We're two weeks from kickoff, and none of these teams have named a starting QB.

I'm nervous. I'd really like to hit the panic button on the QB situation, because I really don't think our offense does much this year if we don't have stable, consistent QB play (regardless of how good the defense may be).

But then I see a factoid like this, and I think, maybe we'll be ok. Maybe.

Go Bobcats.

(Also, I'm at the beach, sipping margaritas, and thinking about college football. Life is good.)

If I thought the alternatives were all bad (as some do), I'd be more concerned. I think they are all competent, so I'm not concerned. Of the three I think Windham has the most upside as a passer, but the least experience, and therefore the most apt to make a mistake. I think Vick is the most consistent across all aspects of the game, and I think Sprague is the best scrambler.

If I were making the choices, I'd probably start Vick, and if they are in a situation where the pocket isn't holding up, use Sprague, and if they are behind and have to pass every down, use Windham.

Really, though, QB is the least of my concerns. Give me a healthy offensive line, and power running game, and the QB coach's job gets a lot easier.

Why are we so sure that experience is that important in this system? As I pointed out in an earlier post, only Austen Everson has shown improvement over time. There is little to show that Solich's system should value experience.

Here is the adjusted QBR (out of 100) for each starting QB during the Solich era:

Austen Everson: 2005: 18.9, 2006: 26.4

Brad Bower: 2007 (only year as starter, though he played sparingly in 2006): 30.0

Boo Jackson: 2008 (first year in system): 51.9, 2010 (missed most of 2009 with injury): 44.2

Theo Scott: 2009: 41.8 (only year as a starter)

Tyler Tettleton: 2011: 62.8, 2012: 61.1, 2013: 57.7

Last year, we had two QBs: JD Sprague: 30.8, and Derrius Vick: 63.4 (yes, that means he had the highest rating of any QB during the Solich era).

There is nothing to show that experience helps here. If Windham is performing the best, I hope he gets the nod. The program does very little to develop quarterbacks here. I wonder if that is the reason we have been unable to recruit quality players at that position.

Here's the question: Is it the QB, or the offensive line that matters? Now, I happen to have my own system for rating various offensive lines, which I use for something entirely different. Let's see how the offensive lines varied under the various QBs:
Everson - The offensive line was much better in 2006 than 2005 (239 to 203)
Jackson - While the defense was much better in 2010, the offensive line was actually slightly better in 2008 than 2010 (230 to 217)
Tettleton - The offensive lines the first year and a half under Tettleton were outstanding, but there was a big drop after that (for 2011 it was 271, in 2012 it started the year at 276 but after injuries ended the year at 239, then 255 in 2013)

Interestingly, my line numbers match exactly the changes you describe - Everson getting much better, Boo getting slightly worse, and TT dropping each year. The good news is that the 2015 line should be much better than 2014 (242 to 175). That's a bigger jump than from 2005 to 2006, so, if it's about the offensive line, then both Vick and Sprague should show a bigger jump from last year than Everson saw from 2005 to 2006.

If it's really just about the QB, and not about the offensive line, the good news is that Ohio has a new QB coach as of last year. If QBs were not developing under Gdowski, that tells you nothing about whether they will develop under Isphording.

Myself, I think it's more about the offensive line, and that's why I'm confident that everyone will be surprised at how much better Vick and Sprague have suddenly gotten in just one year (and they will say "Wow, having an IPF really means improvement in the QBs" or "Wow, Isphording is doing a great job".)

If Windham truly has the biggest upside and the only issue is "game experience" (clearly he has plenty of experience in our program), then we should kick the tires **this year***, and not next.

We know what Vick and Sprague can do....we don't yet know what Windham is capable of. It would be a shame to go all of 2015 and not have that answer.

If you're going to use QBR to say Derrius Vick had the best season of any quarterback under Frank Solich then you have to acknowledge that stat to be severely flawed. The eye test and the common sense test say that simply isn't so.

Yep, you guys are right: experience matters...just ask Ohio State last year. Oh wait, the guy that won it all for them may not even be the starter this year and only started the biggest gmes of the year for them. Bottom line and truth is: You need a good QB and you need a good O-line. If either falters, the team does. That is why FB is so much more a team game than say B-ball. 22+ guys must perform rather than 3-4-5.

You ask me: I am really worried about the QB play. I guess the line will be better and I just hope that is reflected in a big improvement in CONSISTENT QB play.

Glad I could add to the humor of your day, Mark. Since none of us are elected politicians or members of the board on here (I tried but came up short twice), I guess we can be a tad politically incorrect from time to time. This is a fun board when folks read the message regardless of the poster.

I qualify to comment here because the g.f. and i are on vaca for a couple of days in Pismo Beach, CA.

L.C., obviously it helps to have a good offensive line. But would anyone object if we could claim to have a q.b. who was good enough on his own, at times in spite of a lack of quality o-line play, to make plays.

I know your answer...just trying to make the point that it's not only the o-line and we should wonder about the seeming inability to bring in a top of MAC qb...hopefully, someone plays at All-MAC level for us this year at q.b.

With a q.b. who's only adeqaute, it would seem that there's only so far we can go, so good that we can be.

Easy DFC, people around here don't think common sense is valid.

And Ohio brings back 18 starters. Or is it 17?

Either way, I think the major reason for optimism around here is the experience on this roster. What better situation for a Quarterback to be in then to return 5 starters on the offensive line along with a stable of running backs?

I'm not comparing Ohio to UCLA or any team listed above. Not drawing comparisons there doesn't stop me from being excited about the prospects for this team.

EDIT: I reread "a major reason for the optimism around here" and LOL'd. This board is overly negative, as always.

I hope all the optimism is correct.

I kinda buy into thought that we can be only limited good within a standout qb. Standout at least to the extent of clearly distinguishing himself by this point in camp as the starter. (Diff to believe that we have three guys who are both even at this point and top 20-30% of MAC).

Partly it depends on how you count them. Returning starters:
OFFENSE
Powell - 12 starts
Watson - 12 starts
McQueen - 11 starts
Lucas - 11 starts
Preuhs - 11 starts
Mangen - 11 starts
Vick - 7 starts
Cope - 7 starts
Ouellette - 6 starts
Patterson - 6 starts
S. Smith 6 starts
Sprague - 5 starts
Morgan - 2 starts
Walker - 2 starts
Reid - 1 start
McCray - 1 start
Lowery - 1 start
Gibbons - 1 start [plus 2 in 2013]
Wood - [3 starts in 2013, missed 2014 win injury]
Add these up and divide by 12, and you get 9.4 starters. Do it on a position by position basis, and you have all the starts for offensive line, QB, RB, and TE, plus you get to count Cope and S. Smith since they each have 6 or more, and that gets you to 10.

The flip side is who you are missing:
L. Smith 5 starts
Bradley 1 start
Cochran 12 starts

Myself, I'd say offense returns about 9 1/2 starters, but the a lot of people will call that 10.

DEFENSE
Poling - 12 starts
J. Johnson - 12 starts
Wells - 11 starts
Bass - 9 starts
B. Brown - 7 starts
D. Jones - 7 starts
Sayles - 7 starts
Basham - 7 starts
Moore - 4 starts
Laseak - 3 starts
Layton - 3 starts
Purdum - 2 starts [plus 10-15 starts in 2012-2013]
T. Davis - 2 starts
Carpenter - 1 start [plus 10-15 starts in 2012-2013]

Then, the ones missing are:
Crutcher - 11 starts
McLeod - 10 starts
Ingol - 10 starts
Kristoff - 7 starts
K. Smith - 6 starts
w. Johnson - 1 start

Add these up and you have 84 starts, or 7.3 returning starters. On a position by position basis, it gets tricky. You have all the starts at CB and almost all at LB, and almost none of them at DT. How do you count DE, where you have 3 of the four that shared the spot back? How do you count safety, where you have Jones, Carpenter, and T. Davis back, but are missing Kristoff and Ingol?

If you just add up the whole team, and combine 9.4 and 7.3 you'd say you have about 17 returning starters. Fair enough, but that isn't giving you any credit for Wood, Purdum, and Carpenter, who were starters in 2012 and/or 2013, but who didn't play much, or didn't play at all in 2014.

Another way to look at it is to projected the 22 starters, and look at how many prior starts each has:
LT - McQueen (11) McCray (1)
LG - Lucas (11) Lowery (1)
C - Powell (12) Preuhs (11)
RG - Wood (3 at end of 2013) Gibbons (1, plus some in 2013)
T - Watson (12)
TE - Mangen (yes, I know he's out with injury) (11) Morgan (2)
WR - Cope - (7)
WR - S. Smith (6)
WR - Reid (1)

S - Carpenter (1, plus about 15 in 2011-2013)
S - Jones (7) T. Davis (2)
CB - Layton (3) Bass (9)
CB - Wells (11)
MLB - Poling (12)
WLB - Brown (7) Moore (4)
SLB - Johnson (12)
DE - Laseak (3)
DE - Basham (7)
NG - Tautuaiki (none)
DT - Sayles (7) Purdum (1, plus about 15 in 2013-3014)

The only spots without a lot of starting experience are one WR spot, one DE spot, and NG. Figuring this way it looks more like 19 returning starters, plus of course, you also return the punter and place kicker.

I'd say any number from 17 to 19 could be justified. 15 is definitely low, even if you subtract Mangen, who may be out for the season.