Two QB system

How about we line up the 4 quarterbacks behind the center, have no offensive lineman except the center, send everybody else in mass to the right sideline, have all 4 quarterbacks start barking out signals, have one of the quarterbacks peel off in motion, and then call "time out"? The play would make no sense and have no purpose other than to watch the defense panic as they try to figure it out...



Never mind. Sounds to "Crowtonish"........

SenorCougar wrote:
...have one of the quarterbacks peel off in motion, and then call "time out"?

Sadly, the officials called that a penalty last year when Max pulled it out.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

...have one of the quarterbacks peel off in motion, and then call "time out"?

Sadly, the officials called that a penalty last year when Max pulled it out.

Oh, did you have to pull up that play again? :sulk: Would someone please tell me how that is any more "deceiving" than a statue of liberty or hook and ladder or the huddle-kick-return (which I loved, when we did it right and legally) or any other gimmick?

Think your offense will have the kinks worked out in the first game? Two QB's, new skill position players in some spots, might cause some broken drives and mistakes like turnovers.



We may not have a good defense, at least based on last year, but things look to be improved across the board and I like our chances against an offense with so many new pieces. We may not be USC when it comes to athletes, but we do bring experience at almost every position, on both sides of the ball.

PurpleReign wrote:
Think your offense will have the kinks worked out in the first game? Two QB's, new skill position players in some spots, might cause some broken drives and mistakes like turnovers.



We may not have a good defense, at least based on last year, but things look to be improved across the board and I like our chances against an offense with so many new pieces. We may not be USC when it comes to athletes, but we do bring experience at almost every position, on both sides of the ball.

I'll take a team that is reloading after winning 10+ games for 4 straight seasons over a more experienced team that hasn't won more then 50% of their games in several years - no question.

New skill position players? Oh, we will have new tight ends, that will totally screw things up.

Thought you lost your starting RB, TE's, and WR?

I'm shocked that Riley can be that short and still see over the o-line.

PurpleReign wrote:
Thought you lost your starting RB, TE's, and WR?

We lost our starting RB, but have two guys that got lots of experience (they played vs Oklahoma when our starter was out) and we didn't lose any receivers from last year (2 years ago Austin Collie graduated and is playing well with P. Manning and the Colts). The only spot is the TEs.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

I'll promise you this, if Nelson struggles against UW, and Heaps throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game, Heaps will start against Air Force, and Nelson will come in for spot duty.

And vice-versa as well?

If the vice-versa happens, and Neslon just kills it, then let's RS Heaps. UW is a good indicator of MWC bottom tier teams (yeah Riegn, I said it...). So if Riley can beat UW, he can beat 80% of the teams we play against.

Umm...if vice-versa happens, (Heaps struggles, Nelson throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game) Heaps will have already played and blown his chance at a RS. One snap = one year of eligibility.

I was just saying that if Nelson does well enough, don't play Jake. I would love to see him RS, IF Riley can pull it off. Just have him as a game time decision... But it is too late for any of that. This has been drawn out too long, and it sounds like Bronco is committed to a two qb system for the time being. Having played I just can't see the guys rallying behind two qb;s with no other leader. I mean who is the offensive "leader" or captain?



Is it like a mission thing, where Riley sits across from the team next to Jake and says something about defense, and then gives a little "head nod" to Jake, and Jake says "I also know that defense is important, and I too would like to share my feelings?" "Now, like many people, we believe that defense is an important part of winnings games..."



"Will you... play good defense, and win the Washington Huskies, today the 4th of September?"

Man... Is anyone nervous about a two QB system we got going on???



I just haven't seen it work, and I trust our coaches in all, but this makes me nervous.

BigCougsFan wrote:
Man... Is anyone nervous about a two QB system we got going on???



I just haven't seen it work, and I trust our coaches in all, but this makes me nervous.

I have heard of a few examples of where this has worked, but I think you need different QB styles to have real success. Here's one example of a situation not unlike ours with 2 QBs, one a runner another a passer. Virginia Tech in 2007, ranked #6 at the time went to the 2 QB rotation:



http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7230973/Two-styles-better-than-one.html

The sixth-ranked Hokies have implemented a two-quarterback system for the past three games, choosing Glennon or Taylor on a given play based on down, distance and field position. Glennon usually comes in for passing situations, and Taylor generally is a run-first signal caller capable of throwing deep.



"Right now, both of them give us the best opportunity to win," said coach Frank Beamer, who is using the setup for the first time in his career. "When you have two quarterbacks that are so different, it adds something different to our offense."

Their final record was 11-3, ranked #3 before losing bowl game to #8 Kansas. QB Taylor was a Freshman and Glennon was a RS Junior.



I trust the coaches wouldn't put us in this situation if they didn't think it would benefit the offense. I'm kind of excited to see how this plays out. We have the advantage that both of our QBs could start this year and they play differing styles.