Happy to hear that we will try to avoid rotating QBs

[loyalty_policia]

I, for one, am very pleased that Flood is going to do his best to stick to his strategy of letting our starter grow in to the role. We are going to need one of these guys to have all of the experience they can get going in to the meat of the schedule. I personally don't care which kid gets it, but I do hope that whoever that is, gets a solid amount of time working out some of the inevitable bugs.

And yes of course if one is performing awful over a large sample, I am for making the switch, but to do it in game, it would have to be an all time Nova against PSU type situation.

 

[JPhoboken]

So if we are beating Norfolk st by 35 pts at half, the named starter should play the whole game? This is why Rutgers never develops back up quarterbacks, they seldom get a chance to play.

 

[loyalty_policia]

So if we are beating Norfolk st by 35 pts at half, the named starter should play the whole game? This is why Rutgers never develops back up quarterbacks, they seldom get a chance to play.

That's a good and fair question. Depends on how much work the QB really got in the first half or if we ran it down their throat, but through 95% of the scenario's i can foresee, yes, I want the named starter playing that whole game. Playing the backup against even more of garbage second half opponent can only lead to more controversy and some of our maniac fans who have been on the side (wrongly I might add) of every backup QB in the past 2 decades. I would prefer the starter have more experience than the backup going into the real games.

 

[Alamo Al]

I AM for replacing the starter in those games where getting you asses beat with the backup, provided the starter has been ineffective. That is another way to get #2 some experience.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

So if we are beating Norfolk st by 35 pts at half, the named starter should play the whole game? This is why Rutgers never develops back up quarterbacks, they seldom get a chance to play.

did that happen last year against Howard? the answer is no, btw as both QBs played.

 

[vkj91]

again with this. First, if you are up by 35 at half you are handing the ball off every down. Deosn't really matter who the QB is because he isn't developing. Second, will you guys list for me all these programs that are constantly putting their backup QB's in? I watch as much college football as anyone and I don't recall all these substitutions. Last week when a thread like this was posted I went back and looked at the last two Heisman winning QB's backups. combined they had like 15 attempts against their 1AA opponents.

 

[jlariv9]

Absolutely need to get back-up in the game whenever possible....whether we're getting our ass kicked or we're kicking asses. This is standard practice to provide depth and experience. To not do it would be stupid.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

This happen last year, no one watched the games last year? It was Rutgers 1st season in the Big Ten, it was kind of a big deal.

 

[RUich]

Even with a first team QB, there are certainly times when a change would, IMO, be more beneficial than not. Last year's melt down by Nova is certainly a time when it is hard to imagine it not being helpful. Gary certainly was having a nightmare game and it has to effect just how effective you can be when you lose confidence in what you think you can do. Another time might be when your guy is getting killed by the defense. How many sacks are enough? This just seems to be one of those "live to play another day" situations.
I think the point of this is always just how prepared is your backup to actually come in and more the chains? Slippery slope.

 

[JPhoboken]

again with this. First, if you are up by 35 at half you are handing the ball off every down. Deosn't really matter who the QB is because he isn't developing. Second, will you guys list for me all these programs that are constantly putting their backup QB's in? I watch as much college football as anyone and I don't recall all these substitutions. Last week when a thread like this was posted I went back and looked at the last two Heisman winning QB's backups. combined they had like 15 attempts against their 1AA opponents.

Disagree, any experience you can get for backup qb's will help there development.

 

[LotusAggressor]

Handing the ball off for a quarter in a six touchdown blowout isn't providing substantial experience. The only reason to play the backup is so the starter doesn't get hurt.

 

[lighty]

"again with this. First, if you are up by 35 at half you are handing the ball off every down. Deosn't really matter who the QB is because he isn't developing. Second, will you guys list for me all these programs that are constantly putting their backup QB's in?"

I know we aren't Miami, but do you guys remember when Miami used to destroy RU in 2000-2001? Their third stringers would be tossing bombs.

It's nice to respect the opponent, but I think RU goes a bit overboard with having the backup QB only hand-off. I don't think people object to having the backup play like a real QB; they object to keeping the starter in during a blowout.

 

[jlariv9]

Handing the ball off for a quarter in a six touchdown blowout isn't providing substantial experience. The only reason to play the backup is so the starter doesn't get hurt.

Well, your last sentence is reason enough to pull the starter. I disagree that this is the only reason...experience is experience whether it is substantial or not. You put the backup in to get snaps, work on footwork, call plays, be vocal, maybe even throw some short balls - it is all very valuable to a back-up. As we know, developing back-ups and getting them GAME experience has been a huge oversight over the last several years.

 

[RCTrooper]

Well, your last sentence is reason enough to pull the starter. I disagree that this is the only reason...experience is experience whether it is substantial or not. You put the backup in to get snaps, work on footwork, call plays, be vocal, maybe even throw some short balls - it is all very valuable to a back-up. As we know, developing back-ups and getting them GAME experience has been a huge oversight over the last several years.

Well, you want the QBs to get as much experience as possible. Regardless of who gets picked as the starter, neither Rettig OR Laviano have much game experience. Why would you pull either in the Norfolk State game if you want QBs to get game reps?

That being said, is it a good idea for the HC to say "whomever is the backup, I will try to give them reps in the first game or any game in which we are ahead by a lot"? Yeah, I think so, because it helps the backup keep his chin up after losing out in what appears to be a neck-and-neck competition.

 

[LotusAggressor]

"again with this. First, if you are up by 35 at half you are handing the ball off every down. Deosn't really matter who the QB is because he isn't developing. Second, will you guys list for me all these programs that are constantly putting their backup QB's in?"

I know we aren't Miami, but do you guys remember when Miami used to destroy RU in 2000-2001? Their third stringers would be tossing bombs.

It's nice to respect the opponent, but I think RU goes a bit overboard with having the backup QB only hand-off. I don't think people object to having the backup play like a real QB; they object to keeping the starter in during a blowout.

Except when the backup is Mike McQueary in 1995.

 

[jlariv9]

Well, you want the QBs to get as much experience as possible. Regardless of who gets picked as the starter, neither Rettig OR Laviano have much game experience. Why would you pull either in the Norfolk State game if you want QBs to get game reps?

That being said, is it a good idea for the HC to say "whomever is the backup, I will try to give them reps in the first game or any game in which we are ahead by a lot"? Yeah, I think so, because it helps the backup keep his chin up after losing out in what appears to be a neck-and-neck competition.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the 1st paragraph, as the 1st sentence seems to contradict the 3rd sentence. The pint is that you want BOTH QBs to get as much experience as possible. IMO, the additional value gained for the starter in a blow-out situation is minimal compared to the value gained by the back-up in the same situation, so you play the back-up.

 

[srru86]

There is no substitute for playing live action even against an inferior opponent. The best training regimen can't duplicate the tension and adrenaline of being on the field when the lights are bright. Taking a series against Norfolk State does not equal going against OSU of course. But taking that series against them is in many ways more important preparation than a whole bunch of practice and scrimmage. You just never know how somebody will react until they been in it.

 

[mdk01]

Handing the ball off for a quarter in a six touchdown blowout isn't providing substantial experience. The only reason to play the backup is so the starter doesn't get hurt.

You mean like Mike Teel in 2007, who stayed in way too long in a 59-0 blowout of Norfolk State and bruised a thumb that bothered him for the next 6 weeks?