[OutsiderFan]

I just wonder, for everyone who wanted to see a back up quarterback, when would you have replaced Nunes during the first 7 games. Put yourself in David Shaw's shoes and tell me when the best time to put in a Nottingham would have been. Right now, we are seeing some Hogan packages .... would you have done this sooner. Would you have put Nottingham in when Nunes was struggling in his very first game in the second half against SJSU? Or how about when we were leading for most of the game at UW?  Or when we got down by 14 points to Arizona? Or at some point during the Northern Indiana Parochial College game?

I know I don't have a right answer (And I'm very firmly in WIM's corner with all his Nunes and Shaw arguments in this thread).

To me the issue isn't making a change per se.  It is not giving yourself the best chance to pick the right guy or at least strengthen the position the most, from the beginning.  What would have been so bad about letting both Nunes and Nottingham compete for the starting job by giving each guy a half in the first game of the season, and continuing to play both guys until one guy seized the job, perhaps in the Duke game?  Then if the starter was struggling in a future game or was injured, the backup would be much more ready to play.

It would be interesting to look back into David Shaw's coaching past to see if he was on any teams that struggled with QB controversies.  It may be that he had a very bad experience with one in the past that makes him loathe to ever experience one again, and he is adamant about picking one guy and sticking with him because he feels the alternative is worse.

[OutsiderFan]

I just wonder, for everyone who wanted to see a back up quarterback, when would you have replaced Nunes during the first 7 games. Put yourself in David Shaw's shoes and tell me when the best time to put in a Nottingham would have been. Right now, we are seeing some Hogan packages .... would you have done this sooner. Would you have put Nottingham in when Nunes was struggling in his very first game in the second half against SJSU? Or how about when we were leading for most of the game at UW?  Or when we got down by 14 points to Arizona? Or at some point during the Northern Indiana Parochial College game?

I know I don't have a right answer (And I'm very firmly in WIM's corner with all his Nunes and Shaw arguments in this thread).

To me the issue isn't making a change per se.  It is not giving yourself the best chance to pick the right guy or at least strengthen the position the most, from the beginning.  What would have been so bad about letting both Nunes and Nottingham compete for the starting job by giving each guy a half in the first game of the season, and continuing to play both guys until one guy seized the job, perhaps in the Duke game?  Then if the starter was struggling in a future game or was injured, the backup would be much more ready to play.

It would be interesting to look back into David Shaw's coaching past to see if he was on any teams that struggled with QB controversies.  It may be that he had a very bad experience with one in the past that makes him loathe to ever experience one again, and he is adamant about picking one guy and sticking with him because he feels the alternative is worse.