Regarding Starting QB Changes
So, there's been a lot of talk about Denard really shining in camp, and being a big favorite to start this year. I file that under, "I'll believe it when I see it", but none the less, that's been the talk.
My question is this. Can anybody provide a recent BCS example of a situation where a highly successful returning starter was benched in favor of another candidate, BEFORE that returning starter was given ample opportunity to either succeed or fail?
This is why I doubt it. I can't remember that happening. Maybe it has and I don't know. But to my knowledge, in all of recent history, a returning starter with the success of Tate from last year has always been given the reigns first, and has only been benched for the guy that was shining in workouts if he fails miserably, or if the other guy does unbelievably well in spot duty.
Has there been a situation where I'm overlooking a successful returning starter being overtaken by another guy before the season even starts?
I remember in Antwaan Randle El's senior year, Coach Cameron was moving him to WR and had a younger player start at QB.
I think this was 2001, but the experiment only lasted a few games. They played NCState in the opener and had NO offense with the other fellow.
I'll try to look up any other examples.
But wasn't this later admitted to be a ploy to help Randle El's draft stock as a talent position athlete?
If true, it's no surprise Cameron flopped at IU. Your job as head coach is to win games, not audition guys for the pros.
If the starter is "highly successful", I think we can safely say he has already been given ample opportunity to succeed.......
that ANYONE thinks Tate was the reason we only won 5 games last year.
I don't think anyone does.
I was pointing out the faulty logic/wording in the question. If he is already "highly successful", we wouldn't need to wait to see if he succeeds/fails.
I wasn't saying anything about Tate. You entirely missed the point.
he was "highly successful" last year. jerk.
Thank you. The assumption that if last year's starter doesn't start, he hasn't been given "ample opportunity to either succeed or fail" is faulty.
To the OP - do you expect RR to not play the guy who has been performing the best in practice?
Last year's starter WAS successful, is the point. He'd have to have several bad games in a row to erase all that.
Yeah, I do. Anyone who knows football will tell you that practice means about squat plus in relation to game performance. It's not a test. It's about getting ready.
My naive guess is that the approach would be to play the guy who outcompeted the other guy in practice (this is all prior to the season). If that guy's performance doesn't translate to the field, then make the change. But you will not know if his performance translates to the field unless you play him - and not just play him here and there, but give him the reins. Only then will RR know if the new starter should take over.
Let's be honest Sheridan looked better in practice compared to Threet - and got the original start. I would hope RR learned his lesson from that.
I too agree that Forcier has the starting position until he falters. He played fantastic when not injured - and still good when injured. His stats are better than a lot of starting QB's in football, problem is that our defense and other outside factors didn't allow his performances to get the wins. If our defense was even average last year - I bet Forcier has a few more wins onto the 5 of last year.
Right, because one example of the guy who looked better in practice not translating to who looked better on the field should nullify the whole proposition of in-practice competition for positions. Really? I cannot fathom how RR was to know that Sheridan would not outperform Threet on the field without, well, ACTUALLY PLAYING Sheridan. Please tell me - how could RR have known that? It so easy for onlookers to look back, after the results are in, and say that RR should have been prescient.
I'm just saying Forcier has proven himself on the field - Robinson hasn't. It should take a lot to uproot that, not just a few practices. It's a little different in the Sheridan/Threet case since he hasn't seen either actually play. Bad example, I'm sorry.
Wait, RR couldn't have known who was better between Sheridan and Threet because they hadn't played any games and that is where you see who can play better? Wasn't your original point that RichRod should play whoever is best in practice? Those 2 points don't add up to very good logic when they are made by the same person.
No. I said he couldn't know if who played better in practice translated to who played better on the field. Two different contexts. He has to go by who plays better in practice, then he can adjust if that person doesnt play well on the field. Often the same player plays best in both contexts, unfortunately sometimes not.
Welp, I guess you can't argue with that.
Honestly, when people take offense to comments online, even after well over a decade of message boards, I still get surprised.
Alright, though, lets try it again. Do players who practice well often play well? Yes. Is that always true? No. Have there been countless examples of "workout warriors" whose practice does not translate to the playing field, for whatever reason? Yes. As a coach, would you be more inclined to play the player who lit it up last season, or the one that really looked great in practice this summer, if you had to make the choice?
I think there are a lot of other factors that go into the coaches decision than player 1 last season=good, player 2 summer = good formula that you are presenting. I believe you that there are countless examples going the other way, but there are also countless examples of guys that perform well in practice (relative to their peers) and do start.
Also, I didn't take offense, I just think its funny when people throw out the "Anyone that knows anything" or "if you really know [insert subject] you know this" as if it gives their opinion any more credibility.
I believe Tate will end up being the starter, and that RR is holding true to his philosophy to make sure there is competition at each practice. He's sending a message to everyone on the team that you need to bring your A game to every practice.
I'm not a veteran, but I'm starting to coach little league baseball, and I can tell you, I'd likely start the proven player, (particularly if it's neck and neck.) But, I'd also give the other kid a chance to get on the field at that position. Maybe it's a more controlled environment in which we are up comfortably, but I think you go with proven talent (especially if competition is really close.)
You seem to have missed the point of every comment you've responded to thus far. A quick deep breath can go a long way....
The "Who's Arguing?" question is just icing on the cake.
Because every single one of my posts in this thread has been negged, and I haven't negged anyone, at all. I'm POSITIVE that I'm the one that needs to take a breather and read closer.
Tate forcier was not highly successful last year. He was a PRETTY good freshman QB
... somewhere I have to go back and find (and neg-bang) the "Tate for Heisman" thread someone put up after the first 4 games...
Anyone who knows football will tell you that practice means about squat plus in relation to game performance.I never played football, but in my experience in other sports it's rare to have someone who is consistently significantly better in either setting. Generally you play how you practice.
As an counter point to mejunglechop's statement above....I played basketball with a guy in high school that was very good in practice but was less than average in games. It is reasonable to assume that playing QB against BCS competition in a live situation in front of 100k can have a dramatic effect on a player's ability to execute. Some people thrive on pressure and some crumble (Hopefully Tate, Denard, and Devin all thrive).
One that instantly comes to mind is Terrelle Pryor consigning Todd Boeckmann to the bench.
Yes, Boeckman didn't play well for two quarters against USC, but using USC as your barometer for success is rather ridiculous, and all Boeckmann did the previous year was lead his team to the national title game.
If the other player does exceptionally well in spot duty. Also, don't forget that TP was THE HYPE, and fans were clamoring for him. We here on MGoBlog know that Denard is awesome, but most fans remember him only as Mr. Interception.
tressel's "worst" coaching moves. i say that because he really took a huge risk of alienating his players by pulling boeckman in that situation. (he did alienate a few people, a la hartline who left early, the upperclassmen on the team that hate/hated pryor) now he's continued to win so it's a moot point but it seemed to me like a chance he really didn't need to take.
Pryor did not pass Boeckmann before the season started. Tressel gave Boeckmann his chance to but things didn't work out.
But where a starter was replaced before the first snap, nothing comes to mind.
I LOVE your avatar, why don't you post more frequently?
I see to remember some rumblings last year to that RR wanted to diversify the offense to include more passing but McGee favored a more run intensive zone-read/option type offense.
Maybe McGee finally won out and so Denard is a better fit for this ?
until the season actually starts
with an "a"
Zoooker did it with Juice Williams, yanking him back and forth from his starting role after he was the starter after his freshman year
Tim Brewster has not yet yanked Adam Weber from the starting position in favor of MarQueis Gray, and he may pay for it with his job after the 2010 season.
How about Matt Barkley over Mitch Mustain? I know Mustain didnt exactly set the world on fire, but Barkley was unproven save for his performance in practice. Just a thought.
pretty well sucked compared to what was expected. Tate, I think, far surpassed most expectations. (Though after 2008, our expectations were pretty low.)
Wait - you wanted evidence of a starter losing his job during the offseason. And you got it. But now you want to compare starters across teams, not just within teams? Should we compare the ones who overtook the starters across teams also? Then, should we compare systems across teams? And then, should we compare how much practice the new starters had across teams? Get my drift? Evidence regarding simple within team transition is fine. But don't try to compare across teams, the variables are too divergent for anything meaningful.
To paraphrase RR, we need at least 2 we can win with. Nobody has established nothin at this point. I'm hopeful RR has a pleasant little dilemma to work out.
I think there will be ample opportunity for both to succeed. No sense worrying about the highly doubtful proposition, that Tate is getting screwed,
That's the same thing I said in another thread. Both work hard. The QB debate never was finished last year. Obviously both are going to get chances again this year.
Truth be told, I wouldn't really be suprised if we see essentially 4 years of "starting" duty for the both of them. Like RR said, Denard will get onto the field SOMEWHERE no matter what, and certainly sometimes at QB. Switch them up. Switch them out. Keep people guessing.
I would really enjoy 3 more years of this, I like em both
... that the shoelaces of the player on the right are untied?
to be a TV announcer.
Put some sunglasses on Denard in that picture and he looks just like Lil' Wayne.
As long as "we need at least 2 we can win with" does not mean rotating QB's or every 3rd posession we see the "other" QB take snaps then I am all in.
Another way to look at is, do you want the most durable quarterback, 1) starting, or 2) being the reserve?
I tend to think that it is better to have the most durable quarterback starting. Keeps the continuity of the offense and gives the QB the chance to grow game by game.
Not saying that we know for sure whether Denard is more durable.... but we do know that Tate has had his injury problems.
Tate coming in for spot duty can keep him fresh and preserve him so that he can last the entire season. Moreover, as someone said already.... in looking at the film, it looks like Tate has lost something off his fastball. His ball really seems to lack zip. Coming off of surgery can do that. And coming off of surgery, maybe taking it slow his Sophmore year will be better for his overall career.... give him a chance to heal up, get better, get well.
tate didn't have surgery, that pretty much destroys everything in your last paragraph but we'll keep going. tate had ONE injury that hurt his performance last season. that injury was caused by tate flinging himself over 2 other players when he had tay odoms running wavingly open. in other words, it was a fluke. that one fluke doesn't mean he has injury problems. tate is not the type of QB you use for spot duty. that's what denard is until he proves he can go 5 passes without a pick. alrighty
The problem with this is that you are never going to know what Denard can do unless you give him consistency, not spot duty. Giving him spot duty is not giving him a fair chance to fail or succeed. it seems pretty logical to let whoever was best in practice start, give him a fighting chance, then make another decision if necessary.
IIRC didn't Chris Simms get starts over Major Applewhite at Texas as a freshman or sophomore when Applewhite was an upperclassman?
Yes, this is the best example yet. Some Texas faithful still think Chris Simms cost them a shot at the national championship game in 2001. Texas was successful the two/three previous years with Applewhite at QB (9-3 in 2000). Then Simms was the starter in 2001 when Applewhite was a senior. The two games Texas lost in 2001 were attributed directly to Simms' picks against Oklahoma and Colorado. Applewhite ended up winning the the bowl game by putting up 47 points against Washington.