But once you have pulled your number one QB, you are no longer risking him. If you had them in at the same time, maybe but otherwise, no.
use of back-up QB's
- Thread starter FeliSilvestris
- Start date
No, but you're risking your 2nd string QB if you run him or let him drop back (when you don't need to).
That would be Bo Cisek. Never forget the name Bo Cisek. Bo Cisek will live forever.
Those are pretty long drives, for someone not trying to score...what on earth were they trying to do then? I suppose they could have taken a knee each time and given the FB back to EIU, if they wanted so badly not to score.
Fact is in the first half, first-unit vs 1st unit NU had 7 opportunities to score a TD....it did so in only 3 of them, and failed to even get ONE first-down in 2 of 7 opps, settling for FG the other 2. Of course that is good enough for a win against this team, but it absolutely clearly shows that the EIU D wasn't so badly over-matched...if they had been, NU would have finished the half with 7 TD's, as oppose to only 3.
In the second half, with both teams playing reserves most of the time, the balance for NU was much worse...scoring only ONE time in the entire half (except for the pick-6 scored by the D). If the EIU D suffered a huge drop off by going to their reserves, it seems NU suffered an even HUGER drop off, since it went from scoring 5 times in the first half (including 2 FG's) to scoring only one time in the 2nd (TD or FG).
At the end of the day, and getting back to the point of this thread, there is ZERO evidence that the EIU D (1st or 2nd string) couldn't be a good practice unit for the NU 2nd/3rd string QB's to practice the normal offense against them. The coaches simply missed a valuable opportunity to do so, and it may come back to haunt them.
so in order to get the backup QB some real reps we need to play a team bad enough to get a comfortable lead on but not so bad to be considered less worthwhile than a practice - so basically never I guess?
I'm actually starting to enjoy him. The absurdity of what he's typing has gotten to the point where I'm admiring the stupidity. It's obvious that he's trying to get a rise out of everyone but he's taking it to such an extreme. It's kind of an art like watching a Bertolt Brecht alienate the audience.
Not me. I can't understand how someone could be so negative. He will take a contrary approach to everything. I have never seen a positive post from him. Just so much unhappiness. Most have a pretty miserable life which he takes out on these boards.
Says who? Getting PT for backups seems to work for other teams. But not ours?
And what the reason for Oliver's performance last, do tell?
The way the offense was getting large chunks of yards on first and second down (and rarely even faced a 3rd down), why on earth would you pass and slow down the game? Even if Thorson was in the game, we would have and should have handed it off.
Acker and Rhuby are walkons. This is their super bowl and reward for taking a beating on the scout team and/or otherwise being great teammates. Quite frankly, both are also expendable in that an injury to either one doesn't ultimately alter the trajectory of the season. (And somebody ultimately had to take carried in that situation.)
Oliver and Alviti on the other hand are both important players to this team. God forbid, if Thorson goes down, I would expect the 2 players to split time in a 2 QB system. However, when Oliver and Alviti face our own defense in team period of practice, they get quality reps against very good defensive players in a controlled environment where nobody is allowed to drill them. That's a far better way to gain experience than wiping the floor with the likes of this EIU team, which is the worst football team to play in Evanston in at least 22 years.
If we get a 4-5 TD 4th quarter lead against a Ball State type and they leave their starters in and keep run blitzing, fighting or otherwise competing, then yes, the backup QBs should throw some footballs in the event it's required to keep the chains moving and extend drives. That was not the situation against EIU last Saturday who had pulled its defensive starters and essentially laid down in the fetal position.
I simply cannot imagine what it must be like to live a life so miserable that you take a 41-0 blowout and intentionally twist it into an excuse to bitch about something. Please seek help. Or, on second thought, don't. I really don't care.
But gcg says Oliver isn't very good. And with more than a handful of QBs on the roster, doesn't that make Oliver expendable? And even if he threw 3 pick-six interceptions in the fourth quarter - that's only 21 points, assuming we don't answer. Seems like the potential for loss is low. But, if Oliver comes in during a real game with fans in stands (something I don't think they have in practice), runs a real game plan with running and passing. And he faces some guy trying to take off his head, which might provide a little more realistic experience than wearing a red shirt and not being touched. Then, somewhere down the road, if Thorsen gets hurt - you now know more about what you have in Oliver. And maybe he no longer 'isn't very good' and can run the offense. Or Oliver confirms that he 'isn't very good' beyond a doubt and the staff can plan to run Alviti in the future and start prepping another #3 QB. I'm sure you have heard the phrase 'If you have two starting QBs, then you don't have one.' I think the same would apply to the backup spot. Why not clear it up in game conditions. If we go through three QBs over the season, I would not expect us to well - we are not OSU. Therefore, running your second team for real seems pretty high reward.
But as Glades like to note, I never strapped one on at a collegiate level so I guess I don't know much.
Hey, don't be so hard on yourself. You know that you are clueless and that is something. Just remember it more often and things will be a-ok!
I only imply this when somebody disagrees with me and is therefore is wrong. So in this case, yes, the Glades rule applies.
In all seriousness, it probably would not have hurt to let Oliver or Alviti throw a few balls. However, the notion that a small handful of passes against the likes of EIU have more value (even if in front of fans) than an equal (or even lessor) number of practice reps in a controlled scrimmage against quality B1G defensive players stretches credulity.
I only imply this when somebody disagrees with me and is therefore is wrong. So in this case, yes, the Glades rule applies.
In all seriousness, it probably would not have hurt to let Oliver or Alviti throw a few balls. However, the notion that a small handful of passes against the likes of EIU have more value (even if in front of fans) than an equal (or even lessor) number of practice reps in a controlled scrimmage against quality B1G defensive players stretches credulity.
I don't think a small handful was in order. The game was in hand before half time. I sat cringing that Thorson would get hurt and really unleash the rage of the Board. I felt the reins should have been handed off to one of Alviti or Oliver, starting the second half. Pick your #2 and let him prove worthy with a real game plan. I still think all that time would have proved more valuable. If #2 stumbled, for too long, then bring in #3. There are no shirts to worry about. And if you have to bring back the full first team, fine. There are four quarters and starters should be prepared to play four.
Our receivers are pretty unaccomplished at a collegiate level. AA could use the experience. We have a bunch of young linemen that need to learn how to protect the pocket and grade the road. Screaming fans and real defenders are a great opportunity. Heck, the pros use controlled practices against other teams to create similar scenarios. Then they play four games that don't count. If game time experience is so useless, the pro's should drop the preseason. Yet, I don't hear the guys that strapped it and get paid to share their knowledge and opinions agreeing. By and large, they feel it should be reduced, but serves a necessary purpose.
Edit - In the pros, if the coach is not happy - then he will player starters against the lowly 2s and 3s during the preseason. Considering the monetary value of this risk, it cannot be simply to send a message. The pro coaches must feel some utility for a starter to practice against lessor players in a real game scenario.
I'm not going to argue that Thorson couldn't have come out earlier. However, if EIU snaps have value as you suggest, wasn't it a good thing to let still extremely green Thorson throw a deep ball and get his first career throwing TD in a live game?
Unaccomplished receivers is another reason to let them get reps with Thorson.
The margin of difference between a 2nd and 3rd string NFL player and a starter is razor thin. The NFL's worst players are paid half a million to play football. The gap between EIU and a B1G team is massive.
