Printable View
I don't care if it is a run oriented offense and you say anyone could play qb, you don't change in "midstream". It usually give the rest of the offense the imprerssion that you are not sure if the one can do it, so you are gonna let the other try. Not a confidence builder in my book.
How about this idea? Let the QBs sub every play and take the call in. That way the OC gets to talk to each QB on the sideline before they go in.
Not a fan of rotating qb's. Especially in high school. QB is normally the leader of the offence, and that is a position that needs stability. Just my opinion though.
I think rotating QB's is dumb, unless they are different styles and even then I still think it's not best. Burke and Lusk both are pocket passers, neither one of them are going to be all region d players. They need to pick one and move on, maybe they'll catch fire with one of them. With the offense we are running now we just need to complete 5-7 passes a game anyway. I'd personally be more concerned with the right side of the offensive line.
I agree, PVs main problem for the last few years has been their offensive line. Absolutely no blocking.
Aside from that, I still say PV is much better off using Burke as QB. Maybe im wrong, but it seemed PV ran the ball much better when Burke was in the game simply for the reason their was a REAL threat of pass. When Lusk was in the game, Lee just stacked the line and was on top of Myron every play. Then when Burke came in Lee eased back.
When it all comes down to it, PV needs to be running an I formation. Switch out fullback and tailback between Myron and Jordan, and have a lead blocker for goodness sake. Even throw to Myron some out of the backfield like they did Matt Stidham back in 89 and 90. I dont think I ever saw that play fail back then when they needed a first down.
I've been screaming to throw Myron the ball for over two years now. The CW game last year especially.
Like shooter said, regardless of what they do, they need a lead blocker in the backfield. When they used one the other night they were productive....but really, how many times did they use one. I really think the limited playbook was due to the fact they want to hide what they really plan to do from Lebanon and Richlands.
The last few years PV has been in the I against us(Appy) for quite a bit of the game. When they had Murphy for a fullback and Myron at tailback they were really tough to stop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like shooter said, regardless of what they do, they need a lead blocker in the backfield. When they used one the other night they were productive....but really, how many times did they use one. I really think the limited playbook was due to the fact they want to hide what they really plan to do from Lebanon and Richlands. </div></div>
WHY? they were 2 feet from loseing the Lee game I don't THINK they were holding back much.....That being said PV has been a spred team for several years now so I am sure they will get more comforfable with this new set the longer the season goes
If you had seen it you'd know what I mean. There wasn't a plethora of plays..but there was about 25 blue million formations and players used. As far as effort, they weren't holding back. As far as scheme, there was alot held back IMO. The last 2 plays of the game, the same play was run...and it was only run from that formation with the same personnel 2 times all game long (those 2 plays in OT). I think they found their stride then, but they also tipped their hand.