Playing of #2 and #3 QB's

After reading the thread about us going 14-4 or 15-3 or 16-2...I'm questioning not giving our back-ups a shot at some time on the field.

No, I'm not crying for the's just that we would be in big trouble if Zach got hurt?

We are always, just only one play away from him getting hurt and we would have to send in someone with very little game experience. :roll:

It sure makes me nervous when the game is won, and our star #1 QB is still out on the field.

I'd happily see Matthews in against Montreal. And if he gets in trouble, it gives the O and D a chance to play in a close match.

Oh, I don't think I'd even consider starting anyone else for a game...I just feel that we are vulnerable if Zach goes down and we have very little game-experience with our back-ups.

If we have a game locked up...sure...put one of them in.

If we have the final standings locked up and it's just before play-offs, sure...protect the guy that got us there.

But we need to get them some work. :wink:

Well maybe not start but getting into games when they 're way up on their opponents. If Zach goes down, the season is over. At this point, the backups aren't ready. I don't know why Austin leaves Zach in for 60 minutes regardless of the score.

An Argo-Cat fan

The way they've racked up points early in the game leaves a perfect opportunity to let back up players get some field time, especially in the 2nd half. The last 2 home games, we've had a significant lead at halftime. No point in risking Zach, or any of the other key starters when you're up 30 points.

In Kent we trust.

...but maybe playing Mathews a little more will let him develop a little quicker. Sitting on the bench does nothing for his development. Only when the hand grenades are live, does a player have a chance to get better.


I'm all for giving Matthews, or any other back-up player a shot as long as it doesn't jeopardize any lead we have. Unless the coaching staff want to run new plays involving the starters, (to test our opponents response), then let the 2nd and 3rd string get in there and test them under fire.
The other side of the coin is if a team is so far out of it there is nothing to lose. But we all know that doesn't apply to us, it's just a generalization.

I guess we don't have any choice now do we? :roll: However, I would have thought that even Kent would recognise the need to have a back-up ready...just in case.

Some times Kent is just too confident to suit me. And , yes, a wise man once said..."if you listen to the may end up sitting with them". The last thing I would want is for Zach to get hurt, but it would "really cheese me off" if he was hurt when it might have been a better idea to have someone else in there.