Joe Mollberg New Starting QB

[Matt]

I think you stick with Mollberg unless he has a terrible game and needs to be yanked even if he was a 5th year senior. Even when Bartels made plays his throws were as good as Joes were. Bartels had Hardin for a long TD but threw outside instead of leading him inside the way the route goes. Also his INT was a terrible decision. They each had too much pressure from rushers but Mollberg was still able to make things happen and throw while off balance. Mollberg also has a much faster release and puts more zip on the ball which is harder on the defense to react to.

The final and most important reason to go with Mollberg is his upside. It's 10X what Bartels is. Look at how far Jensen has come at NDSU. Imagine Mollberg after 3 years of starting going into his senior season.

If the staff agreed with that I can't imagine why they would have started Bartels vs Valpo and SDSU in the first place.

[southpaw]

Give Mollberg the start and an unlimited leash in the first half. If he hasn't gotten things going, can't hurt to go with the guy who started games 1 and 2.

[geaux_sioux]

If the staff agreed with that I can't imagine why they would have started Bartels vs Valpo and SDSU in the first place.

Maybe they were thinking Bartels would be safer to go with this year and not about who would be better long term. I'm sure they're thinking playoffs this season. Mollberg showed that he is just as viable now so I hope they stick with him.

[Matt]

Maybe they were thinking Bartels would be safer to go with this year and not about who would be better long term. I'm sure they're thinking playoffs this season. Mollberg showed that he is just as viable now so I hope they stick with him.

Coaches, and by that I mean ANY coaches, go with the player they think will give them the best chance to win NOW. There is no long term calculation you are referring to. If they don't win now, they won't be the coach in the long term. This is also evidenced by the way they talk about everything. One play at a time, only focused on this week's opponent, etc.

If Joe starts this week it is because they believe he gives them the best chance to beat Montana.

[Oxbow6]

If they don't win now, they won't be the coach in the long term.

Well...at some places anyway.

[iramurphy]

But the bottom line is that Mollberg had nothing to lose when he came in. If receivers don't drop balls in the second drive we might not be talking about this. So if Mollberg starts, how long do you go with him if he makes mistakes? I don't think you want to be going back and forth based on a mistake here or there and dropped passes here or there.

I don't think you understand the pressure he was under. If he fails, he is likely relegated to the number 2 spot unless Bartels gets hurt. He had everything to lose and everything to gain. Don't forget he completed 6 of 7 last week and the incompletion was one where the receiver fell. He is 21 of 30 for over 300 yds and 2 tds. He led 3 scoring drives under lots of pressure. I don't thnk it was the 2 dropped passes, the reason Bartels started was cuz his completion record in practice was a little better and Muss thought he reacted to his mistakes better than Joe. If Bartels didn't miss a wide open Hardin, and cough the ball up and make a poor decision when he could have run or thrown to an open receiver on a third down or get sacked by not being mobile enough then we wouldn't be talking about this. Under game conditions with pressure so far I will take Mollberg. He earned a shot. IF you are going to let Bartels take the job from Mollberg with a little better performance in practice then to be fair Mollberg has earned the number one spot back with a better performance in the game.

[Wilbur]

I really can't believe its even a question at this point. Joe was the better QB out there in a game situation. Practice is 1000 times different than a game, so I don't care if Bartels looked better on all the charted throws.

Bartels had a little more than a half with the football and turned it over twice and scored seven points. Mollberg put up 21 points and only turned it over one time and had the team in a position to win the game in the fourth quarter.

It has to be Mollberg going forward against Montana.

[Oxbow6]

I really can't believe its even a question at this point. Joe was the better QB out there in a game situation. Practice is 1000 times different than a game, so I don't care if Bartels looked better on all the charted throws.

Bartels had a little more than a half with the football and turned it over twice and scored seven points. Mollberg put up 21 points and only turned it over one time and had the team in a position to win the game in the fourth quarter.

It has to be Mollberg going forward against Montana.

Well said.

I agree.

Watching live Joe had the "it" factor. Bartels...not so much.

[Matt]

I have no complaints if Joe starts vs Montana. My problem with this whole process is it goes to the "if you have two QBs, you have no QB" paradigm. If Joe struggles vs Montana, then what? Back to Bartels? Do they go back and forth like that all year?

[BigGame]

First off I think Mollberg should start and his ability to buy himself some time really helped at the end of the game. That said the QB's just very different types of players. Bartels doesn't have an overwhelming arm but given time makes great reads and can place the ball very well. (He made a great throw early in the game dropping the ball between some defenders. Mollberg is a great athlete with great arm strength. Struggled with accuracy his first series but calmed down and was good after that point. Joe doesn't currently seem to be able to use touch and drop a ball into a hole in the defense but I think that is something that could come with time. I like both QB's but against a D line like SDSU's Mollberg's mobility makes a huge difference.

[Wilbur]

I have no complaints if Joe starts vs Montana. My problem with this whole process is it goes to the "if you have two QBs, you have no QB" paradigm. If Joe struggles vs Montana, then what? Back to Bartels? Do they go back and forth like that all year?

This concerns me greatly as well. I'm in the pick one guy and go with it group. If its Bartels then come out and say it. Don't take him out of that game yesterday and just roll with it. Whatever guy they choose will have growing pains, but I completely agree with being a one horse carriage.

My opinion, that horse is from Detroit Lakes.

[southpaw]

This concerns me greatly as well. I'm in the pick one guy and go with it group. If its Bartels then come out and say it. Don't take him out of that game yesterday and just roll with it. Whatever guy they choose will have growing pains, but I completely agree with being a one horse carriage.

My opinion, that horse is from Detroit Lakes.

I disagree. Until one guy legitimately separates himself why make a decision? If a QB struggles for half a game or more why not try the other guy to bring a spark? If Joe comes out on fire Saturfay then obviously don't replace him. But if he falters like Ryan did for the 2nd and part of the third then why not?

The point is to win the game. If one guy isn't getting it done bring in the other. If a corner is constantly getting burned do you say "oh well" and just let him get lit up til he learns?

[UNDColorado]

I am leaning toward Molberg at this point and I agree that going back and forth between QB's all year long is not what winning teams tend to do, but we were down 28-7 and the momentum was not on our side. I think the coaches made a great decision and Molberg definitely provided the needed spark. The thing is if the coaches did nothing and Bartels continued to struggle, we would be having a much different conversation right now. Taking that into consideration I don't have the knowledge to be able to say who we should start going forward.

[Oxbow6]

If a corner is constantly getting burned do you say "oh well" and just let him get lit up til he learns?

Muss did that with Mackey last year!

[southpaw]

Muss did that with Mackey last year!

So next year either Ryan or Joe will be a fullback

[Oxbow6]

So next year either Ryan or Joe will be a fullback

Haha...Joe has the body for it.

[The Sicatoka]

Our O-line can't get a run game going.

As such, they may also be suspect protecting a QB.

Knowing that, a more mobile quarterback makes the defense have more things to think about.

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

I have no complaints if Joe starts vs Montana. My problem with this whole process is it goes to the "if you have two QBs, you have no QB" paradigm. If Joe struggles vs Montana, then what? Back to Bartels? Do they go back and forth like that all year?

A few years back UM did that the majority of the season, until about 7 games in when one took the job, and also took the team to the National championship. Andrew Selle. You never know, sometimes it works out.

[MoSiouxFan]

A few years back UM did that the majority of the season, until about 7 games in when one took the job, and also took the team to the National championship. Andrew Selle. You never know, sometimes it works out.

Good point. It's still too soon to designate one of them as "the guy." For now, Mollberg has earned the start Saturday.

[airmail]

I was reading this quote yesterday...

“...That 75-yard pass to Hardin was ill-advised but sometimes you need a break once and a while. ~ C. Muss

Can someone explain to me why it was ill-advised? Best receiver in FCS in one-on-one coverage, and you need to score - I thought it was great. Seriously, there must be more x and o stuff that I don't know... why shouldn't he take that shot down field?

[Oxbow6]

I was reading this quote yesterday...

Can someone explain to me why it was ill-advised? Best receiver in FCS in one-on-one coverage, and you need to score - I thought it was great. Seriously, there must be more x and o stuff that I don't know... why shouldn't he take that shot down field?

Not surprised by that quote.

Hardin NEEDS to be targeted 15x/game minimum.

[ericpnelson]

Not surprised by that quote.

Hardin NEEDS to be targeted 15x/game minimum.

agree 10x...

Our other receivers are good, but I don't think it's a coincidence that our dead stretch involved not targeting Hardin a few series in a row.

[tnt]

If Mollberg does get the start, then I would hope they take full advantage of his running ability and allow him to run for the first down when it is there.

[jodcon]

I was reading this quote yesterday...

Can someone explain to me why it was ill-advised? Best receiver in FCS in one-on-one coverage, and you need to score - I thought it was great. Seriously, there must be more x and o stuff that I don't know... why shouldn't he take that shot down field?

I remember when Montana played Marshall in the championship and Randy Moss single-handedly destroyed us, they would throw to him with 2 guys hanging all over him and he would come down with it...over and over. Those passes could be called ill-advised but if you have a guy capable of taking it away from a defender...do it. I would throw to Hardin in single coverage all day.

[BigGame]

I was reading this quote yesterday...

Can someone explain to me why it was ill-advised? Best receiver in FCS in one-on-one coverage, and you need to score - I thought it was great. Seriously, there must be more x and o stuff that I don't know... why shouldn't he take that shot down field?

I think he was probably referring to the fact that he threw the ball over 50 yards off his back foot. That isn't a smart pass no matter who the WR is, but some times those plays still work out. Heck Favre made a career out of the stuff.