Jesse Temple's Oct. 1 Badgers mailbag

Wisconsin is 3-1, ranked No. 17 in the country and still is considered a favorite to win the Big Ten West division. So, why do fans seem so concerned?

First of all, that's part of the fun of college football. And secondly, the Badgers' inconsistent offense through four games has lent credence to those doubts. At least UW can fall back on its defense with Big Ten play here, right?

In this week's edition, we talk about quarterbacks, play calling, quarterbacks and play calling. Did I mention quarterbacks and play calling? Oh, and we even managed to squeeze in a few other interesting questions here as well.

Thank you to everyone that submitted a question. We'll post our next mailbag following Wisconsin's game against Northwestern on Saturday, so look for a link as soon as the clock hits zero.

And now, on with the mailbag:

Q: What is behind the demotion of Joel Stave to #3 QB? -- Larry C., San Diego, CA

A: I'm not even sure Stave is technically considered the No. 3 quarterback at this point. Stave met with reporters Tuesday night after practice for the first time in four weeks, and he acknowledged the throwing issues that plagued him were a thing of the past. He's been splitting second-team offense practice reps with Bart Houston, and a decision will be made this week as to which player is the backup quarterback moving forward.

Whatever coaches decide, it's extremely encouraging to hear Stave's yips are cured. He seemed confident o Tuesday that he'll be ready to go if called upon. I'm just happy for him that he's worked through the issue. He deserves to have that stretch over with.

There were plenty of great Stave quotes I couldn't fit into the story, and here's one of them, on how he overcame the most challenging month of his career.

"I just knew that at some point I'd come out of it," Stave said. "I've just been throwing the ball well since I started playing football in fourth grade. I just knew at some point I had to come out of it. I'd get back to normal and I'd start feeling comfortable again. That's basically what happened."

Q: Why don't we run more draws and screens? -- Seth, Orlando, FL

A: I'd be willing to bet we see more screens moving forward than draw plays. I say that because teams aren't likely to honor the pass game in its current version, and running a draw only gives more time for defenses to penetrate the box. Wisconsin has actually been fairly successful in the screen game, in my opinion, because it allows McEvoy to get the ball out quickly.

Though Badgers receivers have been much maligned for a lack or offensive production, they are excellent as a group at blocking and setting up teammates. Jordan Fredrick does not get enough credit for his role in that area. How many plays have we seen in which Fredrick essentially sets a pick for Alex Erickson, who winds up with a big gain? If the deep passing game doesn't develop more, Wisconsin will need to find more creative ways to complete short passes.

Q: Our passing game is terrible! Shouldn't we be running the quarterback option more and at least get something out of that position? -- Scott, Hudsonville, WI

A: Well, you're not wrong about the passing game. Wisconsin's passing offense ranks No. 13 out of 14 Big Ten teams and averages just 152.8 yards per game. Tanner McEvoy, meanwhile, ranks 102nd nationally in average passing yards per game (151.3). He hasn't needed to throw a ton with the running game success, but he'll certainly need to pick up the pace in Big Ten play.

As for the idea of running more quarterback options, it's certainly a possibility. But that also doesn't add anything to the passing attack. If anything, it encourages more defensive players to stack the box. I don't know if McEvoy has shown enough to prove he'll make defenses pay for that decision. Obviously, he completed 17 straight passes against Western Illinois, but you didn't see any deep play-action attempts during that streak.

Perhaps the key is for offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig to draw up more short throws to see if Wisconsin's pass catchers can create something in space. McEvoy is efficient in his delivery on shorter tosses, and the Badgers may just have to wave the white flag when it comes to a reliable deep threat.

Q: Do you think we see Joel Stave play another snap in a Badgers uniform? And how does the coaching staff not think about making a change already? Tanner can't stretch the defense or complete a pass to the second level versus these defenses. What's going to happen when we play someone halfway decent? -- Michael, Madison, WI

A: To your question about Stave ever playing another snap in a Badgers uniform: I honestly don't know the answer. I would love to say we'll see Stave again, if only to watch what it would mean to Stave to come back from such an awful mental block. From my perspective as a beat writer, he's been such a pleasure to work with: hard working, humble and willing to open up with us about his strong suits and shortcomings. He deserves to experience something good on the football field again.

The fact Stave has said he's fine now is fantastic. If coaches make him the backup quarterback, it's very possible he'll play in some capacity down the road. Maybe it will come during a blowout, but at least he'll be given an opportunity. And if McEvoy struggles, perhaps coaches will have the confidence to go to Stave. He does have 19 starts under his belt, after all.

Here's what Stave had to say about it Tuesday night:

"If things start to go bad or Tanner gets hurt, through this whole thing I've prepared mentally like I always would," he said. "I've watched film, taken notes and done what I need to do to feel like I have a good enough feel for the defense. So just continue to do that. If my number is called, then I'll be ready to go."

Q: I have two concerns about the Badgers heading into conference play. First, we have roughly 7 billion people on the planet, and every one of them knew the Badgers would be going to Melvin Gordon early and often. Obviously, South Florida knew this too and keyed on him early. Why isn't Andy Ludwig more creative with the play calling? Current play calling makes "vanilla" look exciting.

My second concern is Tanner McEvoy's propensity to ONLY look toward Alex Erickson as a receiver. Sam Arneson did catch a TD pass but honestly, it seemed like McEvoy only looks toward Erickson. It seems like the passing game has progressed very little in recent weeks, and that won't fly during conference play. What are your thoughts? -- Tim, Saratoga, CA

A: It's hard for me to say that everyone knew the ball was going to Melvin Gordon, and that's why the team wasn't very good in the first half. He carried 17 times for 50 yards in the first half. He carried 15 times for 131 yards in the second half. So, that's basically the same number of touches. Sometimes, the hole simply develops more and the offensive line blocks better. Gordon also busted a 55-yard run on the opening series that was called back because of holding. Would you have a different opinion if that play stood and he rushed for 100-plus yards in each half? He's one of the best tailbacks in college football, and that offensive line should be able to wear down opponents, even in the Big Ten.

About McEvoy only looking toward Alex Erickson, well, you're not entirely wrong. Our own Dave Heller tracks the Badgers' passing targets after each game. Through four games, Erickson has been targeted for 34 passes, Sam Arneson 15 and no other player had been targeted more than seven times. Against South Florida, Erickson was targeted 13 times and no one else more than twice. But this is not all on McEvoy. Here's what Gary Andersen had to say this week:

"Remaining creative and finding new ways and looks to get young men balls is on high alert for us as a staff. And I'm sure it's on high alert for the kids to get on the field. I'd like to see some of the young receivers get in the moment and show us all that they're prepared to take that next step.

"And it's hard to stress freshmen because I've said it many times, just because you're physically ready to play at this level, doesn't mean you're one bit prepared to play mentally. As soon as those young men get themselves prepared mentally, I think they'll get some mojo and you'll see us move in the right direction with more people getting involved in the throw game."

Q: After reading your article about Melvin Gordon's speech at halftime, I was wondering if you've noticed Gordon being more of a vocal leader lately. He never seemed shy, but I don't remember him doing a lot of talking last year or even before the season. Is he talking more now? -- Greg Lombard, Marshfield, WI

A: Much of what we know about Gordon being a more vocal leader comes second-hand because reporters aren't able to watch practices during the season or generally go behind the scenes. But yes, he has certainly worked on being more vocal this season based on everything we've heard -- from him, his teammates and his coaches.

Gordon is still growing in that area, and he learned a valuable lesson during the season opener against LSU, when he didn't speak his mind while coaches sat him for most of the second half with an apparent hip flexor injury. He's been behind Montee Ball and James White, which meant he hadn't needed to be the one to lead from the front.

Saturday's game could prove to be a turning point for both Gordon and the team. Ideally, a team should want its best players (and hardest-working players) to show teammates what is necessary to achieve success. Gordon is both of those things, and the way Wisconsin responded to the halftime speeches from him and Rob Havenstein is encouraging.

Q: I feel like this team still has not played a whole, entire good game. The LSU game was good in bits and pieces, and last week was a terrible first half, good second half. Western Illinois and Bowling Green were fine, but come on, it's Western Illinois and Bowling Green. I think they're going to be exposed (especially at QB) when the Big Ten games start. Are they as good as you expected before the season began? Would you change your predictions after watching them for four games? -- Mitch Clydeburg, Madison, WI

A: You raise an excellent point here about the possibility for Wisconsin to be exposed as Big Ten play arrives. And it's one that many Badgers fans certainly share at this point (for good reason). 

Is UW as good as I expected before the season? I suppose it depends on which area of the team we're discussing. This defense is every bit as good as I thought it would be despite seven new starters on the front seven. I've said before that I believed Wisconsin would once again produce a top-20 defense in all four major defensive statistical categories (passing defense, rushing defense, total defense and scoring defense). Right now, the Badgers rank 18th, ninth, seventh and 11th in those four categories, respectively.

The real problems here are on offense. It was my belief that Joel Stave would be the quarterback this season, though nobody could have foreseen the throwing issues that have since surfaced. With Stave, I thought Wisconsin would have a capable, consistent passer, even if it meant sacrificing the Badgers' ability to have a more mobile quarterback. With Tanner McEvoy, the exact opposite has taken place. He's one of the best running quarterbacks Wisconsin has ever had (note the single-game rushing record for a quarterback against Bowling Green). But, man, does he struggle to connect on deep throws or what?

The fact Wisconsin hasn't found much help with its wide receivers is a huge concern. We knew this would be a problem, but it's proven to be worse than initially thought. Freshman George Rushing is the only newcomer to see significant playing time at this stage, and nobody outside of Alex Erickson has more than two catches. McEvoy's deep ball issues and the inability for more receivers to develop are the two biggest concerns -- reasons to believe Wisconsin could be "exposed," as you suggest, in Big Ten play.

As for my predictions? No, I still wouldn't change them. So far, I've correctly guessed the outcome of the first four games and had Wisconsin at 3-1 at this point. I'm sticking with Wisconsin going 7-1 in Big Ten play. My prediction of Wisconsin losing at Iowa might not come true, but the Badgers have been inconsistent enough to show they might slip up somewhere else. Having said all that, the schedule is Wisconsin's for the taking. Anything short of winning the Big Ten West would be considered a disappointment -- especially with the Nebraska and Minnesota games being played in Camp Randall Stadium in November.

Q: Why are all our home games 11:00 starts? Hurts student section! Hurts Milwaukee/Chicago drivers. Northwestern gets a 2:30 start. Northwestern! -- Stephanie Formolo (via Twitter)

A: It's pretty simple, actually. Kickoff time is determined by what TV networks believe will appeal to the most viewers. Games placed in the 11 a.m. time slot generally are considered the least interesting from a regional or a national perspective. Wisconsin's first five home games this season have been or will be 11 a.m. starts: Western Illinois, Bowling Green, South Florida, Illinois and Maryland. If you weren't a Badgers fan, would you want to watch those games over some alternatives in college football?

Let's wait to see what happens when Nebraska and Minnesota come to town in November. I'm willing to bet we'll get at least one afternoon start there.

Q: Is it fair to say that offensive line coach TJ Woods deserves the blame for the Badgers O-line being extremely inconsistent? -- Roger, Los Angeles, CA

A: I know there is cause for concern because of the number of negative offensive plays that have taken place so far. Wisconsin has surrendered an average of 5.5 tackles for a loss per game, which ranks 57th nationally. That's not great given the expectations people have for a Wisconsin offensive line.

Still, it's difficult for me to pin much on Woods considering Wisconsin ranks third nationally in rushing offense (343.3 yards per game). UW wasn't particularly good against Western Illinois in the run game because the Leathernecks completely sold out to load the box and bring more players than Wisconsin could block. But one of the biggest areas I look at is keeping the quarterback upright. The Badgers are allowing just .75 sacks per game, which is tied for the 11th-best mark in the country.

Q: When the opponent is stalking the line, why not flank Gordon off for the short pass? He was wide open several times during all the games and no throws to him? You have to loosen up the linebackers. This was successful a short time, but they never went back to it.  -- Jeff S., De Forest, WI

A: Gordon has shown he is plenty capable of becoming the pass-catching threat out of the backfield he hoped to be when he bypassed the NFL Draft. He has five catches for 27 yards with a touchdown, and perhaps we'll see more wrinkles from offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig to flank Gordon out wide.

It's been interesting to watch the way in which Ludwig has tried to use both Gordon and Corey Clement on the field at the same time. Usually, that means one of them is in the backfield and the other is lined up at a receiver spot. Clement has come through on some fake sweep plays, but there is plenty of room to tinker with the formation.

"If I was a defensive coordinator, it would bother me," Gary Andersen said this week about having both players on the field. "I think you're going to continually see a few more snaps of that in the game, especially as we potentially get a little bit more healthy at some of the running back positions moving forward.

"But it's tough to deal with one of them, let alone both of them. Hopefully we continue to grow that package a little bit. It's not going to be a staple where we're going to do it 30 times a game, I wouldn't say. But it's going to grow I'm sure as we move forward."

Follow Jesse Temple on Twitter