The QB Market Needs To Crash

[blue4]

Won't know until someone has the balls to try. But, I like it's chances as the premise isn't reliant upon having one of the rare pocket passers that the majority of NFL teams never get on their squads, but need for their traditional offenses to excel.

I don't think you need a rare passer to have a good offense. If a team doesn't neglect it's offensive line you just need a competent one. Doesn't have to have rare talent, just a knowledge of where he's supposed to go with the fooball and be relatively accurate. While we don't agree on a type of QB we'd prefer to see, I think we do agree that the belief that no price is too steep for a "franchise" QB is false. There's a lot of people out there convinced you can't win without an elite QB despite the fact that there are only 3 or 4 truly elite guys out there now.

 

[jrry32]

Won't know until someone has the balls to try. But, I like it's chances as the premise isn't reliant upon having one of the rare pocket passers that the majority of NFL teams never get on their squads, but need for their traditional offenses to excel.



Extremely inconsistent and basic. It was kind of like what Fisher stated in an interview recently. This is what we are going to do, now stop it. Now don't get me wrong. Malzahn's offense carrying some of the same mindset, but due to all the formations and mis-direction it's NOT NEARLY as easy to read.

Yes, Tebow was an effective runner, but his game was more like a big brusing FB. Sure that will get you positive yards, but not nearly as many big plays.

They ran some zone read with Tebow. It wasn't traditional. McCoy was creative with it.

And again, I think you're selling Tebow short. He was a lot more elusive than you're giving him credit for. This is a guy who ran a 1.55 10 yard split with his 40 and a 6.66 3 cone drill. He's got burst and surprising quickness for his size. Just doesn't have the long speed of a guy like Nick Marshall or Terrelle Pryor.

Again, they had some success but the issue was that in games where teams clamped down on the run, they struggled to do much and in games where the opposition forced them into shootouts, they had troubles keeping up. Malzahn's tempo helps him a bit in those situations...but even still, the risk you run is that in games where you aren't winning the LOS...what do you do?

Even with a good OL, there will be games where you aren't winning the LOS in the run game.

That all said, I don't think what you're saying is necessarily wrong. I could see it working and if the choice is Schottenheimer and Shaun Hill/Austin Davis or Lashlee and Pryor/Marshall/Sims...give me the latter.

One last thing, I think Malzahn will get a shot at the NFL if he wants it.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I don't think you need a rare passer to have a good offense. If a team doesn't neglect it's offensive line you just need a competent one. Doesn't have to have rare talent, just a knowledge of where he's supposed to go with the fooball and be relatively accurate. While we don't agree on a type of QB we'd prefer to see, I think we do agree that the belief that no price is too steep for a "franchise" QB is false. There's a lot of people out there convinced you can't win without an elite QB despite the fact that there are only 3 or 4 truly elite guys out there now.

When I look around the league today, they type of QB of which you describe aren't plentiful. IMO, if they weren't rare, the supply vs. demand wouldn't be so off-kilter and these guys wouldn't be so vastly overpaid. I mean I'd think that at least half of the league would have one.

 

[Memphis Ram]

They ran some zone read with Tebow. It wasn't traditional. McCoy was creative with it.

And again, I think you're selling Tebow short. He was a lot more elusive than you're giving him credit for. This is a guy who ran a 1.55 10 yard split with his 40 and a 6.66 3 cone drill. He's got burst and surprising quickness for his size. Just doesn't have the long speed of a guy like Nick Marshall or Terrelle Pryor.

Again, they had some success but the issue was that in games where teams clamped down on the run, they struggled to do much and in games where the opposition forced them into shootouts, they had troubles keeping up. Malzahn's tempo helps him a bit in those situations...but even still, the risk you run is that in games where you aren't winning the LOS...what do you do?

Even with a good OL, there will be games where you aren't winning the LOS in the run game.

That all said, I don't think what you're saying is necessarily wrong. I could see it working and if the choice is Schottenheimer and Shaun Hill/Austin Davis or Lashlee and Pryor/Marshall/Sims...give me the latter.

One last thing, I think Malzahn will get a shot at the NFL if he wants it.

We will have to agree to disagree on Tebow. IMO, he may have been a lot more elusive in shorts, but he sure wasn't on the football field.

Not only would Malzahn's tempo help out, but also the mis-direction, various formations, spreading the defense out, and adjustments on plays were the QB has 2-4 options counter what the defense does. McCoy's offense wasn't nearly as creative. There also can be, what WCO guys call, short passing types extensions of the running game via high percentage passes to backs.

And while the passing game isn't the main focus, it's not non existent. This guy is still taking his shots down the field ala Arians where two good things can happen (reception, pass interference) or one bad thing can happen (INT). But, at least the bad thing can amount to a punt. And we will have to agree to disagree on whether guys like Marshall, Pryor, Taylor, Sims, or whomever they bring in can accomplish that, as I believe that they are ALL better passers than Tebow.

All in all, with a strong defense, run focused offenses can work in the NFL. The 49ers went to a Super Bowl and 3 of the last NFL Championship Games. The Seahawks won the whole shebang last year with Russell attempting the fewest passes of all starting QBs besides Kaepernick. And in that postseason he only threw for 103, 215, & 206 yards. Schottenhiemer should even know this in New York. Fisher watched the Ravens beat him doing it over and over in Tennessee. Malzahn's offense simply takes it to another level.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The trouble with this offense is it relies on Oline dominance, which is easier to come by in colleges big programs that recruit 4+ Olinemen each year and end up having good quality depth in case the much more rare college Oline injury occurs. These lines match up against lesser defenses though.

In the NFL even the best lines only end up with 2-3 top quality guys and then other good ones that benefit from those around them. The salary cap and injuries make it tough to consistently field an OLine that can dominate.

I hate to say it but Bellicheck gets it right most of the time. Somehow through coaching he makes his players play well. His bad secondary has become a strength, his OLine struggled without Mankins and is now playing well. When his QB goes down the backups look good enough for other teams to covet. Is it his system? Does he change with his personnel? I don't know but he is doing without elite players across the line.

 

[blue4]

When I look around the league today, they type of QB of which you describe aren't plentiful. IMO, if they weren't rare, the supply vs. demand wouldn't be so off-kilter and these guys wouldn't be so vastly overpaid. I mean I'd think that at least half of the league would have one.

What do you mean? Tannehill, Dalton, Flacco, Romo, Stafford, Ryan, Smith, Carr, Rivers.....
I'd say at least half the league does have one, or have draft picks in place developing. The problem is that people perceive the decent QB as a stopgap until they find a Dan Marino of their very own. They don't build a good football team by drafting BPA. They have silly rules like "I don't draft guards in the first round" They reach for QBs way ahead of their value, and start them 2 years before they are ready.
None of these guys are what I consider elite passers, yet somehow their teams still win football games. You take any of those names I just listed and put them on the Rams and we'd be talking about who we are going to face in the playoffs.

 

[Memphis Ram]

What do you mean? Tannehill, Dalton, Flacco, Romo, Stafford, Ryan, Smith, Carr, Rivers.....
I'd say at least half the league does have one, or have draft picks in place developing. The problem is that people perceive the decent QB as a stopgap until they find a Dan Marino of their very own. They don't build a good football team by drafting BPA. They have silly rules like "I don't draft guards in the first round" They reach for QBs way ahead of their value, and start them 2 years before they are ready.
None of these guys are what I consider elite passers, yet somehow their teams still win football games. You take any of those names I just listed and put them on the Rams and we'd be talking about who we are going to face in the playoffs.

Yet the Dolphins (Tannehill), Bengals (Dalton), Lions (Stafford), and Chiefs (Smith) with arguably better weapons in perhaps most cases, aren't scoring that many more points (if at all) than the Rams. And Carr hasn't proven anything yet. He's a guess just like the draft picks developing which there always are in this league. Thus, that's more than half your list right there that can be disputed, IMO.

 

[Memphis Ram]

The trouble with this offense is it relies on Oline dominance, which is easier to come by in colleges big programs that recruit 4+ Olinemen each year and end up having good quality depth in case the much more rare college Oline injury occurs. These lines match up against lesser defenses though.

In the NFL even the best lines only end up with 2-3 top quality guys and then other good ones that benefit from those around them. The salary cap and injuries make it tough to consistently field an OLine that can dominate.

I hate to say it but Bellicheck gets it right most of the time. Somehow through coaching he makes his players play well. His bad secondary has become a strength, his OLine struggled without Mankins and is now playing well. When his QB goes down the backups look good enough for other teams to covet. Is it his system? Does he change with his personnel? I don't know but he is doing without elite players across the line.

I'd say yes and no on the reliance of OLine dominance. I've watched games/plays where I believed that Auburn Oline was getting their butts handed to them. But, Malzahn would simply make adjustments and/or someone would make a play off they'd go again. Maybe he has some Belicheck to him.

 

[blue4]

Yet the Dolphins (Tannehill), Bengals (Dalton), Lions (Stafford), and Chiefs (Smith) with arguably better weapons in perhaps most cases, aren't scoring that many more points (if at all) than the Rams. And Carr hasn't proven anything yet. He's a guess just like the draft picks developing which there always are in this league. Thus, that's more than half your list right there that can be disputed, IMO.

Arguably better weapons is correct.

Bengals are 8-4.
Miami is 7-6 with half the talent.
Lions are 9-4
Chiefs are 7-6 with a good RB and pretty much nothing else.

Any one of those 4 on the Rams and we are a 10+ win team. Your original argument was that teams put to much emphasis on QBs, yet you hold all those accountable for total team points. And lets be honest. Just going by PPG doesnt take into account defensive scoring or special teams play. The only questionable QB I listed is Dalton. As for Carr, to me it's rather obvious that he isn't the reason the Raiders suck. I think he's been actually pretty good for rookie in that horrible situation. I'd trade for him without hesitation if the price was reasonable.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Arguably better weapons is correct.

Bengals are 8-4.
Miami is 7-6 with half the talent.
Lions are 9-4
Chiefs are 7-6 with a good RB and pretty much nothing else.

Any one of those 4 on the Rams and we are a 10+ win team. Your original argument was that teams put to much emphasis on QBs, yet you hold all those accountable for total team points. And lets be honest. Just going by PPG doesnt take into account defensive scoring or special teams play. The only questionable QB I listed is Dalton. As for Carr, to me it's rather obvious that he isn't the reason the Raiders suck. I think he's been actually pretty good for rookie in that horrible situation. I'd trade for him without hesitation if the price was reasonable.

But, I thought our current discussion was in regards to good offenses? The Rams could possibly have a similar record with Davis and Hall at QB, minus a refs call, drop, or other break here or there on offense. Or if the defense showed up earlier this season.

BTW, I looked at defensive scoring AND special teams (numbers) when I made my original comment.

 

[jrry32]

We will have to agree to disagree on Tebow. IMO, he may have been a lot more elusive in shorts, but he sure wasn't on the football field.

The guy did average 5.4 yards per carry...

And while the passing game isn't the main focus, it's not non existent. This guy is still taking his shots down the field ala Arians where two good things can happen (reception, pass interference) or one bad thing can happen (INT). But, at least the bad thing can amount to a punt. And we will have to agree to disagree on whether guys like Marshall, Pryor, Taylor, Sims, or whomever they bring in can accomplish that, as I believe that they are ALL better passers than Tebow.

I think that's an easy stance to take...but Tebow does have a higher career QB Rating when compared to Pryor and the guy was very arguably a more prolific college passer than Marshall and Sims. We haven't see either of those two at the NFL level and both have their flaws as a passer.

 

[Memphis Ram]

The guy did average 5.4 yards per carry...

5.3 is nice. Pryor averaged 6.7 yards per carry. Too early to tell, but it might coincide with college (Tebow 4.3 ypc vs. Pryor 5.0 vs. Marshall 5.8).

I think that's an easy stance to take...but Tebow does have a higher career QB Rating when compared to Pryor and the guy was very arguably a more prolific college passer than Marshall and Sims. We haven't see either of those two at the NFL level and both have their flaws as a passer.

Yeah, but Tebow has a higher college career passer rating than Andrew Luck and as a 4 year starter had more opportunities than both Marshall and Sims. That said, I agree that they all have their flaws as a passers, but then again no on is perfect. It's still just a matter of playing them to their strengths, IMO.

 

[jrry32]

5.3 is nice. Pryor averaged 6.7 yards per carry. Too early to tell, but it might coincide with college (Tebow 4.3 ypc vs. Pryor 5.0 vs. Marshall 5.8).

Pryor also had a smaller sample size that included a 93 yard TD run.

 

[blue4]

But, I thought our current discussion was in regards to good offenses? The Rams could possibly have a similar record with Davis and Hall at QB, minus a refs call, drop, or other break here or there on offense. Or if the defense showed up earlier this season.

BTW, I looked at defensive scoring AND special teams (numbers) when I made my original comment.

Another break here and there? You mean like interceptions at the goal line, underthrown passes at wide open guys, and whole gobs of pick 6ers? Holding onto the ball to long, taking bad sacks, that kind of break here and there? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind we are a 10-12 win team with those guys at QB for us, and if we had better options at RG and C, those guys would have us in the conversation for SB contention. We may not have the weapons to get past GB in the NFC, but we would be a force in the NFC. Absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever. And I'm not even a fan of our OC. Just the same as I have no doubt we would be as bad as we are now if not worse with someone like Pryor, Tebow, RGIII, or any of the other running college supermen.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Pryor also had a smaller sample size that included a 93 yard TD run.

True, but the potential for something like that still existed with him and had to be considered in opposing teams defensive game plans.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Another break here and there? You mean like interceptions at the goal line, underthrown passes at wide open guys, and whole gobs of pick 6ers? Holding onto the ball to long, taking bad sacks, that kind of break here and there? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind we are a 10-12 win team with those guys at QB for us, and if we had better options at RG and C, those guys would have us in the conversation for SB contention. We may not have the weapons to get past GB in the NFC, but we would be a force in the NFC. Absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever. And I'm not even a fan of our OC. Just the same as I have no doubt we would be as bad as we are now if not worse with someone like Pryor, Tebow, RGIII, or any of the other running college supermen.

I was referring to a few questionable refs calls, Cook's drop vs. the Cowboys, etc, but YES there were some poor QB plays. But, I still disagree with you. I'm sitting here watching one of your choices now in Dalton making the same darn mistakes you just listed. Each one I subtracted makes the same bad and good plays on their current teams. It happens to them all, but moreso to the non rare types that most teams don't have in their lineups.

BTW, remember those guys would have to make plays in this offense. Not their current offenses. Oftentimes a QB with a WCO skillset doesn't play as well in an offense that requires more down the field throws.

 

[jrry32]

I was referring a few questionable refs calls, Cook's drop vs. the Cowboys, etc, but YES there were so poor QB plays. But, I still disagree with you. I'm sitting here watching one of your choices now in Dalton making the same darn mistakes you just listed. Both Hill & Davis had their bad plays, but they also had their good plays. IMO, it would be the same or similar via the guys I subtracted from your original list. Absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever. And remember those guys would have to make plays in this offense. Not their current offenses. Oftentimes a QB with a WCO skillset doesn't play as well in an offense that requires more down the field throws.

Dalton kind of sucks.

 

[blue4]

I was referring a few questionable refs calls, Cook's drop vs. the Cowboys, etc, but YES there were so poor QB plays. But, I still disagree with you. I'm sitting here watching one of your choices now in Dalton making the same darn mistakes you just listed. Both Hill & Davis had their bad plays, but they also had their good plays. IMO, it would be the same or similar via the guys I subtracted from your original list. Absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever. And remember those guys would have to make plays in this offense. Not their current offenses. Oftentimes a QB with a WCO skillset doesn't play as well in an offense that requires more down the field throws.

I'll give you Dalton. He's not having a good year at all.

Hill and Davis's bad plays have far exceeded their good ones. Why would you think those other guys couldn't make plays in this offense? I'm mystified by how someone like Ryan Tannehill or Matt Stafford couldn't make the throws Shaun Hill SOMETIMES makes in this offense. Our offense doesn't seem to require pinpoint accuracy, just decent timing and decent decisions. This offense has great weapons. (Our OC has no idea how to use most of them, but that's for a different thread). I'd even wager poor Andy Dalton who you rightly pointed out is struggling wouldn't have thrown Arizona the football game like Davis did. I think we will just have to take consolation that we do agree an elite QB is not required to have in order to have a team that can compete for a SB. Of course we disagree how that QB should play or how those teams should approach their offense, but at least we have that. I enjoyed the discussion, but my wife informs me that she needs some different shoes and a trip to Kohl's so I'm off to hear more reasoning I don't agree with!

 

[Memphis Ram]

I'll give you Dalton. He's not having a good year at all.

Hill and Davis's bad plays have far exceeded their good ones. Why would you think those other guys couldn't make plays in this offense? I'm mystified by how someone like Ryan Tannehill or Matt Stafford couldn't make the throws Shaun Hill SOMETIMES makes in this offense. Our offense doesn't seem to require pinpoint accuracy, just decent timing and decent decisions. This offense has great weapons. (Our OC has no idea how to use most of them, but that's for a different thread). I'd even wager poor Andy Dalton who you rightly pointed out is struggling wouldn't have thrown Arizona the football game like Davis did. I think we will just have to take consolation that we do agree an elite QB is not required to have in order to have a team that can compete for a SB. Of course we disagree how that QB should play or how those teams should approach their offense, but at least we have that. I enjoyed the discussion, but my wife informs me that she needs some different shoes and a trip to Kohl's so I'm off to hear more reasoning I don't agree with!

We are still talking overall team record potential when I was commenting on good offense, but it's not just making the throws that Shaun Hill can't make. It's making some of the same or more boneheaded decisions that Shaun Hill wouldn't make. Stafford is a turnover machine who has relied upon throwing jump balls up to Calvin Johnson for years now. Checkdown expert Smith wouldn't pull the trigger down the field if his life depended on it. And Tannehill still makes boneheaded plays, too. Are they better? Perhaps. But, their offenses aren't that much better right now so something has to be up.