Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All during the 3rd Quarter, I was saying to bring Tyler in. He could have sparked a light. Luke gave his worst performance of his college career. I would have brought in Tyler with a chance to win the game.
Those comeback wins were in games where the offense showed they had a heartbeat. This team was dead on the slab, so what does he have to lose, other than another game with a zombie QB?You don't bench a guy that has as many comeback wins as Falk does.
I disagree. A tree is known by it's fruit. For whatever reason, Falk did not look like the same guy we've seen most of the year. I'm highly intuitive, (hate to brag, but it's actually true), and my intuition was telling me to give Hillisnki a shot.You don't bench a guy that has as many comeback wins as Falk does.
I disagree. A tree is known by it's fruit. For whatever reason, Falk did not look like the same guy we've seen most of the year. I'm highly intuitive, (hate to brag, but it's actually true), and my intuition was telling me to give Hillisnki a shot.
I for one hope that Falk turns pro. I would like to see a QB with a little more fire under center. Tyler can run a little bit which may fire up the offense.Most people are overjoyed about the prospect of Falk returning ,i am not one of them.
Yeah, 3-and-outs and sacks were much preferred to bringing in someone who might actually move the ball.OMG, you do NOT bring in Tyler in a tough, hard fought bowl game. Are you kidding me? Falk was in the P12 POY discussions throughout the season, and you're going to bring in Hilinski against a very good Big-10 defense. Goodbye locker room.
I'll pretend that I didn't read the comments made by some of you suggesting that we sub-in Hilinski.
Yeah, 3-and-outs and sacks were much preferred to bringing in someone who might actually move the ball.
I disagree. A tree is known by it's fruit. For whatever reason, Falk did not look like the same guy we've seen most of the year. I'm highly intuitive, (hate to brag, but it's actually true), and my intuition was telling me to give Hillisnki a shot.
Or turn it over like mad.
How do you know? Maybe he actually gains yardage and points, unlike what we were getting. And if not, then we still lose, no change in the outcome. Watching the same sh!t drive after drive would compel some people to actually try something different. Was there any point in that game where you felt things were going to make a dramatic 180-degree turnaround for Falk?Or turn it over like mad.
How do you know? Maybe he actually gains yardage and points, unlike what we were getting. And if not, then we still lose, no change in the outcome. Watching the same sh!t drive after drive would compel some people to actually try something different. Was there any point in that game where you felt things were going to make a dramatic 180-degree turnaround for Falk?
No, we're not running the same offense. Hilinski might read the defense differently and use different plays, maybe run more. And there were several times the commentators noted open RB's and receivers that Falk wasn't seeing. And that's hyperbole to say the locker room will be a disaster. Maybe it will be because the team is pissed Hilinski doesn't get an opportunity? To just keep pounding your head against the wall with Falk--especially after seeing what he did the prior 2 games--is stupid IMO. There's been many a time a starter has been benched with the backup doing a better job, so to say you never, ever, under any circumstances do that is flat wrong.You don't know, that's why you don't make that move. Despite his absolutely abysmal performance last night, Falk is the still #1, most important player on our team and in our locker room. Odds, strictly odds say that Falk gives you the best chance to win last night.
So you bench him for Tyler. Why does that help? We're still running the same offense. The same offensive line is getting beat. The same WRs aren't getting open. It's not like Tyler is a Sefo Liufau or some other running QB who is going to change our look.
If you make that substitution and we don't win, the locker room is a disaster heading into Spring ball. UW is not benching Browning if Alabama stifles them. The Patriots are not going to sub in Garoppolo for Tom Brady. Russell Wison is not getting benched.
No, we're not running the same offense. Hilinski might read the defense differently and use different plays, maybe run more. And there were several times the commentators noted open RB's and receivers that Falk wasn't seeing. And that's hyperbole to say the locker room will be a disaster. Maybe it will be because the team is pissed Hilinski doesn't get an opportunity? To just keep pounding your head against the wall with Falk--especially after seeing what he did the prior 2 games--is stupid IMO. There's been many a time a starter has been benched with the backup doing a better job, so to say you never, ever, under any circumstances do that is flat wrong.
Well as everyone is quick to point out, Leach gives his QB the opportunity to call a play based on the defense. Regardless, lets say TH does run every play as called in by Leach. You think he's going to do EXACTLY as Falk and throw the ball out of bounds where the receiver can't catch it, or underthrow it, or not throw it at all because he won't see the open RB waving his arms for the ball like Falk did? Maybe it would get worse--I suppose he could've thrown a pick-six rather than "just" an interception with the game on the line. Oh well. I guess we're just fundamentally different: you don't want to risk making things worse and will accept the status quo, and I'm not willing to sit and watch the same crap over and over again without trying to do something different.Considering that Hilinski has played approximately zero meaningful snaps, why do you think he's going to do anything other than run the play Leach signals in?
You seem to be operating under the assumption things could not have gotten worse. I disagree.