Originally Posted by Hervoyel
I see where he's going thoug admittedly it was a small sample to look at. The Titans seemed to get a spark when Hasselbeck came in. They looked really unsteady in the short time that Locker was on the field. It reminded me of how the Texans used to settle down and play better when Tony Banks came in for Carr. Not that I'm comparing the relative quality of Carr and Locker or saying Locker has Carr's upside (= None). It's just that Banks was a veteran and the team always looked more focused when he went in and the Titans did the same thing yesterday when Hasselbeck came in.
Locker was in for 1 series inside Reliant. A lot of teams look shaky on their first series in a loud away stadium
I think backup QBs always get that initial boost because:
1) Defenses have prepared all week for the starter and have to make adjustments on the fly to handle the backup style (This is especially noticeable when the starter is a guy who runs, like Locker, vs a guy like Hassleback)
2) Teams pick it up a little to try and accommodate the switch
I thought hassleback looked better than locker in the Patriots game as well. At first. Then things settled down and I could see why they chose Locker.
I think the issue here is that Tennessee knew it wasn't competing for a superbowl and went with Locker because he has a lot more upside if he gets the experience. I think the difference between the two guys is so minimal that it was worth the long term development to have Locker out there
If we played that game 100 times, with Locker at QB for 50 and Hassleback at QB for 50, with our team knowing in advance who was going to be the quarterback, I don't think Hassleback wins very many more than Locker (if any)