On Wednesday, Brian Kelly announced that Notre Dame will play both DeShone Kizer and Malik Zaire when the Irish take on Texas in their season opener. He didn’t provide further specifics as to how they would be used, but he, along with Kizer and Zaire, each spoke at length on the new development.
“My job is to win, and my belief is playing both of them gives us a better chance to win,” Kelly said. “It’s never easy playing two quarterbacks. It’s much easier just playing one, but we’re in the business of winning, and so, if it’s a little bit harder on us, then we can make that work if the net is we win the football game.”
This was Kelly’s main defense of his decision, but he provided further explanation.
“Both of their skill sets simply have slight differences, but both of them are playmakers,” Kelly said. “If I list our top five playmakers, they’re in it. My ultimate decision was I can’t put one of those guys on the sideline against Texas.”
Kelly’s comments were very interesting. First, he acknowledged that playing one QB is preferable. He also made clear that this decision was specifically about the opener against Texas. Based on these statements, I expect the QB competition to continue into the season, and in a sense, I get Kelly’s thinking. If both quarterbacks are playing at the same level in practice, how else can you differentiate between them? I guess by seeing how they perform in real, meaningful games.
Ultimately, as Kelly emphasized, he wants to do what will give them team the best chance to win. And to win games, all that matter in terms of the QB competition, is who Kelly thinks will perform better in real games. So maybe Kelly just wants to use the first few real games as an extended QB competition, and eventually go with one QB if someone differentiates themselves in a high-stakes environment.
From Kelly’s statements, however, he doesn’t seem to look at his decision as simply a way to extend the competition and eventually pick a quarterback. With his “top five playmaker” comment, he seems to genuinely think that playing both guys is what gives the team the best chance to beat Texas.
The thing is, I don’t see Kizer and Zaire being on the field at the same time (although Kelly hasn’t taken anything off the table). Last season, Ohio State utilized former QB Braxton Miller and put him at WR because he was too talented of a “playmaker” not to play, but this situation is different. As good as Zaire and Kizer might be, only one can utilize their playmaking skills at QB on each individual play. In this sense, I don’t understand Kelly’s thinking. A team might have two great kickers, but in the end, what good does that do in an individual game? It’s good to have depth in case of injuries, and positional competitions can drive guys to get better, but in the end only one kicker can see the field at once (kickers and QBs are different but you get the point).
But could playing both Kizer and Zaire throughout the course of the game actually give the Irish the best chance to win? In a previous post, I argued that Kizer and Zaire possessed complete quarterback skill sets with solid passing and running abilities. I thus concluded that playing both wouldn’t make much sense, since it wasn’t as if each brought something distinctly different to the table. Florida won a title in 2007 with Chris Leak and Tim Tebow sharing quarterback snaps, but many felt it worked because Leak was essentially the “passer” with Tebow as the “runner.” This isn’t the case with Kizer and Zaire.
But Kelly feels, and accurately so, that the quarterbacks have “slight differences,” and he believes these differences are significant enough that the QB’s will complement each other in a way that works well. He could very well be right.
What do Zaire and Kizer think about the decision?
Let’s start with some Zaire quotes. He handled the decision well and emphasized that he trusts Coach Kelly and wants to do what’s best for the team. He was clearly frustrated, however.
“It’s not the most ideal situation but as a pro you need to deal with the cards you’re dealt and make something happen. So our goal is to turn chicken crap into chicken salad,” Zaire said.
“I swear, I’m coach Kelly’s favorite quarterback, the way these challenges keep coming up,” Zaire said. “Every great quarterback has a story about going through adversity.”
“My love for the game is beyond Notre Dame, so my vested interest in getting better as a quarterback is what’s important to me, my vested interest in becoming a championship quarterback is what’s important to me,” Zaire said.
Zaire revealed a lot through these quotes. He’s frustrated with the decision. He definitely isn’t convinced that he and Kizer will share the field the whole season. He made it clear he still wants to be the No. 1 quarterback and expressed hope that his “story” will work out. Reading between the lines, it seems clear that his ideal “story” includes being the starter, something he surely hopes to accomplish this season.
“My love for the game is beyond Notre Dame.” It seems like he was referring to NFL aspirations here. If he has hopes to play in the league someday, being the starter and having a chance to become a “championship quarterback” gives him the best chance to fulfill that dream.
Being frustrated is only natural, and again, Zaire handled the situation with class. As I’ll discuss, later, the question is whether that natural frustration will end up being a detriment to the team down the road.
Kizer expressed similar sentiments:
“I committed here and decided to play college football to be that one guy. When you decide to play this position, especially at this level, you have to have the desire to be the only guy out there,” he said.
“We both have track records,” Kizer said. “Malik didn’t have the opportunity to put together 10 games and see how successful he was. We all know he would’ve been very successful in that time as well. This is a very unique situation, in that we’ve both proved how successful we can be out on the field. We’re both complete quarterbacks.”
“For this to work, we’re both going to have to buy into it.”
Kizer obviously wanted to be named the starter, but he also handled the decision well. It’s interesting that he references the ten games of experience he had last season due to Zaire’s injury, and perhaps he thinks this experience is what have should have given him the edge. He seems to understand, however, that the success of this 2-QB system will ultimately depend upon whether he and Zaire buy into it.
So will this 2-QB system work? It’s tough to say because it could play out in so many different ways. Even if you subscribe to the “if you have two QB’s you really have none” way of thinking, it’s possible that ND could get by for a few weeks playing both and then use the game action to ultimately select one QB. But of course, this plan only works as desired if ND manages to win every game before making this decision.
It’s tough to say because it could play out in so many different ways. Even if you subscribe to the “if you have two QBs you really have none” way of thinking, it’s possible that ND could get by for a few weeks playing both and then use the game action to ultimately select one QB. But of course, this plan only works as desired if ND manages to win every game before making this decision.
But whether or not the QB system lasts one game or the whole season, how might it impact the team’s performance while it is being utilized? Best case scenario, Zaire and Kizer both buy into the plan, their skill sets complement each other, they both perform at a high level, and the team wins.
Where could it go wrong? First off, one could argue there’s a reason two-QB systems haven’t been very common. It’s not that they’ve never had any success, but conventional wisdom says it better for the team to go with one guy. Why? Playing two quarterbacks might prevent the QBs from getting any momentum with the offense. Not only could the QB struggle to find a rhythm, but it might be difficult for receivers to continuously adjust to slight differences between the QBs. It’s also possible the system could divide the team from within and complicate things from a leadership perspective.
And as mentioned earlier, the 2-QB system isn’t guaranteed to remain the entire season. As a result, there will be constant pressure to perform on every possession. Check out this thought by Al Lesar of ND insider:
“Human nature will cause both quarterbacks to look over their shoulder. Third-and-eight deep in Notre Dame territory, all receivers are covered and there’s a stout pass rush. The smart play would be to throw the ball away, punt, let the defense do its job, and come back the next series. However, in this case, the next series isn’t guaranteed. Will that force either guy to be more reckless?”
It’s a good point, and likely one reason Kelly feels going with one QB is ideal if possible. But although these 2-QB criticisms are real, it’s important to not write off its potential success too soon. Just because the system is unconventional doesn’t mean it can’t be effective. Sometimes people are too committed to just “doing things the way they’ve always been done,” and if Kelly thinks this plan will give the team the best chance to win, then why not?
I remain skeptical of the plan’s long-term viability, but in the end, ND will have a really talented QB on the field at all times. Going with just one guy might have certain advantages, but Kizer and Zaire could be so good it won’t matter. The purpose of a quarterback is to help his team score points and ultimately win games, and if the Irish accomplish this game-to-game, it doesn’t really matter how they get there.
I'm from Northbrook, IL and am a student at the University of Notre Dame. I think this gives me an interesting perspective on ND sports. You might think this would make me biased, but I'd say I'm only biased about the teams I've grown up rooting for. So if I write something about the Packers, Cubs, or whatever team LeBron's on, definitely take it with a grain of salt. Otherwise, you should be okay. :)
Latest posts by Jacob Zinkula (see all)
