News-Record.com

In retrospect, the brief flurry of offense that Daniel Evans provided at the end of State's lopsided loss to Southern Miss might have been the best thing Chuck Amato could have hoped for. Instead of several days of - what went wrong? - questions, now everyone wants to know - who's going to be the State quarterback?

We'll know more after State's 2 p.m. press conference today, but this being the age of instant analysis and all, I figured I'd take a look at Amato's options beforehand - with pros and cons.

Option A - Stone stays as the starter and nothing changes.
This one just doesn't seem likely. If Stone was definitely The Man, you'd think Amato would have come right out and said that during his Sunday teleconference, when the question of quarterbacking came up. Instead, he told reporters that all personnel decisions are made on Monday - in essence revealing that a personnel decision needed to be made.
Pro - Stone's got the most experience and he has shown flashes - albeit brief ones - of being able to get the job done.
Con - You wonder how frustrated Stone's teammates must be getting with his wild inconsistency. And all those three-and-outs appear to have worn on the defense as well, which collapsed against Akron and never showed up against Southern Miss.

Option B - Sit Stone and bring in Evans
Granted, Evans' numbers can in mop-up time, but there was a marked difference when he came in the game. As Amato said, he looked poised in the pocket - his feet were steady, he went through his progressions, he found secondary and tertiary options. In other words, all the things Stone often fails to do.
Pros - I think I just listed a lot of them. Plus, there's the psychological value of making a change when things are going badly. Hey, it worked in 2005. Why not try it again?
Cons - No one's ever thought of Evans as a long-term solution at QB. Maybe they're wrong, but if they're not, is this really the time for a caretaker at the position? Or should State go to its next option?

That's foreshadowing folks.

Option C - Replace Stone with Justin Burke
Ahh, the return of Philip. Young, brainiac QB plays beyond his years and leads State out of a dire situation and into a bowl game.
Pros - Hey, we're not saying he's Rivers, but Burke is a very smart, very mature guy, two qualities that do give him a shot to succeed as a true freshman QB. Plus, any experience he gets now should pay off next year.
Cons - Throwing your prize freshman QB into the fire against BC does smack a bi of desparation. And while Burke would seem to be a candidate for playing time as a true freshman, we just don't know how he'll respond during real action (see Stone, Marcus). A bad experience now could do some long-term damage.

But wait, there's more!

Option D: QB-by-committee
Yeah, that worked out so well in Chapel Hill, didn't it? But hear me out. Last season when Stone replaced Jay Davis, it was a clear passing-of-the guard. Jay was a fifth-year senior. It was clear his time had passed. This time around Stone has another year of eligibility and no clear-cut successor. So you may not want to demote Stone to permanent clip-board status. Maybe what you do is, say, give Evans the start and then go with the hot hand. If that's Evans, he stays in. If it's Stone, he can get his job back. If both struggle, then hey, give Burke a shot at the end of the game.
Pros: It gives you flexibility. You're not closing any doors. It keeps all three QBs in a state of game-readiness.
Cons: Is it really fair to give Evans (or Burke) just a few series to show what they have? Stone is a shining example of how sometimes a QB needs an entire half before things start to click. Plus, the price of having muliple QB options could be that none of your QBs is very happy. And an unhappy QB is usually a bad QB.

All clear now? No? Well now you see why they pay coaches the big bucks. Chuck and offensive coordinator Marc Trestman have a difficult , complicated decision to make this morning, with a season possibly hanging in the balance.

No pressure fellas.