That's what I've been saying in my diatribes over the past few days. Of course it's a hedge, guided by the never-changing, risk-aversive dogma that has been consistently practiced by The Corporal over the last 6-8 years.
I believe that Rudock (or whatever backup) is not completely ready to be the starter and that KF is honestly believing JVB is the best (of the worst) overall options in terms of skill, experience and knowledge. I refuse to believe the drop off is as significantly more horrible than 7 games worth of JVB evidence as KF and the apologists are crutching on.
The risks are:
Need 2 more wins to become bowl eligible, so, KF's thought is JVB offers a greater possibility of that happening. Avoid the risk of increasing the possibilities that it won't happen, which, in KF's mind would happen by going with Rudock.
-- That's a reasonable hedge for the big picture, however, it falls flat on its face in the situational here and now. No one is asking for Rudock to permantly become the starters, but simply get reps when the situation calls for it, i.e. down 30 + points and all evidence through 3 quarters says The Offensive has zero chance of mounting a come-back. Not to mention (well, I have numerous times) that you would want to protect your "best chance" guy from the risk of injury.
KF knows that Rudock could not possibly be that much more horrible than JVB, therefore, there is the possibility than he might actually outperform JVB during a game.
-- Avoid the "QB controversy" risk by refusing to play him even when all rationality says the situation supports it.
Q. Is Jake Rudock ready? Is he ready to play?
COACH FERENTZ: We won’t know that until he starts playing.
Crafty circular logic keeps the controversy in the speculative realm, rather than risking the possibility it is a legit reality.
-- Avoid the "broken confidence" risk that a benching, or even a substitution rotation might cause to JVB. KF lauded JVB as being competitive, smart, tough with a great work ethic who is into it. I have a hard time believing that a guy with those characteristics would be ego-shattered by recognizing the truth of his performance but wouldn't have the integrity to accept a situational substition to see if it can make a difference for his team. It's a laughable consideration but it's still being tossed around as plausible.
It all continues to boil down to the consistency of KF over the years ... if it's going to stray too far from his steadfast devotion to "conventional wisdom", let alone if there is the possibility of adverse risk, it's best to stay the course, regardless of how stagnant and complacent the status quo is. It's the overwhelming, pervasive theme throughout his tenure and has been exemplified in every aspect of his coaching -- from schematic strategy, to personnel decisions, to situational play-calling.
