Yea, I know there are no shortage of opinions here...
The only comments I have heard is Starkel is the backup now. That is interesting on many levels. First, Sumlin does not say that Starkel will see game action in his role as a backup. In other words, in the UCLA game Starkel was the starter but the plan was Mond was going to play. Most of the time when coaches use the word "backup" to refer to a QB and do not say anything else, it implies the backup only plays if the starter gets hurt or in mop up time. Based on Sumlin's comments in the past if he intended that both would play even though Starkel was the backup, I believe he would have said so. I think most of us interpret this to mean Starkel has lost not only his starting spot but his chance at taking meaningful snaps during the game.
One thought is Sumlin is trying to take a hard stance here to avoid issues he has had in the past. This creates a bright line, Mond is the starter and Starkel is the backup.
But, it is interesting that a few short weeks ago the staff decided that Starkel was the starter. An injury not only causes him to lose his starting job but also any real meaningful PT? What changed? Normally one would expect it to be that the backup/Mond came in and has played so well that he has clearly demonstrated he should have been the starter all along. But, that isn't the case here. Mond has been ok but he is not lighting the world on fire and his stats are average at best.
Perhaps staff has determined that the OL (and potentially the receiving group) is not as good as it needs to be and they need Mond's legs and this gives him the nod over Starkel. But Starkel isn't exactly Petyon Manning back there, he has decent speed. Additionally, this theory doesn't seem to hold much water given that staff has not really been turning Mond loose in games (Florida is a good example in that he really didn't start to run until second half and clearly there were more designed QB runs in the second half)
Ultimately I think Sumlin is gun shy and doesn't want a QB controversy during the season and feels this is the best way to avoid that turmoil. But does it come at the cost of losing Starkel at the end of the year? Mond was second string to start the year, isn't it enough to let him know that his level of play has instilled confidence in him by the staff, perhaps so much so that he is now first string and getting the majority of the snaps? But tell him for the good of the team and out of fairness to Starkel, we need to give Starkel some snaps too? Isn't that why Sumlin said we were playing all those OL? In case of injury we had some experience? If Mond gets hurt we have exactly one-half of one game as our experience backing him up?
Staff was pretty excited with Starkel and high on him heading into the season. An injury in game one could effectively cost him any real chance to regain his job?
I guess I don't see why Starkel shouldn't or can't get some meaningful series in games going forward. Seems that is fair to Starkel and in the best interest of the team. Our OL is really struggling to run block but has improved pass blocking. Who is to say Starkel and his arm might not be able to jump start an offense that really struggles to move the ball, probably more so that any offense we have seen here in some time, certainly more so than any offense under Sumlin.
At a minimum, I'd like to see Starkel get selected series in games. Perhaps 3rd or 4th series of game and perhaps 2nd or 3rd series of the second half. Seems that is fair to both Starkel and Mond and in the best interest of the team.
The only comments I have heard is Starkel is the backup now. That is interesting on many levels. First, Sumlin does not say that Starkel will see game action in his role as a backup. In other words, in the UCLA game Starkel was the starter but the plan was Mond was going to play. Most of the time when coaches use the word "backup" to refer to a QB and do not say anything else, it implies the backup only plays if the starter gets hurt or in mop up time. Based on Sumlin's comments in the past if he intended that both would play even though Starkel was the backup, I believe he would have said so. I think most of us interpret this to mean Starkel has lost not only his starting spot but his chance at taking meaningful snaps during the game.
One thought is Sumlin is trying to take a hard stance here to avoid issues he has had in the past. This creates a bright line, Mond is the starter and Starkel is the backup.
But, it is interesting that a few short weeks ago the staff decided that Starkel was the starter. An injury not only causes him to lose his starting job but also any real meaningful PT? What changed? Normally one would expect it to be that the backup/Mond came in and has played so well that he has clearly demonstrated he should have been the starter all along. But, that isn't the case here. Mond has been ok but he is not lighting the world on fire and his stats are average at best.
Perhaps staff has determined that the OL (and potentially the receiving group) is not as good as it needs to be and they need Mond's legs and this gives him the nod over Starkel. But Starkel isn't exactly Petyon Manning back there, he has decent speed. Additionally, this theory doesn't seem to hold much water given that staff has not really been turning Mond loose in games (Florida is a good example in that he really didn't start to run until second half and clearly there were more designed QB runs in the second half)
Ultimately I think Sumlin is gun shy and doesn't want a QB controversy during the season and feels this is the best way to avoid that turmoil. But does it come at the cost of losing Starkel at the end of the year? Mond was second string to start the year, isn't it enough to let him know that his level of play has instilled confidence in him by the staff, perhaps so much so that he is now first string and getting the majority of the snaps? But tell him for the good of the team and out of fairness to Starkel, we need to give Starkel some snaps too? Isn't that why Sumlin said we were playing all those OL? In case of injury we had some experience? If Mond gets hurt we have exactly one-half of one game as our experience backing him up?
Staff was pretty excited with Starkel and high on him heading into the season. An injury in game one could effectively cost him any real chance to regain his job?
I guess I don't see why Starkel shouldn't or can't get some meaningful series in games going forward. Seems that is fair to Starkel and in the best interest of the team. Our OL is really struggling to run block but has improved pass blocking. Who is to say Starkel and his arm might not be able to jump start an offense that really struggles to move the ball, probably more so that any offense we have seen here in some time, certainly more so than any offense under Sumlin.
At a minimum, I'd like to see Starkel get selected series in games. Perhaps 3rd or 4th series of game and perhaps 2nd or 3rd series of the second half. Seems that is fair to both Starkel and Mond and in the best interest of the team.