Autzen Audibles

Naive? Whatever. I believe he will transfer if he loses the job. But please pull the tweet you are referencing. Outside of your conjecture I'd like to see the solid connection/proof that his tweet was specifically regarding his situation as QB at UO. You are done with the topic because you have no ground to stand on in your argument!

I know this is counter to the dogma, but, serious question: Why not let them split time, for the first few games, at least?

No one has ever given {me} a reason that resonates, as to why two quarterbacks can't play. (and especially against relative early season 'push-overs.'

I don't have time to really break it down, but I can see more positives than negatives,

I guess I would respond by asking you to find a situation where a highly successful team employed a two quarterback system? One of the negatives is the constant second geussing that occurs. Any time quarterback A makes a mistake or overthrows a ball, everyone starts calling for quarterback B. You also eliminate the abilty for any one quarterback to get into any type of rhythm (critical to our offense i.e: zone reads, adjustments at the line of scrimmage, mesh point with the rb, etc. etc.) All of those aforementioned items are a "feel" thing. When our offense is really humming, it is partially because the quarterback has the perfect rhythm . The plays are coming in quickly, the slight of hand is being executed to a t, and the reads are all being made correctly. It also limits both quarterbacks to fewer reps with the starting offense, so literally everyone on the team is cheated out of getting in step with the "starting quarterback." I actually can't think of much of anything positive that would come out of it, nor can I think of a championship caliber team that employed a two quarterback system. The only thing I can think of that comes close, was how Florida used Tebow his freshman year. He, however, was only used in special packages particularly around the goal line, and he was a completely different type of player than the other qb. Typically a two quarterback system is employed when neither player is showing that they can excell. I don't think that is the case here, and I highly doubt it is seriously being considered by Chip. I also don't think there is anything duplicitous going on. I think it is a close battle, and like everything with Oregon football, they will keep it quiet until it needs to be made public.

What a bunch of ridiculous assumption. You're basing your entire hyperbolic statement on ONE tweet. smh

Because all that does is hold back whoever is eventually going to be our starter. I say pick a guy and go with him and deal with the consequences.

Yeah, I used that example in my post, but that is a situation that was distinctly different from our situation. Tebow was only brought in for certain packages (short yardage and goal line) and was a completely different type of athelete than Link. Our two quarterbacks are more similar than different, and we would not be wholesale changing our offense with the substitution of either quarterback. There was also not a Qb battle. It was Link's job as the starter and Tebow was used situationally. A more traditional time share is almost always disappointing. What are the benefits?

That was my quick response too (except I think it was Leak). Florida won a title doing it, so it is not without precedent. I just think one guy needs 75% of the snaps so that you have a guy with a higher comfort level with the squad.

Yes, Leak, indeed. Sorry for the screw up. I think me and the previous poster have similar auto correct problems. You agree though, that the Florida situation is not comparable here. No one has come up with another example or one that fits our situation appropriately. Has there ever been a true time share that worked for a high caliber team? I for one, hated the Leaf, Dixon timeshare. It was one of the most insanely frustrating times to be a duck fan that I've experienced. Helfrich was asked yesterday to describe the strengths of each quarterback. His response was, they are both really similar. They both are big arm guys, mobile and have great football IQs. I'm paraphrasing and to some extent that is coach speak for, "I'm not going to tell you much ", but these two quarterbacks don't present significantly different games. Having two qbs also has the chance to be divisive to the team as a whole. Bennett would have his "guys " and Mariota would have his own proponents I just can't see any real benefits. Anyone?

Haha...stupid iPhone. Yes Leak. Not Link

I'm not completely opposed to letting them split time in the first couple games if neither have separated themselves.

What better place to show what you're made of than in an actual game? If we were playing LSU in our first game I wouldn't even consider this, but were playing Ark St and Tennessee Tech for crying or loud.

Didn't Harrington and Jason Maas share snaps? I think that team turned out ok.

Ahh. That was it. Good call.