Big Game Concerns

[PlayerRep]

My view is that if you don't know what was said and weren't standing in the group, and don't know the senses of humor of the particular players, it's virtually impossible to judge the situation.

I don't think players should be running around and goofing off on the sidelines during a game or in a loss, unless perhaps if your team is up 4 TD's and it's the 4th quarter. But I don't feel it's illegal to laugh during a game or on the sidelines. It's not even illegal to laugh at a funeral. Maybe someone farted. Maybe someone on the other team had a big hole in his pants. Maybe a player describing the odd sounds an opposing player made when he got hit hard. If some on the team are laughing multiple times during a loss or goofing around and not paying enough attention, then I agree.

As for ex-players complaining about things or Cat-Griz, I sometimes hear some saying or complaining about one thing, and then others complaining about almost the opposite. Everyone has their views, something right and sometimes wrong.

If someone wants to describe how their player-son, or say even an assistant coach, says that the particular team, or a segment of the team, is not dedicated enough to the program, I would note or listen to that. But, sorry, I just don't think drawing conclusions from what someone supposedly saw (players laughing) from the stands or even from the sidelines downfield in the pass holder area, is very meaningful.

I tend to view things like this as 5th hand or 10th hand comments, with no context, or extensions of a narrative that someone already has in his head. But if a coach has seen or heard specifics, then I think a coach can judge the situation. That's different.

I put this one lower on credibility scale than some fan on the internet saying a qb stares down his receivers, or only looks at one receiver.

What context do you need when you’re getting beat by the conference door mat?

And this whole post is pretty rich coming from a guy who regularly posts what “ex players” say to him like it’s the gospel because they’re ex-players. Suddenly it’s 5th or 10th hand info because it wasn’t YOU it was told to?

It is impossible to know or judge what people are laughing about from the stands or from way down the sidelines. It's as simple as that. Again, it is not illegal to laugh.

I don't post what ex players said as gospel. I just post what they have said sometimes. Most of the time I knew the player well and talked to him a lot about the subject.

Can you not see the difference between posting/judging what say former starting said about the team or Stitt, from what someone who said they saw players on the sidelines? The levels of credibility are miles apart.

Your post is a good example of someone posting about something they have no clue about.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

My view is that if you don't know what was said and weren't standing in the group, and don't know the senses of humor of the particular players, it's virtually impossible to judge the situation.

I don't think players should be running around and goofing off on the sidelines during a game or in a loss, unless perhaps if your team is up 4 TD's and it's the 4th quarter. But I don't feel it's illegal to laugh during a game or on the sidelines. It's not even illegal to laugh at a funeral. Maybe someone farted. Maybe someone on the other team had a big hole in his pants. Maybe a player describing the odd sounds an opposing player made when he got hit hard. If some on the team are laughing multiple times during a loss or goofing around and not paying enough attention, then I agree.

As for ex-players complaining about things or Cat-Griz, I sometimes hear some saying or complaining about one thing, and then others complaining about almost the opposite. Everyone has their views, something right and sometimes wrong.

If someone wants to describe how their player-son, or say even an assistant coach, says that the particular team, or a segment of the team, is not dedicated enough to the program, I would note or listen to that. But, sorry, I just don't think drawing conclusions from what someone supposedly saw (players laughing) from the stands or even from the sidelines downfield in the pass holder area, is very meaningful.

I tend to view things like this as 5th hand or 10th hand comments, with no context, or extensions of a narrative that someone already has in his head. But if a coach has seen or heard specifics, then I think a coach can judge the situation. That's different.

I put this one lower on credibility scale than some fan on the internet saying a qb stares down his receivers, or only looks at one receiver.

What context do you need when you’re getting beat by the conference door mat?

And this whole post is pretty rich coming from a guy who regularly posts what “ex players” say to him like it’s the gospel because they’re ex-players. Suddenly it’s 5th or 10th hand info because it wasn’t YOU it was told to?

It is impossible to know or judge what people are laughing about from the stands or from way down the sidelines. It's as simple as that. Again, it is not illegal to laugh.

I don't post what ex players said as gospel. I just post what they have said sometimes. Most of the time I knew the player well and talked to him a lot about the subject.

Can you not see the difference between posting/judging what say former starting said about the team or Stitt, from what someone who said they saw players on the sidelines? The levels of credibility are miles apart.

Your post is a good example of someone posting about something they have no clue about.

What I know, and “have a clue about” is what I saw in 2016 at UNC, which was a bunch of offensive players goofing off on the sideline as the defense was getting the ball run down their throat by the conference punching bag. Defend that kind of behavior all you want, it clearly doesn’t bother you. To each his own I guess. I’d rather see a team dialed in and getting ready to get the ball back and go to work to win the game. No point in arguing about it now anyways, I was simply pointing it out as yet another example of the positive culture change that’s transpired at UM in the last two seasons.

 

[AZGrizFan]

It’s bad optics, PR, and it’s the tip of the spear to a buuuuunch of negative shit about Stitt’s handling of things and the (lack of) respect he commanded from the players.

 

[reinell30]

Didn't I see some where that Stitt isn't coaching in Missoula anymore?

 

[Mousegriz]

My view is that if you don't know what was said and weren't standing in the group, and don't know the senses of humor of the particular players, it's virtually impossible to judge the situation.

I don't think players should be running around and goofing off on the sidelines during a game or in a loss, unless perhaps if your team is up 4 TD's and it's the 4th quarter. But I don't feel it's illegal to laugh during a game or on the sidelines. It's not even illegal to laugh at a funeral. Maybe someone farted. Maybe someone on the other team had a big hole in his pants. Maybe a player describing the odd sounds an opposing player made when he got hit hard. If some on the team are laughing multiple times during a loss or goofing around and not paying enough attention, then I agree.

As for ex-players complaining about things or Cat-Griz, I sometimes hear some saying or complaining about one thing, and then others complaining about almost the opposite. Everyone has their views, something right and sometimes wrong.

If someone wants to describe how their player-son, or say even an assistant coach, says that the particular team, or a segment of the team, is not dedicated enough to the program, I would note or listen to that. But, sorry, I just don't think drawing conclusions from what someone supposedly saw (players laughing) from the stands or even from the sidelines downfield in the pass holder area, is very meaningful.

I tend to view things like this as 5th hand or 10th hand comments, with no context, or extensions of a narrative that someone already has in his head. But if a coach has seen or heard specifics, then I think a coach can judge the situation. That's different.

I put this one lower on credibility scale than some fan on the internet saying a qb stares down his receivers, or only looks at one receiver.

What context do you need when you’re getting beat by the conference door mat?

And this whole post is pretty rich coming from a guy who regularly posts what “ex players” say to him like it’s the gospel because they’re ex-players. Suddenly it’s 5th or 10th hand info because it wasn’t YOU it was told to?

It is impossible to know or judge what people are laughing about from the stands or from way down the sidelines. It's as simple as that. Again, it is not illegal to laugh.

I don't post what ex players said as gospel. I just post what they have said sometimes. Most of the time I knew the player well and talked to him a lot about the subject.

Can you not see the difference between posting/judging what say former starting said about the team or Stitt, from what someone who said they saw players on the sidelines? The levels of credibility are miles apart.

Your post is a good example of someone posting about something they have no clue about.

"PRglish"

Kinda like English but awfully confusing and apparently only spoken by those "who played the game"....and suffered multiple concussions.

 

[PlayerRep]

My view is that if you don't know what was said and weren't standing in the group, and don't know the senses of humor of the particular players, it's virtually impossible to judge the situation.

I don't think players should be running around and goofing off on the sidelines during a game or in a loss, unless perhaps if your team is up 4 TD's and it's the 4th quarter. But I don't feel it's illegal to laugh during a game or on the sidelines. It's not even illegal to laugh at a funeral. Maybe someone farted. Maybe someone on the other team had a big hole in his pants. Maybe a player describing the odd sounds an opposing player made when he got hit hard. If some on the team are laughing multiple times during a loss or goofing around and not paying enough attention, then I agree.

As for ex-players complaining about things or Cat-Griz, I sometimes hear some saying or complaining about one thing, and then others complaining about almost the opposite. Everyone has their views, something right and sometimes wrong.

If someone wants to describe how their player-son, or say even an assistant coach, says that the particular team, or a segment of the team, is not dedicated enough to the program, I would note or listen to that. But, sorry, I just don't think drawing conclusions from what someone supposedly saw (players laughing) from the stands or even from the sidelines downfield in the pass holder area, is very meaningful.

I tend to view things like this as 5th hand or 10th hand comments, with no context, or extensions of a narrative that someone already has in his head. But if a coach has seen or heard specifics, then I think a coach can judge the situation. That's different.

I put this one lower on credibility scale than some fan on the internet saying a qb stares down his receivers, or only looks at one receiver.

What context do you need when you’re getting beat by the conference door mat?

And this whole post is pretty rich coming from a guy who regularly posts what “ex players” say to him like it’s the gospel because they’re ex-players. Suddenly it’s 5th or 10th hand info because it wasn’t YOU it was told to?

It is impossible to know or judge what people are laughing about from the stands or from way down the sidelines. It's as simple as that. Again, it is not illegal to laugh.

I don't post what ex players said as gospel. I just post what they have said sometimes. Most of the time I knew the player well and talked to him a lot about the subject.

Can you not see the difference between posting/judging what say former starting said about the team or Stitt, from what someone who said they saw players on the sidelines? The levels of credibility are miles apart.

Your post is a good example of someone posting about something they have no clue about.

What I know, and “have a clue about” is what I saw in 2016 at UNC, which was a bunch of offensive players goofing off on the sideline as the defense was getting the ball run down their throat by the conference punching bag. Defend that kind of behavior all you want, it clearly doesn’t bother you. To each his own I guess. I’d rather see a team dialed in and getting ready to get the ball back and go to work to win the game. No point in arguing about it now anyways, I was simply pointing it out as yet another example of the positive culture change that’s transpired at UM in the last two seasons.

I don't believe you. I also want to know what the offensive players were talking about and thinking. How long did this go on? Was there video? Get back to his when you can.

 

[PlayerRep]

My view is that if you don't know what was said and weren't standing in the group, and don't know the senses of humor of the particular players, it's virtually impossible to judge the situation.

I don't think players should be running around and goofing off on the sidelines during a game or in a loss, unless perhaps if your team is up 4 TD's and it's the 4th quarter. But I don't feel it's illegal to laugh during a game or on the sidelines. It's not even illegal to laugh at a funeral. Maybe someone farted. Maybe someone on the other team had a big hole in his pants. Maybe a player describing the odd sounds an opposing player made when he got hit hard. If some on the team are laughing multiple times during a loss or goofing around and not paying enough attention, then I agree.

As for ex-players complaining about things or Cat-Griz, I sometimes hear some saying or complaining about one thing, and then others complaining about almost the opposite. Everyone has their views, something right and sometimes wrong.

If someone wants to describe how their player-son, or say even an assistant coach, says that the particular team, or a segment of the team, is not dedicated enough to the program, I would note or listen to that. But, sorry, I just don't think drawing conclusions from what someone supposedly saw (players laughing) from the stands or even from the sidelines downfield in the pass holder area, is very meaningful.

I tend to view things like this as 5th hand or 10th hand comments, with no context, or extensions of a narrative that someone already has in his head. But if a coach has seen or heard specifics, then I think a coach can judge the situation. That's different.

I put this one lower on credibility scale than some fan on the internet saying a qb stares down his receivers, or only looks at one receiver.

What context do you need when you’re getting beat by the conference door mat?

And this whole post is pretty rich coming from a guy who regularly posts what “ex players” say to him like it’s the gospel because they’re ex-players. Suddenly it’s 5th or 10th hand info because it wasn’t YOU it was told to?

It is impossible to know or judge what people are laughing about from the stands or from way down the sidelines. It's as simple as that. Again, it is not illegal to laugh.

I don't post what ex players said as gospel. I just post what they have said sometimes. Most of the time I knew the player well and talked to him a lot about the subject.

Can you not see the difference between posting/judging what say former starting said about the team or Stitt, from what someone who said they saw players on the sidelines? The levels of credibility are miles apart.

Your post is a good example of someone posting about something they have no clue about.

"PRglish"

Kinda like English but awfully confusing and apparently only spoken by those "who played the game"....and suffered multiple concussions.

Do you really not know what I was saying? Alot of people tell me they think it's funny that you are apparently so butthurt that you follow me around egriz making dumb and minor comments. Confirms that you never accomplished much of anything in life.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

What context do you need when you’re getting beat by the conference door mat?

And this whole post is pretty rich coming from a guy who regularly posts what “ex players” say to him like it’s the gospel because they’re ex-players. Suddenly it’s 5th or 10th hand info because it wasn’t YOU it was told to?

It is impossible to know or judge what people are laughing about from the stands or from way down the sidelines. It's as simple as that. Again, it is not illegal to laugh.

I don't post what ex players said as gospel. I just post what they have said sometimes. Most of the time I knew the player well and talked to him a lot about the subject.

Can you not see the difference between posting/judging what say former starting said about the team or Stitt, from what someone who said they saw players on the sidelines? The levels of credibility are miles apart.

Your post is a good example of someone posting about something they have no clue about.

What I know, and “have a clue about” is what I saw in 2016 at UNC, which was a bunch of offensive players goofing off on the sideline as the defense was getting the ball run down their throat by the conference punching bag. Defend that kind of behavior all you want, it clearly doesn’t bother you. To each his own I guess. I’d rather see a team dialed in and getting ready to get the ball back and go to work to win the game. No point in arguing about it now anyways, I was simply pointing it out as yet another example of the positive culture change that’s transpired at UM in the last two seasons.

I don't believe you. I also want to know what the offensive players were talking about and thinking. How long did this go on? Was there video? Get back to his when you can.

Like I said, don’t believe me, I couldn’t care less.

 

[argh!]

you don't remember the alleged behavior of players on hauck's first team? b.s.

What does that have to do with their behavior during his second stint? I think it was made very clear to him that the leash was going to be very short this time around.

so hauck's teams the first time around don't count as 'bh coached teams'? you need to get over me.

The off-field issues during that time are well documented, and even if they weren't, this discussion is about play on the field and players' attitudes towards the team's success.

conversation veered to what stitt's players did during 'off' time. keep up.

 

[AZGrizFan]

What does that have to do with their behavior during his second stint? I think it was made very clear to him that the leash was going to be very short this time around.

so hauck's teams the first time around don't count as 'bh coached teams'? you need to get over me.

The off-field issues during that time are well documented, and even if they weren't, this discussion is about play on the field and players' attitudes towards the team's success.

conversation veered to what stitt's players did during 'off' time. keep up.

Not so much "what they did", because I don't recall any of them getting into trouble, but they blatantly ignored his orders to stay in town. Many of them. Including the star QB. And he did absolutely nothing about it.

 

[coochorama42]

Griz fans have nothing to worry about. Bobby is fine in big games. As others mentioned, lack of depth played a role in some losses. Sac State was playing like a top-3 team when MSU and UM faced them. Grizzlies took down top-3 Weber handily. The next week, they were in Bozeman facing an MSU team that revamped the defense after Sac State and opened up the offense. Not the best offensive game plan against the new Cat defense, but no one has seen success yet. The game against SELA was a joke after they "beat" the 2nd best CAA team. And despite a nightmare game out of your QB, you were in the game at the end of the Weber game.

TL; DR: More depth turns losses into wins. UM didn't have a bad loss but had a number of big wins. Rebuild ahead of schedule. And I cheer for the Cats.

 

[Diesel]

Griz fans have nothing to worry about. Bobby is fine in big games. As others mentioned, lack of depth played a role in some losses. Sac State was playing like a top-3 team when MSU and UM faced them. Grizzlies took down top-3 Weber handily. The next week, they were in Bozeman facing an MSU team that revamped the defense after Sac State and opened up the offense. Not the best offensive game plan against the new Cat defense, but no one has seen success yet. The game against SELA was a joke after they "beat" the 2nd best CAA team. And despite a nightmare game out of your QB, you were in the game at the end of the Weber game.

TL; DR: More depth turns losses into wins. UM didn't have a bad loss but had a number of big wins. Rebuild ahead of schedule. And I cheer for the Cats.

Then how can we trust you :lol:

 

[coochorama42]

Then how can we trust you :lol:

:lol: Seriously though, I want UM and MSU to both be in it every year. The crowd in Bozeman this year was legit. I used to have season tickets to the Grizzlies circa 1987-1989. I was there when Dwayne Hans picked off John Friesz and returned it 107 yards for the TD. The crowd for Cat-Griz and MSU- Austin Peay was the best I've seen since the Grizzly playoffs in 1988. That Bozeman crowd is getting a lot smarter (Much to my chagrin, I spent most of the early 2000s trying to get fans to make noise when we were on defense and shut up when we were on offense, not the other way around). I have a lot of respect for the program Don Read built and feel like MSU has finally hired someone who has the long term interests of the program at heart. I look forward to the next few years of games between these programs because I love watching the best FCS football has to offer and I believe both programs are on the rise. I may bleed Blue and Gold, but I choose UM next, and the rest of the Big Sky after that. Also, the first song I learned on my trombone was "Up With Montana".

 

[Missoula223]

Didn’t want to start another thread and this one reflects my concern.

I have a concern about coaching in big games, in particular about the Weber game. I am glad in Bobby’s return. He is respected amongst his peers, is a great recruiter, and his attention to detail is brought out by those who played for him.
How can Rosie, Pease, and Hauck not be honest to basic good or solid football foundations in needed personnel changes and in game adjustments. First, ball security is job security, how many INTs is not too many, five wasn’t with at least two or more passes that were bad, but not intercepted. Individual players can have a bad game, at what point, for the sake of the team is a well respected senior captain QB to be spelled for a series or two or benched? I can see the danger in the MSU game in having a negative influence on Sneed’s confidence with the playoffs in view. However an elimination game is different.
Second injuries that hamper a player’s ability to perform. It was clear Sneed was gutting it out, cold damp conditions affect negatively on mobility injuries, slippery field adds to stability problems of a person with ankle or knee injury. When a player displays inability to perform at needed level due to conditions and injuries the coaches are responsible to protect them. The player will not volunteer to come out.

Lightning in a bottle comes around once in a great while, this isn’t peewee football it is a business. When you have players like JLM, Sims, Olson and the rest of the seniors including Sneed there are no more collegiate opportunities to play football. There were some that are the best of their positions in the country. They deserved for the coaches to make the right decisions. As, per it is a business, UM puts butts in the seats when they win big games. Weber wasn’t the best team Friday and coaches said post game you can’t win with five turnovers, it is not a mysterious phenomenon that occurred. Why can’t experienced coaches do the right thing and make the difficult decision for the betterment of the program?
Until Bobby can stick to his own fundamentals and make good decisions in big games this program will not be a national championship contender. Hats off to the faties at NDSU they stay true to their fundamentals.

Lol your solution is that the coaches should have pulled Sneed? Pulling your senior leader, captain, and the guy that got you that far in the first place? That is what you consider a "fundamental decision?"

 

[bgbigdog]

I do think they should have pulled Dalton for a series or two after the third interception for two reasons. (1) let him calm down & (2) get a few extra minutes to coach him. Even three handoffs and a punt for a series or two would have given Pease & Rosey time to get him settled & refocused. He was staring guys down & going completely away from a progression tree. Watch the first Tarlas interception. There’s a receiver to the left standing wide open on the sidelines, and he never looked that direction at all. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only time.

The way the defense was playing, not much of a productivity risk & it may have made a difference for Dalton.

 

[grizindabox]

Didn’t want to start another thread and this one reflects my concern.

I have a concern about coaching in big games, in particular about the Weber game. I am glad in Bobby’s return. He is respected amongst his peers, is a great recruiter, and his attention to detail is brought out by those who played for him.
How can Rosie, Pease, and Hauck not be honest to basic good or solid football foundations in needed personnel changes and in game adjustments. First, ball security is job security, how many INTs is not too many, five wasn’t with at least two or more passes that were bad, but not intercepted. Individual players can have a bad game, at what point, for the sake of the team is a well respected senior captain QB to be spelled for a series or two or benched? I can see the danger in the MSU game in having a negative influence on Sneed’s confidence with the playoffs in view. However an elimination game is different.
Second injuries that hamper a player’s ability to perform. It was clear Sneed was gutting it out, cold damp conditions affect negatively on mobility injuries, slippery field adds to stability problems of a person with ankle or knee injury. When a player displays inability to perform at needed level due to conditions and injuries the coaches are responsible to protect them. The player will not volunteer to come out.

Lightning in a bottle comes around once in a great while, this isn’t peewee football it is a business. When you have players like JLM, Sims, Olson and the rest of the seniors including Sneed there are no more collegiate opportunities to play football. There were some that are the best of their positions in the country. They deserved for the coaches to make the right decisions. As, per it is a business, UM puts butts in the seats when they win big games. Weber wasn’t the best team Friday and coaches said post game you can’t win with five turnovers, it is not a mysterious phenomenon that occurred. Why can’t experienced coaches do the right thing and make the difficult decision for the betterment of the program?
Until Bobby can stick to his own fundamentals and make good decisions in big games this program will not be a national championship contender. Hats off to the faties at NDSU they stay true to their fundamentals.

Lol your solution is that the coaches should have pulled Sneed? Pulling your senior leader, captain, and the guy that got you that far in the first place? That is what you consider a "fundamental decision?"

Makes you wonder when they had more confidence in an injured turnover machine than the next possible option...

 

[Diesel]

Call it fundamental or core value (ball security) of Hauck. Wouldn't be a slight or disrespect to Sneed to spell him for a series or two. Maybe with a more mobile Humphrey he could have given a spark. Sneed may have benefited from seeing things from the sidelines for a few plays.
Even at that, the end result may have not changed. Sneed was the man to get Griz as far as they did, however he was injured at Weber to a point of limiting his effectiveness.
End of the day it is just speculation, only one team is happy at the end of the year.

 

[Htowngriz]

Didn’t want to start another thread and this one reflects my concern.

I have a concern about coaching in big games, in particular about the Weber game. I am glad in Bobby’s return. He is respected amongst his peers, is a great recruiter, and his attention to detail is brought out by those who played for him.
How can Rosie, Pease, and Hauck not be honest to basic good or solid football foundations in needed personnel changes and in game adjustments. First, ball security is job security, how many INTs is not too many, five wasn’t with at least two or more passes that were bad, but not intercepted. Individual players can have a bad game, at what point, for the sake of the team is a well respected senior captain QB to be spelled for a series or two or benched? I can see the danger in the MSU game in having a negative influence on Sneed’s confidence with the playoffs in view. However an elimination game is different.
Second injuries that hamper a player’s ability to perform. It was clear Sneed was gutting it out, cold damp conditions affect negatively on mobility injuries, slippery field adds to stability problems of a person with ankle or knee injury. When a player displays inability to perform at needed level due to conditions and injuries the coaches are responsible to protect them. The player will not volunteer to come out.

Lightning in a bottle comes around once in a great while, this isn’t peewee football it is a business. When you have players like JLM, Sims, Olson and the rest of the seniors including Sneed there are no more collegiate opportunities to play football. There were some that are the best of their positions in the country. They deserved for the coaches to make the right decisions. As, per it is a business, UM puts butts in the seats when they win big games. Weber wasn’t the best team Friday and coaches said post game you can’t win with five turnovers, it is not a mysterious phenomenon that occurred. Why can’t experienced coaches do the right thing and make the difficult decision for the betterment of the program?
Until Bobby can stick to his own fundamentals and make good decisions in big games this program will not be a national championship contender. Hats off to the faties at NDSU they stay true to their fundamentals.

Lol your solution is that the coaches should have pulled Sneed? Pulling your senior leader, captain, and the guy that got you that far in the first place? That is what you consider a "fundamental decision?"

Makes you wonder when they had more confidence in an injured turnover machine than the next possible option...

I think it was mostly loyalty to Sneed that influenced the decision not to pull him, for better or worse.

 

[grizindabox]

Call it fundamental or core value (ball security) of Hauck. Wouldn't be a slight or disrespect to Sneed to spell him for a series or two. Maybe with a more mobile Humphrey he could have given a spark. Sneed may have benefited from seeing things from the sidelines for a few plays.
Even at that, the end result may have not changed. Sneed was the man to get Griz as far as they did, however he was injured at Weber to a point of limiting his effectiveness.
End of the day it is just speculation, only one team is happy at the end of the year.

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

 

[Diesel]

Call it fundamental or core value (ball security) of Hauck. Wouldn't be a slight or disrespect to Sneed to spell him for a series or two. Maybe with a more mobile Humphrey he could have given a spark. Sneed may have benefited from seeing things from the sidelines for a few plays.
Even at that, the end result may have not changed. Sneed was the man to get Griz as far as they did, however he was injured at Weber to a point of limiting his effectiveness.
End of the day it is just speculation, only one team is happy at the end of the year.

Quick question, but when has the QB ever been held to the same ball security standards as the other skill position players by Hauck?

That is the point. Including QB would make sense. Not to be held out for as long as other positions, like RB, but at least to make point. Wasn't like turnovers was only reason for trying Humphrey for a series or two.
UMass loss with Swogger was another example of need to sub or spell QB. I get the loyalty part, but not in elimination games. Swogger was beat up and injured and could hardly throw in second half, sometimes players need a little protection from coaches when injuries are preventing them from performing. Call it part of in game adjustments, different personnel packages short term to get different match-ups.
Difficult field conditions would give a more mobile QB advantage over defense. Speculation now was never given opportunity to find out.