Quarterback Contreversey

I don't think using a two-qb system is going to keep your guys from succeeding in life. But it may hurt your offensive output.

I coached qb's for 4 straight seasons with using a 2-qb system. The final product was 3 trips to the state finals with 2 Championships.

It really didn't matter with our offense. We ran and ran and ran. However, had our passing game being stressed more it could have made a huge difference.

I think the importance you put on the qb position makes a big difference. Some coaches make sure that the qb is the true leader of the team and is treated that way. If that is your style then 2 QBs probably will not work.

Coach...In my opinion, look at your QB's and your offense. If one is even slightly better then he is your QB. However, if the other is a good athlete or brings something different to the offense, like the ability to scramble, then he should line up as a WR or a RB so he is into the game if and when you made need him. Also, don't hesitate to pull a switcharoo from time to time, see Antwan Randle El, something to mix the defense up, be creative within the rules.

Nate

Im with Lou Cella! Quarterback contreversies are a major road block in any program (from High School and every level in between) that is making an attempt to be successful. I still believe that if coaches cant make clutch calls for their football team, what message are you sending to your players? Since the position makes that player an instant leader, it is important for coaches to have total confidence in one quarterback.

Like I said before, it's not a coincidence that the pros dont have this problem.

Coach707 - just a little sarcasm on my post. Don't take offense. As you tried to imply using a 2 QB system is not the best way to go, as I said in my post.

I do feel that there may be a little too much emphasis on "making the clutch decision" as you put it. What if your clutch decision goes wrong. The guy you go with to start the season isn't the same player when the lights come on, as he is at practice, or even in the scrimmages. What kind of leadership skills does that show? That you can't make the right call?

Of course not!!!

I believe no matter the offense you have to go with what works for your team and the individual players.

In baseball there are picthers who are better coming out of the bullpen than starting. Some coaches may have a QB that operates the same way, once the game has started and sees whats going on, he can step it up.

Maybe not, but bottom line is getting in the endzone.

First I want to respond to Mr. Neil. I dont mean any disrespect, but obviously you have never played the position, nor can you relate. the art of quarterbacking is in NO WAY similar to pitching. A quarterback has to establish a rythm in order to perform at his peak. Tell me the last time you have witnessed a quarterback come off the bench (like a pitcher in baseball) and automatically get IN THE ZONE? This never happens. You know why Sir, its because football is about flow, feel and repetition. Getting a feel for the game is often undersetimated by coaches with it comes to quarterbacking.

Also, its true that sometimes an athlete can turn out to be the opposite of what you expect. If you happen to name a quarterback your starter based on his practice play, and he cant perform in a game, as a coach it is your job to make the necessary change if needed. This doesnt mean that you cant make the right decision. Coaching is not predicting the future. How could you know that the kid was not a game time player before you play your first game? Not possible in many cases. I believe its shows outstanding leadership skills to use what you have (practices and team scrimages) to gage who should "start" at specific positions. I emphasize START, because who knows if the kid may finish! What if he gets hurt? Could you then say that the coach showed an inability to make the right descision because the athlete got hurt in a game? Could you say that the coach should have picked the QB that was less prone to injuries? OF COURSE NOT!

If the bottom line is getting in the end zone, you have the best chance to do so with ONE leader that has the flow, feel and repetitions to make him your quarterback.





Coach Huey,
Its nearly impossible to teach your back-up QB in the same manner as your starter UNLESS they are of equal talent, and I mean equal physically, mentally and has the same if not a higher level of confidence. Your back-up may have the ability to throw just as well as the starter, but if his confidence is not there you may as well run it 3 times and punt to play defense. If your team's philosophy is built around the quarterback then of course you would have to change your gameplan. It wouldnt be smart if you didnt. I think that anything that you do that is in the gameplan because of your starting quarterback would be a "gamble" if you tried it with a back-up. What if your gameplan was to run bootleg passes to the right (the strenght of you starter) but your backup QB is left handed? Would you still want to bootleg right and attempt to throw? I hope not. What if you wanted to spread the field so your QB could identify the blitz and hit the hot reciever, but your back-up has trouble reading defenses and he struggles under pressure. Would you still want to keep this game plan? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Coaches dont underestimate that QB's need to establish the flow and feel of a game. The only way this is possible is by constant repetitions.

I applaud your accolades Coach. And this is not an attack of your character. I didnt mean to run you away from debating on this topic, I just wanted to go point for point to see who's views held the most weight in real life cenarios. You said that I didnt read your post, well obviously you didnt read mine. I never said that a player never came off of the bench and played WELL. I asked when was the last time you saw a player come off of the bench and got IN THE ZONE? there's a difference between playing well enough not to hurt your team, and being IN THE ZONE!

Im not the type to get offended. I repeat, IM NOT THE TYPE TO GET OFFENDED!! Im here solely for the advancement of my coaching career. Also, it may seem as if I come off aggressive, but thats because I have been raised in an eat or be eaten society. I should be apologizing to YOU for that.

Coach707,
I agree with much of what you said above, as I told you before and will say here later, but
I don't think you can make a blanket statement that guys don't get "in the zone" coming off the bench. I observed it a number of times this year, in HS and in college.

Rick Clausen did a pretty good job against LSU off the bench this year in the second half for Tennessee when he brought them back from 23 down. I would say he was "in the zone." I am not suggesting He sustained his play to keep Ainge out all year, however, because Ainge came on strong the rest of the season. But, there is such a thing as a "hot hand," and I have seen it. Tom Brady was a great call earlier. How about Frank Reich for the Bills, in the greatest comeback of all time against Houston, down 35-0 and wins. Now, that was injury, but it was off the bench, and "into the zone."

Matt Flynn, LSU QB #2 competing with Jamarcus Russell, repeatedly showed his abilities behind Russell all year off the bench. He stepped in for LSU in the Peach Bowl and won MVP, and embarrassed Miami. Les Miles has his hands full next year in QB controversy. This "Hot hand" is exactly the reason why we have QB controversies to begin with. The QBs get hot and creates the problem, and the fans love that. Then the QB cannot sustain it, and it swings back the other way.

Here's my point, if #2 weren't "in the zone", coming off the bench, then there wouldn't be a controversy. The "#2 getting in the zone" is actually so common that it encourages most controversy, not the other way around.


The Pros, IMO, don't do it for economic reasons. The financial investment swings the hammer, not the coach, many times, not all, there are other factors for sure.

Some other thoughts on an excellent thread...

Competition with a decision at the end is good, but the ongoing controversy is a challenge for a coach and player

Now, I have seen some coaches try to create a controversy with unmatched talent, and that is a nightmare. I think they believe they are being fair, but when it obvious one is better and they do it, it looks bad. Only seen that a few times. More times than not, it is a tough call.

I personally played in a 2 QB system twice, and I do not endorse the practice as the "best" way to do it, nor do I think it is great for your QBs. I try to avoid it where I can.

It takes a lot of tread off the tires in a hurry in their hearts. We were rotated and two platooned, and there was no chance to establish anything. That was not a good thing, it was hard.

However, in defense of the coach at that time, we weren't stepping up to take the job either. We both made dumb mistakes, and got "in the zone" and that kept the controversy alive. We had one preseason scrimmage to decide the starter, and had the exact same stats each half for the game - 9-11 165 yards and 1 TD. We were so close. I got the nod at the beginning, because of the offseason effort I put in, and my ability to run the scheme. Less mental mistakes overall. But, when I didn't play well, he would come in, play well, and it flipped for a few days. It was rough. In my case, the way the guy handled it was way
wrong and that is another story.

However, if you have two kids right close like that, if your starter, you decided on isn't getting it done,
as a coach, you just can't be stubborn. If the kid is self-destructing, and the other kid is close. He deserves a shot. You have asked him to push himself to be ready, he does that, you can't deny him a chance to prove himself. That isn't right.

As far as preparing each the same way, I would have to say Coach Huey is right. You have no choice but to prepare them the same way mechanically in the overall scheme, it is what you do offensively. If they can't run "your" offense the same, then there is no controversy as COACH707 said, they need to be EQUAL TALENT. Now, you may not run the same plays with them in the game in your scheme, I get that, because they are differently talented, but overall mechanics are the same. The breakdown for #2 is reps, and that is where he will struggle, no doubt.

You need them to run your gameplan, your offense to whatever level you can call it for each QB. If you run the option, and your back up is a thrower, you have a problem. In order to win the job as a backup in HS as a throwing QB, I had to spend 6 days a week learning how to run the VEER! I had linemen out with me running the mesh, because no one else would. I won the job, because, now I could do both, and I made the other guy obsolete! Our offense was the VEER, and he wasn't going to build his system around me. I had to learn and do it his way, or I wasn't going to play. He wasn't just going to go shotgun, because I could throw either. Not a good idea with an unproven kid. Now, in an injury situation where #1 is out, I may have to swing the scheme more heavily another way, but my system includes that flexibility already. That is another thread.


Communicating with Staff and others about a QB controversy and making the move

Now, that move to #2 would involve my staff's input, because I cannot always see clearly as HC if I am closer to the situation as the QB coach. So, I will put clarifying limits on the opportunity and I will reevaluate the situation after that game and restate my position. If #2 beats out #1, He will become the starter. But, that is "only if he executes at clearly higher level" and that may not just be 1 ball game. It is only fair to let him have his chance to "establish himself." If he plays at a number #2 level, as we started, I will put #1 back in, and let him redeem himself. That can be fun to watch, because it often wakes him up, or can let him reset. I have seen that work. But #2 has to sustain a better game performance over weeks, not days, but that is what makes this issue tough.

We are dealing with 16-18 year old boys under pressure, and they do some interesting things. That is why you have to keep communicating with the kids and let them know where they stand. The biggest mistake I see coaches make in this regard, is that they don't say anything or give feedback, and that is what wearies the situation. Say what you can, and make a call. Even if it isn't easy. Tell them why you are doing it, and stand by the decision. That way, if #1 tanks, it will be easier to give #2 a shot, because you have been above boards the whole time. Just my thoughts.

I know that everytime I have tried to make a hard and fast policy on the issue to not have controversy, it finds the most unique ways to get challenged. Just don't box yourself in because of a philosophy that works in theory, but may hurt the team if you have a kid who might turn it around and you don't use him because you are trying to make a statement. I just think that can be arrogant. I have seen that done. IF I have two QBs competing, and they don't want to play other positions, or can't, this is a competition at all levels, and if the team knows the situation openly, the kids know the situation, then their won't be confusing with the presence of #2. In many cases, they welcome it for what it might do to turn things around. The kids aren't dumb, they are watching how you handle things.

The key is limiting the controversy's time, through competition. The competition will last for a set period and a decision is made, but it usually resolves itself pretty fast before that with the pressure. The cream usually rises.

Also, my other team captains will be involved in the communication as well. They need to know what we are doing to keep the team apprised of the challenge we face. They don't have anything close to the final say in it, but they will know where we are as a staff on the issue, so they can speak intelligently to the team. No details will be given to them, just our position at present. We are not going to have a Civil War over QBs, period. I have had some great input from captains in the past. They see things we do not, and I have used their input in the decision making. They notice things and they have to play with these kids. Ask them who they want to go to war with? and it is interesting what they say.

I communicate with all the fathers preseason that I do not discuss playing time with parents. Your boys are old enough to be men and talk to me personally, and the door is open. "Do not call me about playing time." Tell your young "man" to "hike up his skirt", and come and talk to me about why he isn't playing.
If I am mean, or unkind, or dishonest, you may call me then. But only to clarify what was said, not to make a case. "Otherwise, please allow your sons to grow into men in this program, isn't that why we are here? This is their competition, not yours. Encourage them to be their best, but let it play out."

Personal experiences in a 2 QB system. 1 went well, and one that went hard

I competed in 2 QB systems, once in HS, and once in College, and I was fortunate to win both battles from various scenarios. The key to both, I believe was I did what the Coach wanted more consistently. I was more dependable and stayed closer to his perspective of the offense. Now, I made plays, but within the system. But, I wasn't a wild card.

In college, I platooned under the same coach for two seasons, and were it not for my faith, I would have been gone too. The QB I was competing with eventually quit. HC ran off 4-5 QBs with all the mind games he played as HC with competing QBs. That would be an example of "When coaching goes bad". I learned a great deal through that experience as a man, but as a coach I vowed I would not do the things he did to the QBs.

Summary

Still a hard issue as a coach. I have had to deal with it twice as a coach. This past Spring it came up, and I was open with the QBs from day 1, let them compete, and communicated the whole way of their progress, and made decisions where I could. I almost lost both QBs to quitting over the summer. Was I wrong for letting them compete, or were they just used to having things handed to them? Obviously, the latter. I picked one at the end of Spring, but played the second one as I said I would, but he was #2 and playing another position.

It was hard on them, but I kept working with them and encouraging them. In this case, it was a first for both guys to be in the situation, and I told them that they would both be on the field regardless of who played QB. They were both good athletes. The #2 kid quit and ended the controversy. Guess he showed what he was not in his heart, and that is what the good old fashioned competition will do. It becomes a controversy when the coach won't make decisions and communicate. Kids are given too much, and a little fair competition for the job will put hair on their chest. Just don't make it a controversy by playing mind games. When its time, Decide #1 and #2, and make the adjustments where necessary.

Finally, you just have to communicate and establish a reduced view of the QB as being everything to the team. He isn't. As Huey put it, he is a "distributor". He can be replaced, as anyone can. But, in the same breath, when you call it, you do have to give a kid you decide on a fair shot to establish himself, and not "panic sub" every other possession.

Great thread. I enjoyed it.

Just my opinion, and there are lots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coach707
In my opinion, even at the high school level your quarterback has to be the centerpiece of your team. When Coach Huey referred to quarterbacks as "distributors" at first I almost fell out of my chair. But then I realized, if your offense is conservative, you put no emphasis on this position. Many coaches run these veer option and wing-T style offenses to take the descision making and the complexities out of coaching. To me, thats the challenge. Unfortunately I was the victim of coaches who "shackled" his offense and his quarterback by running the ball 80% of the time. Its sad when a team consistently runs the ball on 3rd and 13 even at the high school level. The quarterback needs to be thought of as more than a "distrubutor" because when you win we praise him, and when you lose he faces the most scrutiny.

---

Coach, are you trying to call me out for some reason? Must I justify my approach to training our QB's? I feel that you are somewhat attacking other people's post and am having a hard time figuring out why. I can appreciate your opinions and thoughts on the position. I do not feel that I "shackle" my qb's in any way. While I do not profess to be a qb guru I've been fortunate to coach several all-state qb's.

Not sure where you are going with the wing-t & veer offenses taking the complexities out of coaching. It sounds as if you are saying that coaches that run these offenses aren't as smart as those (dare we say, You?) that run a Pro-style or Spread offense. To me, that seems rather rude to say.

I have never spoken with you, especially in regards to the type of offense we run but I can assure you the QB is the centerpiece. He is trained (both mentally & physically) harder & longer than any other position. Because he is the centerpiece, I want their mentality to be that of a distributor -- get the ball to the appropriate person. That means being smart in understanding coverages & making read progressions. It means understanding our checks system, sight adjustments, etc. The distributor mentality is set up in a manner so they don't feel pressed to make a play, rather, just to function within the scheme of the play.

Again, I can appreciate your approach and theory. But, these are all just that: theories & philosophies. I hope I'm reading more into your posts and you truly are not attacking me or any other coach. Perhaps I'm getting lost in the context. However, if you feel the need to continue with this, please email me so that others don't have to read more posts regarding the issue.

Thank you for taking the time to read my posts.

This is a TRUE story. Tom Nugent (who died last week at age 92) while coaching at VMI; Florida St; & Univ. of Maryland, was known to put TWO QB's under Center at the same time! The one on the left was left handed (to sprint leff), and the one on the right was right handed (to sprint right). Some of you who use the two QB system can have your cake & eat it too (BOTH QB's in the game at the same time)!

READ BELOW (paragraph 7 of the text):

Former VMI coach Nugent was an 'I' guy in a good way


JENNINGS CULLEY
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST

Jan 29, 2006

Jennings Culley


On his death recently at 92, Tom Nugent was hailed as the father of the I-formation. It was recognition he deserved, for from his fertile mind came the alignment that is the basis for much of offensive football today.

But there was more to the intriguing personality of the man who enjoyed success at Hopewell High School and Virginia Military Institute during some 25 years in coaching.

He was part showman. He liked to put flash in the game, such as the night Hopewell dedicated its field lights in 1948 and the Blue Devils sprinted out with the first white cleats ever seen hereabout.

He had an enthusiastic way with his players and an engaging manner with the fans, traits that stood him in good stead when he turned to broadcasting and public relations.

He had a touch of the blarney, too. Why else would he name a son Terrance Daniel, call him T.D. and 18 months later name a daughter Pat - for point after touchdown?

But most of all, Tom Nugent, who died in Tallahassee, Fla., had an innovative mind that was forever dreaming up football razzle-dazzle. He'd use a kickoff return that called for an across-the-field lateral.

At Mathew Whaley High in Williamsburg, he once had right-handed and left-handed quarterbacks. He set one on either side of the center, so on the snap, one would roll out left, one right.



At VMI in 1949, he devised a huddle in which the players peeled off in a Congo-line, swung around and slithered to the line of scrimmage. The next year, he fashioned the typewriter huddle where the players stood in two lines facing the quarterback.

His wife, Peg, once confessed they kept a big chalkboard in a bedroom corner. In the middle of the night, the covers would fly off, the lights come on and Peg would see Tom drawing X's and O's for a play he'd just dreamed of while sleeping.

Such was the origin of the I-formation. Nugent dabbled with the idea at Hopewell and during his first fall at VMI, but it was in 1950 when the formation flowered and the Keydets used it for two monumental upsets.

In the season opener, they whipped William and Mary 25-19, the Tribe's first loss to a state team in seven years. Later, they upended Georgia Tech 14-13 in Atlanta.

The "I" came out of his chalkboard doodling. Nugent was trying to develop a strong off-tackle running game. He wanted a back to fire out with a pulling guard to take out the end, another back to hit on the linebacker and the third to barrel through the hole.

"The only way I could figure it out was to have them all line up behind each other," Nugent said.

Jimmy Coley, the quarterback that season, remembers how well the system fitted the team's talent. The Keydets had speed but little brute strength.

"With the 'I', we could use all the running backs and give them a chance to maneuver," Coley said. "It was simple to call, simple to operate. You could shift to the split T, the winged T, the spread. You could put in motion. You could do anything."

Jerry Eggleston, an offensive lineman/linebacker for the Keydets, remembers marveling at his coach's creative kind.

"He was ahead of his time in his offensive thinking," Eggleston said. "We didn't have size, so he had us splitting the line a little more so we could use brush-blocking and the backs could make quick hits."

That was the key to ending W&M's dominance in 1950. The Keydets kept splitting the line more and more as the game went on, and Tribe coach Rube McCray, proud and stubborn, never adjusted his burly linemen. The Keydets ran off-tackle like no one had done.

Nugent's flair for offense prompted Florida State to hire him in 1953 when the Seminoles began their climb into major college football. In six seasons, Nugent's Seminoles were 34-28 and played in two bowl games.

"He put FSU on the map in the early years, " former player Burt Reynolds told The Associated Press. "He brought a whole new style of football to us with the I-formation."

Later, Nugent spent eight years at the University of Maryland, his best season being 7-3 in 1961.

When he walked away from football in 1965, his record was 89-80-3. He had been a winner at every stop.

"He was an innovative coach, a great individual," said Jimmy Morris, who played for him at Hopewell and VMI. "Aside from football, he taught me a lot about integrity and living a good life."

And he left an imprint of the "I" on football.

I respect and totally understand everything that you have said (because it is an opinion), and even though you are done posting on this topic I had to assure you that we are on the same page. It makes me feel productive to know that I have the ability to "make your brain hurt." This alone tells me that what I do, (even though it rubs people the wrong way sometimes) is essential in inspiring people to do great things. Some of the ideas and opinions that you expressed, and the time that you put into them were well worth it for me.

You said, and I quote

"I am not offended, yet, but I am concerned that your need to be right, is greater than your desire to show respect in your responses. Just seek first to understand where a guy is coming from before you go after him with overt expressions of disagreement and changes in topic midstream."


Its funny that you feel this way. If I said anything to this effect in one of my posts, I would be accused of "attacking" people. But since I’m a man that respects ANY man's opinions, not just people with certain stature and desired accomplishments, I feel like there's no need for me to hold a grudge for your "perception." Since when do we live in a world where a man can’t disagree with another man and it not turn personal. Perhaps that’s the difference between you and I, I could care less about who or what a man has accomplished in life or football. It doesn’t matter to me what a man's IQ is, his SAT score, or the fact that he bowled the perfect game. I don’t set people aside based on "stature" nor do I change my views based on who I am talking to. So, in saying this why should I compromised my opinion because YOU feel that these coaches "could pick their teeth with your best thoughts?" the difference between you and I is that instead of thinking that I am taking with some pretty intelligent men, I think that I am intelligent and worthy to have a conversation with another man that happens to be intelligent.



You also said,

"In My Opinion, this board isn't a DEBATE, Coach. It is a resource built on new and growing relationships in the coaching community."

I have to disagree with this because the some of the greatest relationships are formed through people of opposing views. (Man and woman for example) How can any relationship grow if one member of the relationship is not open to new experiences? I want to be apart of a coaching experience where egos are set aside. It seems to me like this is more of a cult that everyone signs up to kiss butt and continue to spread the bigotry. IM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS TRUE. I’m just saying that this "perception" is in the air.

Is this is the reason that we can’t stay on topic? Do I have to stroke egos before I give my opinion? If so, then this is not something I should have signed up for.

Wow...

Just do what is best for your kids and your program. I think that pretty much summs it all up dudes.