It doesn't matter if Padilla should have been given the same opportunities as Petras or not.
The point is that lack of reps and timing for a backup QB leaves him less prepared to put his best foot forward. This we all agree on. So why would you in this way hamper a team that's competitive but has zero margin for error?
Even if KF flat out got the QB starter wrong going into the season, none of that mattered all season. What mattered is team had a chance to win a lot of games, but didn't have the margin for error to overcome the inevitable timing issues that come with a backup QB on the field. Would have been the same situation if Padilla had been the starter all along and the offense had similar stuggles. The team wouldn't have been able to overcome the timing issues that would have come with putting in a Petras that had no practice reps.
The fumbled snap is exactly what I said could happen in previous posts. It doesn't matter if it was Padilla or Jones' fault. The point is there is a coordination that requires the rhythm from reps together that turn it into second nature. Fumbled snaps within the first few plays the backup QB enters are not at all uncommon. Sure, the false start was Stevens' fault. But the fact remains that false starts, delay of games, illegal procedures, and fumbled snaps become more frequent while a backup QB is in the game. Again, it's the rhythm attained through the 1's taking continuous reps together.
Sure Labas and May are probably better pure throwers than Petras and Padilla. And yes, making the throws helps execute a play as well as anything. But there is obviously more to it than that. It's the sequence of timing that leads to the throw and the coordinated reads with the receivers that is required to give the play a chance. Iowa's offense requires a lot of pre-snap decisions that require teammates to be familiar with the timing of the QB's cadence and snap count. Then you need the reps and game experience to make post-snap reads on the proper time-belt. Then there needs to be a rhythm with the receivers. Then there's a protection issue from a developing line that's greatly limiting the timing to execute plays. Then there are struggles at other offensive positions. So you can see the timing issues that would be next to impossible for this offense to overcome should Labas or May be on the field.
For much the same reasons, going to Padilla before they did would have been the wrong decision. From my limited perspective, halftime of the OSU game is the only point in the season I would have made the change. 3 turnovers, with a couple of them real bad, from the starting QB is unacceptable. Just like the team doesn't have margin for error to absorb the timing issues of a backup QB, it doesn't have the margin for error to overcome 3 turnovers from the starter. And at that point, zero margin for error wasn't really relevant to the situation. It wasn't like one fumbled snap or false start could be the difference in the game. Nonetheless, these are the plays that happened with Padilla under center. Missed throws, reads, and timing proved to be a problem for the backup QB.
It was proven that the offense has wide struggles that can't be answered by replacing one incomplete QB with another incomplete QB. Especially when the replacement/team don't have any repped rhythm together.
Some say this proves nothing because they predicted KF would throw Padilla to the OSU wolves to set him up for failure. KF pulled Petras because he had 3 bad turnovers in the first half. Not to set Padilla up for failure to try to prove the fans wrong. KF doesn't give a damn what fans on here are saying and you know it. Not to mention the theory in itself is ridiculous. Padilla is good enough to be the answer, but he had zero chance to succeed at OSU? It was a setup by the coaches because he was literally destined to fail? But he's somehow good enough to be the answer in every other situation? He can't have zero chance in one game and be the answer in every other game.
The real "I told you so" lays in the timing issues of a backup QB that I outlined and pretty much predicted to a tee, down to a fumbled snap. And lays in the fact not only is a backup QB not the answer, but that the offense as a whole is not good enough to withstand a backup QB and remain competitive.
I predicted exactly what happened. But I fully expect that what I have to say won't be listened to. You people don't even trust a coach who has given you 20+ years of success. Any solid football fan knows that coaches forever have avoided QB controversies like the plague. Do you think there might be reasons why most all the experts in the field of football (coaches) since the beginning of the game have feared playing or having the controversy of playing their backup QB? Yes, there are many reasons, but none of you care.
You may not know the game that well or understand everything that goes into coaches decisions. That's fine, you don't have to be a football nerd. But what's wrong with trusting/supporting a certain way of looking at the game that's in line with what the expert coaches actually think. To know that coaches view a QB controversy as poison to a team and then incessantly complain, call for the backup QB, and create a QB controversy is being a completely short-sighted, destructive, disrespectful, and reckless fan. Let this be a lesson, if you care at all about being a good fan for your team. You can see that Padilla isn't the clear-cut answer that he was proclaimed to be. And you can see that you were wrong to create and pile onto a QB controversy. It certainly hasn't helped anything.
To put it another way, simply, most fans don't know what they are talking about. Even those who have played and coached realize that they are under informed to speak accurately about exactly everything that's going on with the team. When watching a game on TV the sideline camera stays on the QB while he has the ball. Thus, most of the action between the receivers and Dbacks doesn't even fit on the screen. We don't see the routes. We don't see the coverages. We don't see who's open and who isn't. From the sideline camera it's also very difficult to decipher what's happening in the interior line play in real time. Even if our eyes are trained to see what's happening in the interior line, we don't know their blocking schemes/assignments on every play. We also don't always see when a running back has missed the hole from the sideline camera. Given the clarity of how little we actually know, why in the world would one take the drastic leap of adding onto a QB controversy and possibly dividing team? Why would one take the drastic leap of mindlessly joining someone's else misery and creating a completely toxic environment for your team to exist in on a day-to-day basis? Chill out people. Be conscientious about the energy you contribute to your community.
So here we are on Monday. Petras was pulled in the last game and we're wondering who starts Saturday. Again, without having been in the building every day, I can't say for sure. But I'll take a crack at handicapping it.
-If there's any truth that Padilla isn't fully invested and doesn't spend much extra time in the film room, the answer is easy. You can't have that guy leading your team.
-I'm not sure that it can be a week long open competition. I think more likely a starter needs to be in mind early in the week so he/the 1's can get the maximum amount of prep reps together.
-If the switch is made to Padilla the team will literally be starting over. Every bit of familiarity and timing that the 1's have been building upon with Petras will have been lost. Yes, the product hasn't been pretty. But again, the struggles exist across the offense. If Padilla were switched to, the struggles across the offense would remain. It would become a struggling offense with even less familiarity and timing with its QB.
-This leads to an important consideration that nobody is taking about. The starter needs to not only give the team the best chance to win now, he needs to be the player most likely to allow the team to continue to grow. I wouldn't put the future over the present. But if I did, I understand that playing the QB of the future wouldn't necessarily be the best thing for the team's future. The team needs to continue to grow now. I'm guessing that's most easily done by building upon the work that the 1's have put in together all season. It's not necessarily that Petras is that much better than Padilla. It's very much because the QB is the rhythmic conductor of the offense. An offense is able to function together because the timing of the game flows through its QB. I would think the growth of this offense will most easily come by building upon its established reps with Petras and continuing to compete for realistic goals in front of them.
-On the other hand, if Petras continues to play as he did against OSU, the offense will not be able to grow, and the team may lose its chance to win in the present. Has he lost his confidence? Was it just an extra bad day?
-Given protection issues from the line, does Padilla's mobility give the offense its best chance for success? Even if he can extend the play, can the receivers get open off script? It does seem a given that the added mobility of Padilla would at least escape more negative plays.
-Petras has the stronger arm. Again, the receivers aren't creating much separation for deeper throws to be made. But at least those plays are available and must be defended while he is under center.
-Padilla has the more accurate arm.
-Can a week of snaps with the 1's for Padilla give the team the best chance to win this week? Will that answer have changed based upon an extra bad half from Petras?
-What is the pulse of the locker room? Does the team seem to want one guy in there over the other?
All things considered, I'm guessing it's Petras. Whoever it is, I will rooting for him. Go Hawks!
