Why is it a bad idea to play 2 QBs?

r_desihawk

All-Conference
Jul 3, 2025
3,285
4,739
112
I don't mean split time equally but if QB1 falters 2 drives in a row send in QB2 and coach-up/reset QB1 on the sidelines while QB2 operates. If the backup does well, let him continue to shine until he falters.

Would an approach like this not make a difference in games like the most recent one specifically if not much separates the top two guys? Almost nobody does it but seems like everyone should.
 

Hawk_4shur

All-Conference
Jan 2, 2009
905
2,151
93
I don't mean split time equally but if QB1 falters 2 drives in a row send in QB2 and coach-up/reset QB1 on the sidelines while QB2 operates. If the backup does well, let him continue to shine until he falters.

Would an approach like this not make a difference in games like the most recent one specifically if not much separates the top two guys? Almost nobody does it but seems like everyone should.
I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't think QBs are so fragile that they curl up in a fetal position every time they get benched. Every other player on the field gets subbed for. I don't know why it's so hard to switch quarterbacks
 

uihawk82

All-Conference
Nov 17, 2021
3,065
4,540
113
I don't mean split time equally but if QB1 falters 2 drives in a row send in QB2 and coach-up/reset QB1 on the sidelines while QB2 operates. If the backup does well, let him continue to shine until he falters.

Would an approach like this not make a difference in games like the most recent one specifically if not much separates the top two guys? Almost nobody does it but seems like everyone should.
QB is like the point guard on a Bball team. And in BBall the starters come out for a break now and then. So if your starting QB started well but then got into a rut or bad stretch then replace him for a couple of series, see what happens with the #2 qb, let the starter get the headphones on and watch the game and listen to the coaches.
 
Nov 29, 2021
306
853
92
I’ve always felt this way, too. If one guy is having himself a game, leave him in. If one is struggling, give the other guy a series and, like someone mentioned above, see if the guy who came out can regroup on the sidelines.

If nothing else, it gives opposing defenses two QBs to prepare for, which IMO is never a bad thing.

With that said, I also get what someone else mentioned above about the importance of a QB getting comfortable and finding his rhythm during a game, maybe more so than at some other positions. There’s definitely something to be said for that, too.

Personally, I’m not pulling for one guy to start over the other. I want them both to succeed. I just don’t think it helps the team when fans tear down one guy simply because he’s not the one they want starting. Not saying that’s happening now, but we’ve certainly seen it in the past.
 

r_desihawk

All-Conference
Jul 3, 2025
3,285
4,739
112
I’ve always felt this way, too. If one guy is having himself a game, leave him in. If one is struggling, give the other guy a series and, like someone mentioned above, see if the guy who came out can regroup on the sidelines.

If nothing else, it gives opposing defenses two QBs to prepare for, which IMO is never a bad thing.

With that said, I also get what someone else mentioned above about the importance of a QB getting comfortable and finding his rhythm during a game, maybe more so than at some other positions. There’s definitely something to be said for that, too.

Personally, I’m not pulling for one guy to start over the other. I want them both to succeed. I just don’t think it helps the team when fans tear down one guy simply because he’s not the one they want starting. Not saying that’s happening now, but we’ve certainly seen it in the past.
i completely agree that this isn’t about tearing one guy down at all. get the most out of both guys. it’s a team sport after all and when you don’t have the greatest individual talent this approach could be the next best thing
 

DukeSlater

All-American
Jul 2, 2023
2,279
5,160
113
I don't mean split time equally but if QB1 falters 2 drives in a row send in QB2 and coach-up/reset QB1 on the sidelines while QB2 operates. If the backup does well, let him continue to shine until he falters.

Would an approach like this not make a difference in games like the most recent one specifically if not much separates the top two guys? Almost nobody does it but seems like everyone should.
There's nothing wrong with it at all. Not much different than rotating RBs or other positions. If both players are worthy of playing time, both should play. Some teams have been quite successful using two QBs, but KF has trouble figuring out how to use one, because he consistently chooses the wrong one. Anyone who would let Deacon Hill anywhere near a Big Ten offense obviously has no clue, no clue whatsoever, and that's not to mention KF's other stellar choices at QB like McCann over Banks, Christensen over Stanzi, Rudock over Beathard, and now Brown over Hecklinski.

I think Hecklinski is clearly the #1 QB. He has a great, accurate arm, and he's a running threat. Against OSU Brown missed wide open receivers all day, and not by inches, by yards. And Brown is no running threat at all, plus he committed TWO costly turnovers, including the early fumble when he held the ball for about an hour and a half before coughing it up.

Ball security is supposedly KF's No. 1 criterion for everyone, especially QBs. Yet if Brown weren't injured, I have no doubt he'd start Friday night . . . and he may anyway despite the horrible inaccuracy and the two TOs because if we know anything about KF it's that he's stubborn as hell, especially when it comes to QBs.
 

DukeSlater

All-American
Jul 2, 2023
2,279
5,160
113
A lot to be said for getting a guy comfortable and into a rhythm.
A lot can also be said for keeping defenses off balance and for making them account for all 11 offensive players, which they must do with Hecklinski but definitely not with Brown.

Heck appeared to be in quite a rhythm vs. OSU despite sitting on the bench for three hours. And Brown NEVER had any rhythm at all as he misfired with wounded ducks all game long.
 

Rambler Hawk

All-Conference
Oct 10, 2001
2,461
3,248
113
Back in the day Florida did it (not sure about now), but they had oodles of talent to go around on their roster....I have always liked bringing in a more athletic option in certain situations - Northwestern always had done this. We seemed to have mixed results (briefly) using Sully in that role...😎
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyebob1962

HawksRule25

All-American
Sep 8, 2023
5,477
7,655
113
Anyone old enough to remember this? It's not exactly the same thing, but something that this made me remember. Tom Landry alternating QBs on every play (after rotating by week at first)! :)



Halloween 1971 Two Starting Quarterbacks: The #DallasCowboys Dilemma

#Cowboys head coach Tom Landry had alternated Craig Morton and Roger Staubach at the starting quarterback position during the first seven weeks of the season — Morton one week, Staubach the next.

By Week 3, Landry began platooning the two QBs on alternating possessions, much to the dismay of the two men and the entire team.

On October 31, 1971 in Chicago, Landry announced that he would have "two starting quarterbacks" against the Bears, rotating Morton and Staubach on alternating PLAYS.

Dallas lost, 23-19.

Following the loss and languishing in second place two games behind the Redskins in the NFC East, the Cowboys veteran players pressured Landry into deciding on ONE quarterback.

Days later, the coach tabbed Staubach as his starter for good. The stabilizing decision resonated positively with the entire team.

The Cowboys would proceed to win their next ten games to secure the franchise's first Super Bowl title.
 

HawksRule25

All-American
Sep 8, 2023
5,477
7,655
113
I’ve always felt this way, too. If one guy is having himself a game, leave him in. If one is struggling, give the other guy a series and, like someone mentioned above, see if the guy who came out can regroup on the sidelines.

If nothing else, it gives opposing defenses two QBs to prepare for, which IMO is never a bad thing.

With that said, I also get what someone else mentioned above about the importance of a QB getting comfortable and finding his rhythm during a game, maybe more so than at some other positions. There’s definitely something to be said for that, too.

Personally, I’m not pulling for one guy to start over the other. I want them both to succeed. I just don’t think it helps the team when fans tear down one guy simply because he’s not the one they want starting. Not saying that’s happening now, but we’ve certainly seen it in the past.

Agreed with this. I do think it comes down to 2 things:

1) Prep time = can teams get 2 QBs totally ready to play (in their minds). Finding a rythym can be tough to do with 2 QBs splitting snaps.
2) Does coach have the ego to admit that the starting QB they picked does not have it that day.

I think #2 is what drives this the most. See my post on Tom Landry where the team came to him to pick one starting QB.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,584
3,427
113
A lot to be said for getting a guy comfortable and into a rhythm.
Not only this, but the rhythm of every offensive player flows through the qb. Which makes it very hard for an offense to grow, and sustain a good rhythm using two QBs.

The rhythm starts building in practice. We see all the time, rhythm completely stalling out for the entire offense when a backup qb with no practice reps comes into a game. Literally, the team's rhythm can instantly plummet to a level that isn't even capable of execution a snap. False starts and fumbled snaps. We see it all the time.

There just isn't enough time during a practice week to get two QBs properly prepared. The starting unit needs literally every rep together they can get. To take practice reps away from the starting qb is to do a clear injustice to the qb and the entire team.

Having one qb also helps with leadership, identity, and buy-in. Playing two QBs can create dissention in the locker room, which makes it impossible for everyone to pull for one cause, which makes it impossible for a football team to reach its potential.

Playing two guys can also create dissention in the fan base. Otherwise known as a qb controversy. Otherwise known as a coach's worst nightmare. No coach wants the media asking his players to compare the two QB's all season long.

You also don't necessarily want to mess with the confidence of the starter m, by pulling him out of the game all the time.

But of course, if 99% of football teams since the beginning of time, have done something a certain way, fans are going to believe there is a better way.

Welcome to football, folks
 

MeetTheFerentzes

All-American
Sep 6, 2022
2,759
5,445
113
Anyone old enough to remember this? It's not exactly the same thing, but something that this made me remember. Tom Landry alternating QBs on every play (after rotating by week at first)! :)



Halloween 1971 Two Starting Quarterbacks: The #DallasCowboys Dilemma

#Cowboys head coach Tom Landry had alternated Craig Morton and Roger Staubach at the starting quarterback position during the first seven weeks of the season — Morton one week, Staubach the next.

By Week 3, Landry began platooning the two QBs on alternating possessions, much to the dismay of the two men and the entire team.

On October 31, 1971 in Chicago, Landry announced that he would have "two starting quarterbacks" against the Bears, rotating Morton and Staubach on alternating PLAYS.

Dallas lost, 23-19.

Following the loss and languishing in second place two games behind the Redskins in the NFC East, the Cowboys veteran players pressured Landry into deciding on ONE quarterback.

Days later, the coach tabbed Staubach as his starter for good. The stabilizing decision resonated positively with the entire team.

The Cowboys would proceed to win their next ten games to secure the franchise's first Super Bowl title.


Agreed with this. I do think it comes down to 2 things:

1) Prep time = can teams get 2 QBs totally ready to play (inI' their minds). Finding a rythym can be tough to do with 2 QBs splitting snaps.
2) Does coach have the ego to admit that the starting QB they picked does not have it that day.

I think #2 is what drives this the most. See my post on Tom Landry where the team came to him to pick one starting QB.
I don't think using the most extreme example of rotating 2 QB's in football history makes a very strong argument against the practice itself. While having a QB1 head-and-shoulders above QB2 makes things simpler and routine, if that is not the situation, having 2 QBs who get at least some significant playing time every game can work to sort things out and go with the "hot-hand" when it presents itself. McCann-Banks is the only example where it worked well for KF all season. I'm sure all of us could name several examples of really good teams thriving with 2 QBs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyebob1962

HawksRule25

All-American
Sep 8, 2023
5,477
7,655
113
I don't think using the most extreme example of rotating 2 QB's in football history makes a very strong argument against the practice itself. While having a QB1 head-and-shoulders above QB2 makes things simpler and routine, if that is not the situation, having 2 QBs who get at least some significant playing time every game can work to sort things out and go with the "hot-hand" when it presents itself. McCann-Banks is the only example where it worked well for KF all season. I'm sure all of us could name several examples of really good teams thriving with 2 QBs.

No, I was just pointing out that the 2 QB argument is not a new one. And that some team has tried to rotate a QB like another position on the field. :)

And, that a Hall of Fame coach Tom Landry even struggled with picking one. And, that was with one of the QBs also being a HOFer (Staubach) who was far from a finished product at that time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MeetTheFerentzes

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,584
3,427
113
There's nothing wrong with it at all. Not much different than rotating RBs or other positions. If both players are worthy of playing time, both should play. Some teams have been quite successful using two QBs, but KF has trouble figuring out how to use one, because he consistently chooses the wrong one. Anyone who would let Deacon Hill anywhere near a Big Ten offense obviously has no clue, no clue whatsoever, and that's not to mention KF's other stellar choices at QB like McCann over Banks, Christensen over Stanzi, Rudock over Beathard, and now Brown over Hecklinski.

I think Hecklinski is clearly the #1 QB. He has a great, accurate arm, and he's a running threat. Against OSU Brown missed wide open receivers all day, and not by inches, by yards. And Brown is no running threat at all, plus he committed TWO costly turnovers, including the early fumble when he held the ball for about an hour and a half before coughing it up.

Ball security is supposedly KF's No. 1 criterion for everyone, especially QBs. Yet if Brown weren't injured, I have no doubt he'd start Friday night . . . and he may anyway despite the horrible inaccuracy and the two TOs because if we know anything about KF it's that he's stubborn as hell, especially when it comes to QBs.
Seriously man, get some therapy. You have a clear authority complex. You will feel much better.

1. Rotating QBs is not like rotating other positions. Welcome to football.

2. Very few teams have been successful using 2 QBs. And in the history of football, almost no one has even been willing to try it.

3. It's been obvious for years that Hill was the only option at that point. If you don't understand that you can't have a guy who's late for meetings leading the team, I don't know what to tell you.

Sure, we may never know if the rumors were true. And I'm not hear to disparage the young man. But you either believe the rumors, or you believe that the staff honestly felt Hill to bring the best tangibles to the table.

And the proof was in the pudding. That team was all-in behind Deacon. One of the most together teams I've ever seen. That's not possible if you have players that aren't happy with who's quarterbacking.

It's 3 years later. Perhaps you should stop making yourself look silly with that one.

4. Banks HAS SAID, HIMSELF, that he wasn't yet ready, the year he was behind McCann. Get a life.

5. And it does people who are under informed well, to defer at times. And understand it completely reasonable to assume Stanzi and Beathard weren't good enough until they got good enough.

People could just as easily praise KF, for making the tough switch, and getting those two situations correct, in the end.

How about the times when backup QBs had to come in, and proved they weren't yet starting material? Did KF get the qb right in those seasons? How about the seasons when no backup was needed?

6. And now you're saying Heck is clearly better. Well, he had a lot of opportunity to prove that. And during the game play he was given in an open competition, we all saw that he was not clearly better.

7. Neither qb is a running threat.

8. Brown's accuracy suffered vs OSU because he got hurt
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyebob1962
Aug 14, 2025
374
535
93
QB is like the point guard on a Bball team. And in BBall the starters come out for a break now and then. So if your starting QB started well but then got into a rut or bad stretch then replace him for a couple of series, see what happens with the #2 qb, let the starter get the headphones on and watch the game and listen to the coaches.
Exactly.
 
Aug 14, 2025
374
535
93
Back in the day Florida did it (not sure about now), but they had oodles of talent to go around on their roster....I have always liked bringing in a more athletic option in certain situations - Northwestern always had done this. We seemed to have mixed results (briefly) using Sully in that role...😎
FSU did it in late 70s or early 80s wiith great success
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rambler Hawk
Aug 14, 2025
374
535
93
Agreed with this. I do think it comes down to 2 things:

1) Prep time = can teams get 2 QBs totally ready to play (in their minds). Finding a rythym can be tough to do with 2 QBs splitting snaps.
2) Does coach have the ego to admit that the starting QB they picked does not have it that day.

I think #2 is what drives this the most. See my post on Tom Landry where the team came to him to pick one starting QB.
Landry's method/system was a tad extreme. Alternating every series is weird enough, but every play?!

Nobody advocating 2 QBs is advocating for anything THAT stupid.
 
Aug 14, 2025
374
535
93
Not only this, but the rhythm of every offensive player flows through the qb. Which makes it very hard for an offense to grow, and sustain a good rhythm using two QBs.

The rhythm starts building in practice. We see all the time, rhythm completely stalling out for the entire offense when a backup qb with no practice reps comes into a game. Literally, the team's rhythm can instantly plummet to a level that isn't even capable of execution a snap. False starts and fumbled snaps. We see it all the time.

There just isn't enough time during a practice week to get two QBs properly prepared. The starting unit needs literally every rep together they can get. To take practice reps away from the starting qb is to do a clear injustice to the qb and the entire team.

Having one qb also helps with leadership, identity, and buy-in. Playing two QBs can create dissention in the locker room, which makes it impossible for everyone to pull for one cause, which makes it impossible for a football team to reach its potential.

Playing two guys can also create dissention in the fan base. Otherwise known as a qb controversy. Otherwise known as a coach's worst nightmare. No coach wants the media asking his players to compare the two QB's all season long.

You also don't necessarily want to mess with the confidence of the starter m, by pulling him out of the game all the time.

But of course, if 99% of football teams since the beginning of time, have done something a certain way, fans are going to believe there is a better way.

Welcome to football, folks
So much wrong with this post. Not even sure where to begin...
 

o_waterboy4582

All-Conference
Jan 1, 2023
1,796
2,457
113
I don't mean split time equally but if QB1 falters 2 drives in a row send in QB2 and coach-up/reset QB1 on the sidelines while QB2 operates. If the backup does well, let him continue to shine until he falters.

Would an approach like this not make a difference in games like the most recent one specifically if not much separates the top two guys? Almost nobody does it but seems like everyone should.
Outstanding
 

squeezebox_1

All-Conference
Mar 6, 2018
1,119
1,628
113
I don't mean split time equally but if QB1 falters 2 drives in a row send in QB2 and coach-up/reset QB1 on the sidelines while QB2 operates. If the backup does well, let him continue to shine until he falters.

Would an approach like this not make a difference in games like the most recent one specifically if not much separates the top two guys? Almost nobody does it but seems like everyone should.
This is what Michigan did early in 1999 with Henson and Brady. Each started a quarter and they rolled with the hot hand in the second half. I'm not advocating for it, but they did go 10-2 that season. Also probably apples to oranges in comparison to QB talent.
 

AFM22

Heisman
Oct 31, 2022
22,292
43,264
113
I don't mean split time equally but if QB1 falters 2 drives in a row send in QB2 and coach-up/reset QB1 on the sidelines while QB2 operates. If the backup does well, let him continue to shine until he falters.

Would an approach like this not make a difference in games like the most recent one specifically if not much separates the top two guys? Almost nobody does it but seems like everyone should.
In 2023 at Oregon State DJU was the QB. A promise Smith made to Aiden Chiles in recruitment is he would get playing time as a true freshman. They designated the 3rd series of each game to Chiles. Sometimes it they scored, sometimes it didn't. But it always seemed to kind of slow the offense down in the 4th series, having to re-establish rhythm when putting DJU back in.

Personally, I think its only worth putting the back up in when it benefits the personel/scheme they're trying to run or if its a last resort (completely clear QB1 is going to be ineffective.)
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye Report

Latest

  1. 01 Hawkeye Report Olympics WATCH: Rick Heller, Myles Davis talk fall exhibition win over Kansas
  2. 02 Hawkeye Report Olympics Play-by-play recap: Iowa 15 Kansas 10 (F/16)
  3. 03 Hawkeye Report Football PFF Grades - Iowa defense vs Washington
  4. 04 Hawkeye Report Football PFF Grades - Iowa offense vs Washington
  5. 05 Hawkeye Report Football Snap Counts - Iowa defense vs Washington