Haack, Nixon know starter, both will play

[DocCajun]

I'm not a fan of this whole hoopla about not deciding a QB yet. I don't like our chances in a game I felt better about 4 months ago.

I feel ya on this.

[ManAboutTown]

Good point Charlie.

I personally hate the way this is playing out. No matter what we think, human nature will come into play here. The first time the starter is in game action and makes a bad throw/decision/read, he'll begin to look over his shoulder and press. It's only a matter of time. It's unnecessary. Give Brooks the opportunity he deserves, make it clear that he's the guy, and let him focus on production rather than keeping his job. If Nixon is needed, have him prepare so that he can be ready.

I think we're making this harder than it has to be. But hell, Hud might be playing media games with UK, so...

[Just1More]

Hud said both will play. He did not say both will play QB.

Both will play QB. You don't put two guys in a contest, in order to prepare both for lead duty, establish a #1 and #2... and then use one in some other capacity. I think for Kentucky, we'll see Haack start. If Haack has a 3 and out, I still expect him to return for series 2. Part of establishing leadership is to allow a man to weather his way into the role. I see Nixon coming in for a particular scenario... red zone operation... or a yardage and distance package that Hud/Jay/Jorge have in mind.

I want to see both QBs. I want to stir up as much confusion with Kentucky as humanly possible. I don't have a problem with either QB having the major role, once we discover what we can exploit and score with. Personally, I don't think Kentucky is where you make a season decision on a QB. I think you give the nod to #1 against Northwestern State... and you begin your year's campaign under that QB's leadership.

[CrazyCajun]

Prepare for one passing quarterback, one running quarterback. It's not like they have to plan for a T-Rex back there. It's one or the other.

Or both... Who knows right? But if they have to spend an extra practice talking about one or the other, that's all you want. They have to go back a couple years to find film of us throwing it everywhere.

[cajunhawk]

Or both... Who knows right? But if they have to spend an extra practice talking about one or the other, that's all you want. They have to go back a couple years to find film of us throwing it everywhere.

I would think they have certain defensive packages for both the spread passing and zone read. We don't run a very exotic offense. In the SEC they will meet similar styles of offense and have already seen similar. It's not going to confuse them. Want to confuse them? Name Nixon the starter, then run Haack out there. That's confusing. Giving them both options to prepare for makes them ready for both options.

[CrazyCajun]

I would think they have certain defensive packages for both the spread passing and zone read. We don't run a very exotic offense. In the SEC they will meet similar styles of offense and have already seen similar. It's not going to confuse them. Want to confuse them? Name Nixon the starter, then run Haack out there. That's confusing. Giving them both options to prepare for makes them ready for both options.

Well if anyone thought this "trick" was gonna win us the game, they are fooling themselves. I just don't see the need to tip your hand when they are polar opposites. Their scout teams has to spend time learning 2 different looks. It will be hilarious the first time haack keeps it on a zone read and gashes them for 30 yards. Or maybe HUD really wasn't settled on who it was gonna be. None of it will really matter Saturday once the start playing.

[ManAboutTown]

This topic was discussed on Russillo & Kanell yesterday. I tend to agree with Ryen that this is such an over hyped way to "confuse" the opposing defense. Like Hawk said, we're not running a prehistoric predator out in the shotgun. It's a pass or a run. These D coordinators are advanced to the point where they teach plan A, B, C, trick play package. It'll take a grand total of 1-3 plays to adjust to either QB.

Short of Jay Johnson running the veer, this whole "more to prepare for" idea, I don't buy it. Perhaps with teams having similar talent level, but not an upset minded G5 vs SEC talent and speed.

[Just1More]

I'm not a fan of this whole hoopla about not deciding a QB yet. I don't like our chances in a game I felt better about 4 months ago.

There is no "hoopla" to the people that matter. First, the most intelligent preparation for this year was having 2 QBs learn the offense as if either might be commander and chief for the year. Second, our staff are the only ones you don't want confused. And there is no evidence that they are confused. Nothing about the QB decision tree has me worried about Kentucky. It is actually one of our only preseason weapons - forcing Kentucky's defense to plan for just about anything. I'm much more concerned about the style of attack we take against Kentucky (perfect execution of vanilla or much higher risk) and some of the unknowns with the new personnel and their roles. I'm not the least bit worried about our new defensive coaching staff. There is nothing about man defense that isn't already taught to every defensive player coming out of high school... it was THE defense we should have had as the primary for the past Hud operation.

There are two things I do not want Hud or the staff to rethink based on success or failure at Kentucky. The defense success or failure at Kentucky should not weigh into the future defensive scheme. Teach man and aggression and build it into the system... and the minds and mentality of the player talent. It will eventually pay extraordinary dividends. And do not fall back to dependency on a dual threat QB system, unless that QB is an extraordinary passer that can also run like a gazelle. If he can run like a gazelle, but is limited as a passer, get the passer in the game. Nut up... and get the ball to the other talent in our offense... short, middle and deep. It's time.

[CrazyCajun]

This topic was discussed on Russillo & Kanell yesterday. I tend to agree with Ryen that this is such an over hyped way to "confuse" the opposing defense. Like Hawk said, we're not running a prehistoric predator out in the shotgun. It's a pass or a run. These D coordinators are advanced to the point where they teach plan A, B, C, trick play package. It'll take a grand total of 1-3 plays to adjust to either QB.

Short of Jay Johnson running the veer, this whole "more to prepare for" idea, I don't buy it. Perhaps with teams having similar talent level, but not an upset minded G5 vs SEC talent and speed.

Unless you use to your advantage they assume haack can't run and Nixon can't throw

[Just1More]

Unless you use to your advantage they assume haack can't run and Nixon can't throw

Not only is this an advantage... whether slight or not... in forcing Kentucky to prepare for two contrasting QB "styles" (regardless of my belief that we run the exact same offense regardless of the QBs... we simply lean toward a few plays under one than the other)... it is also a mental boost to Haack and Nixon to be the potential starter right up to the brink. They might even believe it gives us an offensive advantage, in their QB heads, and every confidence boost provided when you're heading into a 60,000 fan plus away game... is nothing to sneeze at.

I applaud the coaches for keeping this under wraps and preparing two QBs to the maximum possible.

[CajunT]

Both will play QB. You don't put two guys in a contest, in order to prepare both for lead duty, establish a #1 and #2... and then use one in some other capacity. I think for Kentucky, we'll see Haack start. If Haack has a 3 and out, I still expect him to return for series 2. Part of establishing leadership is to allow a man to weather his way into the role. I see Nixon coming in for a particular scenario... red zone operation... or a yardage and distance package that Hud/Jay/Jorge have in mind.

I want to see both QBs. I want to stir up as much confusion with Kentucky as humanly possible. I don't have a problem with either QB having the major role, once we discover what we can exploit and score with. Personally, I don't think Kentucky is where you make a season decision on a QB. I think you give the nod to #1 against Northwestern State... and you begin your year's campaign under that QB's leadership.

I haven't read the article, but since I was standing next to Hudspeth during the interview you can read between the lines. Haack is the starter and the reasons aren't necessarily all because of what took place on the field this fall. Both will play for certain. Here are several quotes from my write up from last night.

On telling his QB's which one will get the start…



Coach Hudspeth- "I haven't spoken to them about, but Coach Johnson has and the both are good with the game plan and the direction we are going. Both have handled it positively and there is always a chance the game plan could change or a turning point."



Was there a turning point for making a decision?



Coach Hudspeth- "Yes, I think there was a turning point and sometimes it's not always on the field stuff, but maybe dependability and off the field stuff. It was a combination of things where on came out a little ahead of the other, although both had outstanding camps on the field. I tell you, I think all three quarterbacks can get the job done and all three can be outstanding quarterbacks."



What did Coach Johnson say, did he tell you about their reaction to the news?



Coach Hudspeth- "Yea, he did. "There was no animosity, they both understood and they both will continue to get reps with the ones, one a little more than the other now. But overall it was positive."

[Just1More]

I haven't read the article, but since I was standing next to Hudspeth during the interview you can read between the lines. Haack is the starter and the reasons aren't necessarily all because of what took place on the field this fall. Both will play for certain. Here are several quotes from my write up from last night.

On telling his QB's which one will get the start…



Coach Hudspeth- "I haven't spoken to them about, but Coach Johnson has and the both are good with the game plan and the direction we are going. Both have handled it positively and there is always a chance the game plan could change or a turning point."



Was there a turning point for making a decision?



Coach Hudspeth- "Yes, I think there was a turning point and sometimes it's not always on the field stuff, but maybe dependability and off the field stuff. It was a combination of things where on came out a little ahead of the other, although both had outstanding camps on the field. I tell you, I think all three quarterbacks can get the job done and all three can be outstanding quarterbacks."



What did Coach Johnson say, did he tell you about their reaction to the news?



Coach Hudspeth- "Yea, he did. "There was no animosity, they both understood and they both will continue to get reps with the ones, one a little more than the other now. But overall it was positive."

I definitely sounds like a tell.