Justin Fields and his Steelers

The problem with running QBs is the fact that running with the ball has the highest incidence of injuries. RBs have the shortest average careers because of the high injury rate. Yes, most colleges now have running QBs, however, colleges have unlimited rosters and can replace an injured player easily. In the pros, the QB has the highest percentage of the overall team payroll. That, plus the limited roster, means that if the QB gets injured running, the team is in big trouble.

No thanks. I'll take a mobile QB who can slide in the pocket and run on occasion rather than Fields or Hurts. Eventually, they will suffer serious injury if they keep it up.

Originally posted by dj43:
The problem with running QBs is the fact that running with the ball has the highest incidence of injuries. RBs have the shortest average careers because of the high injury rate. Yes, most colleges now have running QBs, however, colleges have unlimited rosters and can replace an injured player easily. In the pros, the QB has the highest percentage of the overall team payroll. That, plus the limited roster, means that if the QB gets injured running, the team is in big trouble.

No thanks. I'll take a mobile QB who can slide in the pocket and run on occasion rather than Fields or Hurts. Eventually, they will suffer serious injury if they keep it up.

How many times does it need to be said that there have been plenty of studies done that say there is zero evidence running QBs get hurt at a higher rate?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:
The problem with running QBs is the fact that running with the ball has the highest incidence of injuries. RBs have the shortest average careers because of the high injury rate. Yes, most colleges now have running QBs, however, colleges have unlimited rosters and can replace an injured player easily. In the pros, the QB has the highest percentage of the overall team payroll. That, plus the limited roster, means that if the QB gets injured running, the team is in big trouble.

No thanks. I'll take a mobile QB who can slide in the pocket and run on occasion rather than Fields or Hurts. Eventually, they will suffer serious injury if they keep it up.

How many times does it need to be said that there have been plenty of studies done that say there is zero evidence running QBs get hurt at a higher rate?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:
The problem with running QBs is the fact that running with the ball has the highest incidence of injuries. RBs have the shortest average careers because of the high injury rate. Yes, most colleges now have running QBs, however, colleges have unlimited rosters and can replace an injured player easily. In the pros, the QB has the highest percentage of the overall team payroll. That, plus the limited roster, means that if the QB gets injured running, the team is in big trouble.

No thanks. I'll take a mobile QB who can slide in the pocket and run on occasion rather than Fields or Hurts. Eventually, they will suffer serious injury if they keep it up.

How many times does it need to be said that there have been plenty of studies done that say there is zero evidence running QBs get hurt at a higher rate?

I'm not sure what studies you are seeing but a quick search has these two that cite RBs as the most injured.

https://ballathlete.com/most-dangerous-positions-in-football/

https://deltapawprint.com/1546/sports/common-injuries-in-football-by-position/

"The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found running backs are at risk more than anyone else on the field, 16 percent of injuries occurred, higher than any other position. They are at risk of Ankle and Head injuries, mostly sprained ankles and concussions."

On the 49ers, RBs certainly have a high injury rate.

Bottom line: Consistently exposing the QB to both the injuries that pocket passers incur PLUS the injuries a QB incurs will certainly decrease the career of the player.

DJ we aren't talking about running backs. We are talking about quarterbacks.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:
The problem with running QBs is the fact that running with the ball has the highest incidence of injuries. RBs have the shortest average careers because of the high injury rate. Yes, most colleges now have running QBs, however, colleges have unlimited rosters and can replace an injured player easily. In the pros, the QB has the highest percentage of the overall team payroll. That, plus the limited roster, means that if the QB gets injured running, the team is in big trouble.

No thanks. I'll take a mobile QB who can slide in the pocket and run on occasion rather than Fields or Hurts. Eventually, they will suffer serious injury if they keep it up.

How many times does it need to be said that there have been plenty of studies done that say there is zero evidence running QBs get hurt at a higher rate?

I'm not sure what studies you are seeing but a quick search has these two that cite RBs as the most injured.

https://ballathlete.com/most-dangerous-positions-in-football/

https://deltapawprint.com/1546/sports/common-injuries-in-football-by-position/

"The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found running backs are at risk more than anyone else on the field, 16 percent of injuries occurred, higher than any other position. They are at risk of Ankle and Head injuries, mostly sprained ankles and concussions."

On the 49ers, RBs certainly have a high injury rate.

Bottom line: Consistently exposing the QB to both the injuries that pocket passers incur PLUS the injuries a QB incurs will certainly decrease the career of the player.

This was explained ad nauseum.. and he doesn't regard those as legit as they involve running backs not quarterbacks. It defies common sense not to realize that repeated contact, particularly violent contact, correlates highly with injury. The more your QB is contacted the more the injury chance goes up. It's an open question if running QBs are contacted more or not I would say they are, depends on the QB tho. How would any study capture this is my question I mean who qualifies as a 'running QB'. JG got wrecked running so did Bledsoe famously it ushered in the TB12 era.. they both got wrecked running yet no one would call them 'running QBs'. Hard contact is what did both of them in.

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by jimmy3233:
Injury prone

Ohio St-Ribs
Last year-Ribs missed 6-8 games
This year-Separated shoulder, prolly needs surgery and likely misses rest of year since bears out of playoff contention

if he ever gets healthy he has a chance to be a gadget type RB in the league. He's not an NFL QB, more than enough game film to show that.

He isn't a finished product as a passer. Could make leaps in the off-season and I don't doubt he will put in the work. But only time will tell if he can make the necessary leaps to improve this area of his game.

lol he can't. He was supposed to be way more ready for the NFL game compared to Lance and ppl had expectations he should be a legit NFL starter first day in the league regardless of being on the bears (who made playoffs year before and were not a complete s**tshow like Texans/Jags/Jets).

He can't read defenses. He holds the ball too long. He is horribly inaccurate on short to intermediate throws. This year he can finally see wide open WRs so has increased his overall TD numbers with his above average arm strength.

He's basically a glorified RB now...I think HC gave up on him as a passer and told him to just start running the ball every 2-4 plays regardless of the play call.

He's injured again and will keep getting injured the more he runs. He can't develop as a passer when his primary success is running the ball and he has proven to be a very injury prone QB.

Btw his work ethnic is piss poor (last one in, first one out) according to reports prior to draft. Shanahan probably picked up on that in the interviews he had with him that's why he didn't spend one second thinking about him as a legit option.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:
The problem with running QBs is the fact that running with the ball has the highest incidence of injuries. RBs have the shortest average careers because of the high injury rate. Yes, most colleges now have running QBs, however, colleges have unlimited rosters and can replace an injured player easily. In the pros, the QB has the highest percentage of the overall team payroll. That, plus the limited roster, means that if the QB gets injured running, the team is in big trouble.

No thanks. I'll take a mobile QB who can slide in the pocket and run on occasion rather than Fields or Hurts. Eventually, they will suffer serious injury if they keep it up.

How many times does it need to be said that there have been plenty of studies done that say there is zero evidence running QBs get hurt at a higher rate?

I'm not sure what studies you are seeing but a quick search has these two that cite RBs as the most injured.

https://ballathlete.com/most-dangerous-positions-in-football/

https://deltapawprint.com/1546/sports/common-injuries-in-football-by-position/

"The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found running backs are at risk more than anyone else on the field, 16 percent of injuries occurred, higher than any other position. They are at risk of Ankle and Head injuries, mostly sprained ankles and concussions."

On the 49ers, RBs certainly have a high injury rate.

Bottom line: Consistently exposing the QB to both the injuries that pocket passers incur PLUS the injuries a QB incurs will certainly decrease the career of the player.

This was explained ad nauseum.. and he doesn't regard those as legit as they involve running backs not quarterbacks. It defies common sense not to realize that repeated contact, particularly violent contact, correlates highly with injury. The more your QB is contacted the more the injury chance goes up. It's an open question if running QBs are contacted more or not I would say they are, depends on the QB tho. How would any study capture this is my question I mean who qualifies as a 'running QB'. JG got wrecked running so did Bledsoe famously it ushered in the TB12 era.. they both got wrecked running yet no one would call them 'running QBs'. Hard contact is what did both of them in.

Of course, the obvious point was, when a QB becomes a runner, whether by design or otherwise, he is more susceptible to injury. Hence, the QB should be used sparingly as a runner. While Justin Fields may not be a typical example, the fact he has been hurt and is not able to play should give pause to the QB as a regular part of the run game.

Originally posted by dj43:
Of course, the obvious point was, when a QB becomes a runner, whether by design or otherwise, he is more susceptible to injury. Hence, the QB should be used sparingly as a runner. While Justin Fields may not be a typical example, the fact he has been hurt and is not able to play should give pause to the QB as a regular part of the run game.

Good posts in here DJ, I would say you gotta do it with Fields as his running is LETHAL.. however slide, use that quickness to get down, limit the very hard contact plays. He had a TD (I think vs DET) where he completely trucked a guy and I thought you don't want that even if a TD.. unless it's playoff football.. I don't want to see that play. Let the RB truck ppl.

Someone posted these stats earlier in the thread and it just has to be revisited. Fields v Allen first 19 games. I think you gotta give Fields the same time you gave Allen, he is putting up the numbers.

Justin Fields --
59% Completion Pct
17-15 TD/INT Ratio
79.4 Passer Rating
988 Rush Yards

Josh Allen --
56.8% Completion Pct
20-19 TD/INT Ratio
74.9 Passer Rating
852 Rush Yards

Anyone thought Buffalo should have given up on Josh early? Nonsense right. Fields can only get better and the overall passing stats aren't terrible given the team. He has a whole new coaching staff this year too. He's doing great with what he has.

Over/under on how many games until he gets another injury ending his season?

With a separated shoulder they will be just running him every other play.

He's at it again boys. Best QB on the field today?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
He's at it again boys. Best QB on the field today?

Wouldn't want him. He's too fast for us, lol!

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
He's at it again boys. Best QB on the field today?

oh he's just running now? Against the tanking Pack?
I might anger a few but......

I need to see accurate passes and Mahomes like precision.

Not Mostert at QB. He doesn't have a Fullback body like Lamar. He'll get injured or tear something and then what?