To Be (Live) Or Not To Be (Live)

Submitted by Enjoy Life on

So, apparently (based on RR statements) all 3 QBs will go into the UConn game without playing "LIVE" since last year? (I don't think they were "live" in the spring either.)

If it was a typical cupcake for the first game, I would not be concerned. But, with UConn this spells a potential problem with turnovers.

I know they are doing drills for ball protection. I don't think that is enough. Even in the NFL with multimillion dollar QBs they still play in the preseason for about an entire game (spread over the enitre preseason).

Especially with 3 QBs, why not go "live" for at least a some practices?

maximus_spaniard

August 23rd, 2010 at 5:45 PM ^

Both to be live and not to be live are gambles. If they practice live there is the risk of a nasty injury. If they do not practice live then the risk lies in how they react when they get hit, hard, in a game. So what gamble do you go with?

Like someone posted earlier, I am a "stupid football fan". Stupid as in, I can't hold a sustained football discussion with most people here in MGoBlog. But based on that lack of knowledge, I am OK with the QB's not practicing live. Can we afford a Woolfol-like injury to one of our QB's? I think not... but what do I know?

Tater

August 23rd, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^

"LIve QB" advocates would be changing their tunes if any of the QB's were injured in practice.  In a few years, when he has three healthy, experienced QB's with one freshman waiting in the wings, it may be OK.  But I am "all in" for RR's handling of the QB's this year.

MaizenBlueBP

August 23rd, 2010 at 8:52 PM ^

The majority of the teams in this country put the QB's in different colored uniforms and do the same thing RR does.  Youth had a lot to do with the turnovers last year so don't put a whole lot of stock into going live or not.