Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

QB situation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • QB situation

    So 2 games end what are you all's opinions of how the qb position is being handled?

    like it, keep it the same?

    Bender is the guy let him play the whole game?

    Kendrick should start?

    keep using both but use Kendrick more?

    WTH is Carter Stanley?

    Would love to read some of your thoughts.

  • #2
    I think each of our QBs have certain strengths, and both have glaring, though opposite, weaknesses. It would be nice if they were one guy. But since they are not, I think you have to pick your horse and run with him. This trading out QBs for situational stuff is for the birds. Skills aside, a QB is not going to be a team leader with that kind of crap happening.

    Comment


    • #3
      I still think Kendrick should be the starter. Bender has looked better than he did last year, but especially as competition gets harder, we are going to need the run threat. As it is now, when Kendrick comes in, everyone knows its a run, so its absolutely stupid. Regardless of my opinion that Kendrick should start, Beaty is a moran for having sub packages. QB is a position that you pick a guy, start him, and play him the whole game. A QB will never be able to be a true leader when a clueless head coach is playing musical chairs. It's the position that the entire offense looks to, and that can't happen when the QB is in and out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Man, message board posters must know a lot more about football than..

        *checks notes*

        ...Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Moon314 View Post
          I still think Kendrick should be the starter. Bender has looked better than he did last year, but especially as competition gets harder, we are going to need the run threat. As it is now, when Kendrick comes in, everyone knows its a run, so its absolutely stupid. Regardless of my opinion that Kendrick should start, Beaty is a moran for having sub packages. QB is a position that you pick a guy, start him, and play him the whole game. A QB will never be able to be a true leader when a clueless head coach is playing musical chairs. It's the position that the entire offense looks to, and that can't happen when the QB is in and out.
          I'm fine with the non-bolded, that's a logical opinion that has some merit regarding knowing ahead of time what Kendrick is permitted to do and allowing the defense to cheat. There needs to be more variety when Kendrick comes in.

          The bolded is an absurd take. You play the players that give you the best chance to win. Depending on game situation, clock situation, personnel situation, every position on the field for offense and defense can change to fit the situation. Why not QB? Yes, as said above, Kendrick should have more variety for his play calls to maximize the benefit he can provide as a mobile QB. But to say that either he has to be on the field 100% of the time or not at all is ludicrous.

          And GTFO with "leader" bullshit. You can be a leader for the team no matter how much you play, and if 2 QBs play consistently each game (no matter how much each plays), both can be leaders and you are not necessarily losing some hypothetical pillar of an offense that everyone looks to. (We can also discuss how futile looking to a KU QB as the bastion of leadership really is)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gooner View Post


            And GTFO with "leader" bullshit. You can be a leader for the team no matter how much you play, and if 2 QBs play consistently each game (no matter how much each plays), both can be leaders and you are not necessarily losing some hypothetical pillar of an offense that everyone looks to. (We can also discuss how futile looking to a KU QB as the bastion of leadership really is)
            I'm gonna disagree a bit with you here.

            I think there is merit to the "leader" argument, especially with QBs. It's the most vital position in any sport and is responsible for ensuring the offense functions as planned. There's a reason other positions in other sports are called "QB on the field/court." Having an entrenched starter makes it easier to do that - by building chemistry with teammates, having the same voice communicating on the field, the guy that serves as the public "face" of the squad to the media, etc.

            Playing 2 is certainly possible, but saying they can be co-leaders is a stretch. QB is a different animal and IMO it's easier to stick with one. I'd think a kitchen would be inefficient with two head chefs or a ship would be with two captains. Someone needs to be the guy in charge.

            That said, you also need to be a good player to be an effective leader. Leadership without backing it up on the field just rings hollow. That's where we fail.

            Comment


            • #7
              I also have to think that there’s something to the notion of playing not to get pulled.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jhawkz5 View Post
                Man, message board posters must know a lot more about football than..

                *checks notes*

                ...Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney.
                I don't think the talent level Nick and Dabo are using compares to the talent level at KU. Face it, Kendrick had no Power 5 offers. Stanley makes the most sense to me, but Beaty be Beaty.

                Comment

                Working...
                X