The Back Up QB

Unless I’ve missed something, CBB has still not named his #2 signal caller. Do you think he may even wait until after the opener? Might it be possible that he will play both against the snakes before making a decision?

They’ll name him this week. And, I think it will be Kelley.

It needs to be, especially if it’s this close of a race. Go with the younger guy who many already say is the future. It would be fair for ty, as he would have the opportunity to transfer and play elsewhere if that’s what he wanted. But since last year most have said Kelley is the future and has tremendous upside, let’s get him some experience as a back up to prepare him.

[quote=“Addhog7”]

It needs to be, especially if it’s this close of a race. Go with the younger guy who many already say is the future. It would be fair for ty, as he would have the opportunity to transfer and play elsewhere if that’s what he wanted. But since last year most have said Kelley is the future and has tremendous upside, let’s get him some experience as a back up to prepare him.
[/quote]I don’t think it’s that easy.

It would be one thing if “QB1” was a 4th year junior this season, and “QB2” a 2 year frosh. But both are “young”, with Ty getting ready for his third fall as a RS-soph, and Kelley one year behind - a RS frosh. Also, coaches have had a great deal of difficulty distinguishing just who is the better QB - today. In other words, if AA went down, who would do a better job of winning 3 or 4 games until he got back? Right now - not next year, or the year after.

Coaches may well (I don’t know, but may be the case) think that Kelley has more “upside”. At the same time, I believe it is possible (likely?) that they also believer the Ty gives us the best chance to win a game today. They probably wish the answer to both questions was the same guy, but I’m not sure that it is.

Next year will take care of itself, in due time. Right now, I want the guy at number 2 to be the best QB that gives us a chance to win in 2017 - whichever it may be.

[quote=“WizardofhOgZ”]

Right, I get all that. My point was, we will likely not keep both on the roster over the next 4 years. Seeing they are so tight and that you can’t distinguish between the two, is go with the younger guy. Who like I said is widely considered the best future of the two. Whichever one would be the future starter would likely cause the other to never start throughout their razorback career. Due to the 1 year one eligibility difference.

Well my preference is not to name a #2 until there is clearly separation between the two. Would love to see them both get a quarter in the opener to show what they can do.

Not a bad idea.

[quote=“Addhog7”]

[quote=“WizardofhOgZ”]

Right, I get all that. My point was, we will likely not keep both on the roster over the next 4 years. Seeing they are so tight and that you can’t distinguish between the two, is go with the younger guy. Who like I said is widely considered the best future of the two. Whichever one would be the future starter would likely cause the other to never start throughout their razorback career. Due to the 1 year one eligibility difference.
[/quote]Well, apparently you did not get my point. Which is, that I disagree with that comment (directly above).

It’s not that the two are clones of each other - they are very different QB’s. Overall, their pros and cons balance out to be pretty equal (apparently). That being the case, I think it’s better to go with the one who the coaches feel give us a better chance to win a game TODAY, regardless of what they might think regarding who MAY be the better QB in the long run. In other words, winning games in 2017 trumps possible long-term potential. And, everything I’ve read/heard leads me to believe that guy is Ty. In other words, Ty’s “strengths” seem to fit the attributes more valued as a #2 than does Kelley’s long-term potential.

I also have heard that the coaches really like Kelley’s potential, but that he tends to make some really good throws, then make a careless or ill-advised throw and get it picked. IMO, the coaches will go with the “steady” low turnover guy as Austin’s backup before the spectacular play/turnover fellow as the back-up at this point. I believe that the coaches have given Kelley every opportunity to smooth out his turnover issues for the reason you mention - and, that if it was relatively even on that front, they might prefer to go ahead with the guy who they view to have more upside over the long haul. But - and we’ll find out soon enough - I don’t think they’re quite there with him yet. Maybe it’s just been coach-speak, pushing Kelley’s buttons - but there have been several comments made by the coaching staff about him needing to be more consistent. Meanwhile, we hear comments about Ty “being able to move the team”.

Even if they do go with Ty, that does NOT mean it’s written in stone that Ty would be the starter next year. That’s a completely different question, because then you’re talking about who will start for the next 2 or 3 years. Whereas, as a backup, you’re only discussing who may finish a game, or play one or two games while Austin gets better.

Now, once this season is over, your point becomes more valid. If you’re choosing between the two as the starter for the next couple of years, and things are pretty equal, I agree that the guy with more time left has an edge - all other things being pretty equal. Of course, it’s not even quite that simple, since there will be other young QB’s in the mix then.

In the meantime, the best case scenario is that Austin remains healthy - and the other two get some mop up duty, when such work is available. It will be invaluable experience for both, and help the coaches sort out next year, while preparing whoever in case their number has to be called in 2017.

And, right now, we have at least six QBs on the roster with another good guy committed for next year. I suspect the three not under discussion in this thread are pretty good QBs too, but play their hand in the competition next year. If our running game were known to be solid, I’d go with Ty Storey to manage the game, make fewer mistakes, and make the passes when necessary. If our running game is really not up to par, then we need a gunslinger to get the ball to this talented group of “untested” receivers. Kelley packs more firepower in that regard from everything we have heard.

I am sure that they have decided who is going to get the second-team reps.

Why? Because that is what Coach B said he was going to do after last week’s practices as they head into the two weeks before a game.

They were having meetings over the weekend to decide spots and I’m sure that was one of them.

Naming one and announcing one are two different things.

He might do it at Wednesday’s NWA TC Club, Thursday on his radio show from the Catfish Hole or Friday when he meets with the media around noon.

Bielema indicated today that Arkansas is not going to name a No. 2 QB, but instead let Storey and Kelley compete to be No. 2 on a week-to-week basis.

Well, I guess that means no one has “won” the job.

Don’t remember the exact quote, but Lou Holtz often said if you have 2 backups that you can’t decide on, it really means you don’t have confidence in either.

Cole has more ability, but they trust Ty more. That’s really what it boils down to. It’s on Cole to earn their trust. He’s improved his decision making since the spring, but obviously not enough to surpass Ty yet.

I think we have our number 2. I also think we have an excellent number two situation for the first time in a long time.
Here’s how it works:
–If Austin goes down and we have the lead and we need a game manager- QB 2a- Ty Story
–If Austin goes down and we are behind and need a gunslinger- QB 2b- Cole Kelly
I don’t think you have to designate #2. 2a and 2b is a good thing!

Well after reading that, I am going to make the bold prediction that three QB’s will play in the opener. How long has it been since that has happened?

[quote=“eaglehog5”]
Well after reading that, I am going to make the bold prediction that three QB’s will play in the opener. How long has it been since that has happened?
[/quote]Perhaps our last Thursday night opener in Little Rock - UNLV 2001.

The ironic thing about that particular “stat” is that (a) we actually had FOUR QB’s play in that game, and (b) none of them were eventual 2001 star Matt Jones.

Three played in the 2010 opener against Tennessee Tech.

The decision making ability will be the deciding factor no doubt in my mind, if your a running back and fumble you will find the bench and it will be the same for a Qb throwing interceptions. Its all the same take care of the ball or take a seat, possession is everything! WPS

You know, I have a pretty good memory for a man my age. (59) I do not however, have any memory at all of playing Tennessee Tech in 2010. I do remember the infamous drive against Carolina in 2000 when we used 3 QB’s on that one drive.