Evolution of the Quarterback Position

Originally posted by jimmy3233:

Originally posted by LayTheWoodall:

Originally posted by jimmy3233:
the major rule change protecting sliding QBs even if the defender is the middle of the air makes getting a mobile QB more important than ever. Teach a QB to mix in a fake slide every now and then and it becomes even more dangerous.

This was how Arizona beat us in week 1

exactly! justin fields and trey lance can easily be coached up to do the same and be even deadly than midget murray.

Russell Wilson big fan of this

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
There is absolutely no correlation between being a mobile/scrambling QB and getting injured. I dont understand why people continue to run with this idea as fact, when its not even close to being that.

Perhaps not acute "injuries," but they absolutely do not have the sustainability of pocket passers. That more than anything is the issue with building your franchise around a run-first QB.

I have no interest in a run first QB (Lamar Jackson type), personally. But you are arguing something different now.

I remember going through this with Kap and how the read option was the future of the QB. Everyone wants a dual threat QB until that QB loses his legs a few years in the league. I think the ideal QB is Mahomes & Aaron Rodgers. Not a Mike Vick type.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
There is absolutely no correlation between being a mobile/scrambling QB and getting injured. I dont understand why people continue to run with this idea as fact, when its not even close to being that.

Perhaps not acute "injuries," but they absolutely do not have the sustainability of pocket passers. That more than anything is the issue with building your franchise around a run-first QB.

I have no interest in a run first QB (Lamar Jackson type), personally. But you are arguing something different now.

Then what do you mean by "mobile/scrambling QB?"

Originally posted by miked1978:
I remember going through this with Kap and how the read option was the future of the QB. Everyone wants a dual threat QB until that QB loses his legs a few years in the league. I think the ideal QB is Mahomes & Aaron Rodgers. Not a Mike Vick type.

Personally I think a QB has to be a QB first before his athleticism can pay off. Steve Young won a super bowl because he could play in the pocket and *occasionally* scramble. Whereas if you go back to Colin (for whatever reason) he was really bad playing QB in the pocket and his athleticism didn't help him play QB one bit.

I'll just take a **blind guess** at it, and hopefully some folks will respond to my guess and give me a better number --- but I think athleticism is worth only at most 7% of a total QBs overall performance. In other words athleticism only matters in 7% of the plays a Coach would call on GameDay. That's about 1 to 3 plays a game, and that could be a difference maker-- if the QB is a good pocket QB in the first place. If not, then his athleticism is worthless.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
There is absolutely no correlation between being a mobile/scrambling QB and getting injured. I dont understand why people continue to run with this idea as fact, when its not even close to being that.

Perhaps not acute "injuries," but they absolutely do not have the sustainability of pocket passers. That more than anything is the issue with building your franchise around a run-first QB.

I have no interest in a run first QB (Lamar Jackson type), personally. But you are arguing something different now.

Then what do you mean by "mobile/scrambling QB?"

All I'm saying I dont want a Lamar Jackson type QB (which is a different conversation than what I was originally responding to).

People are saying they dont want a mobile QB because operating outside of the pocket gets you injured. There is no factual evidence to support that belief.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
There is absolutely no correlation between being a mobile/scrambling QB and getting injured. I dont understand why people continue to run with this idea as fact, when its not even close to being that.

Perhaps not acute "injuries," but they absolutely do not have the sustainability of pocket passers. That more than anything is the issue with building your franchise around a run-first QB.

I have no interest in a run first QB (Lamar Jackson type), personally. But you are arguing something different now.

Then what do you mean by "mobile/scrambling QB?"

All I'm saying I dont want a Lamar Jackson type QB (which is a different conversation than what I was originally responding to).

People are saying they dont want a mobile QB because operating outside of the pocket gets you injured. There is no factual evidence to support that belief.

Dude. QB's who rely on their legs, rather than their arm, have FAR shorter careers than the opposite. We need a pass first QB. Period.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
There is absolutely no correlation between being a mobile/scrambling QB and getting injured. I dont understand why people continue to run with this idea as fact, when its not even close to being that.

Perhaps not acute "injuries," but they absolutely do not have the sustainability of pocket passers. That more than anything is the issue with building your franchise around a run-first QB.

I have no interest in a run first QB (Lamar Jackson type), personally. But you are arguing something different now.

Then what do you mean by "mobile/scrambling QB?"

All I'm saying I dont want a Lamar Jackson type QB (which is a different conversation than what I was originally responding to).

People are saying they dont want a mobile QB because operating outside of the pocket gets you injured. There is no factual evidence to support that belief.

Dude. QB's who rely on their legs, rather than their arm, have FAR shorter careers than the opposite. We need a pass first QB. Period.

Yeah but again thats a different argument entirely. I feel like you arent listening to me. Its not that run first QBs get hurt and thats why their careers are shorter (which is what I was arguing against). As players age, they lose their athleticism. Thats why the run first QBs flame out faster than the pass first ones. Its not because of injury. I dont disagree with you that we need a pass first QB, as I have been saying that this whole time.

Pretty soon all QB will be like Devin Hester with an arm.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
There is absolutely no correlation between being a mobile/scrambling QB and getting injured. I dont understand why people continue to run with this idea as fact, when its not even close to being that.

I think everyone thinks about RGIII, Watson's multiple ACL'S and Prescott's now bionic ankle.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by miked1978:
I remember going through this with Kap and how the read option was the future of the QB. Everyone wants a dual threat QB until that QB loses his legs a few years in the league. I think the ideal QB is Mahomes & Aaron Rodgers. Not a Mike Vick type.

Personally I think a QB has to be a QB first before his athleticism can pay off. Steve Young won a super bowl because he could play in the pocket and *occasionally* scramble. Whereas if you go back to Colin (for whatever reason) he was really bad playing QB in the pocket and his athleticism didn't help him play QB one bit.

I'll just take a **blind guess** at it, and hopefully some folks will respond to my guess and give me a better number --- but I think athleticism is worth only at most 7% of a total QBs overall performance. In other words athleticism only matters in 7% of the plays a Coach would call on GameDay. That's about 1 to 3 plays a game, and that could be a difference maker-- if the QB is a good pocket QB in the first place. If not, then his athleticism is worthless.

Some really interesting info in an interview of Gregg Cosell about how NFL coaches evaluate QB's, by Matt Maiocco this week.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-cosell-weighs-49ers-fits-for-qb-nfl-draft-prospects/id1153457233?i=1000517629173

Here's a few quotes from Gregg that apply to our discussion.

"Mac Jones raises a lot of questions that coaches are debating…what the balance is between being an efficient pocket QB and one that is improvisational."

"I have not spoken to one coach who has said that you draft a player based on his ability to extend plays. Coaches work 16-17 hours a day and put in a structure to attack an opponent and they want that structure executed, If you can't execute the structure of an offense you can't play QB in the NFL."

Gregg went on to say there is a spectrum of between executing a structure offense and being able to improvise. Coaches want their QB's to execute the structure 100% of the time but like the added dimension when it is available.

Maiocco went on to say it's not about leapfrogging a guy who is really good playing from the pocket and within structure to get someone who has that running ability.

All this seems to say that executing the game plan with highest efficiency is the most important element in evaluating a QB. That is what coaches still want and this has not changed.

That said, if two QB's are equal as pocket QB's who execute the offense well, then you obviously pick the one who has an added dimension of operating outside of structure, running and scrambling.

Fans seem to be leaning more toward the out side of structure skills than do NFL coaches. Good food for thought heading into next Thursday.

Originally posted by barrymartin:
Some really interesting info in an interview of Gregg Cosell about how NFL coaches evaluate QB's, by Matt Maiocco this week.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-cosell-weighs-49ers-fits-for-qb-nfl-draft-prospects/id1153457233?i=1000517629173

Here's a few quotes from Gregg that apply to our discussion.

"Mac Jones raises a lot of questions that coaches are debating…what the balance is between being an efficient pocket QB and one that is improvisational."

"I have not spoken to one coach who has said that you draft a player based on his ability to extend plays. Coaches work 16-17 hours a day and put in a structure to attack an opponent and they want that structure executed, If you can't execute the structure of an offense you can't play QB in the NFL."

Gregg went on to say there is a spectrum of between executing a structure offense and being able to improvise. Coaches want their QB's to execute the structure 100% of the time but like the added dimension when it is available.

Maiocco went on to say it's not about leapfrogging a guy who is really good playing from the pocket and within structure to get someone who has that running ability.

All this seems to say that executing the game plan with highest efficiency is the most important element in evaluating a QB. That is what coaches still want and this has not changed.

That said, if two QB's are equal as pocket QB's who execute the offense well, then you obviously pick the one who has an added dimension of operating outside of structure, running and scrambling.

Fans seem to be leaning more toward the out side of structure skills than do NFL coaches. Good food for thought heading into next Thursday.

"What separates me is my preparation and my ability to take what I learn from the coaches' meetings and my meetings and then apply it to the field," Jones said during a Monday video news conference, via Matt Barrows of The Athletic. "I'm going to do exactly what the coach tells me to do. I'm going to play within the framework of the offense."

I think the issue here is that people keep mistaking flashy for dynamic. Lamar Jackson is flashy, and personally I think he'll be out of the league in 5 years. "That's crazy!" I hear you say but we watched it with Vince Young, RG3, Cap, Vick, and others.

Here is what you want:
Smart
Accurate
Arm to take advantage of those smarts and accuracy to hit the receivers at all 3 levels of the field.

Every now and then you get a Wilson that scrambles and makes magic but I would argue that's a bigger issue with o-line than something to evaluate in my QB.

Give me a Mahommes/Rodgers or hell, even a Brees that can see pressure, move enough to extend and hit that receiver 40 yards away the d gave up on. Not the dude that tucks and trucks. They flash and fizzle, they don't win for 15 years.

Originally posted by titan:
Pretty soon all QB will be like Devin Hester with an arm.

LMFAO!!!