahuge boost of momentumfrom a defense stand that was pissed away on a quick3 and out. But Mullen was bound and determined to have 2 QBs with meaningful experience going forward. I don't think that will ever change, which isa different philosophy than most programs promote.

The positives:
1. Having 2 experienced QBs (injury, bad day)
2. Real competition every yearat the position
3. Something the defense has to account for
4. Promising playing time without lying during recruiting
5. Giving players time to develop without destroying their confidence

The negatives:
1. Could easily loose games because of it
2. QBs could loose their feel for the game, groove

Overall I think it is a good developing strategy, but timing is everything with it.And as the season goeson I would want thego-to guy established and the2nd string to get less and less snaps.

Do you guys like Mullen's use of 2 QBs so far?

 

[shotgunDawg]

I normally don't like having 2 QBs because it doesn't allow either quarterback to get into a rhythm, and I believe it psychologically encourages QBs to force throws and plays that aren't there in an effort to get to stay in the game. <div>
</div><div>Thats my overall opinion, but if you must have 2 QBs, I think the starter has to be thrower and the change of pace QB has to be the runner. The reason for this is that the thrower is the QB that needs to the rhythm and is more likely to force passes. The runner doesn't throw enough to force passes and is usually a good goal line, short yardage, and clock running option.</div><div>
</div><div>I believe this was the problem with the Russell/Relf duo. We had the system backwards with the running QB being the starter and the thrower as the backup. The Leak/Tebow duo was a much better combo because Leak, the thrower, was the starter, and Tebow, the runner, was the change of pace. Just my opinion.</div>

 

[esplanade91]

I hate it when I loose my feel**

 

[Coach34]

Leak/Tebow worked because Tebow had a package that fit him and was completely different than what Leak was doing. It gives the defense something extra to prepare for.

As I said 2 years ago, we needed Tyler to have a simple package just for him of 5-6 passes and 3 runs and run it like a 1 minute offense- give the defense something else to prepare for.

We need to do the same thing for Prescott this season. Let him run the option, the counter, and a couple of other things- and give him 4-5 pass plays he knows inside and out. This allows Dak to get meaningful experience while being able to relax because he has confidence he knows his little package like the back of his hand. He wont have the pressure of the entire gameplan when he plays.

Would Dak still practice the rest of the offense? Absolutely. But we all know that young guys need time. And having a little package he knows completely allows him to perform better in games while gaining experience. And he wont have any anxiety about making reads on certain passing plays he hasnt mastered in practice. This way, Prescott could get 15-20 snaps while Russell got about 50 per game.

A different package makes the offense better AND gets the other QB experience. Putting the back-up in to run the same **** just gets the back-up experience

 

[esplanade91]

I don't like it. I've never been a fan, and for Mullen and people to consistently bring up Tim Tebow when arguing how a 2 QB can work is ignorant.

Two reasons:

1. At the time, it was a game changer. Now it's a normal occurrence. Every team has a throwing QB and a running QB on the roster, which means every team's defense plans for it and knows how to counter.

2. Tim Tebow is the greatest college QB of all time. Not a knack on Dak, but saying "he could be Tebow" while having Russell play Leak's role is just flat out a bad argument.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

i want a starting QB. the backup can get snaps in garbage time or if the starter gets injured or if the QB1 has become ineffective. yeah it's nice to have a backup with experience, but i'd rather not have my QB1 pressing or getting out of rhythm because we keep inserting the backup in there. a couple of "meaningful" series aren't gonna prepare a backup QB for full time snaps if he needs to take over, and he'll quickly make up those snaps in his first few series of taking over.

 

[War Machine Dawg]

If you have 2 QBs with somewhat different skill sets, i.e. pocket passer & dual threat/option, then I don't mind the 2-QB system on a limited basis. And by limited basis I mean 2, 3 series a game at most and a specific package of plays designed specifically for the 2nd QB. That's what we had with Relf/Russell and what we have now with Russell/Dak. But going forward, it seems clear Mullen prefers the dual threat guys - Dak, Schuessler, Sandberg. So I think we'll see less and less of the 2-QB system as Mullen continues to recruit. Another example: Mullen used Leak/Tebow as a tandem for a year at FL, but he also signed Cam Newton. And you didn't see Newton splitting time with Tebow. Newton & Tebow had similar skill sets, both dual threat QBs. Going forward, I'd be surprised if we see much of the 2-QB system we use now after Russell graduates. No matter what coaches say, they always prefer to have that 1 QB that's "The Guy."

 

[War Machine Dawg]

[No message]

 

[shotgunDawg]

I agree, I didn't mean to come across as saying the Dak or anyone else was anywhere close to Tebow. I just simply wanted to make two points :<div>
</div><div>1) I don't like 2 QB systems</div><div>
</div><div>2) If the coach is hell bent on having one, then I prefer the throwing QB to be the starter and the runner to be backup, and that was backwards with Relf/Russell</div>

 

[esplanade91]

Before anyone brings up Oklahoma and their 2 QB set, they basically put all their FBs and blocking TEs out on the field and run a 300lb "QB" behind them. Hardly the same thing.

 

[Chesusdog]

But it has backfired on us in the past. The big one that sticks out to me is when we brought Relf in in the redzone against Bama and went backwards. Maybe Russell wouldn't score but he had just drove us down the field.

I think Russell-Prescott will work a bit better if Prescott is 1/2 what he's been advertised as by our resident "experts."

 

[esplanade91]

I think we're all on the same page. 2 QB systems never work (Tebow exception*), and Mullen doesn't like it either but gives a politically correct answer every time Marcello asks about it. Good job, team!

 

[esplanade91]

If you have 2 QBs with somewhat different skill sets, i.e. pocket passer & dual threat/option, then I don't mind the 2-QB system on a limited basis. And by limited basis I mean 2, 3 series a game at most and a specific package of plays designed specifically for the 2nd QB. That's what we had with Relf/Russell and what we have now with Russell/Dak. But going forward, it seems clear Mullen prefers the dual threat guys - Dak, Schuessler, Sandberg. So I think we'll see less and less of the 2-QB system as Mullen continues to recruit. Another example: Mullen used Leak/Tebow as a tandem for a year at FL, but he also signed Cam Newton. And you didn't see Newton splitting time with Tebow. Newton & Tebow had similar skill sets, both dual threat QBs. Going forward, I'd be surprised if we see much of the 2-QB system we use now after Russell graduates. No matter what coaches say, they always prefer to have that 1 QB that's "The Guy."

This. Russell is a dog and I love him, but he was a hangover from Croom and Mullen was dead set on having him when he took the job because he was a great, great college QB prospect and was able to convince him to come here instead of Carolina. I don't think Mullen gave him any interest when he was still the OC recruiting for Florida.

It's always a really good thing to have a Schuessler guy on your depth chart though. Just like this year, the way our receivers line up in experience vs running backs, Russell is poised to have a great pass offense. But I dot think Mullen will ever recruit another pocket guy until the next big game-changing offense emerges.

 

[Hector.sixpack]

Mullen has picked the wrong times more than the right times. Our scheduling from here on out should allow the backup to get some experience without risking too much in SEC games.

Again, by midseason, I want a go-to guy and only a few snaps for the backup.

 

[kired]

First, when you have a veteran QB kind of like we'll have with Russell this year and especially next year. He's been in the program long enough that the coaches should know his strengths and weaknesses. What situations he excels in and where he flat out sucks. I have no problem putting in Dak if the coaches think he'll give us a better chance in a particular situation than Russell will.

Second, if we're playing a team like UM that after three years is still clueless of how to stop Chris Relf. I don't care how good Russellhad played in the first 11 games last year, there was no way he was starting over Relf in the egg bowl. Sometimesone QB just matches up better against the other team and I have no problem going with a #2 QB in those games.

But just playing a second QB to play a second QB, or just because the #2guy had agreat week in practice, or to simply get him experience in tight games, or becausethebackup complains on twitter (lil favre)--- I hate it.