Butch Jones press conference tomorrow at noon

[Vfl2407]

Totally forced. Why can't Butch make up his mind? QD was 10-10 in the spring game and has been the first QB to work with 1's all fall. Drives me crazy.

Butch made up his mind long ago.
Just doesn't want the opposition to know.

 

[Vfl2407]

http://tonybasilio.com/index.php?page=tony&b=2736

 

[sjt18]

Folks love to rail against the 2-QB approach, because it seems to break one of the basic principles of war: unity of command. Principles that, in almost every other way, seem to fit football so well.

But no one can actually point to proof that using 2 QBs doesn't work in college football. Actual proof, a series of failures over time, over and over again, which show that it never works.

You're asking someone to disprove a negative. It wasn't done and you demand proof it wouldn't have worked.

The best "proof" is that coaches are so reluctant to risk it. If it worked then you can be sure someone would introduce it like the spread option O was just a few years ago.

In fact, showing one example of a time when it worked well (like Leak-Tebow) proves the opposite, that it can.

In 1812, there was a major earthquake on the New Madrid fault in Missouri. For a few hours, the Mississippi River flowed north.

Proving something can happen... doesn't mean that it is very likely.

Frankly, and this isn't a knock on the kid, I don't think JG could handle a 2 QB system. I'm not sure QD could either. You recruit "alphas". Then Jones indoctrinates them that the QB of the UT Vols is a special and exalted position... then you tell them they're not good enough to hold the job down by themselves?

And the truth is, the principle of unity of command is not broken with a 2-QB system. Not in college football in this day and age. Because all teams retain unity of command: the head coach is in command. The QB is just his field lieutenant; the head coach is calling the shots (with help from his OC and DC).

What do you mean by "unity of command"? Can you prove your point?

There are A LOT more reasons not to do it than split leadership though.

So yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with using 2 QBs, and there's nothing inherently right about it, either. Some coaches make it work, others maybe not.

Looking like we'll see how Butch & Larry Scott do with it maybe these first few games.

Go Vols!

IMO, it would be a really bad mistake to show indecision and run a 2 QB system even for a quarter. You have a new starter. Among other issues, you need to show him unwavering confidence.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

SJT, you're bringing your slant, your personal bias, to the question.

You don't like 2-QB offenses. Got it. That doesn't mean they don't work.

Your point about proving a negative: sure, you can't prove it. But you can easily disprove it. Just show one case where it is untrue.

"It never rains in California" is a negative. Impossible to prove...you'd have to be able to see the entire lifetime of the state of California, in every little valley and forest, past and future. And we can't see the future yet.

But disproving it is easy. It rained last week in San Fransisco. Done. Disproven.

"The 2-QB system doesn't work" is, as you said, a negative. Impossible to prove. But very easy to disprove: Leak-Tebow. Done.

So then you fall back on "well, it usually doesn't work." But how do you know that? What empirical evidence can you provide? Have you surveyed the history of the college game, counted up all the times a coach used 2 QBs, and then counted up how many of those teams had winning seasons?

I'm thinking you haven't.

So what you're going with instead, is your gut. Your instinct. Which in turn is based on, probably, a few things:

1. You heard people whose opinion you trust (your dad, your scout leader, your high school coach, a TV announcer) say so. It became "conventional wisdom" to you.
2. You apply principles that generally make sense. Like Unity of Command from the principles of war.
3. You're stuck in history. Back in the early days of football, there was no communication between the coach on the sidelines and the players on the field. There were actually rules prohibiting it. The QB (or another player, like the tailback) truly was the commander of the team; he made all the important decisions.

Maybe all of the above. They tend to mix together.

For whatever reason, you're going on instinct, rather than objective proof. Ask yourself this: how many 2-QB systems have you actually watched in your lifetime? It'll be a low number, probably less than 5. Out of all the teams you pay attention to, over all the seasons you've been watching, it'll probably be a handful or fewer.

So how do you know it doesn't work?

I can think of 3 cases where I personally saw a 2-QB offense in action: Wuerffel-Dean (FL, '93 and '94), Ainge-Schaeffer (TN, '04), and Leak-Tebow (FL, '06). The '93 and '94 Gators went 10-2 and 11-2-1. The '04 Vols were 7-1 while the 2-QB system lasted (Schaeffer's injury stopped it). And the '06 Gators were national champions.

Seems to me the 2-QB system is actually pretty successful, if managed well by a smart head coach.




p.s. At one point, you tried to make the case that infrequency = failure. That we see 2-QB systems used so infrequently because they don't work. That's a logical fallacy.

2-QB offenses are rare primarily because it's uncommon for two players, two QBs, to be equally qualified. One usually has a leg up on the other. And you go with your best player. So 1-QB is the norm.

 

['Boro-vol]

IMO, it would be a really bad mistake to show indecision and run a 2 QB system even for a quarter. You have a new starter. Among other issues, you need to show him unwavering confidence.

Most of our resident QB gurus would agree, if it was their guy that was likely to be the starter. The JG devotees, none of whom have ever seen him play, are convinced he's the answer because he's "mobile". He's not going to be the starter IMO, so the next best thing for them is the abysmally bad idea of a two-QB system none of them can really define, or show more than one questionable example of.

 

[sjt18]

SJT, you're bringing your slant, your personal bias, to the question.

If you mean a closed-minded bias then no.

You don't like 2-QB offenses. Got it. That doesn't mean they don't work.

No. I don't actually care as long as UT wins. However coaches avoid it. It isn't very difficult to imagine many reasons why they avoid it. Some reasons are as practical as the time it takes to practice and perfect a second game plan. Some of it is rhythm and continuity. Some of it is the confidence of both the QB's and the team around them.

There's even a recruiting angle (as there always is). The QB's you want believe they can beat anyone out... they don't want to deal with the idea that they have to share the position.

Your point about proving a negative: sure, you can't prove it. But you can easily disprove it. Just show one case where it was untrue.

Same thing.[/quote] We aren't dealing with absolutes but probabilities. The reason coaches use a 2 QB system only a scant fraction of the time... is that it is unlikely to work.

"The 2-QB system doesn't work" is, as you said, a negative. Impossible to prove. But very easy to disprove: Leak-Tebow. Done.

Did I say it never worked? I may have misspoken but many times I have qualified that it very seldom works.

So then you fall back on "well, it usually doesn't work." But how do you know that? What empirical evidence can you provide? Have you surveyed the history of the college game, counted up all the times a coach used 2 QBs, and then counted up how many of those teams had winning seasons?

Once again you resort to the logical fallacy of asking someone to disprove a negative.

The best and even the most direct proof we have that it seldom works is that coaches aren't clamoring to do it. Coaches are constantly looking for an advantage. If 2 QB systems afforded that advantage... it would catch fire like the spread option and 3-4 did.

1. You heard people whose opinion you trust (your dad, your scout leader, your high school coach, a TV announcer) say so. It became "conventional wisdom" to you.

Nope. The only relevant voices of authority are those making lots of money to make the decision. They overwhelmingly disapprove of it.

2. You apply principles that generally make sense. Like Unity of Command from the principles of war.

Yes and no. I don't think Unity of Command really applies here for reasons you point out. Economy of force or the sin of wasting time may apply from a principles of war perspective. I believe it was von Clausewitz who said you reinforce success. You pour your resources into what will break the opponent's line of defense.

Applied here... that would mean you give your starter max prep time so that he and the O around him can become as tight in execution as possible. Time is limited. Resources are limited.

The whole point of a 2 QB system would be for the 2nd guy to bring something radically different. So what is the trade off in preparation and execution? For Tebow's battering ram package... not much time was required.

3. You're stuck in history. Back in the early days of football, there was no communication between the coach on the sidelines and the players on the field. There were actually rules prohibiting it. The QB (or another player, like the tailback) truly was the commander of the team; he made all the important decisions.

If true, that's well before my time. It has been a long time since I played but we used signals even then. In fact, I think back in the earlier years of CFB the QB was alternated more commonly than now. O's were simple. D's were simple... and there were no limits on practice time.

For whatever reason, you're going on instinct, rather than objective proof. Ask yourself this: how many 2-QB systems have you actually watched in your lifetime? It'll be a low number, probably less than 5. Out of all the teams you pay attention to, over all the seasons you've been watching, it'll probably be a handful or fewer.

Less than 20 for sure.

So how do you know it doesn't work?

Ask yourself why coaches desperate to find an advantage don't do it if it has a reasonable probability of success. There are lots of teams with two good QB's and really nothing much to lose.

p.s. At one point, you tried to make the case that infrequency = failure. That we see 2-QB systems used so infrequently because they don't work. That's a logical fallacy of the nature "correlation does not equal causation."

No. Infrequency equals improbability.

Since you've jogged a few memories... Stonewall Jackson famously violated the principles of war fairly often. Can't remember the field but he once split his force which was half the size of the opposing union force and masterfully used other advantages to make it work.

That doesn't mean that the "law" that you never split your force doesn't apply the vast majority of the time.

2-QB offenses are rare primarily because it's uncommon for two players, two QBs, to be equally qualified. One usually has a leg up on the other. And you go with your best player. So 1-QB is the norm.

Every report I've seen suggests that Dormady had that leg up in the spring and has never lost it. The clamoring for 2 QB's is primarily from those excited about JG or convinced by their own bias that he should be the QB.

FWIW, it isn't all that uncommon for good teams to have 2 QB's worthy of starting. Even Peterman has now proven that he was worthy of a CFB starting job... and apparently a spot on an NFL roster. Jones did PRECISELY the right thing by starting and sticking with Dobbs. That situation lent itself to a 2 QB system more than the current one. They brought very different things to the field.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Since you've jogged a few memories... Stonewall Jackson famously violated the principles of war fairly often. Can't remember the field but he once split his force which was half the size of the opposing union force and masterfully used other advantages to make it work.

You're probably talking about Chancellorsville.

Jackson (and other commanders) split their forces all the time; as long as you have interior lines, it's not a great risk. Chancellorsville is one case where Lee split his forces and intentionally allowed the union forces to come between them, taking away interior lines. The famous "left hook" of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in Iraq is another example of a commander splitting his forces. Schwarzkopf left about half his forces in Kuwait, then sent the VII Corps around behind the Iraqis in a huge turning movement. He effectively put the bulk of the Iraqi Army in between the two halves of the Coalition forces.

But splitting your forces up has nothing to do with unity of command. Those are different beasts. So not sure how you mean it to apply here.


p.s. I know of no principle of war that is definitively violated by splitting your forces on the battlefield. In fact, one principle (Economy of Force) is all about using a small force in an "economical way" at one point on the battlefield while you Mass (another principle) most of your troops in another location for maximum effect. Robert E. Lee was actually employing Economy of Force when he left a small element of his army in Fredericksburg to fix part of the Union forces, while moving the rest into the Wilderness to face Hooker in what would become known as the Battle of Chancellorsville.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Less than 20 for sure.

So tell us about those less than 20 cases. What were the teams, what years, and how'd they do?

I already listed the four teams/seasons I had personal directly knowledge of. All four of those were successful:

• Wuerffel-Dean (FL, '93) -- went 10-2
• Wuerffel-Dean (FL, '94) -- went 11-2-1
• Ainge-Schaeffer (TN, '04) -- went 7-1 while 2-QB lasted
• Leak-Tebow (FL, '06) -- national champions.

How'd those less than 20 cases you remember end up?

 

[sjt18]

Most of our resident QB gurus would agree, if it was their guy that was likely to be the starter. The JG devotees, none of whom have ever seen him play, are convinced he's the answer because he's "mobile". He's not going to be the starter IMO, so the next best thing for them is the abysmally bad idea of a two-QB system none of them can really define, or show more than one questionable example of.

I think you're pretty close.

I'm being completely and totally honest. I like both guys a lot. It is very easy for me to say that a "bad" decision is better than indecision because neither guy would be a bad decision.

Also being truthful, I was a lot more excited about JG as a recruit than QD. I watched video of QD and couldn't figure out why Jones had offered him. I thought he'd be a 4 year clip board holder... son of a coach who brought good things to the locker room and sideline. He threw lots of INT's iirc. His team didn't win at a high level. He was "mobile" but certainly didn't look like a running QB. A good arm but really you expect the son of a coach not to be a "diamond in the rough".

But here we are... I like both guys and apparently QD has been developed reasonably well in the system in spite of not having a dedicated QB coach. It sounds as if he has won the job.

He throws much better than I thought he would as a recruit... and he appears to have a very great command of the O. He and others claim that he's not a liability running the football a few times per game. If he indeed won the job... then Jones loses credibility all the way round if he doesn't give him the job.

 

[johnrlansford]

Most of our resident QB gurus would agree, if it was their guy that was likely to be the starter. The JG devotees, none of whom have ever seen him play, are convinced he's the answer because he's "mobile". He's not going to be the starter IMO, so the next best thing for them is the abysmally bad idea of a two-QB system none of them can really define, or show more than one questionable example of.

So how long do you think they play 2 QBs? Because they both play against GT and Indiana State I think and hopefully have a true start by Florida! Go Vols!!!

 

[FleeceItOut]

Anyone have a link to the press conference? Thanks in advance.

 

[sjt18]

So tell us about those less than 20 cases. What were the teams, what years, and how'd they do?

I already listed the four teams/seasons I had personal directly knowledge of. All four of those were successful:

• Wuerffel-Dean (FL, '93) -- went 10-2
• Wuerffel-Dean (FL, '94) -- went 11-2-1
• Ainge-Schaeffer (TN, '04) -- went 7-1 while 2-QB lasted
• Leak-Tebow (FL, '06) -- national champions.

How'd those less than 20 cases you remember end up?

Honestly. It would take far more time than I have or am willing to spend to give you another finger hold to keep arguing.

Answer why coaches in CFB and the NFL aren't clamoring to use a 2 QB system if it is a better way to go. If you do that well... then I'll try to job my old memory and come up with the more obscure instances of 2 QB systems over the past 30-40 years.

PS- Greene and DJ Shockley are probably the best example of a true 2 QB system.

PSS- I remember the Gators in the 90's. I don't think I would call Spurrier's willingness to yank a QB in embarrassing fashion for making mistakes a "2 QB system".

 

[sjt18]

So how long do you think they play 2 QBs? Because they both play against GT and Indiana State I think and hopefully have a true start by Florida! Go Vols!!!

Why do you think that and why would it make sense?

CBJ has called QD "consistent". We've seen what he can do throwing the ball. We have seen his command of the O on a somewhat limited basis. If he's doing that "consistently" then why would you not name him the starter and run with it?

 

[Behr]

Honestly. It would take far more time than I have or am willing to spend to give you another finger hold to keep arguing.

Answer why coaches in CFB and the NFL aren't clamoring to use a 2 QB system if it is a better way to go. If you do that well... then I'll try to job my old memory and come up with the more obscure instances of 2 QB systems over the past 30-40 years.

What!? Who are you and where is sjt18?

 

[MiramarVol]

Coaches have to develop packages for each based off of their strong suits. On he other hand, opposing coaches have to spend time planning to defend each QB when they are in the game. I think there are definite advantages of each, but I'd go with the hot hand when one does stand out.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Honestly. It would take far more time than I have or am willing to spend to give you another finger hold to keep arguing.

Answer why coaches in CFB and the NFL aren't clamoring to use a 2 QB system if it is a better way to go. If you do that well... then I'll try to job my old memory and come up with the more obscure instances of 2 QB systems over the past 30-40 years.

Never said it's a better way.

Said it can work, and work very well, at times.

Who knows if this year, for the Vols, isn't one of those times?

If you can't even provide some of those "less than 20" cases you claim to remember, SJT, you got nothing. You're basing your argument entirely on your gut, your instinct. And that comes from all those sources I mentioned earlier.

In short, put up or shut up. You gotta show some evidence of your opinion, or you're just flappin'.

 

[ChattaTNVol]

Here's the live feed for the presser coming up. Feel free to move it to the OP.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fa-39I38a0[/youtube]

 

[jakez4ut]

i'll just leave these here...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...erback-system-really-work-in-college-football

http://herosports.com/collegefootball/two-quarterback-system-2015-college-football

https://n.rivals.com/news/the-two-quarterback-conundrum

http://247sports.com/Article/An-exa...-system-will-it-work-for-the-Notre-D-46888408

what i got from reading these is that there is a case for two qb system....situationally speaking. where you have different packages and do different things from one another. it's when you have 2 qbs, with similar skill sets, similar packages etc...it can hurt more than it helps.

also, what i got out of this, is that generally speaking, the most famous 2 qb systems are generally tied to just a handful of coaches....mainly Spurrier and Meyer....both with varying degrees of success, that some will tell you, in some cases anyway, that the 2 qb system they employed while generating successful seasons, actually prevented some of those teams from doing more, championship wise.

so you're both right, generally speaking.:thumbsup:

as for how would this apply to our situation...i'm not sure there's so much difference between JG's and QD's skill sets that you could justify "situational need" to run a 2 qb system. rather, it could do more harm than good to the continuity and chemistry of the whole offense. so not sure what the big upside is for us...imo.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Should we be expecting anything Earth shattering at noon?

 

[rockydoc]

SIAP: we are in same situation as Bama was with Blake Barnett and Jalen Hurts last year Dormady will start but may nor be starter by Florida.

 

[TNnative]

Butch has his scheduled weekly press conference tomorrow at noon. I'm guessing if there's any truth to the suspension rumors, we'll find out then.

We all know Dormady is going to be the starting quarterback, so I'm not sure what the big secret is in announcing it. Will Butch name a starter tomorrow?

Speaking of quarterbacks, does this whole dual quarterback thing feel a bit forced to anyone else? It seems like they decided before fall camp even started that both guys were going to play. Is this set up in the best interest of the team this year, in your opinion? Or is this an attempt at roster management for the future?

I am looking at what we saw from spring practice as if it happened in Las Vegas. What happened in spring stays in spring. Since then, I have been unable to sneak into practices and workouts to see what exactly has happened since then.

Dormady was the most accurate passer THEN. But since a starter had yet to be named, I assume Guarantano or maybe even McBride or Seth Washington might be pushing him. Doesn't do anyone's ulcers any good to worry about it, just a matter of taking it as it comes. I am gonna roll with whoever takes the field. What the Hell else am I suppose to do?

 

[sjt18]

Never said it's a better way.

Said it can work, and work very well, at times.

Who knows if this year, for the Vols, isn't one of those times?

If you can't even provide some of those "less than 20" cases you claim to remember, SJT, you got nothing. You're basing your argument entirely on your gut, your instinct. And that comes from all those sources I mentioned earlier.

In short, put up or shut up. You gotta show some evidence of your opinion, or you're just flappin'.

If you aren't going to answer this question be ARE going to ignore my answers to the questions you keep asking like above... then we just need to drop it. I am basing my argument purely on what the vast majority of CFB and NFL coaches choose to do... and the assumption that someone would change if it were a recipe for consistent change.

You're playing the part of Carey in Dumb and Dumber... "you mean there's a chance".

I think earlier you mentioned something about two equal options... but all the evidence suggests that QD leads. So why are you arguing so strongly for the "possibility" that UT would run a 2 QB system?

 

[Rifleman]

Here's the live feed for the presser coming up. Feel free to move it to the OP.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fa-39I38a0[/youtube]

 

[sjt18]

i'll just leave these here...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...erback-system-really-work-in-college-football

http://herosports.com/collegefootball/two-quarterback-system-2015-college-football

https://n.rivals.com/news/the-two-quarterback-conundrum

http://247sports.com/Article/An-exa...-system-will-it-work-for-the-Notre-D-46888408

what i got from reading these is that there is a case for two qb system....situationally speaking. where you have different packages and do different things from one another. it's when you have 2 qbs, with similar skill sets, similar packages etc...it can hurt more than it helps.

also, what i got out of this, is that generally speaking, the most famous 2 qb systems are generally tied to just a handful of coaches....mainly Spurrier and Meyer....both with varying degrees of success, that some will tell you, in some cases anyway, that the 2 qb system they employed while generating successful seasons, actually prevented some of those teams from doing more, championship wise.

so you're both right, generally speaking.:thumbsup:

as for how would this apply to our situation...i'm not sure there's so much difference between JG's and QD's skill sets that you could justify "situational need" to run a 2 qb system. rather, it could do more harm than good to the continuity and chemistry of the whole offense. so not sure what the big upside is for us...imo.

Nailed it.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

If you aren't going to answer this question...

What question, SJT?

The only person I see not answering a question is this: you said that you remember "less than 20" cases of a 2-QB system being used in college football. So...what are those "less than 20" cases, and how'd they do? If you truly do remember them, you shouldn't need any research. Just blurt them out.

Now, I'm happy to answer any question you like, if I know the answer. What's your question?