There's a thread elsewhere on the board asking everyone who THEY want to be the 2006 starting QB. The obvious answer to that question is "Whoever is good enough to win the QB battle on merit." Everyone agrees with that.
So perhaps the better question is: "What outcome of the QB derby puts the LSU coaching staff in the best position?" And by best position, I mean current team morale, future recruiting, and use of available resources.
I think the answer here is just as clear - Jamarcus Russell in 2006. And the main reason it's better for LSU if this comes to pass is our old friend from Macroeconomics, opportunity cost (nod your head knowingly if you had Vrooman for 2051).
There are two commodities LSU's coaches have, to which the concept of opportunity cost is applicable - practice reps, and game-ready players. There are only x number of reps the coaches have available to get a QB ready to play, so you can almost look at them like currency - imagine Jimbo putting a penny into a Jamarcus piggy bank every time JMR runs a play in practice. Come game time, the coaches expect to open that piggy bank and use what's inside it to "buy" good plays and eventual victories.
The staff gave Russell most of those reps (pennies) last year, starting with Spring 2005. And nearly all of them once the 2005 season started, since you stop worrying about QB development when you're trying to gameplan for, say, UGA in the SECCG. If Russell doesn't win the 2006 QB job, that's a lot of pennies just sitting on the sideline not doing you any good. Conversely, if Flynn wins the job, the coaches have to try to "buy" 9 to 11 wins with way fewer pennies than they originally intended.
The other commodity is the players themselves. You'd like to get the most game production you can out of 3 QB's - Russell, Flynn and Perriloux. Only one plays at a time, so as Ol' Vrooman taught us, the cost of letting Russell play QB is that Flynn and Perriloux can't (not at the same time, at least). Russell as your starter costs you a year of eligibility for the Peach Bowl MVP, and the consensus #1 HS QB for 2005, so the opportunity cost is high.
So how to minimize that cost by having only 1 QB on the sideline? You can't fix it so that 2 QB's play, but you can fix it so that only 1 stud QB has to sit - get rid of one of them. Don't freak out, now. Nobody's cutting Jamarcus Russell. And we aren't talking transfer - remember, this question is about the BEST CASE for the LSU coaches. But you CAN get rid of JMR if he plays so well in 2006 that he turns pro.
That's possible with his track record - he's big and strong, has been a 60% passer, and could probably put on a "private workout" for the ages with that cannon arm of his. There's probably no scenario under which Flynn could play in 2006 and go pro, and RP couldn't if he wanted to because he wouldn't be at LSU 3 years. Assuming no transfers, Flynn at QB in 2006 keeps BOTH JMR and RP on the sideline for 2 more years. Same with RP, if you want to consider him. But a JMR redux in 2006, followed by a jump to the NFL, gives you 1 year of an MF/RP sideline, a 2007 with MF as a Sr. starter with RP as your mopup understudy, and 2008 with a fully groomed RP as your unquestioned starter.
If this happens, LSU gets a full year of starting QB play from each of its 3 assets - JMR, MF and RP. It can tell recruits, and the current team, that they can't lose their job to injury (JMR). It can tell recruits, and the current team, that even though coming to a school like LSU requires you to wait your turn behind studs, you'll get your chance to shine when you've earned it (MF). And it puts your crown jewels in position to succeed, rather than setting them up for failure by throwing them to the wolves (RP).
Let the chips fall where they may come Fall - may the best QB win. But I think that the best thing for LSU is a 2006 of JMR starter/MF mopup; a 2007 of MF starter/RP mopup, and a 2008 RS Jr. debut of RP.
Click to expand...
