1995 Redux said:
cognizant said:
why only have one. not that northwestern was some powerhouse by any means but they could tear some stuff up with that dual qb threat. hell if there all 3 so close which right now seems to be the case but at the same time to me its like each one has there certain abiltily that the others don't have. tommy with the elusive running. Stanton just throws a hell of a ball, and ryker, well he did it all on sat it seemed. but if you can keep opponents constantly on their heels with a multiple qb .. why not. just a thought, course you got the issue of the offense constantly adjusting though too...
The old saying goes "If you have more than one quarterback you have none."
This isnt always true as I remember LSU doing it quite well a couple years ago. Problem is these guys get better with experience. The less they play the less experience they gain. So if they all three split time equally, if one isnt progressing they likely all are struggling to progress.
Yeah...having two quarterbacks has a very, very, very low success rate.
kchusker_chris said:
Again, Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida were replacing Heisman finalists. We're not. (which is why I think we'll be fine). Anyone overly worried at this point is placing way too much value in the role Martinez played.
Oklahoma had a rough time replacing Landry Jones (not a Heisman finalist).
West Virginia had a rough time replacing Pat White (not a Heisman finalist).
Michigan after Denard Robinson.
Michigan State after Kirk Cousins.
Virginia Tech after Tyrod Taylor.
Houston after Case Keenum.
Kansas after Todd Reesing.
idk
good morning