I agree, but I feel like it's safe to assume you won't lose both QB's to injury, until at least one goes down. Yes it happens, but it's pretty uncommon and both are healthy right now.
of our 4 scholly QBs, how many are truely 100% healthy right now?
how many of our scholly QBs were 100% healthy half way through the bowl game last yr?
sht happens, and teams need to be prepared.
the coach/QB relationship seems to be a unique one in all of team sports, where it's unthinkable to sub QBs, and it always has to be one and only one, even when QBs are fairly even and bring different skills to the table, and even when backups need to be prepared in case of injury.
coaches just absolutely hate, loathe, and despise, ever subbing a QB, no matter what, and would rather the earth spin out of orbit around the sun.
without getting into the current IU QB situation in particular, i'll keep this about the whole subbing QBs thing in general, and coach's OCD level compulsion to always stick with only one no matter what.
imo while sticking to only one often is the right call, sometimes it isn't.
times when it isn't are,
when a game is already lost or won, and getting the backup reps is in the best interest of the team. (i've seen times where not doing this has bit IU in the ass hard).
when QBs are even fairly equal, and the starter isn't getting it done, or just not having his best game.
when fairly equally effective QBs have different skill sets, and making defenses stop both skill sets can be a positive thing.
when one QB is clearly superior when 100%, but isn't 100%.
in no other team sport position is it so verboten for a coach to ever sub a player in and out, or is it some shameful indictment of the starter to ever sub him out, even if only for a short while.
even Cy Young level pitchers can get yanked fast if their stuff is off even a little, or they're getting hit hard even when it isn't.
and they can't be put back in the game at all the next batter, or next inning, or anytime during that game.
perhaps it's the relatively few games played a yr, and the relatively few possessions per game, that keep a coach so locked in on one guy, and only one guy, no matter what, as with QBs in football.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
on a side note, with QBs being so protected in practice, does that protection favor one skill set or player over another, rather than if practices and scrimmages were full speed full contact, and how different QBs play in real game conditions was always being evaluated, rather than most of the time being evaluated in something significantly different than real game conditions??
i think it does, but that's just my opinion.
that question isn't regarding the current situation in particular in any way, but many IU QB battles i've witnessed over the decades.
that said, i also think it's relevant to the current situation, but only because i think it's always relevant to all QB situations every yr.
and the very protected status of QBs in all non game settings, is also totally unique to both the sport and the QB position itself.
not saying said protected status isn't warranted and smart..
just that it does imo make evaluating different QBs in practice difficult, since said protected status may favor one QB's abilities and hide their deficiencies, over another player with a different skill set and a different competitive makeup.
and imo, being that QBs don't really face real game conditions in practice or scrimmages, but only in real games themselves, then when coaches are so resistant to ever let more than one QB play in real games much, actually evaluating different QBs in a real game setting doesn't happen much until an injury occurs, and if you are the QB that doesn't benefit as much from the protected status of practice, then you never really get an equal shot at the position absent an injury to the starter.
and if you are the backup and the starter is injured, you aren't ever prepared because you haven't ever been seeing real game conditions until you do.
