Can a coach name a starter but play the other guy?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Finally after 2 weeks of what some would say was the laughable refusal to name a starter, Mularkey has named Holcomb as the starter against the Raiders. Seems logical, seeing as how he's 2-0 and has "sparked" the offense. But does he really plan to keep starting Holcomb, or more precisely, for every game? The reason I say this is because when the Dols had 2 weeks to prepare, not naming the starter meant they had to prepare for both, and I still contend it hurt them, even if ever so slightly. Now that it's clear Holcomb is the starter and has been named as such, the Raiders know who to prepare for, not that I think it will matter. However the Pats have heard this as well and get 2 weeks to prepare for the Bills, so most likely they go in preparing totally for Holcomb, expecting to see him. But if I were Mularkey, I'd look at it this way. The Pats have 2 weeks to prepare, for a Sunday Night game, at home. I'd be thinking it's a loss given these huge advantages. So why not have JP trot out there to start the game? Chances are they didn't prepare a lot for him, which would give the Bills a slight advantage (theoretically). Hopefully the offense is healthy and Parrish is back as well, and he was JP's favorite target. Sure it would take some guts to do, but do you do it?

[Talonz]

Yes, have them unprepared to take on 75 yards of passing from JP

[Kelly the Dog]

Frankly, I think it has always made sense. The first week there was zero reason to announce it and the Fins had to prepare in their off week plus the beginning of the game week for Losman, too. The next week, it was fairly obvious after a win that KH would start but it wasn't beyond comprehension that Mularkey was just going to give JP a week off and get him back in there. No one realistically thought that JP would start but it was a slight possibility and the coaches are looking for any tiny advantage they can get. Now, week three after two wins, it's pretty much out of the question no matter who you are that KH is going to start the game, whether you think he should or not, and there is no reason to look for that added tiny advantage. Everyone knows in the world that KH will start. So now there is no reason to play the little game as the tiny added advantage is no longer even a slight possibility.

[stuckincincy]

Finally after 2 weeks of what some would say was the laughable refusal to name a starter, Mularkey has named Holcomb as the starter against the Raiders.  Seems logical, seeing as how he's 2-0 and has "sparked" the offense.  But does he really plan to keep starting Holcomb, or more precisely, for every game?  The reason I say this is because when the Dols had 2 weeks to prepare, not naming the starter meant they had to prepare for both, and I still contend it hurt them, even if ever so slightly.  Now that it's clear Holcomb is the starter and has been named as such, the Raiders know who to prepare for, not that I think it will matter.  However the Pats have heard this as well and get 2 weeks to prepare for the Bills, so most likely they go in preparing totally for Holcomb, expecting to see him.  But if I were Mularkey, I'd look at it this way.  The Pats have 2 weeks to prepare, for a Sunday Night game, at home.  I'd be thinking it's a loss given these huge advantages.  So why not have JP trot out there to start the game?  Chances are they didn't prepare a lot for him, which would give the Bills a slight advantage (theoretically).  Hopefully the offense is healthy and Parrish is back as well, and he was JP's favorite target.  Sure it would take some guts to do, but do you do it?

478275[/snapback]

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Everyone knows in the world that KH will start. So now there is no reason to play the little game as the tiny added advantage is no longer even a slight possibility.

Well that's the thing. The Pats will be expecting Holcomb to start and will prepare heavily for him. But if the Bills start Losman, those plans go out the window to some degree. Again this is just a scenario to give the Bills any sort of advantage in a game that for all intents and purposes looks like a sure loss for ANY team.

[stuckincincy]

Finally after 2 weeks of what some would say was the laughable refusal to name a starter, Mularkey has named Holcomb as the starter against the Raiders.  Seems logical, seeing as how he's 2-0 and has "sparked" the offense.  But does he really plan to keep starting Holcomb, or more precisely, for every game?  The reason I say this is because when the Dols had 2 weeks to prepare, not naming the starter meant they had to prepare for both, and I still contend it hurt them, even if ever so slightly.  Now that it's clear Holcomb is the starter and has been named as such, the Raiders know who to prepare for, not that I think it will matter.  However the Pats have heard this as well and get 2 weeks to prepare for the Bills, so most likely they go in preparing totally for Holcomb, expecting to see him.  But if I were Mularkey, I'd look at it this way.  The Pats have 2 weeks to prepare, for a Sunday Night game, at home.  I'd be thinking it's a loss given these huge advantages.  So why not have JP trot out there to start the game?  Chances are they didn't prepare a lot for him, which would give the Bills a slight advantage (theoretically).  Hopefully the offense is healthy and Parrish is back as well, and he was JP's favorite target.  Sure it would take some guts to do, but do you do it?

478275[/snapback]

 

Football has been around for a long time. Everybody in coaching has seen everything there was, is, and will ever be seen.

 

Preparing for a contest with the Bills, Holcomb vs. Losman is probably not a huge task. Neither strike unusual fear. Assumedly, the opposition tries to plan for the accurate passer over the inaccurate all the time.

 

The Bills beat two so-so teams at home, both games still contestable into the 4th quarter, by a total of 16 points. I can't see how announcing this or that QB was material to the outcome.

[Campy]

But if the Bills start Losman, those plans go out the window to some degree. 

478312[/snapback]

Our offensive productivity goes out the window soon after those plans IMO.

[stevewin]

Well that's the thing.  The Pats will be expecting Holcomb to start and will prepare heavily for him.  But if the Bills start Losman, those plans go out the window to some degree.  Again this is just a scenario to give the Bills any sort of advantage in a game that for all intents and purposes looks like a sure loss for ANY team.

478312[/snapback]

I was actually thinking - not for every game but maybe for NE since the "genius" will be so prepared w/ two weeks for Holcombe - to not start JP but maybe throw him in there for a few plays just for an element of surprise. It is not like it is just a regular backup QB coming in - it is a completely different player who you have to defend differently to account for him scrambling. I know it smells of cheap 'gimmickry' - but at a min it might cause the defense to call a WTF? TO when they see JP run in and line up

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

When a team "prepare" for a game it is not simply that they are preparing to face a particular player but for the approach the other team takes. This preparation is not simply one of feel but particiularly in the modern information age and the modern NFL is the tendencies of a particular team at certain down and distances of specific plays they call.

 

In general, I think that preparations for Holcomb and preparations for JP will be the same for most teams.

 

1. A player will study the tendencies of the player they are likely to face and how to beat that player (ex: a DT is going to face Anderson or Villarial with Teague helping out and it makes little difference in his prep whether JP or Holcomb is calling the plays).

 

2. The Bills will tend to run at a certain down and distance and that runner is likely to be WM. Whether it is Holcomb or JP handing off to him the prep is the same and how the blockers move or are leaning is probably the key to whether the tackler reads a run or not based on the down and distance.

 

Which QB will make a bigger difference in prep for the D in that Holcomb does a far better job. Obviously Holcombe because he has command of the Bills playbook at JP level plus. JP just does not throw to the WRs as often and does not go through his progression as quickly and efficiently as the vet Holcombe does. However, prepping for the Bills will be pretty much the same regardless of who is QB, There would have to be a whole lot of plays there for one QB that are not there for the other.

 

I doubt there is much of a difference..

 

There tendenices are somewhat different but the plays are the same.

[Simon]

Preparing for a contest with the Bills, Holcomb vs. Losman is probably not a huge task. Neither strike unusual fear. Assumedly, the opposition tries to plan for the accurate passer over the inaccurate all the time.

You don't prepare for acuracy, but there are some real differences in the two guys' games which you would want to take note of as a coach.

For one thing, mobility. JP makes a lot of plays with his feet while Holcomb doesn't. If you preparing for the Bills and know JP is not going to play, you don't have to waste an untoward amount of time working on containment and gap responbilities. You also may work on more man instead fo zone because you're nto as afariaad of having your DB's with theri backs to the LOS when you're playing a guy who won't sting you with his feet.

 

For another thing you may prepare differently for their deliveries. JP has a much stronger arm and is more likely to take shots down the field than Holcomb and certainly is more prone toholding the ball longert waiting for something to come open. On the otehr hand Holcomb almost always seems to look short to long and gets the ball out farrrrr more quickly than Losman.

Maybe teh Raiders staff will feel as if they don't have to waste time and personell working on or using blitzes which have no hope of getting there before Holcomb rapidly gets the ball out. Or maybe they feel as if they can attack the Bills underneath routes with the personell that will not now be blitzing Holcomb (while they likely would be bringing it at JP) and allow their DB's to protect them over the top.

 

There's a lot of issues invloved here and none of them are readily apparent to the naked eye. But if Mularkey thinks he can get the slightest advantage by forcing his opponents to waste an hour or two working on something that they won't ever use on gameday (and I agree that he can) then more power to him. It may be a miniscule barely discernable edge, but in a league where everybody is so close, thsoe tiny edges can add up quickly.

Cya

[CoachChuckDickerson]

It's not like a D Coordinator would be picking between Vick or Brady. You are talking about Holcomb or Losman. These names don't exactly strike fear into opposing coaching staffs.