Should Peyton Mansell Get At Least A Series A Game?

[MelroseHawkins]

Does anybody else remember Hayden Fry giving the 2nd string QB at least one series a game, usually sometime in the 3rd Q depending on the game situation. Am I just dreaming this? I don't think it is a bad idea and wonder if would be beneficial to do this for a few reasons.

1) Obviously give the back-up some experience and a chance to play each game. Get some experience in real game situations building confidence. Maybe keeping the backup appeased so would not transfer this day in age.
2) Maybe push the starting QB a bit if knew someone behind him getting a little playing time.
3) Build back-ups confidence for when does take over or have to lead the team in case of an injury. Not so much of a shell shock.

It wouldn't be a "dual QB" situation but just a series (or two if plays well) a game. I think Hayden always did it consistently in the 3rd Q so everyone knew when it was and the back-up QB was mentally ready. Of course, game situation plays into it and a coach wouldn't put in a bad situation such as backed up on the 1 yrd line or depending on how close the score is. If the Hawks were winning something like 24-7, would it be bad to give the back-up QB a series? Might be more beneficial in the end, and again, let that player know you are invested in him and getting him some playing time. Of course you think about turnovers but these are Div 1 college QB's, so they should be able to handle it and the team shouldn't miss much for a series. Also, maybe this back-up proves to have the hot hand that game and can lead the team to the end. Who knows.

I think if your team is up a few scores or by a comfortable margin or down a couple scores, it's worth doing. Again, benefit in the long run.

 

[pythagoras]

Blow out yes, otherwise no

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Blow out yes, otherwise no

Maybe you light a little fire under Stanley's or any starting QB's azz a bit! Competition is the best thing to make a team better.

 

[pythagoras]

Maybe you light a little fire under Stanley's or any starting QB's azz a bit! Competition is the best thing to make a team better.

If you have 2 QBs, you have no QBs

 

[MelroseHawkins]

If you have 2 QBs, you have no QBs

I luv cliches. They are not cheesy at all.


Again, as I stated above, not a "dual QB" situation. It would be the coach stating to each QB , hey I'm going to give so-in-so a series in the 3rd Q.

You probably aren't old enough, but I think Hayden Fry did it some years and it seemed to work pretty well. I don't really recall it really causing a team problems but he sensibly did it. I don't know if it was in seasons where he really didn't have the best QB or if he had two pretty close QB's.

What if Mansell really isn't that far away from Stanley or he brings something to the game that Stanley doesn't, like running a bit more. Come into the game when the D is maybe a bit gassed and give them a different look.

To be honest, I'm not certain this team wouldn't perform fine with Mansell. I'm not calling for Stanley to be benched by any means, but I also think the team could have good results with Mansell.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I wouldn't be a huge fan of that sort of thing. I think if Stanley is your present and future you ride him. I think it's a different situation if you have a senior qb or even a qb battle for the job type of situation. Would it be nice to get Mansell some live action? Sure but not at the expense of the team trying to be behind their current and QB for next yr yet. We have a ton to play for as well yet. I know the sky feels like it's fallen but there's a long way to go and maximizing Stanley should be priority #1 more so then getting Mansell ready for 2 yrs down the road

 

[guffus]

I luv cliches. They are not cheesy at all.


Again, as I stated above, not a "dual QB" situation. It would be the coach stating to each QB , hey I'm going to give so-in-so a series in the 3rd Q.

You probably aren't old enough, but I think Hayden Fry did it some years and it seemed to work pretty well. I don't really recall it really causing a team problems but he sensibly did it. I don't know if it was in seasons where he really didn't have the best QB or if he had two pretty close QB's.

What if Mansell really isn't that far away from Stanley or he brings something to the game that Stanley doesn't, like running a bit more. Come into the game when the D is maybe a bit gassed and give them a different look.

To be honest, I'm not certain this team wouldn't perform fine with Mansell. I'm not calling for Stanley to be benched by any means, but I also think the team could have good results with Mansell.

I am old enough to remember and I don't remember Fry doing that.

 

[pythagoras]

I luv cliches. They are not cheesy at all.

It's not a cliche when a majority of the time it's true.

The only combo to bring home the bacon in the modern era was Leak and Tebow in 06

 

[MelroseHawkins]

It's not a cliche when a majority of the time it's true.

The only combo to bring home the bacon in the modern era was Leak and Tebow in 06

You are young.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I wouldn't be a huge fan of that sort of thing. I think if Stanley is your present and future you ride him. I think it's a different situation if you have a senior qb or even a qb battle for the job type of situation. Would it be nice to get Mansell some live action? Sure but not at the expense of the team trying to be behind their current and QB for next yr yet. We have a ton to play for as well yet. I know the sky feels like it's fallen but there's a long way to go and maximizing Stanley should be priority #1 more so then getting Mansell ready for 2 yrs down the road

I'm not saying do it out of desperation and this idea was not brought up in lieu of last weeks loss. I'm just saying as a strategy in general. I don't care if the record is 0-0 and going into the first game. I know Hayden Fry did it before. I can remember it.

 

[okeefe4prez]

It's not a cliche when a majority of the time it's true.

The only combo to bring home the bacon in the modern era was Leak and Tebow in 06

Puh-lease. Did you not see what Nick did to Georgia in the NCG? 'Member that, when Tua came in?

 

[okeefe4prez]

I know Hayden Fry did it before. I can remember it.

Bruh, I think in general you are wrong. Maybe he let Dan McGwire play a little more than usual like in '87 because everyone was clamoring for McGwire family DNA given the popularity of the Bash Bros., but other than that I can't recall any year where Hayden let the backup play other than in blowouts or due to injury.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I'm not saying do it out of desperation and this idea was not brought up in lieu of last weeks loss. I'm just saying as a strategy in general. I don't care if the record is 0-0 and going into the first game. I know Hayden Fry did it before. I can remember it.

Sure I don't think it's the worst idea ever. It's just not something I'd lean towards doing if it was me. It would benefit Mansell and any 2nd stringer that's for sure. The unforeseen happening of him needing to play on any given next snap is what it is. So there's always that too. I dunno I'd still rather hitch my wagon to the starter and ride it unless there's a blowout either way or stuff like that

 

[uihawk82]

Maybe you light a little fire under Stanley's or any starting QB's azz a bit! Competition is the best thing to make a team better.

If Nate is playing well then no, not until mop up duty. If Stanley is struggling then maybe or yes. Some experts say a starter might need to watch from the sideline for awhile to get their head into the game.

Mansell is younger, less experienced and a backup.

Hayden got to play his 3rd string QBs in some blowouts even in big 10 games.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

It's worked really well for Northwestern...lol. Now, if it's Hurts and Tua...maybe...but even Alabama chose their guy.

 

[BVHawk95]

Puh-lease. Did you not see what Nick did to Georgia in the NCG? 'Member that, when Tua came in?

Hurts had problems as a passer all season, and now it's Tua's show. Not even close to being a two-QB system.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Hayden did it at least
once. And it was actually three QB's. The kickoff classic in the Meadowlands, which Iowa played in 1987 and 1992. In '87 against Tennessee, he rotated Dan McGuire, Chuck Hartlieb, and Tom Poholsky equally. There were more shenanigans for the first month of 1987, but I seem to remember McGwire getting dinged up in the conference opener against Michigan State and Hartlieb finally won the job. McGwire transferred to San Diego State that season. Offensive coordinator Bill Snyder would take the Kansas State job after the following season.

The caveat is that I don't think Hayden thought of any of the three as second stringers. It was 1a, 1b, and 1c coming out of preseason practice.

 

[PCHawk]

If you have 2 QBs, you have no QBs

Usually sayings like this at least make some sense. This one doesn't. Whoever first thought of it is stupid. Just a couple years ago we had a backup that is going to start an NFL game Sunday. In 2001 we had a backup that was gunna finish runner up in the Heisman the next year. How did we have zero QBs those years? How did LSU have zero QBs in 2004 when their 2nd and 3rd stringers were future NFLers? All it means when you have 2 QBs is they are close to the same skill level. It says absolutely nothing about their actual skill level.

 

[PCHawk]

I feel so bad for Michigan the year they had Tom Brady as a backup. If only they had a qb that year...

 

[ArvadaHawk]

absolutely, he should. not only that, mansell should have a read option package that we use 3x per game. the kid has impressed me sans the pick. but, Stanley is #1, period. No question...no contest. but for crying out loud, USE the damn talent you have. You have a freaking ace in the hole with Petras if mansell or stanley get hurt to be the backup. AND if Stanley does get hurt (God forbid) then at least the #1 unit will be used to Mansell and Mansell will be used to having a "recurring role" and not be in shock. but, hey, this concept stretches way beyond kirk's abilities to think on offense.