Pokes Report Podcast No. 60: South Alabama Preview

So I did go "mow the grass" and chill for a while, but it didn't change what I think.

It's the job of the OC, QB Coach, and the HC to come to a decision on who will be the starting QB, even when the competition is close. Playing all 3 is OK, even good to give them playing time against lower competition in non-conference games, but not when the real season starts.

None of the 3 have time to really establish some rhythm and get into the flow of the game. We are basically throwing away the first possession for each QB - so that's three possessions per game. And as Gundy said, it forces us to run a limited playbook. At some point you have to run the offense you will run in conference games, hopefully before the tough conference games start. We keep doing this and our offense will never get in sync.

Understand: naming a starter does not mean it has been carved in stone no matter the results. A change can be made if it doesn't work out. We wouldn't be the first team that began the season with a starter and later changed.

mow the grass again..... we're still playing non conference games

come back again if it is actually an issue - which of course it won't be.

Who would you name as starting QB?

Who I would name doesn't matter. It's not my job.

Uh, no.

South Alabama could be a tougher opponent than Iowa State. We've had two non-conference games with the full rotation. Time to at least cut down to two, and even better to pick a starter to have one game with an expanded play book and some continuity. The offense needs that for the future, and we may need it for this game.

Pistolp said:

---

Uh, no.

South Alabama could be a tougher opponent than Iowa State. We've had two non-conference games with the full rotation. Time to at least cut down to two, and even better to pick a starter to have one game with an expanded play book and some continuity. The offense needs that for the future, and we may need it for this game.

---

I don't know if it's time or not, I guess I was confused by your first post where you said:

Playing all 3 is OK, even good to give them playing time against lower competition in non-conference games, but not when the real season starts.

At some point you have to run the offense you will run in conference games, hopefully before the tough conference games start.


Looking at the ESPN gamecast (I know not 100% accurate prediction); they give OSU an 84.7% chance of beating South Bama, and give OSU a 48.2% chance of beating ISU.

and frankly, I don't consider ISU to be a "tough conference game". If we can't beat the Gamblers then it doesn't really matter who plays QB the entire rest of the season.

Gundy said in his presser that he might cut it down to 2 this week, or we might see all three - it depends on how they do in practice.

South Bama gives up a ton of passing yards per game, so we may see more deep balls this week.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I can't help that. What I said makes sense. You can have the last post, as I'm sure you will, but I'm done with you.

Pistolp said:

---

You have a reading comprehension problem. I can't help that. What I said makes sense. You can have the last post, as I'm sure you will, but I'm done with you.

---

I do not have any problems. Why do you attack people, instead of having a discussion?

I did not intent to be contrary, I was simply explaining why I had made my original post.

Have a nice day.

Vegas puts us at just a 7 point favorite. Not a lot of margin for error.

I'm not Pistolp, but, OK I'll bite.

If three of anything are about equal, then by definition it doesn't matter which you choose. Three recommended contractors to remodel your kitchen. Three models of SUVs. Three processes to perform some task. Three guys to mow my grass. If all about equal, pick one and run with with it.

While on field performance may be about equal, these three QBs have other differences which I consider important. Alan is not the future of the program. He's here this year. If he had played and blown us away with his performance, then fine. But he hasn't. So I would pick between Garret and Gunnar. Garret seems a little bit more poised in the pocket at this point, so I'd name him QB1. Also, Gunnar likely would not enter the portal over this decision.

Choosing one now (and I say Garret) allows us to get him more practice/game reps (Coach Gundy is right about number of game reps and development) and opens up the playbook, which likely increases our chances of winning games. And that's the explanation I'd give to each of the QBs.

There are no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs.

'It's a little concerning': OSU's 3-quarterback system persists as starting job remains vacant | Sports | ocolly.com

Clint Chelf talks about a QB competition heading into the season, he thinks it's detrimental to the eventual starter.

IMO... above all...

we must not sacrifice the present to focus on the future.

We need to win THIS YEAR, and they are not all "equal", they are all different.

I just don't understand why so many are distraught over trying to give each kid an honest chance to win the job.

None of us are qualified to make any real comments because during the games we don't know the play that was called, we don't know if some other player missed their assignment, we don't know any of that.

But mostly, practice, as Gundy said. It will be determined in practice. We don't watch practice, we don't know what they are asked to do, we don't know how the team responds to each QB, we don't know anything to base any objective opinion on.

We're winning. We're building depth. We should all be content with that until one of the kids earns the sole starting spot, or until the Coach decides he's seen enough.