1.According to what little we have seen and what little others have seen in practices and scrimmages, Zach HAS outperformed Tanner, if just slightly. Based on what no one has seen, lets say its dead even.

What we know...

2.Tanner has seen BYU's defense,( 1 year as a BM defense)and several other college defrenses. Zach has not He has only seen BYU's.


Yet Zach is all even..so Tanner's "experience" looking at the defense he is most familiar with,vs players he is more familiar with than Zach has NOT given him an edge in performance...or outcome of performance.

Perhaps it has given him an edge personally,but that increase still hasn't been enough to overcome Zachs abilities as a QB without any experience vs college Defenses and not 4 years worth vs BYU's D and personelle!

3. SO in Tanners career what "experience"in games are going to give him an edge over Zach?

What has Tanner shon he can do well? Run right throw deep? In all seriousness...

We assume or throw out experience as a positive and the tie breaker. Why?

Tanner also has BAD experiences that influence his play negatively,but no one is talking about those.


He picked up bad habits that he may not be able to break. In his experiemce, if in trouble roll right and chuck it has positive outcomes.

That is just as much a negative..if not more so than the positive of believing that it will work more often than not.

Tanners experience of not quitting when down and being able to come back is great,but is that something Wilson needs to have played in a college game to have? IMO no.
Perhaps Wilsons abilities never lets him get down 35-0.

Zach is a clean slate for the most part. He hasnt developed tendencies in college through experience yet,like Tanner.

I'm just not sure what real tangible, positive things Tanner has in the "experience" category that matter.

Final thought.
Lets say Tanner has experience reading defense"x", but his experience has been in reading it wrong 40% of the time(just a hypothetical # representing my point)
Do we really want to play Tanner over Zach because of the elusive, ethereal idea of "experience" means better?
Especially with the 1 data point we have that Tanner who has WAAAY more experience facing BYU's D and personelle..and coaches for that matter than Zach and still cant separet from the true freshman?

So why should "experience" give Tanner the edge?