The QB Market Crash

[Prime Time]

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/12/03/quarterback-market-draft-2015/

John W. McDonough/SI; Rod Mar/SI/The MMQB; Ronald Martinez/Getty Images; Leon Halip/Getty Images

The QB Market Crash
RGIII has crashed, Newton is hurting and Kaepernick is struggling. With more questions than answers at the top of the upcoming draft class, will teams back off the big investments in young quarterbacks?
By Peter King

I just have this feeling we’re headed for a quarterback mini-revolution in 2015. It’s part RG3-rebelliousness, part dissatisfaction with the status quo of the Cutler/Newton/Kaepernick crowd, part not being sold on Marcus Mariota, part being deathly afraid in the current domestic violence climate of Jameis Winston—who is in a Florida State disciplinary hearing this week for suspicion of sexually assaulting a fellow FSU student—and part… well, just the feeling that we might be headed for a bit of a market correction in how the position is played.

This is a complicated topic to write late in the 2014 season. We’re supposed to be in the midst of a changing of the guard at quarterback, with the mobile and versatile guys ruling how NFL teams read the position. But I’m not sure we are anymore.

“Let me tell you this,’’ Gil Brandt, the draft guru of draft gurus, said Tuesday night. “I think we’re slowly, slowly going back to the age of pocket quarterbacks.”

That factors in to this story. More and more general managers I speak with are hesitant about putting their quarterback at the kind of risk so many mobile quarterbacks are in these days. Look at the young, athletic playoff quarterbacks last year. Colin Kaepernick, declining. Cam Newton, declining. Russell Wilson, treading water. Andrew Luck is athletic but also effectively functions in the pocket; he’s certainly a rising star. But there’s been a hey-wait-a-minute moment when it comes to mobile quarterback as the wave of the future. And it’s because, obviously, mobile quarterbacks are getting the tar beaten out of them in the NFL today.

So… where to begin.

PROJECTED DRAFT ORDER
If the season ended today, this would be the order for the first round.

1. Oakland, 1-11
2. Tampa Bay, 2-10
3. Jacksonville, 2-10*
4. Tennessee, 2-10*
5. N.Y. Jets, 2-10
6. Washington, 3-9
7. N.Y. Giants, 3-9
8. Carolina, 3-8-1
9. Minnesota, 5-7
10. Chicago, 5-7
11. New Orleans, 5-7
12. St. Louis, 5-7
13. Houston, 6-6
14. Pittsburgh, 7-5
15. Cleveland, 7-5
16. Baltimore, 7-5
17. Cleveland (via Buffalo, 7-5)
18. Kansas City, 7-5
19. San Francisco, 7-5
20. Dallas, 8-4

The bottom 12 of the first round will be determined by the playoffs. First tiebreaker is opponent winning percentage. Jacksonville picks ahead of Tennessee because of the second tiebreaker (for teams in the same division): division record. Jacksonville is 0-3 in the AFC South, Tennessee 1-3.

This column is about where NFL teams are headed in quarterback-gathering for 2015. The way I see it, 16 teams certainly will not be looking for quarterbacks high in the draft: Dallas, the New York Giants, Green Bay, Detroit, Minnesota, Atlanta, Seattle, New England, Miami, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Denver, San Diego and Oakland. The rest? They’re open for business. Or could be.

This is where we start, with the first pick in the draft.

Oakland is not taking a quarterback.
Unless Jim Harbaugh takes the Raiders job and is for some reason opposed to Derek Carr—which he won’t be—the Raiders will have to pull a heck of a fake on the rest of the league to convince teams they might take a quarterback No. 1 overall. With the Raiders facing four teams over .500 in the final four games of the season (including the 7-5 Chiefs and 9-3 Broncos on the road), it’s doubtful they finish any better than 2-14. Will either Mark Davis or GM Reggie McKenzie or the new coach or the new GM (are the Raiders ever building on something positive?) be able to bluff teams about their intentions on draft weekend? They shouldn’t be.

They are solidly behind Derek Carr, and I doubt they will be able to convince any team, through the draft-week lying process, that they might take a quarterback. The only thing the Raiders could do is be the way-station for a team that desperately wants a quarterback and has to trade ahead of the second overall pick. But that doesn’t create the same value as it would if teams thought Oakland was going to take a quarterback. This is all, of course, reliant on the Raiders staying bad in December and earning the first pick. It looks likely. Which brings us to…

The comparison to 2012 doesn’t work.
Indianapolis stayed at the top of the draft and picked the flawless Andrew Luck. Washington traded three first-round picks and a second-rounder to move up four spots to take Robert Griffin III. Could Marcus Mariota and Jameis Winston generate a similar buzz near the top of the draft this year? Doubtful. Very doubtful.

As former longtime GM Bill Polian said, “If the Luck-RGIII year was a sellers’ market, this is more of a buyers’ market.” He is right—and there is something else to consider: Mariota is not as clean a prospect as Luck was, and Winston has excessive off-the-field baggage, which neither Luck nor Griffin had.

There was a frenzy around Luck and Griffin before the 2012 draft, and that could develop by February or March, because the draft process brings out the hype machines. But I can’t see anyone paying a Griffin-type ransom to move up four or six spots next spring. Now, if Philadelphia, for example, is sitting at 26 and wants to move up to get Mariota (Chip Kelly/Oregon factor), then trading first-round picks in 2015, ’16 and ’17 would be understandable because of the huge leap. That trade actually makes a lot of sense if Jacksonville, for example, had control of Mariota.

A bust isn’t as hurtful today as it was four years ago.
Teams shouldn’t be scared to deal for or take a risky quarterback, which could be good news for Winston. The reason is the difference in contract structures since the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed. Formerly, first-round contracts had no compensation cap. Now the structure is carefully controlled.

Example: If Washington trades the under-performing Robert Griffin III after this season, his third in the league, it would cost them only $3.45 million on its 2015 cap (his remaining pro-rated signing bonus in the last year of his four-year contract). If the Rams tried to trade an under-performing Sam Bradford after the third year of his contract, well, there would have been no takers—because Bradford would have had three years and $36 million left on the deal that the acquiring team would have to honor. The upside on Winston could mean teams are willing to roll the dice, knowing that if he had to be cut after the third year of, say, a four-year, $22-million deal, the cap hit would be relatively minimal.

The RGIII Factor.
I think teams will be less aggressive to chase the Holy Grail of a quarterback after Griffin’s struggles. But Polian doesn’t. “I’m not sure RGIII’s difficulties devalue it all that much,’’ Polian said. “But I will say that I wouldn’t pay RGIII value for Jameis. With Jameis, you’re paying for some issues.’’

“The elixir of hope.”
Those are the words of former Tampa Bay GM Mark Dominik, about his belief that teams can do some pretty aggressive maneuvering if they believe one player will make a huge difference.

“You get closer to the draft, and you study players, and the one thing you can sell with the draft is hope,’’ said Dominik. He’s right: We need to remember that when teams leave the scouting combine, players like Pat White and Stephen Hill become much bigger stars than they ever were as college players.

It’s a lesson driven home every year: We overvalue players entering the draft, and it keeps getting worse. The smart teams make some bedrock decisions in November and December that look great in the long haul. During the 2011 season, Seattle GM John Schneider fell in love with a couple of players, linebacker Bobby Wagner of Utah State and quarterback Russell Wilson of Wisconsin. Wagner made sense to take where Seattle took him, midway through the second round. But most NFL people thought Schneider reached for the smallish Wilson in the third. Schneider didn’t care, and in Pete Carroll he had a coach who believed in Wilson too. Wagner and Wilson, of course, became cornerstone players for a Super Bowl champion.

There could be some veteran quarterbacks available.
Will the Bears stay married to quarterbacking yo-yo Jay Cutler? Will the (presumably) new coach in San Francisco want to keep Colin Kaepernick? Will the Eagles test the market for Nick Foles? And what of Cam Newton?

Newton is a big question mark now, after a poor season for Newton and the Panthers. I tend to pass it off as a year in which any quarterback would struggle, seeing that both his offensive line and receiver corps were denuded after the 2013 season. If I’m Carolina GM Dave Gettleman, I may just let Newton play out his final season, at $14.7 million, and see where he is this time next year. “Cam is the most interesting guy right now,’’ said Polian. “When it comes down to it, he hasn’t proven much yet, except he can get hurt. He’s got some tread off his tire already.’’

Speaking of Newton (and Kaepernick, and Wilson)…
“What we’re seeing this year is the incredible erosion of the running quarterback,’’ said Polian. We very well may be. Kaepernick hasn’t had a 40-yardrushing game since September. Griffin has gone bust, for now. Newton is gimpy and trying to stay in the pocket. The only quarterback making a good living outside the pocket in 2014 is Seattle’s Wilson, and at 5-11 and 208, that cannot go on forever.

The one thing about Wilson is he doesn’t seem to take many killer shots when he’s running; he has a knack for avoiding them. But it only takes one. So if you’re an NFL GM, and you get word this offseason that San Francisco may listen to offers for Kaepernick, or Carolina might think of trading Newton, you have to ask yourself: Am I will to pay a significant pick or picks for a mobile quarterback who may not be so mobile anymore—either by necessity or the simple football reality of wanting to keep him upright?

Teams are going to get excited about someone in college football we can’t see right now—maybe Connor Cook.
Cook, the 6-4 Michigan State redshirt junior, said in October he would return for his senior year at MSU. College players with eligibility left often say that mid-season; we’ll see how Cook feels after the Spartans’ bowl game. But he’s a big guy in a pro style offense who has been accurate and productive (44 touchdown passes, 12 interceptions over the past two years), and could slip into the first round and be the kind of Joe Flacco prospect teams feel they don’t have to trade up to get.

And we haven’t even mentioned Jake Locker.
Or Brian Hoyer. Or Mark Sanchez. There are some interesting—I will stop short of using “intriguing”—prospects who in the right hands (Chip Kelly’s? Jim Harbaugh’s?) could be productive somewhere in 2015. Again, it only takes one team.

In all, it’s going to be a fascinating first four months of 2015 on the quarterback front. And the last month of this season—when we should see more of Johnny Manziel and Cleveland should have more clarity on its quarterback issues, and teams like Philadelphia will know whether the quarterback of the future is in-house—will be important too. We could see some seismic action with the most important position in the game in 2015.

 

[Athos]

Such a piss poor QB class.

I don't see anyone giving up much for Mariota or Winston either. Especially not for small jumps in the draft like the Foreskins in 2012. No way in hell. A team would have to be stupidly desperate. TB is the one to watch and which QB they'll go for. They have nothing at the position and there'll be nothing left after the 2nd. And that's only if Hundley makes it to the 2nd, which he might not.

 

[Memphis Ram]

The QB Market needs to crash.

And all it would take is some creative offensive minds who can take advantage of the bevy of available talent who have not been given the opportunity to play the position in this league. These guys, plus those who have been given the opportunity, but were not played to their strengths and failed to transition to a traditional pocket passer model could water down the market tremendously.

The league, media, and even fans have made imaginary gods of these QBs where they have to have a long shelf life as the face of their franchises for years to come. The league has even bent over backwards to protect these guys. The league has made them almost irreplaceable in order to sell tickets when it's really the lack of innovation/creativity by NFL teams that makes them so hard to replace.

This lack of creativity has teams willing to vastly overpay for even average QBs and/or use high draft choices on inferior overall football players in hope of striking gold at the position. And all of this is done at the expense of building the rest of the TEAM any QB needs to have or sustain success. Nevermind that there have typically been only 5-7 special talents at the position in the entire league at one time over the years.

Maybe I'm just too hard-hearted or something, but if a team's QB has his career shortened by running and the team gets a Super Bowl out of it, then so be it. No one is crying over the RBs who typically go downhill or have careers end at 30 years old.

You don't have to have one of the rare franchise pocket passers to win in this league. Sure, the guy has to be able to make some plays from the pocket, but teams can win if even with a guy that doesn't excel there. That is, if they also play him to his strengths and surround him with enough talent.

I can't harp on this enough. I really believe that teams should back off on big investments at the QB position and that the position should be and can be devalued a bit like the running back position has been over the years (though it will probably couldn't go that far). Again, it just takes the right offensive minds and organizations with some guts to buck the norm. I would love to see Auburn's Gus Malzahn come to the NFL and implement his offense and open the blinded eyes of the NFL hierarchy.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

@Memphis I think your piece says more than King's does.

Mahlzans offense is just the old Delaware Wing-T I believe. I am not so sure as you that a high school offense would work in the NFL. But I do agree that it is time to change the thinking in the NFL. Instead of trying to chase the pot of gold in the draft just put an appropriate value on players in the draft and don't pass up a more talented player for some Quarterback that you know is all hope and projection, and not worth the players given up for. Too many teams in recent history have over-drafted QBs that even most message board posters scratch their heads over. I hope the Rams don't waste a first round pick on a fourth round talent. I do hope however that they choose a QB with potential to learn the game and keep him on the roster.

 

[Memphis Ram]

@Elmgrovegnome
Yeah I am sold that his version and variations of the old Delaware Wing-T / play action pass offense would work in the NFL easily with the right personnel. But, teams have focused their creativity, time, & finances on the passing game while not spending nearly enough on the running game, IMO.

Here's how it would work. And it's basically Football 101 to me.

1) Build the trenches. No matter how well teams scheme offensively or defensively, this game is still won and lost in the trenches as the basics of this game still comes down to blocking the defender across from you. A great job there is going to wear down and beat any defensive system.

2) Add a few big unselfish WRs than can block, but also have the ability to make plays down the field.

3) Find some QBs capable of making plays with their feet while also being able to threaten teams with a play action pass. These don't have to be great pocket passers or even good. An average at best pocket passer will do as shortcomings there will be more than made up via his rushing numbers. And as long as the team doesn't have a roster of fumblers, turnovers should decrease significantly and time of possession should increase to helping the defense rest.

The zone read rushing attack still works. So does the wildcat offense if teams would simply use a running QB vs. a running back who is no threat to pass. The QB sweep mixed in should almost always work thanks to the extra blocker (and of course surprise). The problem is that teams are afraid of getting their QBs hurt because the lack of offensive creativity has forced most teams into having perhaps only one guy on the roster capable of running a harder yet traditional base pocket passer model offense.

I say if you've got a Manning, Warner, Brady, etc.. then go for it. But, most teams don't and won't ever seen anyone of these ilk on their franchises as they are few and far between in comparison.

 

[jrry32]

@Elmgrovegnome
Yeah I am sold that his version and variations of the old Delaware Wing-T / play action pass offense would work in the NFL easily with the right personnel. But, teams have focused their creativity, time, & finances on the passing game while not spending nearly enough on the running game, IMO.

Here's how it would work. And it's basically Football 101 to me.

1) Build the trenches. No matter how well teams scheme offensively or defensively, this game is still won and lost in the trenches as the basics of this game still comes down to blocking the defender across from you. A great job there is going to wear down and beat any defensive system.

2) Add a few big unselfish WRs than can block, but also have the ability to make plays down the field.

3) Find some QBs capable of making plays with their feet while also being able to threaten teams with a play action pass. These don't have to be great pocket passers or even good. An average at best pocket passer will do as shortcomings there will be more than made up via his rushing numbers. And as long as the team doesn't have a roster of fumblers, turnovers should decrease significantly and time of possession should increase to helping the defense rest.

The zone read rushing attack still works. So does the wildcat offense if teams would simply use a running QB vs. a running back who is no threat to pass. The QB sweep mixed in should almost always work thanks to the extra blocker (and of course surprise). The problem is that teams are afraid of getting their QBs hurt because the lack of offensive creativity has forced most teams into having perhaps only one guy on the roster capable of running a harder yet traditional base pocket passer model offense.

I say if you've got a Manning, Warner, Brady, etc.. then go for it. But, most teams don't and won't ever seen anyone of these ilk on their franchises as they are few and far between in comparison.

It's very possible this would work. But with anything, teams adjust. And we have no idea how it would work after they adjusted.

Plus, winning in the trenches is easier said than done.

 

[Memphis Ram]

It's very possible this would work. But with anything, teams adjust. And we have no idea how it would work after they adjusted.

Plus, winning in the trenches is easier said than done.

There are adjustments made to every offense. But, here any adjustments would be difficult for teams given that the offense is something they wouldn't see often, IMO.

Winning in the trenches may be easier said than done, but it can be done with the right personnel and coaching focus, IMO.

Imagine this OLine group running Malzahn's offense:

LT Greg Robinson
LG Brandon Scherff, Iowa or La'el Collins, LSU (1st Rounder)
C Reese Dismukes, Auburn (3rd rounder)
RG A Healthy Rodger Saffold
RT Joe Barksdale (Or Maybe Someone Else)

If the running game is really focused on in the offseason, these guys should win in the trenches quite a bit in a base offense. Now imagine them getting better opportunities to dominate via all the mis-direction in the backfield keeping defenders honest.

 

[jrry32]

There are adjustments made to every offense. But, here any adjustments would be difficult for teams given that the offense is something they wouldn't see often, IMO.

Unfortunately, the more film teams get, the more they can do with it. So you might take the league by storm early on but if they figure the offense out...you're boned. Because you don't have a good enough passer to make teams pay on days where your running game just isn't getting it done.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Unfortunately, the more film teams get, the more they can do with it. So you might take the league by storm early on but if they figure the offense out...you're boned. Because you don't have a good enough passer to make teams pay on days where your running game just isn't getting it done.

Malzahn's variations of the Delaware-T rushing attack / play-action passing offense gives his QB 2-4 options on every single play to counter whatever the defense does.

Either way talent still matters. Even the GSOT got figured out. And they got figured out early. But, being figured out and having the talent to implement the plan are two entirely different things altogether.

It doesn't matter what is figured out in theory or on paper. The players on the field STILL have to beat the guys opposite them hence the stud OLine goal. Think back to John Robinson's Rams. Teams knew what was coming, but couldn't do a darn thing about it because the Oline was so good. Even post-Dickerson.

And you don't need a franchise QB pocket passer to make mostly play action passes to big physical WRs down the field or quick passes/screens/check downs to backs, etc.

 

[jrry32]

Malzahn's variations of the Delaware-T rushing attack / play-action passing offense gives his QB 2-4 options on every single play to counter whatever the defense does.

Either way talent still matters. Even the GSOT got figured out. And they got figured out early. But, being figured out and having the talent to implement the plan are two entirely different things altogether.

It doesn't matter what is figured out in theory or on paper. The players on the field STILL have to beat the guys opposite them hence the stud OLine goal. Think back to John Robinson's Rams. Teams knew what was coming, but couldn't do a darn thing about it because the Oline was so good. Even post-Dickerson.

And you don't need a franchise QB pocket passer to make mostly play action passes to big physical WRs down the field or quick passes/screens/check downs to backs, etc.

The problem with Malzahn's offense is that it relies so much on misdirection and speed. That works well in college but who knows if it would sustain success in the NFL.

 

[fearsomefour]

The problem with Malzahn's offense is that it relies so much on misdirection and speed. That works well in college but who knows if it would sustain success in the NFL.

Good gap control and contain and I think it is done. An athletic D like the Rams with our front 4 and JL, Ogletree, Barron and McDonald playing a sort of 4/4 would probably do well vs. this offense. The closest we have seen to a team busting out the old style running game, full house backfields and all that, is Greg Roman in SF. Anything can work if executed well, but, nothing will work for terribly long.
I think the Rams could do some interesting passing things out of a run set or even a full house look with the group of TEs we have.

 

[Memphis Ram]

The problem with Malzahn's offense is that it relies so much on misdirection and speed. That works well in college but who knows if it would sustain success in the NFL.

Misdirection and speed? Sure. But, good blocking is still good blocking in the trenches and even at wideout no matter if there's misdirection and speed or not. The basics of football would not be changed. Just amplified because defenders would have be play more honest giving the Oline a better opportunity to make their blocks and runners to make their yards.

 

[dieterbrock]

I think over drafting an o-line prospect is just as bad as over drafting a QB.
Fortunately now teams can take a risk on a Manuel or a Gabbert and it doesnt cripple the team financially if/when it doesnt work out.
I think the big point here is that we havent seen a real good prospect come out since Luck or Wilson. They dont grow on trees and you need to make the most of who you got/get

 

[Memphis Ram]

Good gap control and contain and I think it is done. An athletic D like the Rams with our front 4 and JL, Ogletree, Barron and McDonald playing a sort of 4/4 would probably do well vs. this offense. The closest we have seen to a team busting out the old style running game, full house backfields and all that, is Greg Roman in SF. Anything can work if executed well, but, nothing will work for terribly long.
I think the Rams could do some interesting passing things out of a run set or even a full house look with the group of TEs we have.

Gap control and contain sounds good in theory, but the players implementing that plan would still have to beat their blocks and/or make the tackles just as they would going against any offense. And we all know that doesn't happen on every play for any defensive unit. And they would still have to contend down the field with one on one matchups vs. big physical WRs having their CBs play honest keeping a lockout for running plays. All of this while tiring due to the hurry up option of the offense.

I'm not sure that an athletic D like the Rams would do well vs. this kind of offense. Teams are averaging 4.2 yards per carry now with just base sets. But, even if they could, that's no different than Tampa & the Giants playing well for the GSOT or the Patriots and Ravens playing well vs. Manning's Colts. Some teams just match up better vs. others. But, that doesn't mean all of them can.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I think over drafting an o-line prospect is just as bad as over drafting a QB.
Fortunately now teams can take a risk on a Manuel or a Gabbert and it doesnt cripple the team financially if/when it doesnt work out.
I think the big point here is that we havent seen a real good prospect come out since Luck or Wilson. They dont grow on trees and you need to make the most of who you got/get

Over drafting any prospect is bad, IMO. But, I agree on the main point.

 

[Athos]

If you don't trust any of the QBs and can't get Mariota....you still either look hard at Hundley or finish out this offense as much as you can.

We'll likely be in position for a stud WR, whether that's a good char guy like White/Parker or a project like DGB and you finish the shit out of the O-Line and provide Bradford so much protection his knee doesn't matter and he could throw while riding a seegway.

 

[fearsomefour]

Gap control and contain sounds good in theory, but the players implementing that plan would still have to beat their blocks and/or make the tackles just as they would going against any offense. And we all know that doesn't happen on every play for any defensive unit. And they would still have to contend down the field with one on one matchups vs. big physical WRs having their CBs play honest keeping a lockout for running plays. All of this while tiring due to the hurry up option of the offense.

I'm not sure that an athletic D like the Rams would do well vs. this kind of offense. Teams are averaging 4.2 yards per carry now with just base sets. But, even if they could, that's no different than Tampa & the Giants playing well for the GSOT or the Patriots and Ravens playing well vs. Manning's Colts. Some teams just match up better vs. others. But, that doesn't mean all of them can.

True.
Although there is a reason offenses have mostly morphed to spread the ball out. Creating space is a real key to getting your guys the ball in a position to make plays. You could certainly run variations of this, but, any offense that puts guys consistently close in is going to struggle in my opinion to be anything more than a power set or a set you run a couple of times a game. I think you would find yourself in way too many 3rd and longs if this was your "base" O.

 

[Memphis Ram]

True.
Although there is a reason offenses have mostly morphed to spread the ball out. Creating space is a real key to getting your guys the ball in a position to make plays. You could certainly run variations of this, but, any offense that puts guys consistently close in is going to struggle in my opinion to be anything more than a power set or a set you run a couple of times a game. I think you would find yourself in way too many 3rd and longs if this was your "base" O.

I think this might be where our disconnect is as I question if even Auburn consistently puts guys close as you suggest. We aren't talking about Georgia Tech's wishbone here.

 

[jrry32]

Memphis, I don't disagree with your point. Any offense can succeed if you're willing to adapt it to the NFL. The thing that bothers me is your treatment of the QB position. I get where you're going but I think you need a contingency. You're basically going all or nothing. Because if you can't run the ball that day, you don't have a passing attack that can pick up the slack.

I understand why you're doing this. You think it's a better team building philosophy for franchises that can't get that elite guy and want to better disperse their money rather than putting so much into average QBs. I can't disagree with that. At the same time, though, I think there is a happy medium.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Memphis, I don't disagree with your point. Any offense can succeed if you're willing to adapt it to the NFL. The thing that bothers me is your treatment of the QB position. I get where you're going but I think you need a contingency. You're basically going all or nothing. Because if you can't run the ball that day, you don't have a passing attack that can pick up the slack.

I understand why you're doing this. You think it's a better team building philosophy for franchises that can't get that elite guy and want to better disperse their money rather than putting so much into average QBs. I can't disagree with that. At the same time, though, I think there is a happy medium.

I see what you are saying because it works both ways. I've seen pass happy pocket QB having teams that couldn't do anything in the post-season because they couldn't run the football.

But, I'm not suggesting 3 yards and a cloud of dust here. It's not all or nothing. There is still a passing game in Malzahn's offense. That's the reason you have at least two physical WRs that can get downfield. It's just that the majority of it comes via play action. And while it doesn't happen all the time, I've seen play-action work with and without successful running games for the patient teams willing to stick with it.

BTW, a bit off subject here, but in watching these games, for all the big plays Sammy Coates makes, he might have just as many drops. Gazooks.