Running quarterbacks

[MplsBison]

I stayed up to watch the end of the OT game between Clemson and Auburn.


Auburn won on a designed QB run that went right up the gut.




I've seen a lot of this kind of thing lately. Florida and West Virginia esp do quite a bit of QB running.

C Mich also did a fair share from what I saw in the Motor City bowl.




What do you think about this?

[Rob Iola]

Works in college - not in NFL...

[bobbythekidd]

What do you think about this?
I think you enjoy slamming quarterbacks that can and do run the ball. You would rather see a pocket passer throw bombs all day that beat defenses deep. A QB that make the fans stand and hold their collective breath while the ball is in the air then scream wildly when it is hauled in, or boo when it is missed or dropped. You enjoy an offense that protects a QB with a bunch of big oafs, as if he is made of glass and not just another a member of the team. Is that about right?xrolleyesx

Me.... I like it when a player that can move the ball down the feild. Who cares how he does it.

[proasu89]

I stayed up to watch the end of the OT game between Clemson and Auburn.


Auburn won on a designed QB run that went right up the gut.




I've seen a lot of this kind of thing lately. Florida and West Virginia esp do quite a bit of QB running.

C Mich also did a fair share from what I saw in the Motor City bowl.



What do you think about this?

Sounds like it might work. Maybe we could implement such an offense and recruit somebody to run it. Who knows, with any luck we might just win a few games. ;)

[JohnStOnge]

Works in college - not in NFL...

I don't think anybody's really tried it in the NFL. I don't think any NFL team has decided to commit to some kind of option style of offense...either the more traditional option or the shotgun option that's become popular... that is designed to regularly feature an athletic quarterback running the ball.

I'd love to see somebody actually commit to it, focus on acquiring the right kind of personnel to run it, and give it a fair shot.

[blackfordpu]

I don't think anybody's really tried it in the NFL. I don't think any NFL team has decided to commit to some kind of option style of offense...either the more traditional option or the shotgun option that's become popular... that is designed to regularly feature an athletic quarterback running the ball.

I'd love to see somebody actually commit to it, focus on acquiring the right kind of personnel to run it, and give it a fair shot.

Agreed, I think that if done correctly the spread could work in the NFL.

[Grizalltheway]

Agreed, I think that if done correctly the spread could work in the NFL.

There's a chance, but I think defenses might just be too fast for it to work properly. xtwocentsx

[JohnStOnge]

I WILL say that a team needs to use its head and not do it just to do it. Like Tennessee today. The Vols ended up winning but I think changing to something else when one thing was working almost cost them.

When they were leading 21 - 17 they had a good drive going. Their QB was hot throwing the football and eating Wisconsin up. They got down either into or near the red zone and inexplicably pulled their starting QB and put another guy in to run the read option style out of the shotgun. They tried three running plays and got stopped. Then they tried a field goal and it got blocked.

Wisconsin then drove down and threatened to score before, I think, outsmarting ITself by trying a pass on fourth and short when they'd had good success running the ball right at Tennessee.

But Tennessee had a chance to put the game away and really had Wisconsin's defense reeling until the Vols took out their starting quarterback and went away from their drop back passing game when it was really working.

[JohnStOnge]

There's a chance, but I think defenses might just be too fast for it to work properly. xtwocentsx

That's a thought I've frequently seen expressed, but what I've always heard is that the option actually kind of neutralizes speed by making defensive players stay disciplined and under control. Then I look at stuff like a team like Navy being able to move the ball against BCS league teams that have superior speed. In fact, we hear all the time about teams with talent deficiencies running the option because it allows them to move the ball against teams with superior talent when more traditional offenses wouldn't work.

Don't get me wrong. Obviously, speed on defense helps. But it helps against ANY type of offense.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech. It'll be interesting to see if he sticks to his offense and if he can succeed because I've heard for years that it wouldn't work against the speed of a BCS league conference.

Personally, I wish Nebraska would've hired him. I think that's where he'd have had the best chance to succeed.

[bench]

The only way we're ever going to see the spread option in the NFL would be if it becomes the dominant college offense, making for a much shallower pool of traditional passers worthy of being drafted.

The arguments against the spread in the pros are 1) risk of injury, and 2) Michael Vick. Teams invest a lot of money in their signal-callers, but frankly, if I'm a head coach, given the choice between risking my quarterback or my job, that's not really a hard decision. The Dogfighter was fast and elusive, but his arm was terrible, and that was never a spread offense to begin with.

[yosef1969]

That's a thought I've frequently seen expressed, but what I've always heard is that the option actually kind of neutralizes speed by making defensive players stay disciplined and under control. Then I look at stuff like a team like Navy being able to move the ball against BCS league teams that have superior speed. In fact, we hear all the time about teams with talent deficiencies running the option because it allows them to move the ball against teams with superior talent when more traditional offenses wouldn't work.

Don't get me wrong. Obviously, speed on defense helps. But it helps against ANY type of offense.


Good points but there has to be something to the speed vs the spread theory b/c it still hasn't been proven at the FBS level yet. Even Florida won with a more traditional QB and that version of the offense was a hybrid spread at best. WVU and Oregon have had moments but against the speedier teams they have faltered.
I think the spread and the traditional option ultimately serve the same purpose, they give a team an opportunity to keep it close against a team with more talented (primarily speaking of quantity but sometimes quality as well) athletes. Keep it close and who knows what can happen.

[Skjellyfetti]

There's a chance, but I think defenses might just be too fast for it to work properly. xtwocentsx

people were saying the same thing about Florida in the SEC when they hired Urban Meyer.

[JohnStOnge]

WVU and Oregon have had moments but against the speedier teams they have faltered.

I don't know about all of Oregon's losses but I think West Virginia would be undefeated and playing in the BCS title game if they'd not had their quarterback injured during the South Florida and Pittsburgh games.

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't know about all of Oregon's losses but I think West Virginia would be undefeated and playing in the BCS title game if they'd not had their quarterback injured during the South Florida and Pittsburgh games.

Dennis Dickson would have won the heisman and Oregon would be playing for the title if he hadn't suffered a season ending knee injury. Way different than Pat White against South Florida and Pitt imo. I believe Pat White even returned after his injury in the Pitt game.

[Peems]

The only way we're ever going to see the spread option in the NFL would be if it becomes the dominant college offense, making for a much shallower pool of traditional passers worthy of being drafted.

The arguments against the spread in the pros are 1) risk of injury, and 2) Michael Vick. Teams invest a lot of money in their signal-callers, but frankly, if I'm a head coach, given the choice between risking my quarterback or my job, that's not really a hard decision. The Dogfighter was fast and elusive, but his arm was terrible, and that was never a spread offense to begin with.

Mike Vick had anything but a terrible arm. He had one of the strongest ones in the league, if you are saying that he wasn't the most accurate then I agree, but he was improving.


Dennis Dickson would have won the heisman and Oregon would be playing for the title if he hadn't suffered a season ending knee injury. Way different than Pat White against South Florida and Pitt imo. I believe Pat White even returned after his injury in the Pitt game.

Pat White did return against Pitt. but could barely hold on to, or handoff the ball, his injury truly affected his play

[seantaylor]

The option would absolutely work at any level of football. The biggest misnomer is that speed stops the option. Absolutely false. The way to stop the option is to dominate the line of scrimmage, and get a push in the backfield regularly.

[McNeese_beat]

I stayed up to watch the end of the OT game between Clemson and Auburn.


Auburn won on a designed QB run that went right up the gut.




I've seen a lot of this kind of thing lately. Florida and West Virginia esp do quite a bit of QB running.

C Mich also did a fair share from what I saw in the Motor City bowl.


It's a successful trend because most defenses are not geared to stop it. I think it'll take a combination of a little bit of innovative scheming on defense combined with different kind of personnel to recruit to adjust to it.

What do you think about this?

It's the latest trend, the "spread" offense. It's a reaction to what had been the trend in defenses, to blitz a lot and play man. Two good ways to beat blitzing teams is 1. by showing them option to force them to abandon their blitz principals and play assignments and 2. by having a good running QB who can sidestep pressure and either deliver the pass or tuck it and run because he'll have a lot of open field to run with with pass rushers behind him and defensive backs with their backs turned in man coverage ahead of him.

I suspect as more teams go to the spread, more defenses will find ways to adjust to it both with scheme and personnel. It's been that way throughout football history.

In the early days, when teams didn't pass much, defenses would line up in things like the 5-3, the 7-diamond and six-man lines. As the passing game developed, teams started to go to four-men secondaries. Offenses went to a T-formation and defenses responded with an "Eagle" 5-2 look, then when offenses adjusted with the split-T, Bud Wilkerson came up with the "Okie" 50, altering the way defenses lined up in the 5-2. When the game evolved with even more passing, teams gave up a lineman and went with the 4-3. After Bill Walsh revolutionized the game with his "West Coast" passing offense, the eventual reaction was the 3-4 and more pass rushers to disrupt the timing of the west coast.

There's also been changes in personnel. A great example is how the west coast redefined the QB position or how the I formation set up whole new techniques and skills for running backs. Each of these innovations called for different kinds of players with different skill sets. The greatest example I can think of is Lawrence Taylor. Parcells came up with the 3-4 to disrupt the passing games that dominated pro football in the early 80s. What made the 3-4 work is having that dominant pass-rushing outside linebacker who could single-handedly disrupt the timing of a west coast-style offense. Lawrence Taylor was the answer to Joe Montana, basically. In turn, it also forced a redefinition of what was valuable from an offensive tackle. Before the 3-4, it was the ability to pancake a DT. After Taylor, it was the foot speed to block a LB with a 4.5 40-yard dash time coming off the edge.

Now the spread is the new offense and defenses have to adjust to it. In the early days of the veer, nobody could stop Bill Yeoman's offense at UH, but they eventually adjusted. For a while, the NFL of the late 70s and early 80s had become about who had the ball last in all these shootouts. After the Giants revolutionized defense, the game changed. We're in the early days of the spread offense with all these running QBs. It wasn't long ago that Rich Rodriguez was running it at Tulane and few people even noticed. Now, there's hardly a team in America (outside the Big 10, ha) that doesn't line up in some shotgun and run the cut-read option play...they may use the I as their base offense, but everybody runs SOME spread...

So you can bet that as defenses coaches across America recruit this winter, they are thinking about that. In the SC, every team is thinking about what kind of player do we need to contain an Armani Edwards? I think it's smaller, quicker players at linebacker and DE. Your middle LB has to be able to tackle in space. If he can do that and you can tackle the QB in space one-on-one consistently, I think you can defend the spead (easier said than done against a player as good as Edwards...).

I think it's a matter of time before you also start seeing some blitz packages or junk defenses that take away the spread's strengths while minimizing vulnerabilities. A couple of years ago, everybody was running "zone blitzes" and that was the trend on defense to confuse QBs running these read-based pocket-passing games. There will soon be another trendy term on defense...some kind of defensive package or blitz geared specifically to stop elements of the spread...

[Rob Iola]

Excellent analysis by McNeese beat.

Basic problem with running QBs in the NFL is injury - size/speed/skill of LBs and safeties at the NFL level is such that you really have to limit the number of shots they take at your QB. 5-10 hits/game is managable (and protected by the Ref standing 10 feet away) - 15-20 or more (typical for running QBs) over a 16 game season is a sure way to injure your multi-million dollar investment. Couple that with the 2-3 season learning curve and it just doesn't make fiscal sense to the owners...

[PapaBear]

I stayed up to watch the end of the OT game between Clemson and Auburn.


Auburn won on a designed QB run that went right up the gut.




I've seen a lot of this kind of thing lately. Florida and West Virginia esp do quite a bit of QB running.

C Mich also did a fair share from what I saw in the Motor City bowl.




What do you think about this?


Running QBs can do fine in the NFL, as long as they use their mobility judiciously. (Think Steve Young, John Elway, Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb ...) When they start relying more on their legs than on their arm, it becomes a problem to pass-protect them properly. This is a common complaint about "running QBs" among NFL offensive linemen.

The "Spread" is a different issue, entirely. The theory behind the spread is to give the defense formations that are traditionally pass-oriented (single back or empty backfield), and then use the QB as part of the running game. Defenses faced with such formations often remove a Safety and even a LB from run defense. But when they have to account for the QB as a runner, they're in a pickle. Do they reassign a pass defender to the run (thus improving the odds of leaving a receiver unaccounted-for)? Or do they take their chances against the run with six or seven in the box?

It doesn't take a speed demon QB to run the spread effectively. All it takes is a QB with good running instincts. Tim Tebow is a good example. Not that he isn't a good athlete, but I doubt he'd win any 40-yard-dash contests.

Obviously, the more effectively the QB can run AND pass, the more of a threat he is -- and the more effectively his OC can run the Spread.

The reason you don't see much TRUE spread in the NFL is ... they don't need OR WANT to utilize the QB as a playmaker. That's what receivers and RBs are getting paid for. Also, the offensive schemes are too complex to risk getting the QB injured. (Plus, NFL defenders and defenses are too fast and skilled to fall prey to the base running plays in the Spread -- the zone read and the zone read option.)

[andy7171]

I love the spread offense.
It's very exciting and entertaining to watch.
Just ask anyone who watched the App State vs Richmond game.

[McNeese_beat]

Excellent analysis by McNeese beat.

Basic problem with running QBs in the NFL is injury - size/speed/skill of LBs and safeties at the NFL level is such that you really have to limit the number of shots they take at your QB. 5-10 hits/game is managable (and protected by the Ref standing 10 feet away) - 15-20 or more (typical for running QBs) over a 16 game season is a sure way to injure your multi-million dollar investment. Couple that with the 2-3 season learning curve and it just doesn't make fiscal sense to the owners...

The NFL game is so fast, you need a decision-maker under center who is not only good enough to make those decisions that quickly, but also is acclimated to the game speed. That's why teams are so reluctant to going to backups. There's always an adjustment period they hate to put the backup QB into. It's different from any other position because the decisions a QB make are based on so many factors where a backup RB, LB, etc., can focus on a more narrow aspect of the game. The QB who can make those almost instant proper decisions are rare. So if you have one, you don't want to lose him running with the football.

Another element that keeps the spread out of the NFL are egos. You have a lot of guys whose salaries are based on how many yards they get, how many catches, touches, etc. If an offense is based so much on one guy dominating the football, it limits the amount of touches everybody else gets and could cause locker room problems. Everybody is happy with Tom Brady because Randy Moss gets his catches, Wes Welker gets his catches, etc., etc. Come contract time, not only have these guys been winning, but they've been individually productive and they can thank Brady because if they get open, they know Brady will get them the ball. It's the opposite of a Mike Vick. You might run your pattern perfect, be open, then turn around and see Vick running with it or trying to force a deep ball to someone not open. That's frustrating because it not only affects the outcome of the game, but also your catches, yards, etc., and, at the end of the day, your next contract.

Same thing in the NBA. It's a career destroyer for another scorer to play with Kobe Bryant, because he's going to dominate the ball so much, you are going to be relegated to a "role." Whereas a Tim Duncan is going to run an offense and take "good" shots and a Steve Nash or Jason Kidd are going to throw it to the open man. What's better for your career as an NBA scorer. Playing with Nash or playing with Bryant?

[BISON Thunder]

It's the latest trend, the "spread" offense. It's a reaction to what had been the trend in defenses, to blitz a lot and play man. Two good ways to beat blitzing teams is 1. by showing them option to force them to abandon their blitz principals and play assignments and 2. by having a good running QB who can sidestep pressure and either deliver the pass or tuck it and run because he'll have a lot of open field to run with with pass rushers behind him and defensive backs with their backs turned in man coverage ahead of him.

I suspect as more teams go to the spread, more defenses will find ways to adjust to it both with scheme and personnel. It's been that way throughout football history.

In the early days, when teams didn't pass much, defenses would line up in things like the 5-3, the 7-diamond and six-man lines. As the passing game developed, teams started to go to four-men secondaries. Offenses went to a T-formation and defenses responded with an "Eagle" 5-2 look, then when offenses adjusted with the split-T, Bud Wilkerson came up with the "Okie" 50, altering the way defenses lined up in the 5-2. When the game evolved with even more passing, teams gave up a lineman and went with the 4-3. After Bill Walsh revolutionized the game with his "West Coast" passing offense, the eventual reaction was the 3-4 and more pass rushers to disrupt the timing of the west coast.

There's also been changes in personnel. A great example is how the west coast redefined the QB position or how the I formation set up whole new techniques and skills for running backs. Each of these innovations called for different kinds of players with different skill sets. The greatest example I can think of is Lawrence Taylor. Parcells came up with the 3-4 to disrupt the passing games that dominated pro football in the early 80s. What made the 3-4 work is having that dominant pass-rushing outside linebacker who could single-handedly disrupt the timing of a west coast-style offense. Lawrence Taylor was the answer to Joe Montana, basically. In turn, it also forced a redefinition of what was valuable from an offensive tackle. Before the 3-4, it was the ability to pancake a DT. After Taylor, it was the foot speed to block a LB with a 4.5 40-yard dash time coming off the edge.

Now the spread is the new offense and defenses have to adjust to it. In the early days of the veer, nobody could stop Bill Yeoman's offense at UH, but they eventually adjusted. For a while, the NFL of the late 70s and early 80s had become about who had the ball last in all these shootouts. After the Giants revolutionized defense, the game changed. We're in the early days of the spread offense with all these running QBs. It wasn't long ago that Rich Rodriguez was running it at Tulane and few people even noticed. Now, there's hardly a team in America (outside the Big 10, ha) that doesn't line up in some shotgun and run the cut-read option play...they may use the I as their base offense, but everybody runs SOME spread...

So you can bet that as defenses coaches across America recruit this winter, they are thinking about that. In the SC, every team is thinking about what kind of player do we need to contain an Armani Edwards? I think it's smaller, quicker players at linebacker and DE. Your middle LB has to be able to tackle in space. If he can do that and you can tackle the QB in space one-on-one consistently, I think you can defend the spead (easier said than done against a player as good as Edwards...).

I think it's a matter of time before you also start seeing some blitz packages or junk defenses that take away the spread's strengths while minimizing vulnerabilities. A couple of years ago, everybody was running "zone blitzes" and that was the trend on defense to confuse QBs running these read-based pocket-passing games. There will soon be another trendy term on defense...some kind of defensive package or blitz geared specifically to stop elements of the spread...
Post of the year...and its only January 2nd.

[813Jag]

It's the latest trend, the "spread" offense. It's a reaction to what had been the trend in defenses, to blitz a lot and play man. Two good ways to beat blitzing teams is 1. by showing them option to force them to abandon their blitz principals and play assignments and 2. by having a good running QB who can sidestep pressure and either deliver the pass or tuck it and run because he'll have a lot of open field to run with with pass rushers behind him and defensive backs with their backs turned in man coverage ahead of him.

I suspect as more teams go to the spread, more defenses will find ways to adjust to it both with scheme and personnel. It's been that way throughout football history.

In the early days, when teams didn't pass much, defenses would line up in things like the 5-3, the 7-diamond and six-man lines. As the passing game developed, teams started to go to four-men secondaries. Offenses went to a T-formation and defenses responded with an "Eagle" 5-2 look, then when offenses adjusted with the split-T, Bud Wilkerson came up with the "Okie" 50, altering the way defenses lined up in the 5-2. When the game evolved with even more passing, teams gave up a lineman and went with the 4-3. After Bill Walsh revolutionized the game with his "West Coast" passing offense, the eventual reaction was the 3-4 and more pass rushers to disrupt the timing of the west coast.

There's also been changes in personnel. A great example is how the west coast redefined the QB position or how the I formation set up whole new techniques and skills for running backs. Each of these innovations called for different kinds of players with different skill sets. The greatest example I can think of is Lawrence Taylor. Parcells came up with the 3-4 to disrupt the passing games that dominated pro football in the early 80s. What made the 3-4 work is having that dominant pass-rushing outside linebacker who could single-handedly disrupt the timing of a west coast-style offense. Lawrence Taylor was the answer to Joe Montana, basically. In turn, it also forced a redefinition of what was valuable from an offensive tackle. Before the 3-4, it was the ability to pancake a DT. After Taylor, it was the foot speed to block a LB with a 4.5 40-yard dash time coming off the edge.

Now the spread is the new offense and defenses have to adjust to it. In the early days of the veer, nobody could stop Bill Yeoman's offense at UH, but they eventually adjusted. For a while, the NFL of the late 70s and early 80s had become about who had the ball last in all these shootouts. After the Giants revolutionized defense, the game changed. We're in the early days of the spread offense with all these running QBs. It wasn't long ago that Rich Rodriguez was running it at Tulane and few people even noticed. Now, there's hardly a team in America (outside the Big 10, ha) that doesn't line up in some shotgun and run the cut-read option play...they may use the I as their base offense, but everybody runs SOME spread...

So you can bet that as defenses coaches across America recruit this winter, they are thinking about that. In the SC, every team is thinking about what kind of player do we need to contain an Armani Edwards? I think it's smaller, quicker players at linebacker and DE. Your middle LB has to be able to tackle in space. If he can do that and you can tackle the QB in space one-on-one consistently, I think you can defend the spead (easier said than done against a player as good as Edwards...).

I think it's a matter of time before you also start seeing some blitz packages or junk defenses that take away the spread's strengths while minimizing vulnerabilities. A couple of years ago, everybody was running "zone blitzes" and that was the trend on defense to confuse QBs running these read-based pocket-passing games. There will soon be another trendy term on defense...some kind of defensive package or blitz geared specifically to stop elements of the spread...
Great Post! xthumbsupx

[back2back]

The NFL is a copy cat league. 5-7 step qb's are in vogue. If Tebow came out this year, Henne would be drafted ahead of him, because he is considered an NFL QB. Henne played great yesterday, but as I watched and I was watching 4 games at the same time, it seemed that he didn't get much pressure put on him. Without pressure, a great arm and great players to throw too you should look good! On the other hand Colt Brennan's draft status goes down, because it was obvious he had not seen pressure like Georgia put on him. He was more worried about the rush than finishing the play. Ala David Carr of the Carolina Panthers. Great QB's in the league are those that read defenses, make good decisions, put the ball in the window, have adequate protection and stand in the face of pressure. Tebow did none of these yesterday and Henne did, that is why they won.

[jbuggASU]

The arguments against the spread in the pros are 1) risk of injury, and 2) Michael Vick. Teams invest a lot of money in their signal-callers, but frankly, if I'm a head coach, given the choice between risking my quarterback or my job, that's not really a hard decision. The Dogfighter was fast and elusive, but his arm was terrible, and that was never a spread offense to begin with.

xthumbsupx

[mrklean]

The only way we're ever going to see the spread option in the NFL would be if it becomes the dominant college offense, making for a much shallower pool of traditional passers worthy of being drafted.

The arguments against the spread in the pros are 1) risk of injury, and 2) Michael Vick. Teams invest a lot of money in their signal-callers, but frankly, if I'm a head coach, given the choice between risking my quarterback or my job, that's not really a hard decision. The Dogfighter was fast and elusive, but his arm was terrible, and that was never a spread offense to begin with.


I guess you never senn the Falcons play? MV7 had the strongest arm in the NFL...PERIOD!

[citdog]

I guess you never senn the Falcons play? MV7 had the strongest arm in the NFL...PERIOD!


he did have a strong arm... that happens when you use your arm to strangle animals.

[mcveyrl]

I think the best spread offense imitation you could do in the NFL would look a lot like the run and shoot. Remember, the base definition of the spread is to spread the defense out, usually with 4 WRs. It doesn't necessarily mean a frequently running QB, that's the spread option.

The spread in the NFL would have a lot of rollouts (with line shifting and QB option to run), WR screens and draw plays. The ideal QB would be mobile with some meat on his bones, a la McNabb (in his hey day), the Youngs (Steve and Vince) and maybe Jackson in Minn.

I believe that UD runs the spread offense, and we all know that Joe Flacco's not exactly speedy Gonzales.

[bench]

I guess you never senn the Falcons play? MV7 had the strongest arm in the NFL...PERIOD!

Doesn't matter if he had a howitzer, he couldn't put the ball where it needed to go.

[mrklean]

he did have a strong arm... that happens when you use your arm to strangle animals.

You southern boys got it from the english. Guess who created the pitbull Terrier???

[mrklean]

Doesn't matter if he had a howitzer, he couldn't put the ball where it needed to go.

LIke I said, you did not wacth the Falcons for the past 6 years.

[citdog]

Guess who created the pitbull Terrier???


I believe his name is AYERS! xnodx xnodx

[bench]

LIke I said, you did not wacth the Falcons for the past 6 years.

Vick's career completion percentage:

2001: 50-113, 44.2%
2002: 231-421, 54.9%
2003: 50-100, 50.0%
2004: 181-321, 56.4%
2005: 214-387, 55.3%
2006: 204-388, 52.6%
Career: 930-1730, 53.8%

He never even came close to cracking 60%. Twenty-four quarterbacks have completed 60% or more of their passes this season. Rex Grossman's career completion percentage is 54.3%, half a percentage point higher than Vick's. He was about as accurate as my dick.

For the record, I think the charges against Vick were totally bogus. What could he have possibly beaten those dogs with? God knows he isn't capable of beating anything with his arms.

[Monarch History]

For the record, I think the charges against Vick were totally bogus. What could he have possibly beaten those dogs with? God knows he isn't capable of beating anything with his arms.

xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Ivytalk]

In '05 and '06, Harvard had a mobile QB who scrambled well but made terrible decisions in the passing game that cost the Crimson several wins. This year, we had a classic pocket passer of limited mobility who made very few mistakes. Result: An Ivy League championship!xthumbsupx

[08Dawg]

The best of every world is somebody like Duran Lawson. I know, I know I'm homering, but think about it. Duran was an accurate passer, and if he couldn't get the ball to Jernigan, Roberts or Cornett, he could beat you with his legs. My sense is that Armanti, while a good passer, is much more willing to run.

[mcveyrl]

In '05 and '06, Harvard had a mobile QB who scrambled well but made terrible decisions in the passing game that cost the Crimson several wins. This year, we had a classic pocket passer of limited mobility who made very few mistakes. Result: An Ivy League championship!xthumbsupx

Thus proving that substance wins out over form every time...

Except with hot chicks...

[phillyAPP]

The best of every world is somebody like Duran Lawson. I know, I know I'm homering, but think about it. Duran was an accurate passer, and if he couldn't get the ball to Jernigan, Roberts or Cornett, he could beat you with his legs. My sense is that Armanti, while a good passer, is much more willing to run.


AE doesn't care either way.

He reads the defense and throws or runs whichever gets the job done.

He does both VERY well. Stats prove that. Check the stats in playoffs.

????? yards running--- ????? yards passing----- ZERO Interceptions.

[Ivytalk]

Thus proving that substance wins out over form every time...

Except with hot chicks...

I'll have to grant you that!:o







:p

[McNeese_beat]

Post of the year...and its only January 2nd.

Ha! That means it'll get passed up 363 times or so...

:o :o

[seantaylor]

Vick had a strong arm, but not the strongest in the NFL. Favre, Big Ben, and Palmer had stronger arms.

[eaglesrthe1]

The only way we're ever going to see the spread option in the NFL would be if it becomes the dominant college offense, making for a much shallower pool of traditional passers worthy of being drafted.

The arguments against the spread in the pros are 1) risk of injury, and 2) Michael Vick. Teams invest a lot of money in their signal-callers, but frankly, if I'm a head coach, given the choice between risking my quarterback or my job, that's not really a hard decision. The Dogfighter was fast and elusive, but his arm was terrible, and that was never a spread offense to begin with.



I guess you never senn the Falcons play? MV7 had the strongest arm in the NFL...PERIOD!


Really hoss, terrible doesn't mean weak, it just means terrible. To put it into context, rating the arm strength of the QB's who play for the Eagles... Clark would definitely be first in strength, and yet he's probably 4th on the charts now. Last year, Foster probably had the weakest arm and while he wasn't the best passer, I would still have had him throwing the ball than Clark. At least it had a chance of being caught.

[UNIFanSince1983]

Either spread option or especially traditional option would never work in the NFL due to the size and speed of the defenders. With both of these offenses the quarterback gets hit way too much and it gives the defense free reign to knock the quarterbacks head off when he doesn't have the ball.

About Vick. He did have a very strong arm. But NFL quarterback position is more about accuracy and head smarts on the field, and I am sorry but Vick really had neither one of those. Unless you get a quarterback who can run like Vick but pass like Brady I don't see a running quarterback working in the NFL. Just way too much size and speed on defense.

[McNeese_beat]

Vick had a strong arm, but not the strongest in the NFL. Favre, Big Ben, and Palmer had stronger arms.

I'd like to see a contest for pure ball velocity and distance. Vick might take them all. Culpepper in his prime would be right there. You are right about Favre though, although I'm not sure he throws with quite the same velocity he did 10 years ago. He used to break hands with his passes...maybe he still does, I don't know.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'd like to see a contest for pure ball velocity and distance. Vick might take them all. Culpepper in his prime would be right there. You are right about Favre though, although I'm not sure he throws with quite the same velocity he did 10 years ago. He used to break hands with his passes...maybe he still does, I don't know.

Jamarcus Russell imo.

[Rob Iola]

Remember the Elway Cross?

[lucchesicourt]

What does arm strenth matter. Sure, even a strong accurate arm could be good or bad. It really depends on the velocity. If a pass is thrown so hard a receiver cannot hold onto it, who's fault is the receiver or the QB because of a poor decision (velocity of the ball/distance traveled= less reaction time for the receiver to catch the ball). Touch and accuracy are much more important than arm strenth. Let's be real, the strongest arm in the NFL may not be a QB at all, but maybe a lineman's or line backer's. Arm strength is NOT all it is cracked up to be. Montana and Brady are definitely not up there as far as arm strength, but who wouldn't take them? IMO arm strenth is the most overrated attribute to a QB.

[Appinator]

Quick analysis:

While the quarterback is in most recent years been someone who has had a "laser rocket arm" and lumbered in the pocket, for many years this position was the feature back of an all run offense. The forward pass revolutionized how the game was played, but even the original "modern day" quarterbacks (YA Tittle, Otto Graham) were run first the majority of the time.

Now we have three types of scramblers in our game:

The mobile quarterback: someone who can read a defense, elude pressure to make a pass or, if they have to, grab a first down. These are guys like Farve, Romo, Elway, and Young. Passing first, but if they catch you napping, they will make something of it.

The playmaker: Someone who reads the first option in the passing game, makes a good throw if they are open, and runs if they are not. These types of players do read defenses well; their check down though is to the open field in front of them, not the 3rd or fourth option at wide receiver. They are able to escape and make great throws on the run later in games against a defense that creeps up and gives too much respect to the QBs running ability.

The athlete: Obviously all QBs are athletes, but I mean this more in a scouting way. This type of player can throw an 80 yard pass in practice, run a 4.3, and looks amazing in drills, but they are not a QB. They are much like some of the QBs discussed on here by people who confuse them with mobile QBs or even playmakers. They can run, they can throw, but they cannot pass. These players sometimes give defenses headaches, sometimes easy turnovers, but they are not the things legends are made of. Most of the time they are a glorified WR or too tall of a RB.

AE is undoubtedly a playmaker, but he will not check down like Payton Manning either. Watch game film, App will pick you apart with first glance speed routes (Dexter Jackson's opening TD against Michigan) or first check long passes (TD passes to TE vs. Richmond). I will not complain about AE's passing ability, because usually those passes could not be more on the money. I'll take him any day of the week, and all of the national championships he can carry across that graduation stage.

[ERASU2113]

I'd like to see a contest for pure ball velocity and distance. Vick might take them all. Culpepper in his prime would be right there. You are right about Favre though, although I'm not sure he throws with quite the same velocity he did 10 years ago. He used to break hands with his passes...maybe he still does, I don't know.

I remember a couple of years ago it was mentioned he broke fingers of JaVon Walker and Donald Driver. Couldn't be over five years ago, but definitely his velocity has come down over the years.

[catdaddy2402]

IMO history has shown that you will be more successful in the NFL with a QB with a weaker arm, but solid accuracy than a QB with a cannon for an arm...but poor accuracy. You can adapt your passing scheme to a QB with a weaker arm (the West Coast offense provided a number of weak armed QB's with a career)....you can't adapt your passing game to one who can throw it a country mile but can't hit his man.

[AppStsGr8]

To draw an analogy from target shooting - you can't miss fast enough to catch up .... If I had to choose accuracy or velocity in passing, I'd choose accuracy.

[catdaddy2402]

To draw an analogy from target shooting - you can't miss fast enough to catch up .... If I had to choose accuracy or velocity in passing, I'd choose accuracy.

THAT'S the quote I was racking my brain for last night. If I had a nickle for every time my Granddaddy told me that while we were shooting skeet I'd need a dump truck to make the deposit.xlolx

[ASU_Pads]

I don't think anybody's really tried it in the NFL. I don't think any NFL team has decided to commit to some kind of option style of offense...either the more traditional option or the shotgun option that's become popular... that is designed to regularly feature an athletic quarterback running the ball.

I'd love to see somebody actually commit to it, focus on acquiring the right kind of personnel to run it, and give it a fair shot.

I agree 100%. No one in the NFL has given the spread option a fair chance. It will take a special team to pull it off, a very fast team. I honestly belive the Falcons had a shot with Mike Vick and Warrick Dunn in the backfield together with the likes of Crumpler to dump the ball off to. This offense is the future of football, it will revolutionize the game much in the same way the "west coast offense" did. Look at college football. Pay attention to who runs it well, and look who is on top. Florida, Oregon (who was much better before Dixon was injured), Illinois (undermanned, but still had a great season), West Virginia, now Auburn and soon to be Michigan... oh yeah, and a little team from Boone, North Carolina. If anyone in the NFL would devote 3 or 4 years to getting the right athletes and coaches, the NFL would be taken by storm. I don't buy into the fact that defenses are just too big and too quick in the pros. Ohio State was supposed to have one of the best offenses in the nation last year and the Gators hung 41 on them in the BCS championship game. The same goes for West Virginia taking Oklahoma behind the shed a few nights ago. Oh, and ask the Michigan Wolverines what they think of the spread option after they were out-smarted, out-hearted, out-quicked, and out-played by an under-manned, but dangerous Appalachian State squad.