Why Green is Not Automatically the Choice

6 comments so far October 23, 2009 by Steve Hanway

The "Put In Green" movement gained steam this week, including even some members of the media. It's a little surprising that people aren't willing to defer to the coaches on who the starting quarterback ought to be. The simple question to ask is what possible motivation would the coaches have not to play Cody Green if they thought he gave them a better chance to win now? Assuming fans can agree that there isn't a reason to sit Cody unless they think Zac Lee gives them the best chance at victory, then the question becomes what is it that they see in Lee that fans don't?

First, let's review the arguments for playing Green. One of the first ones you hear is that Green has more eligibilty than Lee and thus they could develop him to cash in on in future seasons. That's a reasonable choice to make and one that Ron Prince may have made with Josh Freeman at Kansas State (as well as Mack Brown at Texas with Chris Simms), but it also undermines the philosophy of putting your best players on the field. When you sit a better option to develop a younger player, you send a message to the entire team that winning now is not your priority. That can be a dangerous move, especially when you're trying to create a culture where everyone is working toward the same goal. It seems apparent that it's not the kind of move a guy like Bo Pelini would make.

Then there's the argument that Green is a better runner or might do a better job with the zone read plays. That seems possible and perhaps even likely. Then again, if you're not the better passer, opposing teams will bring up their safeties and take away the run game. And if you're not a competent passer, then it won't matter on passing plays that the safeties are a step out of position. So the running only works if you're on par as a passer. Jammal Lord was terrific running the football, but the offense struggled because they were constantly running against stacked defensive fronts.

I don't know if anyone has truly argued that Green is the better passer. Any review of the passing statistics doesn't bear that out. Lee has a better completion percentage, a better ratio of touchdowns to interceptions, fewer interceptions per pass attempt, and more yards per pass attempt. Now, many of those stats came against cupcake teams (for both players), so maybe people want to disregard those. If you believe that Green is an equal (or near-equal) passer, then playing him begins to make more sense. But don't you think the coaches would know better than anyone whether or not Green was on par with Lee as a passer?

Beyond just the ability to pass, there's also the game management element of the quarterback's role. We saw Green get a delay of game penalty against Texas Tech (though those have also occurred with Lee at the helm this year). Knowing when to audible and what play to get into is critical. Likewise, reading coverages and knowing where to go with the football is important as well. So there's an element that goes beyond simply playmaking that factors into why you want to play one quarterback versus another.

All of this is not to say that the coaches shouldn't play Green. The fact that they are so open about the possibility of him playing, tells you that he's definitely an option in their minds. But it's also completely understandable if they choose not to. There are plenty of legitimate football reasons for not playing Green, regardless of what fans think of Lee.

The best things fans can do is support whichever player takes the field, even if he struggles. The coaches will be trying to win the game, regardless.

Did you enjoy this article?

Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter

NextPrevious