(10-07-2014 11:20 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:05 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:01 PM)timxlydon Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:58 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 02:03 PM)HuskieJWN Wrote:  Interesting thread, I'm probably nitpicking here but I'm going on the access bowl discussion.

I also before season thought 8-4 or 9-3 but wouldn't have been shocked with 10-2 anything better i would have ben surprised.

But this situation for the bowl isn't like the Orange bowl. NIU isn't competing with larger conference schools and hitting a set ranked number. I do believe they can only have one loss but they're ina pool of small competitors for that spot. The list makes up NIU ECU Colorado State and maybe 2-3 more teams at the moment. Should those guys including NIU have another loss it would be crazy.

Right now ECU is the clear favorite and I don't think they lose another game but NIU and Colorado state are probably #2 a and b as of now.

Basically this. Until we lose another game and are out of the running for the Access Bowl we need to try to win every game.

Shouldn't the Huskies try to win every game anyways?

Of course but the question is whether we are willing to stick with one guy for now even if it means losing a game in order to make him better for next year. My answer is no, do whatever it takes to win now regardless of how it affects next year.

I see it as the exact opposite, by not choosing a QB you are sacrificing losses now. I hope we all can agree, rotating QBs severely hurts NIU's offense, and thus their chance to win games.

With the 1 loss they have?

(10-07-2014 11:28 PM)7 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:20 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:05 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:01 PM)timxlydon Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:58 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  Basically this. Until we lose another game and are out of the running for the Access Bowl we need to try to win every game.

Shouldn't the Huskies try to win every game anyways?

Of course but the question is whether we are willing to stick with one guy for now even if it means losing a game in order to make him better for next year. My answer is no, do whatever it takes to win now regardless of how it affects next year.

I see it as the exact opposite, by not choosing a QB you are sacrificing losses now. I hope we all can agree, rotating QBs severely hurts NIU's offense, and thus their chance to win games.

With the 1 loss they have?

If only one QB had been employed against Arkansas! SO MUCH WOULD BE DIFFERENT!

Yeah I think logically you could assume that this has hurt NIU but factually it really can't be argued.

The rotation is really the reason NIU won 2 of these games. Hate couldn't produce points last week and Maddie did that's a W. Obviously everyone saw NW as well.

Arkansas was just better nothing would have helped but better tackling and the refs call a holding here and there. Even then NIU still loses.

Idk what NIU is averaging yardage wise but it's gotta be over 400 or close to it. Points have been left off the board last week and really only one drive vs Arkansas. If NIU had any semblance of a kicking game points would be higher as well. Missed FGs and extra points have accounted fo at least 14 total points this year. That's not including the going for it in kent or arkansas territory.

IMO, it's how the mentality is set with the team. If the QBs are thinking about The Team #1, and themselves #5 -- all while the receivers/RBs having a good feel & read on the QBs -- there shouldn't be a problem. However, more often than not it is -- it depends what's going on behind the scenes, really.

If NIU can get into a comfort zone, regardless of how often or little they play 2 QBs, then they'll be all set. And NIU is still in the running. There's only been 5 / 12 games played this year. Wacky stuff happens (see last week) -- around the country. If Marshall loses a game and NIU wins out -- NIU gets the nod. If ECU loses another game, they risk not even winning the AAC to go, and very possibly tough to say they're better than NIU if NIU gets some good dominant wins.

Anything can happen. :)

On another thread, here's my take on the mid-majors, and Best Chances of NOT losing another one, in order:
- Marshall [Midd-Tenn, W.Ky, LA-Tech*]
- Boise (2L) [BYU w/o QB, Utah State, Nevada*]
- Memphis (2L) [Houston, @Temple]
- ECU [@Temple, @Cinci, UCF]
- NIU [CMU, Toledo, BGSU/Akron*]
- CSU [@Nevada, Utah St, @AF, Nevada*]
- UCF (2L) [BYU w/o QB, Temple, @ECU]
- Air Force [@Utah St, Nevada, CSU, Nevada*]
- Nevada (2L) [CSU, @BYU, @AF, Boise St/CSU*]
- Cinci (2L) [@Miami-FL, ECU, @Temple]
- Toledo (2L) [@Iowa St, @NIU, BGSU, BGSU/Akron*]
- Temple [@UCF, ECU, Memphis, @Penn St, Cinci]

* = Est Conf Champ Opponent, if going

(10-07-2014 01:20 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  I posed this question to another individual in a separate thread, but I feel this is something that needs to be asked on a more broader scale, perhaps even to our brethren in the MAC and beyond in college football.

Are you willing to sacrifice potential wins now in order to give a single QB time to develop as a starter in order to potentially win games in the future?

Let me explain:

We all agree that this season was going to be a transition with a new QB leading the offense. We all agree that the QB is the most important position on the football field and QB play largely determines how successful a team will be, particularly in this conference. NIU's success from the years 2010-13 was largely due to the play of Chandler Harnish and Jordan Lynch. CMU's success from 2006-09 was largely due to the play of Dan LeFevour. So, we can pretty much all agree that with 3 QBs who had never before started a game at the collegiate level, that this season was going to be a transition year.

Many of us, I'm not including myself because I had NIU going 8-4 this year, also had very high expectations going into this year for this team, knowing full well that none of the QBs on the roster had started a game. Some of us are still even floating the possibility of making the Access Bowl. In order to make the Access Bowl, you would have to go undefeated, or have one loss and have a lot of things go your way, like we did in 2012. So, expectations for wins were still very high among NIU fans, even though we were going into the year with a new QB. Essentially, the idea was that NIU should do whatever it took to win games. In my opinion, that's what's going on right now.

The most apt comparisons I can give to what we're experiencing this season with the NIU team is the last 2 times we've had real transition years with new QBs: 2008 and 2012.

2012 was an anomoly that went against the grain of what transition years typically are. None of us knew what Lynch would do and he ended up being possibly the best player NIU has ever had. I kind of put 2012 on the side and say that was a once in a lifetime thing.

2008 on the other hand was a more typical transition year. Not only did we have a new QB, but we had a new coaching staff. That was Jerry Kill's first year for those of you who haven't been around for very long. No one really had a good idea who would be the starter until Harnish took the field against Minnesota. He had a great game that day, but the rest of his freshman season really wasn't anything spectacular, the blowout of Toledo really the exception. He also was injured for part of the season and Dan Nicholson and DeMarcus Grady started some games in there as well.

Essentially, Kill and Matt Limegrover, the OC, allowed Harnish to play the entire game in every game he played, IIRC. That led to some losses, such as games to Navy, Ball State, and the bowl game to Louisiana Tech, where Harnish did not play well at all, and they could've switched QBs. They didn't and NIU lost.

The one game that they did switch QBs was the game against Miami, ironically the last time we've played the Redhawks at Huskie Stadium. That Miami team only won 2 games that year and I would say is roughly comparable to the Kent team that NIU played last weekend. Grady started the game because the plan was give Harnish an extra week to recover from his injury in preparation for the Toledo game the following week. But Grady didn't play well and the game was close at halftime. The coaches made the switch and Harnish played the second half. He really didn't play much better, but NIU still won 17-10, kind of like the game last week. Without that win though, NIU doesn't finish 6-6 and get bowl eligible. Essentially, the switch won us the game.

This year is reminding me quite a lot of 2008 with one notable exception: expectations for the team going into this year were far more than what was expected of the 2008 team. People, including myself, expected this team to compete for a MAC Championship, let alone get to the Access Bowl.

Could Carey and staff really afford to give one of the QBs time to develop, knowing full well that allowing them to do so would be to potentially lose some games, which has been the case at a large number of places in college football history, such as Texas A&M and Alabama this year.

Again, I must ask all of you, and there are a lot of you, this question:

Are you willing to potentially lose some games now, in order to give one QB consistent playing time in order to potentially win more games in the future?

It's a good post, but I have one fundamental problem with the question you pose: you draw the assumption that this qb merry go round Carey has employed is somehow benefiting the Huskies.

I think the whole offense would be further developed if one quarterback had been getting the majority of the reps with the first team all through training camp and the first six weks of the season.

I think the better question to ask is - are you willing to potentially lose games now in order for Carey to continue to waffle on his QB decision and run an extended tryout all the way into conference play?