Coach, why won't you just name the starter?

"“Because it bothers a lot of people, And that'd probably be the number one reason – is that everyone wants to ask about it, and so it just gives me pleasure. And it just gives me pleasure.”

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/08/25/4...rylink=cpy

But closer to home, here is an article that talks about coach having to decide between an upper classman with experience and a transfer with the first game Thursday and coach still hasn't decided!

http://www.illinoishomepage.net/story/d/...AMVK4Rk4Rg

And on making a decision on starting QB and announcing it to the public, Wisconsin's coach had this to say:
"There's no big announcement," Andersen said earlier this week, per the Associated Press. "We don't make a big announcement for the right tackle, don't make a big announcement for the starting nose guard and we're not going to do that for the quarterback, either."

Cue Maddawg hysterical rant in 3,2,1.....

(08-27-2014 09:33 AM)cawoo22 Wrote:  Cue Maddawg hysterical rant in 3,2,1.....

no hysterical rant here, a short bulleted condensed rant:

- it has damaging effects on whoever becomes the starter, they will be 1/3rd prepared for the NU game as they would have been otherwise.

- much fewer reps for each QB to get comfortable with the personnel around him.

- indecision breeds or can cause low confidence. Everyone has that stigma when you have 2 (3) QBs you really have none.

- low accountability - indecision like this can come off as "passing the buck" as they say. By making the decision in the opener, you are basically letting everyone see how each plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING), therefore validating your decision, and making a presumably safe decision because that is what everyone else in the world saw. It would be like President going to Congress and saying "hey look over this intelligence and come back to me on a decision to go to war". We elect the President to be the Commander-in-chief, not to take polls.

Ok last point turned into a mini-rant but there are so many negatives by letting this thing play out this long. Im done worrying about it though and going to enjoy the opener against the Hose.

(08-27-2014 10:59 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 09:33 AM)cawoo22 Wrote:  Cue Maddawg hysterical rant in 3,2,1.....

no hysterical rant here, a short bulleted condensed rant:

- it has damaging effects on whoever becomes the starter, they will be 1/3rd prepared for the NU game as they would have been otherwise.

- much fewer reps for each QB to get comfortable with the personnel around him.

- indecision breeds or can cause low confidence. Everyone has that stigma when you have 2 (3) QBs you really have none.

- low accountability - indecision like this can come off as "passing the buck" as they say. By making the decision in the opener, you are basically letting everyone see how each plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING), therefore validating your decision, and making a presumably safe decision because that is what everyone else in the world saw. It would be like President going to Congress and saying "hey look over this intelligence and come back to me on a decision to go to war". We elect the President to be the Commander-in-chief, not to take polls.

Ok last point turned into a mini-rant but there are so many negatives by letting this thing play out this long. Im done worrying about it though and going to enjoy the opener against the Hose.

You contradict yourself...if you say this: "plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING)", then...it's not that big of deal that they won't play the whole Presbyterian game, right?

(08-27-2014 11:03 AM)17Huskies Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:59 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 09:33 AM)cawoo22 Wrote:  Cue Maddawg hysterical rant in 3,2,1.....

no hysterical rant here, a short bulleted condensed rant:

- it has damaging effects on whoever becomes the starter, they will be 1/3rd prepared for the NU game as they would have been otherwise.

- much fewer reps for each QB to get comfortable with the personnel around him.

- indecision breeds or can cause low confidence. Everyone has that stigma when you have 2 (3) QBs you really have none.

- low accountability - indecision like this can come off as "passing the buck" as they say. By making the decision in the opener, you are basically letting everyone see how each plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING), therefore validating your decision, and making a presumably safe decision because that is what everyone else in the world saw. It would be like President going to Congress and saying "hey look over this intelligence and come back to me on a decision to go to war". We elect the President to be the Commander-in-chief, not to take polls.

Ok last point turned into a mini-rant but there are so many negatives by letting this thing play out this long. Im done worrying about it though and going to enjoy the opener against the Hose.

You contradict yourself...if you say this: "plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING)", then...it's not that big of deal that they won't play the whole Presbyterian game, right?

Obviously NIU should beat Presbyterian no matter who the QB is, but what all this has done has really been a concession of the Northwestern game.

(08-27-2014 11:03 AM)17Huskies Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:59 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 09:33 AM)cawoo22 Wrote:  Cue Maddawg hysterical rant in 3,2,1.....

no hysterical rant here, a short bulleted condensed rant:

- it has damaging effects on whoever becomes the starter, they will be 1/3rd prepared for the NU game as they would have been otherwise.

- much fewer reps for each QB to get comfortable with the personnel around him.

- indecision breeds or can cause low confidence. Everyone has that stigma when you have 2 (3) QBs you really have none.

- low accountability - indecision like this can come off as "passing the buck" as they say. By making the decision in the opener, you are basically letting everyone see how each plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING), therefore validating your decision, and making a presumably safe decision because that is what everyone else in the world saw. It would be like President going to Congress and saying "hey look over this intelligence and come back to me on a decision to go to war". We elect the President to be the Commander-in-chief, not to take polls.

Ok last point turned into a mini-rant but there are so many negatives by letting this thing play out this long. Im done worrying about it though and going to enjoy the opener against the Hose.

You contradict yourself...if you say this: "plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING)", then...it's not that big of deal that they won't play the whole Presbyterian game, right?

there are absolutely no damaging effects.

(08-27-2014 11:06 AM)GCD70 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 11:03 AM)17Huskies Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:59 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 09:33 AM)cawoo22 Wrote:  Cue Maddawg hysterical rant in 3,2,1.....

no hysterical rant here, a short bulleted condensed rant:

- it has damaging effects on whoever becomes the starter, they will be 1/3rd prepared for the NU game as they would have been otherwise.

- much fewer reps for each QB to get comfortable with the personnel around him.

- indecision breeds or can cause low confidence. Everyone has that stigma when you have 2 (3) QBs you really have none.

- low accountability - indecision like this can come off as "passing the buck" as they say. By making the decision in the opener, you are basically letting everyone see how each plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING), therefore validating your decision, and making a presumably safe decision because that is what everyone else in the world saw. It would be like President going to Congress and saying "hey look over this intelligence and come back to me on a decision to go to war". We elect the President to be the Commander-in-chief, not to take polls.

Ok last point turned into a mini-rant but there are so many negatives by letting this thing play out this long. Im done worrying about it though and going to enjoy the opener against the Hose.

You contradict yourself...if you say this: "plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING)", then...it's not that big of deal that they won't play the whole Presbyterian game, right?

there are absolutely no damaging effects.

Maybe MD02 was part of a 3-way battle for the starting QB in his youth and did not get the nod. If so he is proof that there are "damaging effects" with this situation.

lol wowww, ok I promise to not mention my opinions on this situation anymore, I can see I have become annoying.

It's just annoying. Both the "indecision" and the complaining. Within 2 weeks we'll know...(BUT I WANT TO KNOW NOW, ROD!)....

(08-27-2014 12:52 PM)thxjoenovak Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 11:06 AM)GCD70 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 11:03 AM)17Huskies Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:59 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 09:33 AM)cawoo22 Wrote:  Cue Maddawg hysterical rant in 3,2,1.....

no hysterical rant here, a short bulleted condensed rant:

- it has damaging effects on whoever becomes the starter, they will be 1/3rd prepared for the NU game as they would have been otherwise.

- much fewer reps for each QB to get comfortable with the personnel around him.

- indecision breeds or can cause low confidence. Everyone has that stigma when you have 2 (3) QBs you really have none.

- low accountability - indecision like this can come off as "passing the buck" as they say. By making the decision in the opener, you are basically letting everyone see how each plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING), therefore validating your decision, and making a presumably safe decision because that is what everyone else in the world saw. It would be like President going to Congress and saying "hey look over this intelligence and come back to me on a decision to go to war". We elect the President to be the Commander-in-chief, not to take polls.

Ok last point turned into a mini-rant but there are so many negatives by letting this thing play out this long. Im done worrying about it though and going to enjoy the opener against the Hose.

You contradict yourself...if you say this: "plays against Presbyterian (which really shouldn't be a barometer for ANYTHING)", then...it's not that big of deal that they won't play the whole Presbyterian game, right?

there are absolutely no damaging effects.

Maybe MD02 was part of a 3-way battle for the starting QB in his youth and did not get the nod. If so he is proof that there are "damaging effects" with this situation.

It's terrible when you think you're going into a 3 way and you don't get chosen....sigh...that's painful.

Just have to sit on the sidelines and watch your better really go at it. All you can do is stare....

(08-27-2014 12:54 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  lol wowww, ok I promise to not mention my opinions on this situation anymore, I can see I have become annoying.

MD, let me introduce you to Self-Awareness.

(08-27-2014 12:54 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  lol wowww, ok I promise to not mention my opinions on this situation anymore, I can see I am annoying.

Well that certainly is a professional demeanor. I am just still not a fan of this coach

I think it makes Carey look indecisive and that he struggles evaluating talent. That said I think that they are a good group, I hope he picks the right one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(08-27-2014 03:48 PM)RedShark27 Wrote:  I think it makes Carey look indecisive and that he struggles evaluating talent. That said I think that they are a good group, I hope he picks the right one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

By that logic coach's at tons of HUGE programs (Alabama, A&M, Florida St. last year, Wisconsin, etc.) all are indecisive and struggle to evaluate talent....come on folks.

I get the opinion that having 1 start taking all the reps would be beneficial in some ways, but he's taking as much time as he can to make sure he gets the right guy, and that doesn't mean he sucks at talent evaluation.

(08-27-2014 04:38 PM)17Huskies Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 03:48 PM)RedShark27 Wrote:  I think it makes Carey look indecisive and that he struggles evaluating talent. That said I think that they are a good group, I hope he picks the right one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

By that logic coach's at tons of HUGE programs (Alabama, A&M, Florida St. last year, Wisconsin, etc.) all are indecisive and struggle to evaluate talent....come on folks.

I get the opinion that having 1 start taking all the reps would be beneficial in some ways, but he's taking as much time as he can to make sure he gets the right guy, and that doesn't mean he sucks at talent evaluation.

NOOOOOO THE SKY IS FALLING IT'S ALL OVER FOR THE HUSKIES

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-27-2014 04:38 PM)17Huskies Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 03:48 PM)RedShark27 Wrote:  I think it makes Carey look indecisive and that he struggles evaluating talent. That said I think that they are a good group, I hope he picks the right one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

By that logic coach's at tons of HUGE programs (Alabama, A&M, Florida St. last year, Wisconsin, etc.) all are indecisive and struggle to evaluate talent....come on folks.

I get the opinion that having 1 start taking all the reps would be beneficial in some ways, but he's taking as much time as he can to make sure he gets the right guy, and that doesn't mean he sucks at talent evaluation.

Correct. It kinda sucks for us right now, but right now we can't say it means anything. After the NU game or later in the year we will see if there was a downside. Right now, it's just a good tight competition.

(08-27-2014 04:38 PM)17Huskies Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 03:48 PM)RedShark27 Wrote:  I think it makes Carey look indecisive and that he struggles evaluating talent. That said I think that they are a good group, I hope he picks the right one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

By that logic coach's at tons of HUGE programs (Alabama, A&M, Florida St. last year, Wisconsin, etc.) all are indecisive and struggle to evaluate talent....come on folks.

I get the opinion that having 1 start taking all the reps would be beneficial in some ways, but he's taking as much time as he can to make sure he gets the right guy, and that doesn't mean he sucks at talent evaluation.

I think that our coach knows exactly who his starting QB is. He just sees zero upside in announcing it publicly. This is an old school guy (which is fine with me as long as he wins). Look at how much information he shares about injuries. As long as he does not play a rotation system by game two ala Toledo I am fine with this.