NUCat320: "And, for what it's worth, while I do think his paranoia is often ridiculous, I see no reason for him to do anything different in this case.literally no reason to reveal the starting quarterback in advance."
There is an advantage to not revealing the starting QB (to the opposition), but internally is it only prolonging our QB woes of late? When Persa went down our woes began. We did not have a single QB replace him, so ultimately we went with two, and that was a reasonable response. And it worked well, for at least a year. Two years ago one of them went down (actually they both went down) and the other could not by himself pick up the slack. This continued into last year. Fitz committed himself unmercifully to TS, at the expense of Alviti and Oliver. Finally they needed to be trotted out, and trot is what they did. So, I see Fitz's playing fast and loose with the situation to be a good thing. Prepare all three. If one stands out, great! But do not commit to one guy because of tenure or a feeling of obligation. Let them all play until one or two are damn good. Remember Cal?