|
|
Post by coachdbs on Oct 8, 2006 16:56:03 GMT -6
Anyone attempted this with good results? We recently promoted our backup QB after losing two consecutive games and watching our starting QB really struggle. He is a great athlete with poor leadership skills who really struggles during times of high stress and/or pressure. Our backup QB is a stronger leader (although not great) who can handle the pressure but lacks the athleticism and does not make the best reads when running our veer offense. With him as our QB this past weekend, we struggled and lost a close one that we should have one. For those of you who run the veer, you know that making good reads is extremely important. If we could somehow combine the two, we would be in great shape. So we started tossing around the idea of going with the both of them. Any experiences or recommendations?
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Oct 8, 2006 17:03:20 GMT -6
never believed in a committee appraoch personally. Replacing a player because they are ineffective is ok, but never the two-headed monster approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Oct 8, 2006 17:32:28 GMT -6
we did it in college with very good success. We did not run the veer but both QB's were very good and deserved a shot to play. They both handled it very well and I think our head coach and OC did a great job of packaging plays according to each QB's strengths.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjblair on Oct 8, 2006 18:18:26 GMT -6
I hate the 2 QB approach due to the fact it take the QB's out of any rhtyme they have. Plus I would be nervous to put in the good leader QB in at a crucial situation since he does not make good choices. .
|
|
|
|
Post by coach239 on Oct 9, 2006 5:09:38 GMT -6
A wise Coach once said, "if you think you have two then you dont have any at all."
Show confidence in ONE QB. How does this "QB shuffle" affect the team? Would this type of decision reflect clear/concise decisions by the coiaching staff? Does this show lack of confidence in our ability as Coach to make a BIG decision and stick with it?
Im all for benching a QB if he is not performing, but the two headed monster thing is over-rated.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Oct 9, 2006 8:19:15 GMT -6
I would rather have one kid step up and start, but the rhythm thing is over-rated. We routinely shuffle kids in and out at other positions, why not QB? IF they're both getting reps in practice and you trust them, why not use both so that they each stay fresh? You can also keep them on their toes as they know the other guy can always step in.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach239 on Oct 9, 2006 8:26:49 GMT -6
Coach, dont underestimate the "rhythm" element that comes with being a QB. This position is more psychological and needs more mental preparation than any other position on the field. You hear NFL commentators refer to it as the "feel of the game."
Of course is your QB only give the ball to a stud RB then it doesnt matter. He only has to exist from the snap to the time he hands the all off.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Oct 9, 2006 9:16:42 GMT -6
239 - Played it and coached it (for 25 years) and while not discounting the "psychological" factor, if one kid can't separate himself from the other and both have skills, then play them both. If they both understand what you are doing (and why) then they can relax and play.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbush on Oct 9, 2006 13:52:25 GMT -6
I don't know if you'd call this a QB by committee, but Florida's doing pretty well using Tebow in spot situations. Is this something you could do with your two, maybe play the second one in high pressure situations?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdbs on Oct 10, 2006 10:53:35 GMT -6
Thanks for all the feedback....kind of what I expected...some agree...some disagree. I think we are going to give it a go....I will let you know how it works out.
|
|
baraboo99
Sophomore Member
[F4:ryan.andersen33]
Posts: 205
|
Post by baraboo99 on Oct 12, 2006 6:52:56 GMT -6
I used 2 QB's in '05 as an experiment and it worked pretty well.
I had to bench my starting QB because he lives 2 hours away and can't make it to every practice. He and the other players like him know that if their backups have good weeks then they will start, because they have worked hard and deserved it.
My two QB's were totally different animals, one was a traditional dropback, one a Michael Vick "I should be playing WR but I can't catch the ball" type. I would alternate them and the defenses had a hard time adjusting to two different styles and keeping track who was in at the time. To throw them off even more I would throw with Michael Vick and run with Dan Marino every now and then.
We averaged around 300 yds per game on around 40 snaps and had an average score of 27-9.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach239 on Oct 12, 2006 9:25:32 GMT -6
I used 2 QB's in '05 as an experiment and it worked pretty well. I had to bench my starting QB because he lives 2 hours away and can't make it to every practice. He and the other players like him know that if their backups have good weeks then they will start, because they have worked hard and deserved it. My two QB's were totally different animals, one was a traditional dropback, one a Michael Vick "I should be playing WR but I can't catch the ball" type. I would alternate them and the defenses had a hard time adjusting to two different styles and keeping track who was in at the time. To throw them off even more I would throw with Michael Vick and run with Dan Marino every now and then. We averaged around 300 yds per game on around 40 snaps and had an average score of 27-9. Coach, what you are describing is more along the lines of "personnel" change IMO. There's a difference in giving a defense a change of pace with a running QB during a game and having 2 QBs with similar ability that are competing for the spot. Letting both of those QBs play would be considered QB by commitee. If there you have 2 QBs with different styles then isnt the deal off? Just my opinion of course. |
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Oct 12, 2006 9:46:53 GMT -6
I would never play a kid who was a poor leader at the QB postion. The other kid may not handle the pressure situations b/c he has never been in them. Going through the fire, so to speak, will only make him stronger. You may have to limit your playbook a little b/c of less athleticism, but whitling your playbook is something most of us should probably do anyway. Put the more athletic QB at receiver and throw him the ball, hand it to him on sweep, etc. , but DON"T play a poor leader at QB. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Oct 16, 2006 7:41:42 GMT -6
I would never play a kid who was a poor leader at the QB postion. The other kid may not handle the pressure situations b/c he has never been in them. Going through the fire, so to speak, will only make him stronger. You may have to limit your playbook a little b/c of less athleticism, but whitling your playbook is something most of us should probably do anyway. Put the more athletic QB at receiver and throw him the ball, hand it to him on sweep, etc. , but DON"T play a poor leader at QB. Just my opinion. I couldnt agree more. |
|
|
|
Post by wmcoached on Oct 16, 2006 17:28:43 GMT -6
You're QB MUST be the leader on the O....No excpetions.....
We lived by the rule too...."If you think you have two, you don't have any....."
Coach Ed
|
|
