Is two QB system blasphemy around here?

Would playing a less talented mobile quarterback make Mett any less of a statue?

In 2007, we used 2 QBs because both QBs had too much talent to sit on the bench.

In the years following we used 2 QBs because neither QB was talented enough to stay on the field full time.

Mett is talented enough to stay out there.

quote:

---

I just think some of these dual threat QBs that we recruited could have a lot to offer to change the pace.

---

As I understand it, Bolden was injured in practice and lost for the season. That's 3rd hand but still.

As for the rest of your post, please find some lighter fluid & a match. Douse yourself in said fluid, then utilieze said match.

You really only need a running QB if you cannot pass it well. Mett can pass, so it is less important. I do like a QB that can pick up a 1st every now and then when the pocket breaks down though. As far as having a QB that can run option and shite, no thanks.

Just what we need. Another fricking QB controversy.

quote:

---

Yeah, having a running QB come in occasionally would have helped the WRs hold on the football and Mett make more accurate throws for the first few games.

---

How about having a QB make first downs when the wide receivers couldn't? How about having another option rather than throwing to those same WRs not catching the ball?

I'm not suggesting starting a new QB. There is nothing wrong with changing the pace and having something else for opposing defenses to prepare for.

quote:

---

How is Alabama's 2 qb system working? Georgia's? Notre Dame's?

---

Look at the top 4....Golson and Driskel are average passers, but they can run. Murray and McCarron are good passers that can't run a lick. I'd take Bama or Georgia's offense over the other two any day of the week.

quote:

---

Is two QB system blasphemy around here?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Would playing a less talented mobile quarterback make Mett any less of a statue? In 2007, we used 2 QBs because both QBs had too much talent to sit on the bench. In the years following we used 2 QBs because neither QB was talented enough to stay on the field full time. Mett is talented enough to stay out there.

---

This all of it! and we have the running game to make up for a "non-mobile" QB

quote:

---

As for the rest of your post, please find some lighter fluid & a match. Douse yourself in said fluid, then utilieze said match.

---

1). Meh, I'll pass. You'd probably have a similar position if Mett got hurt running the option.
2). Our offense was impressive in 2007. Each played a role. It was not like JL/JJ...anything but.
3). Quit acting like a pseudo-intellectual douche. I bet you are a winner at life.
4). Learn to spell.

quote:

---

It would have given defenses something else to prepare for since we were extremely one dimensional without a passing game

---

The problem is the passing game didn't "suck" against the first couple teams (UNT and UW) we beat the crap out of both of them and even Idaho. Yes Mett had a pick that gave Idaho 6 points, but we also scored 63 points in that game. The offense wasn't stagnant in a game until the Auburn game. That was the fourth game of the season, you can't just throw your third string QB in there on the road against an SEC team to start running the football. He wasn't taking the snaps in practice, and he shouldn't have been taking the snaps in practice. There were really only 2 games where our passing game sucked and we were so one dimentional that our offense was completely stagnant. Those 2 games were Auburn and Florida.