AUDIO: Paul Wulff talks about the QB decision(s)

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 15, 2009 6:03 PM PDT in CougCenter Podcasts

Now, for the audio you've all been waiting for: Paul Wulff explaining what the heck is going on with the quarterback situation. (Among other things.)

After listening to it, my interpretation of the situation is this: They feel Marshall Lobbestael has shown some things and deserves a shot to play in a game when not down by two touchdowns, and that Jeff Tuel has shown tremendous maturity and potential, and since no one has grabbed the QB job, why not give him a shot? It'll make him better in the future to play now.

Honestly, it sounds as if you're just going to see Lobbestael and Tuel on Saturday unless something goes drastically wrong. Wulff made it clear that they just need more from the QB position, and -- as they do with every other position -- they're going to try and get it wherever they can possibly get it.

Interestingly, while it seems to outside observers that Kevin Lopina has been more effective leading the offense than Lobbestael, he said there are things that aren't easily observable to the layperson, implying that Lopina is missing things that he wants his quarterback to do.

There's a lot of other stuff in there, too -- about 20 minutes worth.

If you've missed any of our previous podcasts, you can listen to all of them via our podcast page. If you want to subscribe to our podcasts in your favorite player, there are a slew of subscription options there.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't know

I agree with Wulff that we need more from many different positions. That’s why burning a redshirt so a guy can split time and possibly take the job over for a few games doesn’t seem extremely smart, when we have so many holes that prevent us from winning. I guess his logic is: If we don’t get better soon, I won’t be here to see Tuel’s 5th year anyway.

Formerly Peaty411s

by spencer peaty on Sep 15, 2009 8:11 PM PDT reply actions

You know, listening to him, I almost become convinced that this is a good idea

Almost.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 15, 2009 8:50 PM PDT reply actions

Let me try to spin it for you

QB A is in his last year, he doesn’t make good decisions and hasn’t improved much with double digit starts
QB B is younger, but couldn’t beat him out in spring of fall camp
QB C has a better arm than the others and is mature for his age.

If you are going to have some growing pains from your QB, why not spend it on your future?

and don’t forget QB D a strong commit (OK banking on a commit is crazy, but it does set you up to redsirt him and have play for 2 years.

Red shirt Tuel and get 5 years between Tuel and Halliday. Don’t redshirt Tuel and get 6 years from the 2 of them.

How did I do?

by woolybugger on Sep 15, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions

I get it

I just still don’t agree with it. It’s kind of like worrying about the basketball scholarship situation, with so many young guys. Things tend to work themselves out with guys transferring (Witherill), getting injured or whatever. Trying to plan it out with all the variables that can come into play isn’t wise, I don’t think.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 15, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions

That assumes

Tuel is a 4 year starter, Halliday is good and does not transfer, and we don’t get any new recruits that are better than either of those two. Last year it was: Lobbestael is the future. Things change. Even though I disagree with the move I don’t agree with projecting players to start in 5 years who have not set foot on campus. Call me old fashioned.

Formerly Peaty411s

by spencer peaty on Sep 15, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Old fashioned

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 16, 2009 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree

that making a decision today based on a commit is crazy as I said. The post was also spin

I’m in the play Tuel camp. Which is strange becuase I am also in the redshirt them all camp. (I like to contradict myself).

I cannot take another game of football with an upper classmen QBs that can’t make a simple read. I am not a football expert but I could see a qb bail from the pocket when he should stay. Look past his first option so quick there was no way he could determine if the wr was open. Dump it to the back to get rid of the ball when he had time. (yes some of the time the back was the first option, but many times I sure didn’t seem that way)

During the game on sat I said, unless the coaches feel it would emotionally scar Tuel for life, get him in there.

The fans (I) need something. anything. we need hope. (it made me sad to type that).

and I am normally a guy who can see hope on the sidelines wearing a redshirt.

by woolybugger on Sep 16, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Desperation, desperation, desperation

Next think you know he’ll be trading Kevin Garnett to the Celtics for Sebastian Telfair and assorted mediocre players

by Grady Clapp on Sep 15, 2009 9:23 PM PDT reply actions

Why this is a bad idea, in detail

WSU is a small school. Small schools need to find any sort of competitive advantage (short of cheating), and one we can take advantage of is keeping players for five years. Give players a year to learn the system and get settled in on campus, then four more to play. It also helps with academics – players can take less credits per semester since they have five years to earn a traditional four year degree.

But here we are — faced with a potentially winless season that Simone, Long and now Tuel are forced to play in. And what’s the upside? One win? Two? Is that worth mortgaging the future of the program?

Of course, if the rumblings among the donors are anything like the rumblings around the stadium and Pullman, Wulff may not have the time and may have to put anything he can together.

by Grady Clapp on Sep 15, 2009 9:52 PM PDT reply actions

Everyone should read Grippi's take tonight

And read between the lines.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sportslink/2009/sep/15/long-wsu-post/

I remember the Anderson pass he talks about, and DISTINCTLY remember Lopina missing a wide, WIDE open Blackledge. No one within 10 yards of him. I can’t speak with authority on Lopina’s play the rest of the day, but that one was bad. Really bad.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Sep 15, 2009 10:50 PM PDT reply actions

Between this and the show

I’ve been mollified for now.

We’ll see how things turn out Saturday. Got tix, still hoping my schedule works out to get over there….

by TiltingRight on Sep 16, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions

If Tuel is good enough to start

then he should be playing. That is the long and short of it. There is no 5-yr rule from true talent. Again, to be good enough to start is to have the physical ability as well as the mental acumen to run the offense and the maturity to handle the pressure of being the guy. There are a number of frosh around the country that meet this definition. Maybe Tuel is one of them. The idea of the 5-yr rule is that your true frosh is not physically strong enough, mature enough, or smart enough to play. I agree most of our guys we get don’t fall into those categories. But it appears we are all assuming that Tuel isn’t one of those guys. What if he is? From everything I have heard from those that actually have seen him, he is definitely on another level.
However, if PW is simply starting him because the 2 guys ahead of him suck, then it is a piss poor decision and will ultimately lead to PW’s firing.

by ptowncoug3012 on Sep 16, 2009 9:14 AM PDT reply actions