Printable View
I know I know, this is Barnett's first game as a starter, but he clearly knows how to win. He has his flaws, and he doesn't throw a perfect pass but I doubt we see Jantz the rest of the season unless Barnett is injured. Is there anyway we can get him onto the field besides being a QB? Obviously he will be the backup QB, but I think he's way to athletic to not get on the field somehow. Not really sure if we could throw him in as a WR or not, just thinking outside the box. Opinions?
Warmed up on the sidelines because of how often our quarterbacks take shots running is about the best role for him.
I completely agree with you. I hope we see him as a receiver some. And I know that when he was in yesterday it was because Barnett's helmet popped off, but I frankly would be fine seeing him take one or two snaps a game just to give the defense a different look. Frankly, I'm sure that there will be more times Barnett takes a shot and has to come out for a play or two anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSTATE71
Barnett took some real shots...avoidable ones. We may still need Steele as a QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSTATE71
He's the NO. 2 QB. He needs to prepare to play that position every week so he's ready if needed.
The idea of "throwing him in" at receiver is asinine. Shows a total lack of understanding and respect for receivers.
I agree, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get him a couple of series each game. Also, I hope they put him in at WR from time to time, if for no other reason than to have a couple of trick plays available with both QB's in the game.
Agree, asinine thought.
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Senolcyc
Not necessarily. He already knows the routes and plays. The transition from QB to WR is often very quick. I think you could use him in a very limited fashion, if for no other reason than to throw a trick play or two at the opposition. Even if you don't actually run any trick plays, the defense would likely have to be on alert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Senolcyc
I wonder what having 2 QB's in the backfield would do to a D. I'm NOT saying all the time...but 4-5 plays a game. Since both are mobile qb's and not afraid to run I think it would create some real headaches for D's in critical situations. Also you've got the ability for both to throw...and an option type offense where the trailer is still a qb.
I'm sure it's probably been tried...maybe it'd be stupid...but I have to think it would really create havoc for a D.
makes for one less blocker/receiver/running back doing something or being eligible as soon as the ball is snapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by xr4ticlone
Kicker.
No, you don't play him at receiver. Just look what happened to TCU yesterday. The qb goes out for a few plays and they bring in a backup that has been playing receiver, and as a result they aren't comfortable even attempting a pass.
Offense has a lot to do with timing and chemistry, so we don't need to be switching off in game. What different look are we trying to give anyway? Perhaps an easy pick or head scratching fumble? Time for some of you guys to give up the love affair with Steele. The guy has been flat out horrible against BCS opponents for two years now.
This - ALL IN for every player be ready to take your turn and be productive when called on and I'm sure he will be called on again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Senolcyc
I cant remember what game it was but whoever it was they tried this. The offense substituted like normal and brought in the extra qb and got the defense really confused and to the point that they took a timeout. The offense switched back to the traditional set after the timeout.Quote:
Originally Posted by xr4ticlone