Changes to Draft/Game Rules to Overcome Good QB Dearth?

[Fadingpain]

I have been thinking about starting this thread for a while, and some recent comments in various threads spawned some of my ideas here.

 

BUT: should the NFL consider changing the draft system so as to help teams take chances on more QBs?

 

Or, should the rules of the game be slightly modified to "assist" poor QB play? Of course, if the rules are changed to make it easier for a bad QB, it will make it even easier for a really good QB too...but that doesn't mean it can't be an interesting idea/debate.

 

A radical example might be making changing the distance to get a first down. Go from 10 yards to 8 or 9. Give the offense another down to work with. How about 5 downs? Too radical? What if a 4 down/10 yard system was converted to a 5 down/12 yard system? How would that play out over time? Would it favor offenses or defenses?

 

The reality is that most teams in the league do not have a QB who is good enough to see much success with, it is almost impossible to calculate a way to get an elite QB (it's luck mostly) and the handful of teams that have the elite QB do most of the winning, particularly come playoff time, which is really all that matters. They also tend to keep the great QBs forever, so top team turnover in the league is small and rare. Doesn't the average NFL fan win if all teams have a better chance to succeed offensively?

 

Regarding the draft: how about having a supplemental draft exclusively for QBs? The player's union would love it. Or how about a rule that says a QB drafted in any round other than 1 and 2 does not count against your pick!? So in Round 3, you can make your regular selection (say a linebacker) but if you want to add a QB, you can as a freebie. Maybe the "freebie bonus" should start in Round 4 or another round!?

 

This would allow teams to take way more chances on QB prospects or long shots without depleting their rosters at all other positions. In theory, it would help teams with poor QBs find a better one.

 

What do people think about these ideas?

 

 

[QB Bills]

They just need to revisit the rules and de-emphasize the passing game a tad while keeping the sport as safe as can be. Not sure how that would work.

 

The way it is now, you can't say football is the ultimate team game (not sure you ever could, actually). There is way too much emphasis on the QB position.

[Fadingpain]

They just need to revisit the rules and de-emphasize the passing game a tad while keeping the sport as safe as can be. Not sure how that would work.

 

The way it is now, you can't say football is the ultimate team game (not sure you ever could, actually). There is way too much emphasis on the QB position.

The emphasis on the QB position and the difficulty in finding one creates a real disparity among teams. There are 8 or 10 "haves" in the league and everyone else is a "have not". That's not a great system and it can be improved.

 

I don't know how you revisit the rules to de-emphasize the passing game...but I'm sure people can come up with ideas.

 

For example, you make DB contact with a receiver legal for say 10 yards! That would totally tip the balance.

 

You could also get rid of this DB "arm wrapped around the back of the receiver" crap and change the rule to say the DB can touch, grab, hold the WR all he wants, as long as it doesn't "truly interfere" with the receiver's ability to catch the ball.

 

A lot of the the time the DB is touching the WR simply to "center himself" so to speak. He is looking to keep his bearing on the field relative to the receiver while he keeps his eyes on the ball up in the air. He needs something (other than his vision) to let him know where the receiver is, so he holds onto him or lightly wraps that arm around.

 

Change the rule to say "that's fine" as long as it doesn't truly interfere with the receiver's ability to catch. Often it does not.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Stopthepain

[papazoid]

"good enough" is very subjective.

 

no matter what system is used to evaluate QB's and no matter what the rules are...

 

 

Top 10 Franchise QB's are crucial to your success.

 

Top 11- 20 QB's are average.

 

Top 21-32 QB's aren't good enough.

 

 

this is already a QB freindly league now......can't help the QB's much more than they already have.

[BackInDaDay]

good topic.. if you want to devalue the QB's importance to an offense, you need to examine the skills that create varying levels of competency - and lessen the value of the skills shared by the minority, while increasing the value of the skills shared by the majority. kind of like 'social engineering' the sport.

 

i'm as Darwinian a football fan as there is - in spite of what my handle may suggest - so i'd hate to see any rule changes to devolve the game... but since you're soliciting suggestions, here's mine -

the ability to read defensive pass coverages will be on your list of skills to dilute - you could prohibit, or limit, zone coverages.. or you could play no blitzes.. anything to assist the mediocre QB in finding his targets.

[The Wiz]

I think any company that manufactures the "Dial-a-Down" would hate a 5th down.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I have been thinking about starting this thread for a while, and some recent comments in various threads spawned some of my ideas here.

 

BUT: should the NFL consider changing the draft system so as to help teams take chances on more QBs?

 

Or, should the rules of the game be slightly modified to "assist" poor QB play? Of course, if the rules are changed to make it easier for a bad QB, it will make it even easier for a really good QB too...but that doesn't mean it can't be an interesting idea/debate.

 

A radical example might be making changing the distance to get a first down. Go from 10 yards to 8 or 9. Give the offense another down to work with. How about 5 downs? Too radical? What if a 4 down/10 yard system was converted to a 5 down/12 yard system? How would that play out over time? Would it favor offenses or defenses?

 

The reality is that most teams in the league do not have a QB who is good enough to see much success with, it is almost impossible to calculate a way to get an elite QB (it's luck mostly) and the handful of teams that have the elite QB do most of the winning, particularly come playoff time, which is really all that matters. They also tend to keep the great QBs forever, so top team turnover in the league is small and rare. Doesn't the average NFL fan win if all teams have a better chance to succeed offensively?

 

Regarding the draft: how about having a supplemental draft exclusively for QBs? The player's union would love it. Or how about a rule that says a QB drafted in any round other than 1 and 2 does not count against your pick!? So in Round 3, you can make your regular selection (say a linebacker) but if you want to add a QB, you can as a freebie. Maybe the "freebie bonus" should start in Round 4 or another round!?

 

This would allow teams to take way more chances on QB prospects or long shots without depleting their rosters at all other positions. In theory, it would help teams with poor QBs find a better one.

 

What do people think about these ideas?

 

 

Very interesting topic. The behavioral economist Richard Thaler has a book named Nudge. I think this is kind of what you want to do. You want to create a situation that rewards for trying things in everyones best interest. For example, how about moving the DL back off the line a full yard while creating pass game rules that allow the coverage to do more before the ball is in the air. This I believe would create incentives to run the ball and play defense. The resulting change of more balance is in the best interest of the games balance.

Edited January 16, 2015 by moreproblemsthanOrton

[Fadingpain]

good topic.. if you want to devalue the QB's importance to an offense, you need to examine the skills that create varying levels of competency - and lessen the value of the skills shared by the minority, while increasing the value of the skills shared by the majority. kind of like 'social engineering' the sport.

 

i'm as Darwinian a football fan as there is - in spite of what my handle may suggest - so i'd hate to see any rule changes to devolve the game... but since you're soliciting suggestions, here's mine -

the ability to read defensive pass coverages will be on your list of skills to dilute - you could prohibit, or limit, zone coverages.. or you could play no blitzes.. anything to assist the mediocre QB in finding his targets.

Your thinking here is dead-on, and your proposed solutions are interesting.

 

For example, as far as I know (I don't follow basketball at all) zone defenses have been deemed so effective at removing offense from the game, they are not allowed at the NBA level, as that would spoil the show.

 

Yet at the collegiate level, where the average level of athleticism is not as good (I assume) a zone defense is OK....

 

Maybe the NFL should say "No more zone defenses; makes the average QBs job too hard."

 

By the way: it's fascinating, but what makes a mediocre or bad QB at the NFL level medicare or bad has nothing to do with athleticism. It's all mental and intangible stuff, like you don't get flustered when you feel some pass rush pressure.

 

Some of it is physical (have to be an accurate thrower and have the right build) but that is not what prohibits most QBs from becoming great.

 

It's all mental, reading the field, not panicking during a live fire exercise, and so on.

 

So yes, anything that slightly alters the rules to help out with that specific activity would work. This is the type of thing I had in mind when I started the thread.

 

Eliminate or greatly control zone pass defenses. An interesting idea.

 

I also love the idea of finding a way to allow teams to draft more QBs, without it taking away from other draft selections...so there is no penalty for taking a chance on a QB long shot.

Very interesting topic. The behavioral economist Richard Thaler has a book named Nudge. I think this is kind of what you want to do. You want to create a situation that rewards for trying things in everyones best interest. For example, how about moving the DL back off the line a full yard while creating pass game rules that allow the coverage to do more before the ball is in the air. This I believe would create incentives to run the ball and play defense. The resulting change of more balance is in the best interest of the games balance.

Yes this is just the type of thinking I am trying to tap into here.

 

In fact, I actually thought of the "move the D line back" concept; it would be interesting to see how that would play out.

 

People have often talked about how the game of baseball is remarkably well engineered. Like it all seems to work out well with a competitive balance between offense and defense with 3 strikes and 4 balls, and bases 90 feet apart. Like if you moved the bases to even 93 feet apart, the whole balance of the game would be thrown out of whack. It would be that much harder to get a base hit and beat out a throw for example and offense might drop substantially if you re-engineered the game slightly, by simply moving the bases to, say, 93 feet apart instead of 90.

 

Or, change the rule to "two strikes and you are out" and the best hitters would go from a .330 average to who knows. .230? .130? It would be interesting to play a season of baseball with these kinds of changes, just see how it alters the outcomes of games. What if you said a home run does not exist. You hit it out of the park and it is a ground rule double? How would that impact games overall with a big sample size?

 

This stuff fascinates me.

[reddogblitz]

I have been thinking along these lines as well and was thinking of starting a thread too but you beat me to it. Seems that only a dozen to 15 or so teams have "franchise QB"s, but at playoff time almost all of the participants have them. All but two this year, Bungles and Cardinals.

 

Rules to make it easier for mediocre QBs would also help the guys that don't need it. So I was thinking rules that enable the running game to be more effective and pass defense more effective as well.

 

Some of my ideas:

 

1. Allow offensive line holding on running plays.

2. Allow DBs to hold and bang etc but keep PI as is, can't be touching the WR when the football is in the air.

3, Start a real spring minor league where QBs can play and develop. There were several SB Champion QBs who played in NFL Europe. Kurt Warner and Brad Johnson and maybe someone else, not sure.

 

I would like to see something done to make it more competitive for teams that don't have "franchise QB"s.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I have been thinking along these lines as well and was thinking of starting a thread too but you beat me to it. Seems that only a dozen to 15 or so teams have "franchise QB"s, but at playoff time almost all of the participants have them. All but two this year, Bungles and Cardinals.

 

Rules to make it easier for mediocre QBs would also help the guys that don't need it. So I was thinking rules that enable the running game to be more effective and pass defense more effective as well.

 

Some of my ideas:

 

1. Allow offensive line holding on running plays.

2. Allow DBs to hold and bang etc but keep PI as is, can't be touching the WR when the football is in the air.

3, Start a real spring minor league where QBs can play and develop. There were several SB Champion QBs who played in NFL Europe. Kurt Warner and Brad Johnson and maybe someone else, not sure.

 

I would like to see something done to make it more competitive for teams that don't have "franchise QB"s.

Number 3 is interesting. Had not thought of the development idea.

 

What is occurring in the NFL is analogous to baseball playing only every 5th day. Therefore, the Dodgers can pitch Clayton Kershaw every game. It is more about a particular individual on the team. Not the team.

[Fadingpain]

I have been thinking along these lines as well and was thinking of starting a thread too but you beat me to it. Seems that only a dozen to 15 or so teams have "franchise QB"s, but at playoff time almost all of the participants have them. All but two this year, Bungles and Cardinals.

 

Rules to make it easier for mediocre QBs would also help the guys that don't need it. So I was thinking rules that enable the running game to be more effective and pass defense more effective as well.

 

Some of my ideas:

 

1. Allow offensive line holding on running plays.

2. Allow DBs to hold and bang etc but keep PI as is, can't be touching the WR when the football is in the air.

3, Start a real spring minor league where QBs can play and develop. There were several SB Champion QBs who played in NFL Europe. Kurt Warner and Brad Johnson and maybe someone else, not sure.

 

I would like to see something done to make it more competitive for teams that don't have "franchise QB"s.

Some good ideas here.

 

My approach was to alter rules to bring poor QB play up to the standards of the better ones.

Your approach is more the opposite...find ways (in a sense) to bring the greats down to the level of the average QBs by introducing incentives/benefits to doing something offensively other than throwing the ball.

 

Either approach could work in theory.

[peterpan]

The real answer is to make it harder for the great QBs to do what they do. Bring them down to the level of the EJs and Orton is more realistic. That way the difference in great and ok is not so aignificant.

 

Defensive illegal contact should notbe a penalty period. Or at a minimum- not an automatic first down. Only pass interference should be called an with that, make it a 15 yard penalty like in college ball.

 

then you allow the OL to get away with more holding so that the slower QBs can still have time to find an open guy. That way the QB position becomes more about throwing an accurate pass to a decently covered WR than deciphering WTF the D is doing.

The NFL also needs to go back to the rule were as long as a screen pass or dump off is completed behind the LOS, other players can already be blocking down field. This would create more of a bubble screen game which really does help lower level QBs

[TallskiWallski83]

The only way to fix the imbalance between the teams WITH franchise QBs and the teams WITHOUT franchise QBs is to change the rules to benefit defense and de-emphasize the passing game.

Teams like Seattle have proven that you can still win a superbowl with dominant defense and a strong running game in todays NFL, but its a very hard thing to do. Also, you can make an argument that Russel Wilson is the most underrated QB in the league and very much in the conversation for top 5 at his position.

Jamal Lewis with Baltimore, Deangelo and J Stew in Carolina, Jamal Charles in KC, Willie Parker and Jerome Bettis in Pitt, Fred Taylor and MJD in Jax, Chris Johnson in Tennessee.....these are all examples of teams that made it to the playoffs behind a strong running game. The problem is its hard to be a consistent rushing team year after year due to injury and the physical nature of such an attack. Defenses change every year based on turnovers they force and a lot of stats are situational.

The only way to remain consistently good is to have a franchise QB with a strong passing attack. A QB can barely be touched in todays NFL and is much less likely to be injured.


I agree, the difficulty in finding a franchise QB makes the NFL uncompetive. The AFC has had the patriots go to 4 straight championship games in a row. New England, Baltmore, Pittsburgh, Denver, Indy....these are the only teams that have gone to the superbowl in the AFC this century.


My proposed changes:

-Illegal contact should not be an automatic first down. It should be a 5 yard penalty and replay of down. No more 3rd and 16 illegal contact first downs.

-Pass interference inside of 5 yardline should result in a first and goal the 5 yardline. No more terrible calls resulting in 1st and goal on the 1 for a gimme touchdown. Reset to the 5, Defense still has a chance.

-Narrow goal posts by 4 feet

-Allow defenses to return blocked extra points or two point conversions for points the other way

-Safety counts as a touchdown
-Move kickoffs back to their original location so kickoff special teams becomes important again (Devin Hester helped bring Rex Grossman to a superbowl)

Edited January 16, 2015 by TallskiWallski83

[Fadingpain]

Number 3 is interesting. Had not thought of the development idea.

 

What is occurring in the NFL is analogous to baseball playing only every 5th day. Therefore, the Dodgers can pitch Clayton Kershaw every game. It is more about a particular individual on the team. Not the team.

Yes. You could say the competitive balance of NFL football in the modern era has been thrown out of whack by the evolution of the game and it is therefore time to modify the rules of the game to compensate.

 

A developmental "minor league" system for N. American football would be great. As long as there was fan interest in it and it could be financially profitable, I am not sure why all parties involved wouldn't want to see that happen.

 

It could bring fairly big time football to markets that don't have and never will have an NFL franchise, it gives a lot of failed collegiate athletes a professional job, and it allows NFL franchises to develop young players and QBs who aren't quite ready for primetime on draft day.

 

I don't see a downside here.

 

It actually raises an interesting point! Why the heck isn't there a professional football minor league developmental system in this country? I guess it's because of history and the way the game evolved and its relationship to college football...

 

But a developmental "Minor league" for football would be great.

[reddogblitz]

Defensive illegal contact should not be a penalty period. Or at a minimum- not an automatic first down. Only pass interference should be called an with that, make it a 15 yard penalty like in college ball.

 

I see this suggestion a lot, but if it were to be only a 15 yard penalty, on every long pass the DB would just tackle the WR before the ball got there.

 

I do like the idea of loosening up the rules on illegal contact. We saw what that can do to QBs when the Seahawks were allowed to get away with it all last year.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

The only way to fix the imbalance between the teams WITH franchise QBs and the teams WITHOUT franchise QBs is to change the rules to benefit defense and de-emphasize the passing game.

 

Teams like Seattle have proven that you can still win a superbowl with dominant defense and a strong running game in todays NFL, but its a very hard thing to do. Also, you can make an argument that Russel Wilson is the most underrated QB in the league and very much in the conversation for top 5 at his position.

 

Jamal Lewis with Baltimore, Deangelo and J Stew in Carolina, Jamal Charles in KC, Willie Parker and Jerome Bettis in Pitt, Fred Taylor and MJD in Jax, Chris Johnson in Tennessee.....these are all examples of teams that made it to the playoffs behind a strong running game. The problem is its hard to be a consistent rushing team year after year due to injury and the physical nature of such an attack. Defenses change every year based on turnovers they force and a lot of stats are situational.

 

The only way to remain consistently good is to have a franchise QB with a strong passing attack. A QB can barely be touched in todays NFL and is much less likely to be injured.

 

 

I agree, the difficulty in finding a franchise QB makes the NFL uncompetive. The AFC has had the patriots go to 4 straight championship games in a row. New England, Baltmore, Pittsburgh, Denver, Indy....these are the only teams that have gone to the superbowl in the AFC this century. Green Bay, Seattle,

 

Agreed. Everyone should remember that with the Salary Cap Rules, having a QB making a half million a year leaves a lot of room to improve your team. Seattle success may be due more to good fortune than an actual model of success you can rely on.

[Fadingpain]

The only way to fix the imbalance between the teams WITH franchise QBs and the teams WITHOUT franchise QBs is to change the rules to benefit defense and de-emphasize the passing game.

 

Teams like Seattle have proven that you can still win a superbowl with dominant defense and a strong running game in todays NFL, but its a very hard thing to do. Also, you can make an argument that Russel Wilson is the most underrated QB in the league and very much in the conversation for top 5 at his position.

 

Jamal Lewis with Baltimore, Deangelo and J Stew in Carolina, Jamal Charles in KC, Willie Parker and Jerome Bettis in Pitt, Fred Taylor and MJD in Jax, Chris Johnson in Tennessee.....these are all examples of teams that made it to the playoffs behind a strong running game. The problem is its hard to be a consistent rushing team year after year due to injury and the physical nature of such an attack. Defenses change every year based on turnovers they force and a lot of stats are situational.

 

The only way to remain consistently good is to have a franchise QB with a strong passing attack. A QB can barely be touched in todays NFL and is much less likely to be injured.

 

 

I agree, the difficulty in finding a franchise QB makes the NFL uncompetive. The AFC has had the patriots go to 4 straight championship games in a row. New England, Baltmore, Pittsburgh, Denver, Indy....these are the only teams that have gone to the superbowl in the AFC this century. Green Bay, Seattle,

 

I am coming around to this way of thinking on this point. Find a way to "take away" the passing game from the handful of super-stud QBs who can almost skew the rules to their favor by throwing the ball and picking up huge yardage on a single play.

 

A team with a struggling QB and offense has to do many, many things correctly in sequence (play after play, consistently) in order to move the ball downfield...being grateful when the get 4 yards here, 8 there, 3 there, and so on. You put together a "drive". It makes it statistically that much harder to score points. You have to do too much, more or less in succession, in order to move the ball.

 

The great QBs don't have time for that crap. They just move the ball 80 yards in 5 plays and 1:12 of game time. That is where the competitive balance in the league is now thrown out of whack.

 

So find a way to make it really, really hard for ANY QB to do that stuff.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Yes. You could say the competitive balance of NFL football in the modern era has been thrown out of whack by the evolution of the game and it is therefore time to modify the rules of the game to compensate.

 

A developmental "minor league" system for N. American football would be great. As long as there was fan interest in it and it could be financially profitable, I am not sure why all parties involved wouldn't want to see that happen.

 

It could bring fairly big time football to markets that don't have and never will have an NFL franchise, it gives a lot of failed collegiate athletes a professional job, and it allows NFL franchises to develop young players and QBs who aren't quite ready for primetime on draft day.

 

I don't see a downside here.

 

It actually raises an interesting point! Why the heck isn't there a professional football minor league developmental system in this country? I guess it's because of history and the way the game evolved and its relationship to college football...

 

But a developmental "Minor league" for football would be great.

I wish we had a more progressive football media. These ideas would be welcomed by a lot of fans I'm positive. But, when you turn on ESPN or NFL and see all the analysts and insiders, you just know that this kind of thinking is beyond them. The game isn't broke and needs no fixing. Just look at the ratings. And, people in the league are influenced for sure by the same thinking. My guess is at some point, not sure when, there becomes a need to adjust for the fans.

[indiragandhi'sthong]

I have been thinking along these lines as well and was thinking of starting a thread too but you beat me to it. Seems that only a dozen to 15 or so teams have "franchise QB"s, but at playoff time almost all of the participants have them. All but two this year, Bungles and Cardinals.

 

Rules to make it easier for mediocre QBs would also help the guys that don't need it. So I was thinking rules that enable the running game to be more effective and pass defense more effective as well.

 

Some of my ideas:

 

1. Allow offensive line holding on running plays.

2. Allow DBs to hold and bang etc but keep PI as is, can't be touching the WR when the football is in the air.

3, Start a real spring minor league where QBs can play and develop. There were several SB Champion QBs who played in NFL Europe. Kurt Warner and Brad Johnson and maybe someone else, not sure.

 

I would like to see something done to make it more competitive for teams that don't have "franchise QB"s.

Love the spring league idea ... there is a lot of talent overlooked or drafted by a team with the wrong scheme. These guys need practice, coaching, and actual game experience. Plus, America has a thirst for football - I think it makes sense.

[Fadingpain]

This is a an interesting idea for the future...a chance to turn back time and re-invent the old AFL days and the Foolish Club.

 

Take a chance on a developmental NFL minor league. I think this is a great idea, even if the NFL is most certainly seen as "not broken" and arguably the most successful/profitable sports entertainment product ever devised on this earth.