The unusual curiosity, or lack thereof, around South Carolina’s sudden QB competition
The answer was the sort one would expect from Will Muschamp five years into his tenure as South Carolina’s coach.
How did his quarterbacks look in Wednesday’s practice?
“They looked good,” Muschamp said.
It’s a flat answer, not revealing anything. In some ways, that matches how the program has tried to operate in certain areas, keeping the profile low and the narrative on the bland side.
And it leads to the reality that South Carolina’s current situation has managed to make a midseason quarterback competition, usually a object of fascination, something that isn’t generating a ton of buzz.
To a degree, the general bad mood of the fan base after a pair of disheartening blowouts and natural questions that surround a fifth-year coach seem to be overshadowing everything.
But there are also unusual factors within the quarterback competition, between Ryan Hilinski and Collin Hill, and its dynamics that make it a little different.
Hilinski, Hill’s known skillsets
Most of the time, a midseason quarterback change means a younger player, maybe with recruiting hype, maybe not, stepping in for an older player. Or at the very least, it’s a mostly unknown player filling in for someone who is known (think Michael Scarnecchia and Jake Bentley).
But Gamecocks fans saw 11 starts from Hilinski last season. That’s plenty fresh. And while he was dealt some bad hands with a knee injury, an offensive line that struggled in pass blocking and a receiver group whittled down by injury, he also had a far better No. 1 and No. 2 options for much of the year.
So this isn’t a moment of “what haven’t we seen before.”
There’s also the skillset side of things. Hilinski and Hill are pretty similar in how they play. Hilinski is probably less mobile than the older passer, though one under-discussed aspect is how he was pretty good at avoiding sacks and firing off quick passes. That wasn’t great for his efficiency last year, but it could matter considering how often Hill has been taken down
One pro-style passer for another, that difference might not catch the eye of folks until something happens on the field.
The lack of a clear change
Had there been a decisive announcement coming out of last Saturday’s loss to Texas A&M, perhaps things would seem a bit different, but at the moment, it feels like a bit of a holding pattern.
Muschamp said the battle will go thought Friday and maybe into early Saturday. There’s a chance that’s lip service, but it also means there’s a non-zero chance the offense comes out at Ole Miss with the same quarterback as before, just having been pushed and with fewer practice reps.
That specter looms over any consideration about it. There’s a plan that could maybe lead to something different, but it also simply might not.
Doty in the mix, but also not
After his team’s first practice of the week, Muschamp all but made clear this new competition is really between two players. Luke Doty is working on his QB skills and will be a part of the game plan, but after getting nine snaps against the Aggies, he’s not in the mix to be the man running the show.
Doty has all the traits of a player who generates that buzz. He’s a high-level athlete, having moonlighted at receiver. He’s the youngest guy in the group and had a decorated in-state high school career, winning a state title and being named Mr. Football. He likely would’ve added another state crown but for a wrist injury at the start of the playoffs.
He could, at some point, add a different dimension to the Gamecocks offense in a full-time capacity, but it’s not going to be this week.
The question of spark and change
When Muschamp announced decision to reopen the job, the point was simple, the team needed a spark. It’s the kind of language that comes off as “we gotta try something here.”
The idea of that spark is one that coaches often seem to be of different minds about. Muschamp has long been a “good practice leads to good game day” kind of coach. Most coaches are. The kind willing to shake things up to see what happens, something Steve Spurrier liked to do, are a rarer breed.
But Muschamp going to it implies there’s not really been a shift in how everyone has practiced, in what players have done to traditionally win jobs, but just that the on-field product is in such a state that everything has to be looked at.
In short, it leaves everything in this uneasy gully. If there is a change, is it just change for change’s sake? If there’s no change and no spark, what is to be made of that?
There’s no easy answer outside the baseline that winning solves everything. And that reality seems to be overshadowing what’s happening at the most crucial position.
This story was originally published November 12, 2020 at 11:45 AM.
