Tino Sunseri was named as Pitt's starter earlier this year (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)
This week's Big East Confab over at Big East Coast Bias was a discussion of when it's best to name a starting quarterback. My answer was the sooner the better in most cases. I personally think that the more reps a starter can get with the first team offense, the better.
But in Pitt's case, was it wise to name Tino Sunseri the starter so soon?
I think so.
We're all aware of Sunseri's limitation ... taking too many sacks, inaccuracy with a deep ball, poor decision-making at times, etc. But in Pitt's case, he's the best they've got. Head coach Paul Chryst essentially said that at the time he named Sunseri as his starter a few weeks back.
Let's face it, no one feels uber confident about Sunseri at the helm again. But I feel infinitely better with him under center than I do the alternatives and as I've stated quite a bit already, Sunseri will be better in 2012.
I understand the argument of quarterbacks settling in a bit and maybe not working quite as hard if they're named the starter early on, but I can't imagine that'll be the case with Sunseri since his 2011 was so awful.
Should Paul Chryst have named Tino Sunseri the starter already?
Yes - No sense in dragging out what we already know (49 votes)
No - I wanted to see more from the others in the fall (33 votes)
82 total votes