1-2 Team Changes Starting QB

This team has started out 1-2 with two losses against Power 5 teams. They have a new HC this year. They have a new OC. He was promoted from within the team so I don't know if he's installing a new offense or not. The original starter was a 4th year junior and the No. 2-ranked pocket passer in the Class of 2013 and the No. 20 overall player in the ESPN300. His stats weren't horrible, but not good either: 55 of 87 passes for 474 yards with two touchdown passes and two interceptions. But only one total TD in their two losses to P5 teams.



Does this team sound at least a little familiar? It's USC and they are making a QB change to a redshirt freshman after scoring just 16 points in 2 P5 games (their win was against non-P5 Utah St.).



But they have a new HC and new OC (and possibly a new offensive system) so you gotta give the QB more time! But the QB is highly rated!



I just want to give everyone some perspective on what other teams/coaches do in this scenario. Maybe Sitake is right. Maybe USC coaches are right. But it's not like it would be unheard of to make a QB change in this scenario.



I'll cheer on whomever is the BYU QB, but I don't feel like I'm "turning" on my QB or team by wanting Tanner to play. I'm also not saying that we need to "be like everyone else." But it's not outside the realm of logic to think that we should be changing QBs.



http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17591673/sam-darnold-named-usc-starting-quarterback-replacing-max-browne

I don't know that anyone said it would be unprecedented?

My feelings on the subject are if there is a clear indication that the QB is performing poorly with everything else being equal, bench him. I don't feel that way about BYU and Taysom Hill. I feel there are a bunch of things going wrong with the offense that aren't directly related to QB play. If we get that fixed and Taysom clearly shows he is not playing up to par, then it is Tanner's time to play.



Maybe the USC coaches looked at their offense and saw that everyone was playing the way they should with the exception of the QB and decided to make the change.

Calculus is a bit different between a redshirt frosh and a true sophomore--Mangum still could take a redshirt this year and the coaches may be trying to protect that. Not a concern with a RS freshman who is losing a year of eligibility no matter what.



Expectations/leashes at USC are slightly different than at BYU as well.

Trying to protect Mangum's redshirt is probably the best defense I've heard of keeping Hill in at QB.



And let me ask you all this: If a player at ANY OTHER position is under-performing and you have a good back-up with starter experience, do you even hesitate to put in that back-up OL/WR/RB/CB? Honestly?

byufan4ever wrote:
And let me ask you all this: If a player at ANY OTHER position is under-performing and you have a good back-up with starter experience, do you even hesitate to put in that back-up OL/WR/RB/CB? Honestly?

False equivalency. Do you ever take your QB out for a series or two to let him catch his breath like is done routinely for all those other positions?

snoscythe wrote:

And let me ask you all this: If a player at ANY OTHER position is under-performing and you have a good back-up with starter experience, do you even hesitate to put in that back-up OL/WR/RB/CB? Honestly?

False equivalency. Do you ever take your QB out for a series or two to let him catch his breath like is done routinely for all those other positions?

So just because a player doesn't get taken out to let him catch his breath you don't take him out when he's under performing and there's a proven back-up? Logic fail.

byufan4ever wrote:
Trying to protect Mangum's redshirt is probably the best defense I've heard of keeping Hill in at QB.



And let me ask you all this: If a player at ANY OTHER position is under-performing and you have a good back-up with starter experience, do you even hesitate to put in that back-up OL/WR/RB/CB? Honestly?

Apples and oranges. The QB directs the entire offense and his play can be subject to others doing their jobs. If everyone else is doing their job and he is obviously under performing, then Yes, he should be pulled.

byufan4ever wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:
And let me ask you all this: If a player at ANY OTHER position is under-performing and you have a good back-up with starter experience, do you even hesitate to put in that back-up OL/WR/RB/CB? Honestly?

False equivalency. Do you ever take your QB out for a series or two to let him catch his breath like is done routinely for all those other positions?

So just because a player doesn't get taken out to let him catch his breath you don't take him out when he's under performing and there's a proven back-up? Logic fail.

False equivalency = logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not.



If I understood your post correctly (correct me if I am wrong) you are arguing that quarterbacks should not be treated any differently than the other positions when it comes time to decide whether or not to bench the QB for poor performance. My position is that you are drawing a false equivalence, or apples to oranges comparison.



The QB position is not equivalent to any of the other offensive positions you pointed out and is almost always subject to a higher standard before benching. I offered but a simple demonstration to support that argument. Sorry if that eludes your level of logic.

byufan4ever wrote:
Trying to protect Mangum's redshirt is probably the best defense I've heard of keeping Hill in at QB.



And let me ask you all this: If a player at ANY OTHER position is under-performing and you have a good back-up with starter experience, do you even hesitate to put in that back-up OL/WR/RB/CB? Honestly?

It could be that Taysom is still the best option at QB even though he isn't playing well. It is not a stretch at all that he grasps the offense better than Tanner does, and he is more mobile and therefore can handle the poor OL play better than Tanner can.



So he remains the starter. Again, I'm not saying it would be worse if Tanner starts, but we all must acknowledge that it can absolutely be worse.

USCs senior has never before been the starter and my understanding is he has had very limited reps.



Taysom has been the starter for four? seasons now and has a history of success.



I'd be quicker on the trigger on the guy that took that long to figure it out.

USC switching QBs is also about saving face.



They're going to lose more games. If they keep the upperclassman in as QB and still lose games, they have no excuse and will continue to look bad.



They switch to the freshman and suddenly they have the "building for the future" excuse.



BYU has plenty of "excuses" to draw from - new HC, New OC, new offense, OL injuries, young receiving corps, etc. Take your pick. They're all valid reasons as to why BYU fans should temper expectations.



BYU hasn't done anything relevant on a national level in...forever. We don't make it to an NY6 bowl or the playoffs and no one cares. That's not the case with USC. USC is expected to challenge for the Pac12 championship every season and be in the playoffs.

There are a lot of reasons BYU does not, should not, would not base any football decisions on USC's current status, or most if not all other teams for that matter. Apples and oranges. Though it's interesting sometimes to hear about what other teams do with their struggles, or, in some cases, inebriated coaches, and whatnot.

With the current O-line, Tanner would be on his butt the whole night. He sure played well last year against Michigan and Missouri. And he had a better line. Watch "AFTER FURTHER REVIEW" for analysis. Did Taysom make mistakes? Yep. But that wasn't all. Wrong routes. Missed blocks. Tanner is a good QB, but if you think Taysom has problems with the defensive pass rush pressure, Tanner will not have a chance to set his feet. Then who takes the reins?