Road To The Super Bowl!

[roadwarrior]

7 minutes ago, Bluebasser86 said:

I would say that 20 is probably a stretch if you're saying 20 NFL starter quality QB's. 

You're right,  10 -12 might be a better range..

[A-Jay]

1 hour ago, roadwarrior said:

NASCAR fields 43 cars, but only 10 - 15 are in the hunt, the rest are just filler. There are 32 teams in the league. How many "NFL Quality" quarterbacks are there? Maybe 20?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

 

1 hour ago, Bluebasser86 said:

I would say that 20 is probably a stretch if you're saying 20 NFL starter quality QB's. 

 Guys, I'm going to both agree & respectfully disagree with these numbers and here's what I mean.

While I do agree that using the current system that NFL teams scout, draft, practice & play with this current one starter & one back-up QB, there is not much of a pool to choose from and that there just are not any decent options hanging around waiting to step in and make any sort of effective contribution.

 But where I disagree has to do with "the culture change" I mentioned before.  With the exception of the Kickers, every NFL team is made up of several DB, Running Backs, Receivers, Tight ends,  Linebackers and Linemen on both sides of the ball. Never just the minimum because injury is such a big part of the game.  If the NFL expanded the roster by just ONE MAN, teams would not have to change the current deal there but could be more inclined to add this all important player. 

I know teams have dabbled with this in the past but the second QB always seemed like more of a gimmick rather than a legitimate threat. 

Though there's always a chance a team could come up with two Hall of Fame caliber QBs but I'd agree it's unlikely.  Every teams QB is not a HOFer.  Most are good, a few are kind of bad and a few are great.  But the drop off seen by ALL the back up QB is so dramatic it's nearly impossible to expect anything close to effective productive play. It's like having a one legged back up Running back ~ doesn't make sense.

Why is it that teams leave themselves so vulnerable in what is arguably the teams most important position ?   If it were up to me, I would much rather have and play two good QB's than one super star & one hack or has been.  The extra good players out there, it's just that no one has been willing to invest the time, money & effort to incorporate this train of thought into their system.   Doesn't each team already have a QB coach? 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

A-Jay

[roadwarrior]

Two National Championships and perhaps, at least on paper, the best back-up in the NFL: http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/87358/aj-mccarrons-first-playoff-game-for-bengals-gets-off-to-sloppy-start

There is just not enough talent to go around at the quarterback position.

[Bluebasser86]

15 minutes ago, A-Jay said:

 

 Guys, I'm going to both agree & respectfully disagree with these numbers and here's what I mean.

While I do agree that using the current system that NFL teams scout, draft, practice & play with this current one starter & one back-up QB, there is not much of a pool to choose from and that there just are not any decent options hanging around waiting to step in and make any sort of effective contribution.

 But where I disagree has to do with "the culture change" I mentioned before.  With the exception of the Kickers, every NFL team is made up of several DB, Running Backs, Receivers, Tight ends,  Linebackers and Linemen on both sides of the ball. Never just the minimum because injury is such a big part of the game.  If the NFL expanded the roster by just ONE MAN, teams would not have to change the current deal there but could be more inclined to add this all important player. 

I know teams have dabbled with this in the past but the second QB always seemed like more of a gimmick rather than a legitimate threat. 

Though there's always a chance a team could come up with two Hall of Fame caliber QBs but I'd agree it's unlikely.  Every teams QB is not a HOFer.  Most are good, a few are kind of bad and a few are great.  But the drop off seen by ALL the back up QB is so dramatic it's nearly impossible to expect anything close to effective productive play. It's like having a one legged back up Running back ~ doesn't make sense.

Why is it that teams leave themselves so vulnerable in what is arguably the teams most important position ?   If it were up to me, I would much rather have and play two good QB's than one super star & one hack or has been.  The extra good players out there, it's just that no one has been willing to invest the time, money & effort to incorporate this train of thought into their system.   Doesn't each team already have a QB coach? 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

A-Jay

Agreed. Teams getting to transition from Farve to Rodgers or Bledsoe to Brady is very rare.

[Jigfishn10]

10 hours ago, A-Jay said:

There are plenty to go around - and it's more of a culture change than anything else.

When the first team make a commitment to it, and I mean an all out plan.  One that includes playing them both interchangeably every game - all season.  And when the advantages & their successes become apparent, there rest of the heard will undoubtedly follow.

And as fan, I want my team to do this - so that when the inevitable QG injury happens - there's a completely capable human right there to take the helm and help keep the ship on course. 

Why does Quarterback Depth have to mean - one guy who can play and one guy who can't.  What's wrong with two QB's who can both play.

There's no need for a #1 ~ I'm betting that a Two #1's would work better.

A-Jay

I think I get what you're idea is here, but getting an owner to "buy" into that theory would probably be a tough sell and here why I think it won't sell:

Usually the QB is the best player on the field, at least that's what you hear all the time. How to you justify paying top dollar only to have the guy sit on the bench for the game or half of a game? Or do you take maybe to QB's who are on the average pay scale, like 2 ex pats qb's, Brian Hoyer and Matt Cassel splitting the duties. Cassel, as you know was more than serviceable going 11-5 when Brady went down and Hoyer, even though he just stunk the joint out, isn't all that bad, do you take 2 guys like that and fit them in your model? I doubt you can get a Manning/Brady tandem?

Anyway, that's what I think you're trying to say and I like the idea.

[A-Jay]

1 hour ago, Jigfishn10 said:

I think I get what you're idea is here, but getting an owner to "buy" into that theory would probably be a tough sell and here why I think it won't sell:

Usually the QB is the best player on the field, at least that's what you hear all the time. How to you justify paying top dollar only to have the guy sit on the bench for the game or half of a game? Or do you take maybe to QB's who are on the average pay scale, like 2 ex pats qb's, Brian Hoyer and Matt Cassel splitting the duties. Cassel, as you know was more than serviceable going 11-5 when Brady went down and Hoyer, even though he just stunk the joint out, isn't all that bad, do you take 2 guys like that and fit them in your model? I doubt you can get a Manning/Brady tandem?

Anyway, that's what I think you're trying to say and I like the idea.

Hoyer hasn't done much without the BB Scheme Blanket ~

Clearly I'm much better equipped to run a boat in the surf than coach and NFL team, but in my inexperienced mind the only way I see it working is that both QB's have to play every game.  Either split the half or play every other quarter or what ever.  They both must know that the reality of it all is they're both only a play away from an injury anyway and the best way to stay ready is to play, Play, PLAY ! 

 And as for the Owners buying into it, the first team that does it and is successful - they'll all be all over it like a Dink on a Senko . . . . 

A-Jay

[Jrob78]

1 minute ago, A-Jay said:

Hoyer hasn't done much without the BB Scheme Blanket ~

Clearly I'm much better equipped to run a boat in the surf than coach and NFL team, but in my inexperienced mind the only way I see it working is that both QB's have to play every game.  Either split the half or play every other quarter or what ever.  They both must know that the reality of it all is they're both only a play away from an injury anyway and the best way to stay ready is to play, Play, PLAY ! 

 And as for the Owners buying into it, the first team that does it and is successful - they'll all be all over it like a Dink on a Senko . . . . 

A-Jay

How is a coach going to justify playing two QB's if one is better than the other?  It's hard enough to win games in the NFL, you have to play the very best players you have available.  I can't imagine too many scenarios where a team would have two competent, evenly skilled QB's.  One guy is always going to beat the other guy out and the position is too important to play the lesser guy half the snaps. 

Also, how is a team going to pay two QB's?  If they're both good, they can both get QB 1 money somewhere and the salary cap won't allow for 2 max salary guys on the same team at the same position.

[Jigfishn10]

It's a good concept that can work with say 2 different styles of QB's. Take a QB that's more of a pocket passer and add a guy that can roll out or even run for yardage, both have their day. They both will eventually take a beating. The roll out/running QB will take punishment because he is a runner and the pocket passer eventually faces those teams that accumulate a lot of sacks. I can see some merit to this idea.

[A-Jay]

Just now, Jrob78 said:

How is a coach going to justify playing two QB's if one is better than the other?  It's hard enough to win games in the NFL, you have to play the very best players you have available.  I can't imagine too many scenarios where a team would have two competent, evenly skilled QB's.  One guy is always going to beat the other guy out and the position is too important to play the lesser guy half the snaps. 

Also, how is a team going to pay two QB's?  If they're both good, they can both get QB 1 money somewhere and the salary cap won't allow for 2 max salary guys on the same team at the same position.

I totally understand your point and I can't argue that under the current system that teams use now it seems unlikely that anyone would consider it but I'll content that the current system is fatally flawed.  The team that wins it all may simply be the luckiest - meaning they have the best QB left in the play offs.  By not allowing a second QB to get meaningful reps both in practice & in games, history has proven time & time again that he'll struggle. 

If I'm a coach, I'm doing this, whatever it takes.  It's just foolish in my mind not to. There are always challenges to every new concept but if a team can have multiple players at other positions that can perform well, there is no reason that it can not work for this one. 

A-Jay

[A-Jay]

4 minutes ago, Jigfishn10 said:

It's a good concept that can work with say 2 different styles of QB's. Take a QB that's more of a pocket passer and add a guy that can roll out or even run for yardage, both have their day. They both will eventually take a beating. The roll out/running QB will take punishment because he is a runner and the pocket passer eventually faces those teams that accumulate a lot of sacks. I can see some merit to this idea.

Teams rotate players in & out of every game; Defensive packages, dimes, nickels, goal line, different running backs & receivers are coming & going all game ~ what's the difference ?  There isn't one in my mind. If a team takes the same approach this is totally do able.   Think about the no-huddle.  Twenty years ago people would have thought that was Crazy - no huddle ?  But now it's all the rage.  This is the same thing - not crazy just new and admittedly different.

 All of this is insurance for when one QB is hurt.  It's called depth and every team strives for it except for the most important position of the field.

Why ?

A-Jay

[Choporoz]

I suppose if it were easy to get an offense to gel around a QB - his timing, his cadence, his dropback, his audibles, his playcalling, his personality idiosyncrasies, his vision.....leverage his strengths and compensate for his weaknesses.....then why not swap in a clone?  

What QB that sees himself as capable of starting is going to be content to sit 50% of the time?

Find me a GB fan who will embrace the idea sitting Rodgers for even one meaningful series in order to keep another QB 'fresh'.

No chance a fan base will support going after two less-than-top-tier QB's ....as opposed to finding the next Brady or Manning.  If winning the SB isn't the only thing my team's GM is after, I have little patience for him....and for every 'Flacco', there's 8 or 10 Montana-Favre-Marinos.

2 QB systems don't even work well at other levels.  I have little confidence it can succeed on an NFL team.

[A-Jay]

25 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

I suppose if it were easy to get an offense to gel around a QB - his timing, his cadence, his dropback, his audibles, his playcalling, his personality idiosyncrasies, his vision.....leverage his strengths and compensate for his weaknesses.....then why not swap in a clone?  

What QB that sees himself as capable of starting is going to be content to sit 50% of the time?

Find me a GB fan who will embrace the idea sitting Rodgers for even one meaningful series in order to keep another QB 'fresh'.

No chance a fan base will support going after two less-than-top-tier QB's ....as opposed to finding the next Brady or Manning.  If winning the SB isn't the only thing my team's GM is after, I have little patience for him....and for every 'Flacco', there's 8 or 10 Montana-Favre-Marinos.

2 QB systems don't even work well at other levels.  I have little confidence it can succeed on an NFL team.

Great response. 

Clearly it's hard enough to get an offense to gel around a full time QB - his timing, his cadence, his dropback, his audibles, his playcalling, his personality idiosyncrasies, his vision.....leverage his strengths and compensate for his weaknesses when he gets the vast majority of the reps.

How does this shake out when the season's on the line and "the next guy up" has gotten None ?  Usually not good.

 As for a QB that is capable of being effective and willing to sit 50% of the time ~ I guess that depends a lot on the out come.  Look at how little a kicker actually plays and yet the Whole Game or even a Championship rests on his ability to come off the bench and be productive.  Whether or not two QBs can pull this off is an unknown but what is known is that the current system is just really bad.  Where there is a will there's a way.  Do fans Like having an entire season go in the tank because there is not a suitable player ready & available ? I don't.

I'll content that although having two top-tier QB's is best case scenario - I'd be fine with two slightly above or even average QB's rather than a great one who can't play and a fill in who's never had a chance to play & improve.  If you get what you pay for, allocating big bucks for one player & then throwing spare change at another, it's hard to expect the same performance.  I think it's hard to use past 2 QB systems as a guideline if this will work because I do not feel there has been the kind of commitment to it that it needs to be effective. 

As for as fan base's support, I believe fan bases want to win, bottom line.  I'm willing to bet that how a team gets there really will not matter once the trophy is hoisted.  Clearly, there will be a learning curve and some pretty wicked growing pains.  But they can't be nearly as bad as the inept football were forced to endure when a "Back-up" is forced into action.  

A-Jay

 

[Choporoz]

I should have put a disclaimer in my pessimistic reply.   I'm a Green Bay fan.  We've had only one season in the last 23 years or so when we needed a backup....so I'm not really qualified to even have an opinion

[deaknh03]

6 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

I should have put a disclaimer in my pessimistic reply.   I'm a Green Bay fan.  We've had only one season in the last 23 years or so when we needed a backup....so I'm not really qualified to even have an opinion

I think the benefits of keeping one qb in the game consistently far outweigh the benefits of another qb playing in case of injury to the other guy.   There are perhaps 10 above average qbs in the game right now..to find another 22, then another 32 on top of that to ensure each team has 2..it doesn't add up. If there was that many good qbs floating around, Miami wouldn't have gone 15 years without one.

[iabass8]

15 minutes ago, deaknh03 said:

I think the benefits of keeping one qb in the game consistently far outweigh the benefits of another qb playing in case of injury to the other guy.   There are perhaps 10 above average qbs in the game right now..to find another 22, then another 32 on top of that to ensure each team has 2..it doesn't add up. If there was that many good qbs floating around, Miami wouldn't have gone 15 years without one.

Exactly this xs 350

IF a team can find 2 elites clones of each other, then the system would have a chance it will succeed. The massive flaw in your proposal is that, I'm sure you realize but aren't taking into bigger consideration, you have to find 64 QBs and that have an identical clone. Any team would be foolish to play the lesser of the tandem and that is even more true the deeper you get into the season/playoffs. There are, like dean said, maybe 10 above average QB's in the league and it's hardly if ever more than that. I will say /w the utmost certainty you will never find 32 above average QB's in the league at the same time and find an exact counterpart. It's nearly impossible to replicate the trust, cohesion, and judgement in a "lesser" QB while both will still be getting even LESS reps at practice unless you want these guys to practice twice as much. Also, a team could find this unicorn of a situation, they could be all rights demand a kings ransom a piece and your left /w a JV team + 2 elite QBs that won't have anything to throw to or protect. 

Comparing switching out QB's to Off/Def positions is like comparing apples to mowing the lawn. Switching out a WR for a WR isn't even in the same ball park as switching out QB for QB.  I get what your saying but it will never work. 

[Jigfishn10]

Why do they have to be elite QB's?

Tom Brady won a SB IN '01 against an elite QB before he was considered a top QB.

Trent Dilfer won, I wouldn't consider him an elite.

Brad Johnson TB won

Eli winning his first? I wouldn't have considered him an elite back then.

So why an elite QB? Why not build a team that is well above average in all 3 phases of the game and use A-Jay's model? 

Just thinking aloud.

[Choporoz]

IDK.....for a couple/few years, Brad Johnson was nearly elite.  Besides, like, Dilfer, he was on a team with one of the greatest defenses of the decade.  Lots of folks might argue that Eli and Brady are elite.  (My personal opinions of Eli, aside, he's had a few pretty good moments....maybe even elite.)

[A-Jay]

2 hours ago, iabass8 said:

Exactly this xs 350

IF a team can find 2 elites clones of each other, then the system would have a chance it will succeed. The massive flaw in your proposal is that, I'm sure you realize but aren't taking into bigger consideration, you have to find 64 QBs and that have an identical clone. Any team would be foolish to play the lesser of the tandem and that is even more true the deeper you get into the season/playoffs. There are, like dean said, maybe 10 above average QB's in the league and it's hardly if ever more than that. I will say /w the utmost certainty you will never find 32 above average QB's in the league at the same time and find an exact counterpart. It's nearly impossible to replicate the trust, cohesion, and judgement in a "lesser" QB while both will still be getting even LESS reps at practice unless you want these guys to practice twice as much. Also, a team could find this unicorn of a situation, they could be all rights demand a kings ransom a piece and your left /w a JV team + 2 elite QBs that won't have anything to throw to or protect. 

Comparing switching out QB's to Off/Def positions is like comparing apples to mowing the lawn. Switching out a WR for a WR isn't even in the same ball park as switching out QB for QB.  I get what your saying but it will never work. 

While I'd agree that there will always be a situation where a QB can have a good rapport with a receiver, perhaps even two receivers.  That relationship is built out of repetition.  The more they get, theoretically, the better it gets.  Perhaps once they spread that theory out over the two pass throwers on the team the other players can establish an effective situation as well.

Comparing players of different positions might not translate in the mind of us non-players.  While the media, which includes a decent population of non & ex-players, has always contended that this would never work I'm going to stay stead fast in my own belief that it could.

 I definitely see the need & benefits to having two Game ready & tested QB's especially considering the percentage of starting QB's injured each season.     As for finding 32 clones, as it refers to my team, we'd only need to find two.

And now I've said about all I can on this one, so I'm done.  Thank you for allowing me to dream a little.

A-Jay

[Caliyak]

The Bengals showed so much class this weekend. 

Chiefs will take out the Boston cheaters and then battle it out with the Broncos. I want to see Alex Smith get his ring on that horrible field. 

[roadwarrior]

Hmm...

Short at least 40 quarterbacks.

[Sam]

I was 4 for 4 this past weekend with my picks.

Here are my picks for this coming weekend:

New England; Arizona; Carolina; Denver

[Oregon Native]

Gosh Sam....hope your wrong on at least three of those!!

[.ghoti.]

I'm liking A-Jay's idea. Could it work? Consider the 1985 Bears. McMahon and Tomzsak. Not sure if I spelled the names correctly, but between them they went all the way, with two completely different style players at QB. And, neither one was what you would call an elite player. 

[deaknh03]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Caliyak said:

 

The 85 bears had the best defense and the best running back in arguably the history of the game..and steve fuller was the other qb. 

[Smallmouth01]

Biggest game of the season for the Packers! Lets see if last week was a fluke. Go Pack Go