re: What is the logic behind not putting Puglisi in?

Puglisi probably would've had 3 turnovers, too.

Whole team looked like shite.

quote:

---

I'll take your retard take and raise it to double retard. We should have put in Milender.

---

I mean, if you like losing, then I guess that makes sense—it’s like a captain going down with his ship. Is your point really that him single-handedly costing us the game was honorable because he toughed out a concussion instead of letting a clear-headed QB take over?

quote:

---

But any fan who tries to tell us that that Kirby should open up the quarterback competition in the next two weeks of practice before the Florida game, that person is a clueless lunatic.

---

The problem with fans calling for depth chart changes is very simple. Fans have no idea how good the backup might be. If Puglisi had half a dozen games on record, at least it becomes a debate. As of now, it's pure speculation. And the coaches have made their choice clear.

But, I can make an argument that the coaches might eventually revisit that decision. If we lose one more regular season game, maybe Florida or Ole Miss, where Gunner's performance could be considered a contributing factor, there may be a point where you give a younger QB take a live tryout. Because we, and maybe the coaches, won't definitvely know how good Puglisi (or somebody else) can be until he's seen a reasonable amount of live action. Some QB's hit that steep learning curve and thrive, others don't.

We lost to a bad Auburn team; it happens. If we lose to another team on our regular season schedule, I think it would be prudent to ask if it's time to better assess our QB options for next year because the odds of winning a 2026 championship are declining at that point. It's would still be possible, or course, but losing to this Auburn team is meaningful data.

quote:

---

This is the first time in gunners career, he’s look like shite and cost us a game and still almost won it for us and you wanna put Puglisi i? You know how many interceptions puglisi probably would’ve had today ?probably about the same as gunner, if not more

---

You are arguing against yourself imo. Gunner never looks this bad. The majority of folks watching felt he was hurt very early on. He missed very, very routine screens and >10 yd routes. That screams 1 time anomaly to me.

I do truly think it sucks that Puglisi is apparently a worse option. Maybe Kirby was making a point in trusting his QB idk. I trust coach more than my opinion though tbh

quote:

---

There is no QB question. Gunner is the guy. Period.

However, his bell got rung, and he was in a different time zone for a while. It's legit to question whether or not he should have continued in this game, but unless it's a persistent injury, he's the guy.

---

You're arguing something that I didn't address. What you just said is that if Gunner plays championship level football, then he's the guy. What I said was if we lose another game on our regular season schedule and Gunner's play is a contributing factor, then the coaches might make a strategic decision to think ahead.

quote:

---

Is your point really that him single-handedly costing us the game was honorable because he toughed out a concussion instead of letting a clear-headed QB take over?

---

No, my point is that Pugs isn't our second best quarterback.

Yes. He was late getting into position.

quote:

---

If you are suggesting there might come a time when the coaches give Puglisi a look so they can get a glimpse into the 2027 future while we're still in the middle of the playoff race, we would have to agree to disagree and think that's nonsensical.

---

I thought it was very clear what I was saying. If we lose another regular season game to the teams left on our schedule, the odds of winning the national championship are not good, meaning low and not "in the middle". Auburn is a bad team; that's a significant data point. Ole Miss or Florida are okay, but neither is anywhere close to national champion caliber, IMO. If we lose to Auburn and one of those two, or Missouri, South Carolina, etc., and Gunner's play is a factor, then yes, I'm suggesting they may revisit the entire quarterback depth chart and think about 2027. Not to "get a glimpse of the future", but to start actively preparing for the future.

If that sounds outlandish to you, then add another loss and see how it sounds. Because when you lose at home to an Auburn team with a brand new scheme and coaching staff, a team that returned only 29 off/def players from 2025 (we returned 67), and filled out their roster with a bunch of G5's, then every future game is in question. At some level of failure, a strategic re-evaluation would be due. How long you wait before doing that is a very important decision because game experience for quarterbacks is very important.

quote:

---

Another loss isn't going to knock UGA out of the playoffs.

---

Like I said above, if you don't like that add another loss. Everything is a probability. Losing to Auburn is a big hit our championship odds and it raises the odds of another loss. Losing to Ole Miss or Florida, or Missouri, or South Carolina will be another hit. Every planner eventually considers re-allocating assets for the future, preferably early enough to make a difference. If Gunner struggles again and we lose, I would personally "re-visit" the quarterback depth chart. That's not to say an automatic change, but an evaluation of where we're headed.

quote:

---

If we lose again, every game after that would be a must-win.

Thinking about 2027 in a must-win situation would be an interesting strategy.

What you're suggesting is nuts

---

"Must-win" is not the metric that counts when weighing a change (unless a loss means permanent termination). Likelihood of winning is what matters, both now and in the future. Fans always debate about when to replace a more experienced QB with an inexperienced QB. The hypothetical I've described is a scenario where that is most logical; replace an outgoing quarterback with declining prospects for success with a younger quarterback who needs game experience to improve. For those who don't have the ability or inclination to consider those odds, their bad outcomes are a result of inaction.