You Are The Head Coach

R

Roundball Shaman

Four-Star Recruit
Here’s a hypothetical situation. Disclaimer:  Resemblance to any current situation is purely coincidental.

You’re the Head Coach. You’ve got a first-string QB with great potential but for whatever reason he’s been off his game all season. You have a fan base that’s choosing between revolting and giving up and a team that’s desperate for a win.

You have a national media that either shows pity or shows delight in your misery.

You have a conference that has not yet learned to show you any respect.

You know that if you bench the QB for reasons other than injury, you could stall his development and damage his confidence. Maybe permanently. Maybe recruiting, too.

You further know that if you don’t get a win soon, you may lose the rest of your team. And, many more of your fans.

The Questions You Now Face:

Do you change QBs in hopes for a quick win? Or do you keep playing the first QB and keep hoping that he find’s his game and you get that win in the process?

Or do you decide the problem is really somewhere else?

How do you ignite the “on” switch on a team that lacks energy and cohesiveness after you’re tried?

And do you ever look in the mirror and wonder why you decided to leave a good job you had before?

 
I would do whatever I could possibly do to get to 6 wins that doesn't undermine the future. Three years without a bowl game is inexcusable and is pushing this rebuild farther and farther away from happening.

 
Roundball Shaman said:
You know that if you bench the QB for reasons other than injury, you could stall his development and damage his confidence.
Click to expand...


If the QB is under performing and the coach gives some game reps to another QB that has proven he's fully capable, I'd hope it would help light a fire under his butt. If he's that fragile, should he be starting? It doesn't have to be all or nothing like he'd never have an opportunity to take a snap again.

 
giphy.gif


 
Maized & Confused said:
If the QB is under performing and the coach gives some game reps to another QB that has proven he's fully capable, I'd hope it would help light a fire under his butt. If he's that fragile, should he be starting? It doesn't have to be all or nothing like he'd never have an opportunity to take a snap again.
Click to expand...
I guess I would ask a follow up question to the one in the OP, and that would be this:

Is it necessary to treat the QB different when it comes to playing time and performance? I have heard it said by a few people that QB "is a little different" but I'm not sure I really understand why. Mills was benched (temporarily) because he missed a block in the Indiana game. Hixson was benched (temporarily) because he got shoved into the QB on pass pro. Why should the QB position be any different? If a guy leaves 14 points on the field in the 1st half because of poor throws, why can't he be sat down (temporarily) to give another player the chance to perform better, at least for that game? If confidence is a concern, then I would think that would be the case with all players not just QBs....

 
This isnt HS football, you play to win.  If your #1 QB is under performing and #2 is capable and performing... You go with # 2 , ESPECIALLY when you need the win...  I believe we win that game with a healthy Vedral..

 
Roundball Shaman said:
Here’s a hypothetical situation. Disclaimer:  Resemblance to any current situation is purely coincidental.

You’re the Head Coach. You’ve got a first-string QB with great potential but for whatever reason he’s been off his game all season. You have a fan base that’s choosing between revolting and giving up and a team that’s desperate for a win.

You have a national media that either shows pity or shows delight in your misery.

You have a conference that has not yet learned to show you any respect.

You know that if you bench the QB for reasons other than injury, you could stall his development and damage his confidence. Maybe permanently. Maybe recruiting, too.

You further know that if you don’t get a win soon, you may lose the rest of your team. And, many more of your fans.

The Questions You Now Face:

Do you change QBs in hopes for a quick win? Or do you keep playing the first QB and keep hoping that he find’s his game and you get that win in the process?

Or do you decide the problem is really somewhere else?

How do you ignite the “on” switch on a team that lacks energy and cohesiveness after you’re tried?

And do you ever look in the mirror and wonder why you decided to leave a good job you had before?
Click to expand...
What? They pumped up Nebraska when we first joined and said all our "speed" would dominate the old 3 yards and a cloud of dust teams. We've been picked to win our division before. If anything they've shown Nebraska more respect than it deserves.

 
Roundball Shaman said:
Do you change QBs in hopes for a quick win? Or do you keep playing the first QB and keep hoping that he find’s his game and you get that win in the process?
Click to expand...
I mean... he did enough to win the game Saturday. We needed one stop. But yes it's AMart's fault.

We are a weird fan base.

Either way I keep him because it makes the most sense and he's the better out of the three.

 
hskrfan4life said:
I mean... he did enough to win the game Saturday. We needed one stop. But yes it's AMart's fault.

We are a weird fan base.

Either way I keep him because it makes the most sense and he's the better out of the three.
Click to expand...
We needed one stop??  What about the first half when it should have been 24-7 and the whole game changes bc of the deficit.  Defense just isnt good enough to shut a team down the entire game.  Played well enough for us to have a comfortable lead, and force Purdue out of their gameplan.  

 
This season is a complete loss.  If I'm the coach i keep working hard and my goal is to try to weed out the losers from the guys who still want to try and get better.  The losers I ask to leave after the season is over.

 
swmohusker said:
We needed one stop??  What about the first half when it should have been 24-7 and the whole game changes bc of the deficit.  Defense just isnt good enough to shut a team down the entire game.  Played well enough for us to have a comfortable lead, and force Purdue out of their gameplan.  
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but the fact of the matter is we had the lead. Defense needed to make a stop and couldn't do it. That's literally the point. Crazy things happen in a football game but to win the game we needed a stop. That's the bottom line. You can talk about it being 24-7 all you want but there's nothing saying it wouldn't of changed the end result. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top