McFarland says QB situation will likely be the same

pulse · 09-04-2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by ajsp

Sorry wrong answer...most people feel that it needs to be one or the other. personally, I don't care as long as it doesn't cause problems with the team.

Most people? In this thread alone many people don't even care. I don't care if we play 4 QBs either as long as we win.

jahfg · 09-04-2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by TheHelgo

Just Win Baby!

This is the correct response.

snowcraig2.0 · 09-04-2008, 01:29 PM

Don't group me with 'most people'. I think and would like to the QB rotation to remain just the same as it was against SDSU.

CyValley · 09-04-2008, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by ajsp

Sorry wrong answer...most people feel that it needs to be one or the other. personally, I don't care as long as it doesn't cause problems with the team.

Most people aren't experienced Div. IA football coaches.

Myself, I don't care what most people feel about this issue. I'm content to let this staff handle the QB situation as it sees fit to handle it. The rest of us are amateurs. I'll leave it to the professionals, and gladly.

clone99 · 09-04-2008, 02:28 PM

well i would definitely prefer one QB. In the long run it is only the way to really be successful. Are we going to switch them both off for the next 2 years, I am glad that they both looked good against SDSU, however when we start playing teams of equal or better talent than we have we need a leader of the offense. That is pretty hard to share between two QB. I'm not really leaning towards one or the other, but if they do go with AA, we have to get Bates on the field in some position because he is too great of a offensive threat having him sit on the sidelines with a headset on. Winning is the most important thing, and I think how they split time last week was good and hopefully we will be able to do that for a couple more games figure out who the coaching staff does want to start. Once conference season begins I hope we have picked one guy. There have been very few successful football teams that split time between two QB's.

RyCy04 · 09-04-2008, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by clone99

well i would definitely prefer one QB. In the long run it is only the way to really be successful.

Amen. Remember how rough Florida had it with Chris Leak and Tim Tebow... wait a sec.

Cyclonick182 · 09-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by RyCy04

Amen. Remember how rough Florida had it with Chris Leak and Tim Tebow... wait a sec.

Yeah, they were awful splitting play time....

Steve · 09-04-2008, 02:56 PM

Something else to consider. Sometimes the choice of the best QB might be dictated by the type system used by the defense. For example, if Arnaud proves to be the most accurate passer, he could be the best option against a max cover zone where the pass has to be delivered between defenders. Sit back and pick them apart. If Bates is the most elusive and explosive, he might be the best option against an attacking defense that tries to lock down on the receivers. Buy some time to hit the big play or tuck and run to an area vacated by a cover corner running down field with a receiver.

ISUFan22 · 09-04-2008, 02:59 PM

I agree with Steve. I'd venture to guess that is how the system will be employed. The guy that will fair better against a specific team will see more time. The guy with the hot hand, will see more time.

Now, should that routinely be the same guy, I think we'll see a true starter emerge.

Right now both guys seriously want to and believe they're good enough to play the spot. The coaches are letting them battle it out on the field. Competition breeds success.

clone99 · 09-04-2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by RyCy04

Amen. Remember how rough Florida had it with Chris Leak and Tim Tebow... wait a sec.

ok, the statement "only way" wasn't probably the best choice, it is possible but difficult. there can be problems between the QB's themselves sharing time, offensive stability (especally with a younger offense, hopefully scales isn't going to be our offensive leader), and when you are down by 6 points and you have 2 min in the game I don't think there even should be a concern who should be quarterbacking that series. just my thoughts, could be wrong could be right. I have seen a lot more national titles won with one instead of two, and I doubt it is because that team has only one good QB.

cmoneyr · 09-04-2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by RyCy04

Amen. Remember how rough Florida had it with Chris Leak and Tim Tebow... wait a sec.

Sweet, we're as good as Florida was 2 years ago?? Anything less than a NC will be a disappointment then.

isucyclone4 · 09-04-2008, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Sweet, we're as good as Florida was 2 years ago?? Anything less than a NC will be a disappointment then.

I'll take that...I don't like how people automatically assume a team can't win with QB's splitting time. It all depends on the guys playing the position, some guys feel the need to be "the man" and wants the job solely, other just don't care as long as they win. Seeing how we struggled last year I don't think these Cyclones care who the QB is as long as they're winning.

As a fan I am like a couple people have already said: we could play 4 QB's as long as we win I don't care.

nickwc · 09-04-2008, 03:57 PM

I don't really know if I am correct in saying this, but often times people say it will be harder for a team to prepare against us, while this might be a little true but in the long run i don't know if this is the case. Defenses pretty much know that if bates is in the game the offense is going to be completley different than if AA is in the game. So defenses will know beforehand on what formations to run and so on. to pose a question, wouldn't it take more time for a defense to prepare if they had one quarterback who could do both really well. That way the defense doesn't really know what to expect on each play?

cybsball20 · 09-04-2008, 04:05 PM

I wanna see Arnaud run the ball a ton this week and Bates hang in the pocket just to make it even harder to game plan...

ISUFan22 · 09-04-2008, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by nickwc

I don't really know if I am correct in saying this, but often times people say it will be harder for a team to prepare against us, while this might be a little true but in the long run i don't know if this is the case. Defenses pretty much know that if bates is in the game the offense is going to be completley different than if AA is in the game. So defenses will know beforehand on what formations to run and so on. to pose a question, wouldn't it take more time for a defense to prepare if they had one quarterback who could do both really well. That way the defense doesn't really know what to expect on each play?

Did ya watch the game Thursday night? The offense was relatively seamless when the QB changed.

And, even if it were not, one of the benefits of having a 2 QB system is to force the defense to have to prepare for 2 types of offense. Sure, they'll know what QB is in - but the prep work is the same.

However, I don't see the wide gap between our 2 QBs that you see in other 2 QB systems. People act like Arnaud can't run and Bates can't throw. Both claims are quite incorrect.

So I don't see ISU having the "advantage" that many other dual-headed systems have. Our advantage would be having a fresh guy in there and if one guy is having an off day, the other guy gets the reps.