Hope Butch incorporates some pro elements...

#76
#76
ntxVOL said:
Philly hasn't won anything, I am talking about winning at the highest level.

Those other QBs developed their skills from a pro-style offense. If you put an accomplished elite passer in any offense he will likely thrive.
Click to expand...

Lol so now Philly being the 4th best offense in the league doesn't count because their defense sucked? The argument is about offense, not defense. They had the 4th most successful offense in the NFL last season.

Lol and your second statement is just absurd. You've already claimed you didn't believe the spread offense worked with a non mobile qb. I then give you examples of it working, and you claim "well those qbs have ran pro style offenses in the past!" That's not relevant or important to the debate.
 
#78
#78
Spread QBs only come up short in the NFL when an NFL team tries to hamfist a Spread QB into a Pro-Style system.

There are cases to be made for QBs that rely on short/medium passes and their mobility being stunted in the NFL because athletes are significantly better so the spread elements in the pass game and scrambling are significantly more dangerous.

The read-option will never really be viable in the NFL because the QB is marked as a standard player in regards to hits. This kills the RGIII.
 
#79
#79
agent|orange said:
Spread QBs only come up short in the NFL when an NFL team tries to hamfist a Spread QB into a Pro-Style system.

There are cases to be made for QBs that rely on short/medium passes and their mobility being stunted in the NFL because athletes are significantly better so the spread elements in the pass game and scrambling are significantly more dangerous.

The read-option will never really be viable in the NFL because the QB is marked as a standard player in regards to hits. This kills the RGIII.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider the "read option". Every spread team I mentioned uses rpos (run pass options). Where the qb has the option to pass or hand off.

It also depends on what you mean by "viable". Because it's been a "viable" option for many teams. Seattle wouldn't have beat GB without the actual zone read last season.
 
#80
#80
Vol8188 said:
Lol so now Philly being the 4th best offense in the league doesn't count because their defense sucked? The argument is about offense, not defense. They had the 4th most successful offense in the NFL last season.

Lol and your second statement is just absurd. You've already claimed you didn't believe the spread offense worked with a non mobile qb. I then give you examples of it working, and you claim "well those qbs have ran pro style offenses in the past!" That's not relevant or important to the debate.
Click to expand...

Aight den, Name a QB that played in an offense designed around his running ability that ever became an elite passer in the NFL.
 
#82
#82
ntxVOL said:
Aight den, Name a QB that played in an offense designed around his running ability that ever became an elite passer in the NFL.
Click to expand...

This is like the 10th time you've changed the debate. And I have no clue how his is relevant.
 
Last edited:
#83
#83
ntxVOL said:
Haha, everyone wants to point to Russel Wilson. How bout that defense?
Click to expand...

Once again, you're all over the place with your argument. You want to exclude philly from the conversation because their defense was no good. And now you want to exclude Seattle because their defense was too good.

You do realize they had a top ten offense in Seattle, right?
 
#85
#85
tri_vol said:
Russell Wilson plays in predominately power run offense. Not sure what your point is?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have one. Whenever you find a successful team, he will change the criteria or claim they don't count because their defense was too good or too bad
 
#86
#86
Vol8188 said:
This is like the 10th time you've changed the debate. And I have no clue how his is relevant.
Click to expand...

No it's not, I will say it again in another way.

I don't believe a dual threat QB will ever become the norm in the NFL.

Now I will qualify my other statement, that I don't believe a spread offense will stand the test of time in the NFL because you can't develop a QB into an accomplished passer in that offense. You can plug Manning or Brady into one, that's easy.
 
#87
#87
ntxVOL said:
No it's not, I will say it again in another way.

I don't believe a dual threat QB will ever become the norm in the NFL.

Now I will qualify my other statement, that I don't believe a spread offense will stand the test of time in the NFL because you can't develop a QB into an accomplished passer in that offense. You can plug Manning or Brady into one, that's easy.
Click to expand...

Aaron Rodgers was developed in a spread system. So there goes that argument:

And "being the norm" isn't what you started out claiming. You were claiming it wouldn't work in the NFL. Which is a completely different argument.
 
#88
#88
Vol8188 said:
He doesn't have one. Whenever you find a successful team, he will change the criteria or claim they don't count because their defense was too good or too bad
Click to expand...

I believe Russel Wilson may be an anomaly. Maybe that isn't fair but I don't believe what has happened in Seattle will become the norm in the NFL.

The problem I see is how do you protect the QB in your spread offense for the 4 or 5 years it takes to develop into an elite passer.

My original premise was that a spread offense will not be successful at the highest level without a running QB. You point to some teams with some of the best QBs in the history of the game as proof otherwise. Good argument but, those QBs were already developed and would thrive in any offense. I am looking at the long term view, what is the long term trend really going to be? I am not yet convinced that these offenses will really stand the test of time.

I haven't really watched Philly play, I don't really watch a lot of NFL football so I don't have much to debate there other than we shall see if that trend continues.
 
#89
#89
ntxVOL said:
I believe Russel Wilson may be an anomaly. Maybe that isn't fair but I don't believe what has happened in Seattle will become the norm in the NFL.

The problem I see is how do you protect the QB in your spread offense for the 4 or 5 years it takes to develop into an elite passer.

My original premise was that a spread offense will not be successful at the highest level without a running QB. You point to some teams with some of the best QBs in the history of the game as proof otherwise. Good argument but, those QBs were already developed and would thrive in any offense. I am looking at the long term view, what is the long term trend really going to be? I am not yet convinced that these offenses will really stand the test of time.

I haven't really watched Philly play, I don't really watch a lot of NFL football so I don't have much to debate there other than we shall see if that trend continues.
Click to expand...

I've named the top four offenses. All are spread teams. You've discounted three of them because their qbs are too good (GB, Den, and NE). You discount the fourth because they didn't win a Super Bowl.

Do you understand why I accuse you of changing the argument? You claimed it would never work. I then showed you that not only has it worked, but that it has worked with all 4 of the nfls top 4 offenses from last season.
 
#90
#90
ntxVOL said:
I haven't really watched Philly play, I don't really watch a lot of NFL football so I don't have much to debate there other than we shall see if that trend continues.
Click to expand...

Then you probably shouldn't be arguing about it, TBH.

"I don't know much about cars, but let me tell you why Toyotas are awful".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
Vol8188 said:
I've named the top four offenses. All are spread teams. You've discounted three of them because their qbs are too good (GB, Den, and NE). You discount the fourth because they didn't win a Super Bowl.

Do you understand why I accuse you of changing the argument? You claimed it would never work. I then showed you that not only has it worked, but that it has worked with all 4 of the nfls top 4 offenses from last season.
Click to expand...

Yeah well I think things went off the tracks here and it is likely my fault.

As I originally was trying to argue my belief that these spread offenses need a dual threat QB to be successful at the highest level. I think this still holds true in CFB because there are no Mannings or Bradys there.

Because of that belief, I think it becomes problematic for CFB when those types of QBs don't fit the NFL mold.
 
#95
#95
The money will always favor a QB whose brain allows him to get rid of the ball quickly and competently, thereby offering a safe investment in consistency and longevity.
 
#96
#96
ntxVOL said:
It is what killed the wishbone, no decent QB wanted to play in it.

Some say football is changing and mobile QBs are the new norm. I'm not so sure. The only way the mobile QB will become the norm in the NFL is if and when franchises can have 3 on their roster that they can just plug into their offense. It doesn't work that way in the NFL right now, QBs are too expensive and thus are a long term investment. They must be protected, can't have them running around getting hurt.

So time will tell if these offenses are here to stay. Once these top dual threat QBs realize there isn't much of a future for them in the NFL they will play another position. The college game will have to follow suit as well.
Click to expand...
Correct mobile QB's are a bad bet to be the "norm" in the nfl because they are such a big injury risk. You can't rotate them like running backs so thats not really an option...Mobility is a plus for a QB even in our current offense. I do not understand why people can't see that.

Look at how our offense ran with Worley. Now imagine what he could have done with a better O-line.
 
#97
#97
fade route said:
I don't think Dobbs is an NFL caliber QB. JMO
Click to expand...

He isn't right now, imo, but that doesn't mean he couldn't develop into one. He has a decent arm, so if he can improve his accuracy he has a chance to at least be a backup.

I doubt he'll ever start in the NFL, but would be ecstatic if that ever happened for him.
 
#99
#99
Do you want to win a national championship or prepare your QB for the NFL? I'd prefer to win a national championship. Fact is, teams with a spread offense, mobile/running QB do VERY WELL in college--it is often a recipe for a national title. We ran a pro-style offense for 20 years with QBs who had ZERO mobility, couldn't run--and it was one reason why our offense was somewhere between mediocre and bad. Yes, it is great if your QB can like Aaron Rogers--mobile, pro-style--but you can win a LOT of games with a running QB in college, and we'd be stupid to keep Dobbs in the pocket when he is so effective running the ball. He is an excellent runner. It's 3rd and 15: We've probably got a significantly better chance of getting the first down with Dobbs on the run than Dobbs standing in the pocket. Of course he can't run too much--he's got to do both--but you don't want to eliminate what is a great advantage for us.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top