Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Clawson said he doesn’t want to have to pick a starting QB each week, but he will if that is best.

“It’s different from other positions in that it’s the leader of the offense,” he said. “But it’s like other positions in that whoever is playing the best should play.

“It’s not fair to play one guy over the other just because it makes things convenient for you as the coach.”

That's from John Wagner's column in The Blade - its all fine to not have an estsblished quarteback while you're winning...

Very few champions at any level of football when that position is rotating throughout the season. I'm a huge Coach Clawson fan, but team's need an established leader at QB in this 'fans' oponion

I must have missed the memo. I thought we did have a starting quarterback going forward.

You might think so, mmsibg, but Coach doesn't appear to agree.

I read it as if Johnson will be benched if and only if he plays terrible and can't move the team. Not one interception, but prolonged periods of stalled drives and three-and-outs that were commonplace in 2012.

Last year we went through stretches where Schilz played terrible, couldn't move the team and only stayed in because there was no better option. That dynamic doesn't exist, so if the starter plays poorly we're not permanently saddled with futility.

Competition promotes productivity so I see having two quarterbacks that are able to play as a positive and not a negative. They both offer different elements which is very important as well and will be hard for defenses to game plan against if both are used in game situations.

Exactly. Having two QB's who can play is a BiG advantage.

BEAT KENT!

mscarn wrote:I read it as if Johnson will be benched if and only if he plays terrible and can't move the team. Not one interception, but prolonged periods of stalled drives and three-and-outs that were commonplace in 2012.

Last year we went through stretches where Schilz played terrible, couldn't move the team and only stayed in because there was no better option. That dynamic doesn't exist, so if the starter plays poorly we're not permanently saddled with futility.

I would hope that's the case. The quote isn't very clear. It almost makes it sound like Clawson thinks it's unfair to play one guy over the other -- which, of course, would be nonsense.

I think he us being purposely vague because he wants teams to prepare for the possibility of seeing either guy.

mscarn wrote:I read it as if Johnson will be benched if and only if he plays terrible and can't move the team. Not one interception, but prolonged periods of stalled drives and three-and-outs that were commonplace in 2012.

Last year we went through stretches where Schilz played terrible, couldn't move the team and only stayed in because there was no better option. That dynamic doesn't exist, so if the starter plays poorly we're not permanently saddled with futility.

That's how I took it too, and agree with it.