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

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Up-tempo offenses are a horrible idea if you have a middling QB. You won't get first downs and your O won't be on the field very often. Come 3rd quarter your defense, even if it is really good, will be shot. And then you'll lose worse than you otherwise would have anyway

 

Also, if all you can do is run the ball b/c you have a middling QB, the oppose D will know this and cheat in every possible way to stop your offense, making it even harder to accomplish anything. Your offense will be limited to begin with b/c you have a bad QB....throw in this level of predictability (they will run the ball) and the D ready for it, and you will go nowhere, really fast.

 

This stuff doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. At any point in time, maybe 6 or 8 guys on earth are capable of leading an NFL football team to the Superbowl. To me, that is a flaw in the game. Perhaps you think "that is fair enough and the way it should be."

 

I would rather slightly alter the rules of the game or draft structure so that this is not the case.

 

The game has evolved to where the fundamental structure of the game is now "out of whack" according to me. Perhaps you disagree. Fair enough.

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that there are plenty of great QBs out there, such that any one of 20 or 25 NFL teams, in any given year, could have a real shot at the Superbowl? And that it's just crappy drafting and scouting that holds franchises back?

 

It sounds like this is more or less what you are saying. If so, I totally disagree.

 

Assuming you have perfect knowledge, perfect scouting, and perfect foresight, I still say there are like 8 QBs during any era who are capable of leading an NFL team to the Superbowl.

 

The game of football at the NFL level has evolved to the point where it is almost impossible to find a guy who can play the QB position at the highest level. Those who can are very rare.

 

I doubt many people on this forum know what the hell I'm talking about, but it's the same in Formula One racing. In any season, there are maybe 3 guys on earth who are capable of winning the World Driving Championship. Keeps things nicely boring.

Stick to your guns Stop the Pain. You are on to something with this post. It started out well when people got it. Some either don't get it or refuse to try.

Edited January 16, 2015 by moreproblemsthanOrton

[217014170]

1. Do not allow teams to trade draft picks in any way, shape, or form. The desire and pressure to acquire skill players is very distracting and leads to mistakes that can impact franchises for multiple years. It also makes for a very boring draft for team's lacking high draft picks. Once the draft order is set, based on previous year's results, it does not change.

 

2. One month prior to the draft, each team must designate one QB as their "franchise/starter" and one QB as a "developmental/backup" QB.

 

3. Each team can only designate the same QB as their "franchise/starter" for a maximum of 5 consecutive years. After that, they have to re-enter the QB only draft.

 

3. Create a one round QB only draft for college "rookies" and QBs with less than 5 years in the league that were not designated as per #2 above. Draft order is the same as the non-QB draft.

 

4. The non-QB draft will be reduced to 6 rounds.

 

5. If a team selects a QB in the QB only draft they lose their 6th round pick. All teams below that team then move up in the 6th round.

 

6. The non-QB draft commences, without trades, as per usual following the QB only draft.

 

7. Undrafted QB's immediately become FAs and are able to sign with any team. This allows each team to reload their developmental QBs.

 

8. QB's do not count against the 53-man roster or the salary cap.

 

9. Each team can have a maximum of 6 QB's on their roster...max 3 on the active QB roster and max 3 on the QB practice squad.

 

10. QBs can only be traded for other QBs with max ratio of 2:1. For example, the Bills could trade EJ Manuel and Jeff Tuel (a "starter" and a "backup") for a designated single starter on another team - let's say...Eli Manning.

 

Have at it...it's rough...but (a) it could be very exciting and (b) finally acknowledges what everyone already knows - QBs are different, let's just call it for what it is.

[enlightener]

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)

i ilke all of these,,except safety for a td??? wtf?

[Mr. WEO]

Yes, you've stated my intention in started the thread pretty well.

No, that doesn't help. The objective isn't to make everyone a playoff team (though works for the NHL)...the objective is to alter the rules slightly to catch the game up to where it has natural evolved, so that most teams have a competitive shot at winning, and not 1/3 of the league that is lucky to currently have a top QB.

If you are suggesting my intention in starting this thread is coming up with a way to "fix the game" so a poorly run organization can do well because they can't do well when left to their own devices, you are completely wrong.

 

It is worth noting that, at any point in time, maybe 1/3 of the league has a QB that will realistically allow them to compete for the Superbowl. Maybe 1/3. It's probably more like 5 or 6 teams in reality.

 

That is a function of how the game has organically evolved over time and the emphasis placed on the QB position. My point is that through careful analysis, the game can be shifted again so that the QB is not so crucial, which benefits almost all teams, not just the Bills or whichever "loser organization" you have in mind.

 

My suggestions would help the New England Patriots! They aren't going to have Tom Brady forever and they may not get that lucky with the the QB for the next 15 years. Who knows. The day will come too when they wish you didn't need one of the top 6 QBs in the league to win it all.

 

 

Haven't fans been noting this for the past 40 years or so--the QB has been dominant since the 70's. Why does the game need to be changed now?

 

"Franchise" QBs are out there--just got to find them. Look at Romo and R Wilson. The patriots made Brady the QB he is today. He was a little thought of, poorly drafted backup QB who had solid D's and won 3 SBs with them. Over time, he became the QB his is now. He didn't start that way.

 

If Brady or Rodgers or Big Ben or Manning or Luck, etc was on the Bills his whole career, a thread like this would never be started.

 

The game is fine. The game isn't the problem.

[BADOLBILZ]

Up-tempo offenses are a horrible idea if you have a middling QB. You won't get first downs and your O won't be on the field very often. Come 3rd quarter your defense, even if it is really good, will be shot. And then you'll lose worse than you otherwise would have anyway

 

Also, if all you can do is run the ball b/c you have a middling QB, the oppose D will know this and cheat in every possible way to stop your offense, making it even harder to accomplish anything. Your offense will be limited to begin with b/c you have a bad QB....throw in this level of predictability (they will run the ball) and the D ready for it, and you will go nowhere, really fast.

 

This stuff doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. At any point in time, maybe 6 or 8 guys on earth are capable of leading an NFL football team to the Superbowl. To me, that is a flaw in the game. Perhaps you think "that is fair enough and the way it should be."

 

I would rather slightly alter the rules of the game or draft structure so that this is not the case.

 

The game has evolved to where the fundamental structure of the game is now "out of whack" according to me. Perhaps you disagree. Fair enough.

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that there are plenty of great QBs out there, such that any one of 20 or 25 NFL teams, in any given year, could have a real shot at the Superbowl? And that it's just crappy drafting and scouting that holds franchises back?

 

It sounds like this is more or less what you are saying. If so, I totally disagree.

 

Assuming you have perfect knowledge, perfect scouting, and perfect foresight, I still say there are like 8 QBs during any era who are capable of leading an NFL team to the Superbowl.

 

The game of football at the NFL level has evolved to the point where it is almost impossible to find a guy who can play the QB position at the highest level. Those who can are very rare.

 

I doubt many people on this forum know what the hell I'm talking about, but it's the same in Formula One racing. In any season, there are maybe 3 guys on earth who are capable of winning the World Driving Championship. Keeps things nicely boring.

 

Chip Kelly.

 

20 wins in 2 years with less talent than Buffalo.

 

What's next? Complain about an unfair distribution of coaching talent around the league?

 

I am with you on this QB thing. In a league constructed on parity, seasons shouldn't be over before they start for 15-20 teams.

 

But necessity is the mother of invention.

 

College programs learned long ago that they could use scheme and tempo to overcome recruiting disadvantages.

 

NFL teams should be learning that they can do something similar but the league is populated with Jauron's playing not to lose and just hoping to make their own EJ Manuel into a pocket QB on the fly.

 

Will that position you for a Super Bowl championship? Maybe not immediately but it helps you build all the other aspects you need...a good OL/running game and a battle tested D....and hopefully that QB develops or you find your franchise QB elsewhere.

 

I find it interesting that so many people here watched the 2013 Hackett Bills beat good teams in the first half of last season with a bunch of rookie QB's running an uptempo, no-huddle run-oriented attack and yet they are still convinced it "doesn't work".

 

I think we found out that it probably made Hackett look better than he was too. I have a fundamental problem with allowing your defensive opponent to gather themselves, rest and comfortably adjust to what you are doing when you know you are at a disadvantage at the QB position.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I've thought about this same subject quite a bit myself and do feel that it's a major concern for the league. I also agree that they need to do things to make it easier for QB's to succeed.

 

The problem to me is the game and players have all got too big, and too fast, Teams particularly defense have too much time to devise game plans to confuse the QB's It's too easy for a team to take an upcoming opponents offensive plays and plays create a file of certain types of plays for example. 30 years ago doing that with film may have taken a team a week to compile that, now with computers they can do it in a couple of hours and get it to all the players I-Pads within the same day giving them too much time to analyze the upcoming opponents weaknesses. While the QB's can have the same advantage themselves, it just doesn't help them enough as one person is just not able to process all the extra info.

 

I don't like most of your suggestions only because I want improvements that would only help QB play. Having to only game 8 or 9 yards for a first down also helps the run game, they don't need help!

 

I would go rather drastic though but so think it needs it.

 

My first choice would be to develop a Stepford QB. If the league can do that, all the issues immediately go away. If that's not possible then I'd consider some other ideas like:

 

Adding a 12th player to the offense but with limited abilities all aimed at helping pas blocking to give hte QB's more time to look over the field and less worries about blitzes , I'll call this position the "body guard", he can only line up 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage and can never go up to the LOS so as to prevent him from helping with run blocking . He can not touch the ball except to fall on a fumble. He's strictly an extra blocker.

 

I'd only allow two defensive players to blitz on any play. The blitzers are designated by their number so all the QB would need to look for is two guys and you know these are the only two guys who can rush. They can be anywhere on the field, you likely would have 4 or 5 players with the correct numbers to be blitzers, so they could be the LB or the safety, or a CB, but only two of them can be on the field at any given time. It would add little value to make it easier for the offense in the running game, but would make it easier for the QB to improve his passing game and also this "Body guard" would know who he;s looking for. Instead of hearing the QB yelling out "53's the Mike", now you'd be hearing "62 is the blitzer!"

 

I'm sure many will think I'm out of my mind, but I do honestly think it is a major problem the league is facing and it seems to be getting worse not better. Because of this I do think it warrants some rather drastic changes to the game and rules.

 

 

 

 

Really, then how come 20 teams can't find one? The only way half the teams have one is they got lucky and one fell into their lap more than they truly found the guy. Romo, Wilson, and Brady are examples of that If their respective team really had known how good they'd become they would have drafted them in the 1st round so as not to miss on the guy. But they took them where they were projected to go and got real lucky.

 

 

 

"Franchise" QBs are out there--just got to find them.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

[BADOLBILZ]

I've thought about this same subject quite a bit myself and do feel that it's a major concern for the league. I also agree that they need to do things to make it easier for QB's to succeed.

 

The problem to me is the game and players have all got too big, and too fast, Teams particularly defense have too much time to devise game plans to confuse the QB's It's too easy for a team to take an upcoming opponents offensive plays and plays create a file of certain types of plays for example. 30 years ago doing that with film may have taken a team a week to compile that, now with computers they can do it in a couple of hours and get it to all the players I-Pads within the same day giving them too much time to analyze the upcoming opponents weaknesses. While the QB's can have the same advantage themselves, it just doesn't help them enough as one person is just not able to process all the extra info.

 

I don't like most of your suggestions only because I want improvements that would only help QB play. Having to only game 8 or 9 yards for a first down also helps the run game, they don't need help!

 

I would go rather drastic though but so think it needs it.

 

My first choice would be to develop a Stepford QB. If the league can do that, all the issues immediately go away. If that's not possible then I'd consider some other ideas like:

 

Adding a 12th player to the offense but with limited abilities all aimed at helping pas blocking to give hte QB's more time to look over the field and less worries about blitzes , I'll call this position the "body guard", he can only line up 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage and can never go up to the LOS so as to prevent him from helping with run blocking . He can not touch the ball except to fall on a fumble. He's strictly an extra blocker.

 

I'd only allow two defensive players to blitz on any play. The blitzers are designated by their number so all the QB would need to look for is two guys and you know these are the only two guys who can rush. They can be anywhere on the field, you likely would have 4 or 5 players with the correct numbers to be blitzers, so they could be the LB or the safety, or a CB, but only two of them can be on the field at any given time. It would add little value to make it easier for the offense in the running game, but would make it easier for the QB to improve his passing game and also this "Body guard" would know who he;s looking for. Instead of hearing the QB yelling out "53's the Mike", now you'd be hearing "62 is the blitzer!"

 

I'm sure many will think I'm out of my mind, but I do honestly think it is a major problem the league is facing and it seems to be getting worse not better. Because of this I do think it warrants some rather drastic changes to the game and rules.

 

 

I'm not with your proposed changes but I totally agree that part of the problem is that the talent on the defensive side of the ball has gotten better.

 

I think the de-valuation of the running game over the past decade has been re-directing talent that would have once been in the offensive backfield to well-paid positions like edge rushers and DB's.

 

And the access to technology allows teams to dissect QB's very quickly and identify and expose weaknesses.

 

That's where the advantage of dictating terms to the defense with tempo comes in.

 

It's a game of matchups and if you let defenses match personnel you make the QB's job that much harder.

 

It's pretty simple, if you have a productive run game you will force the opponent to go to run based personnel and that opens up matchup opportunities for your QB. Tempo is the the update to "play action".

 

The QB problem is not physical. There has never been more arm and leg talent than there is in the NFL at the QB position today. It's an information processing problem.

[KOKBILLS]

 

 

Rules to make it easier for mediocre QBs would also help the guys that don't need it.

 

 

 

That was my main thought in helping through the passing game...The elite QB's will easily adjust and still be much better than the mediocre one's getting more help...The gap would remain...

[BackInDaDay]

in fairness to STP, this quote comes from our new O line coach Cromer - the context was a discussion on the importance of intelligence in a QB...

 

There are only so many quarterbacks who can come to the line of scrimmage and have 5 plans for whatever the defense shows and be able to execute them perfectly, the only people who can do that are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers, and Drew Brees"

 

now, i don't interpret that opinion as "there are only so many QBs in the world".. i interpret it as "there are only so many QBs in the league". until clubs place an emphasis on the opinions of the men who work with these guys, and bring the entire organization together - including their scouting and marketing folks - on what's needed, teams will continue to draft players with little chance to succeed

[Fadingpain]

 

Chip Kelly.

 

20 wins in 2 years with less talent than Buffalo.

 

What's next? Complain about an unfair distribution of coaching talent around the league?

 

I am with you on this QB thing. In a league constructed on parity, seasons shouldn't be over before they start for 15-20 teams.

 

But necessity is the mother of invention.

 

College programs learned long ago that they could use scheme and tempo to overcome recruiting disadvantages.

 

NFL teams should be learning that they can do something similar but the league is populated with Jauron's playing not to lose and just hoping to make their own EJ Manuel into a pocket QB on the fly.

 

Will that position you for a Super Bowl championship? Maybe not immediately but it helps you build all the other aspects you need...a good OL/running game and a battle tested D....and hopefully that QB develops or you find your franchise QB elsewhere.

 

I find it interesting that so many people here watched the 2013 Hackett Bills beat good teams in the first half of last season with a bunch of rookie QB's running an uptempo, no-huddle run-oriented attack and yet they are still convinced it "doesn't work".

 

I think we found out that it probably made Hackett look better than he was too. I have a fundamental problem with allowing your defensive opponent to gather themselves, rest and comfortably adjust to what you are doing when you know you are at a disadvantage at the QB position.

Nothing in my comments here should be construed as as "complaint" or that I am a Bills homer who wants to suck the game down to the level of my crappy Bills QB play. I'm not that guy. If you read my posts in all threads, you'd see I'm the furthest from a Kool Aid drinker at this forum.

 

My fundamental question is whether the game has evolved to the point where something needs to be re-adjusted within the rules to even things out a bit.

 

Much of what will work offensively at the collegiate level in terms of QB, scheme, pacing, etc., will not work at the NFL level.

Why? B/C the talent gap among college rosters, even among Top 20 programs, IS ENORMOUS.

 

A lot of college thinking/tactics simply do not apply at the pro level.

 

A simple example: may college plays will be designed QB run plays, often with the goal of getting the edge and gaining yards effectively by going around a defense. Even with a lot of top college programs, that can actually work, b/c overall team defensive speed is "SLOW" by NFL standards. Sure, sometimes a ball carrier can dance around in the NFL and find a way to get outside the D, but more often than not, when a runner starts down that path, he is met by a gang of defenders waiting for him on the edge. There is too much speed at the NFL level to think like the Florida Gators on offense, make Tim Tebow your QB, run a Gator offense, and think you are actually going to win games.

 

Sure, some principles of college football do translate to the NFL, and I am a fan of outside the box thinking in the NFL, especially if it comes from some clever college coach. But a whole boatload of stuff that will work in college will never work in the NFL. The talent pool of all players, on all teams, is too high.

1. Do not allow teams to trade draft picks in any way, shape, or form. The desire and pressure to acquire skill players is very distracting and leads to mistakes that can impact franchises for multiple years. It also makes for a very boring draft for team's lacking high draft picks. Once the draft order is set, based on previous year's results, it does not change.

 

2. One month prior to the draft, each team must designate one QB as their "franchise/starter" and one QB as a "developmental/backup" QB.

 

3. Each team can only designate the same QB as their "franchise/starter" for a maximum of 5 consecutive years. After that, they have to re-enter the QB only draft.

 

3. Create a one round QB only draft for college "rookies" and QBs with less than 5 years in the league that were not designated as per #2 above. Draft order is the same as the non-QB draft.

 

4. The non-QB draft will be reduced to 6 rounds.

 

5. If a team selects a QB in the QB only draft they lose their 6th round pick. All teams below that team then move up in the 6th round.

 

6. The non-QB draft commences, without trades, as per usual following the QB only draft.

 

7. Undrafted QB's immediately become FAs and are able to sign with any team. This allows each team to reload their developmental QBs.

 

8. QB's do not count against the 53-man roster or the salary cap.

 

9. Each team can have a maximum of 6 QB's on their roster...max 3 on the active QB roster and max 3 on the QB practice squad.

 

10. QBs can only be traded for other QBs with max ratio of 2:1. For example, the Bills could trade EJ Manuel and Jeff Tuel (a "starter" and a "backup") for a designated single starter on another team - let's say...Eli Manning.

 

Have at it...it's rough...but (a) it could be very exciting and (b) finally acknowledges what everyone already knows - QBs are different, let's just call it for what it is.

Some of these I like, some I like a lot, and others not as much.

 

Your general thoughts about retaining way more QBs on staff at no penalty in terms of roster or cap, being able to get a lot more of them more easily, etc...are dead-on to what I'm talking about.

 

Why not acknowledge that the QB is "special" and so he gets special rules? In fact, he already does, in terms of physical protection on the field.

i ilke all of these,,except safety for a td??? wtf?

I think he is suggesting that a safety would remain the same, but the defense which causes the safety would get 6 points (?) instead of 2, and then be given the chance to convert an extra point or go for two points (I guess)....and then still get the ball back.

 

I.E., keep it the same, more or less, but penalize the offensive team that takes the safety even more so. I don't have a problem with this idea, but safeties are too rare for this to have a real impact in terms of helping a defense with a middling QB better cope with a top gun type of QB.

 

Still an interesting thought though.

[TallskiWallski83]

i ilke all of these,,except safety for a td??? wtf?

Think about how rare safetys are. Think about how awesome it would be if you had a punter who was good at coffin cornering a punt and putting the opposing team inside their 5 yardline. Why shouldnt the defense be allowed to score a touchdown in that situation? Think about how much more intense these plays would be if you knew that your defense could score if they dont get out of the endzone

 

They call it a TOUCH DOWN--- meaning that someone with the ball touches down in the endzone. THat happens on a safety. Why not make it a 6 point play?

 

 

 

[Fadingpain]

 

 

Haven't fans been noting this for the past 40 years or so--the QB has been dominant since the 70's. Why does the game need to be changed now?

 

"Franchise" QBs are out there--just got to find them. Look at Romo and R Wilson. The patriots made Brady the QB he is today. He was a little thought of, poorly drafted backup QB who had solid D's and won 3 SBs with them. Over time, he became the QB his is now. He didn't start that way.

 

If Brady or Rodgers or Big Ben or Manning or Luck, etc was on the Bills his whole career, a thread like this would never be started.

 

The game is fine. The game isn't the problem.

The QB may have been a lot more dominant in the '70s than he was in 1947, but the QB of the '70s was nowhere near as dominant as he is now. Hell, at the time of our Superbowl runs, the K-Gun almost revolutionized offensive football. We were the greatest thing since sliced bread and I recall defenses, even in big games (51-3 Raiders AFC Champ. comes to mind) simply calling time out b/c they knew they were getting their heads handed to them, and it was coming so fast and furious they literally could not stop it nor did they know what to do about it. So rather than allow another play likely resulting in a TD, they just called Timeout, which was like an ultimate fighter tapping out!

 

AND YET....look at offensive statistics. The great Bills of the K-Gun don't have numbers to compete with the modern guys...top offenses now make the K Gun look like slow and impotent.

 

A good example is how people have had to re-think clock management particularly at the end of a game. In other words, how much time is "enough time" to get a score if you are behind? When should you start calling timeouts on D? When do you panic? how much time will your O need when it gets the ball back to go 80 yards and score a TD?

 

In the last 20 or 25 years, we have seen this move dramatically, to the point where NOW, a guy like Manning, Brady, or Rodgers needs almost no time at all...almost any amount of time is enough...and no distance is too far.

 

Give Brady 53 seconds and 92 yards to go...if he can complete 3 or 4 key passes and has 1 TO, he'll probably beat you.

 

We never saw that level of QB domination in the game 20 years ago. At least I don't remember it.

 

If you think Tom Brady was "CREATED" by the Patriots, you are kind of crazy. He was born that way, then cultivated and developed. I would guess 95% of what he has was put there at birth; the rest was "developed" by the Patriots.

 

PS: I'm not a Kool Aid guy who wants to change the game to help my team; I don't roll that way; read my other posts all over this forum. That's not what this is about. I do realize the subtlety of the concept here may be lost on you though.

 

That was my main thought in helping through the passing game...The elite QB's will easily adjust and still be much better than the mediocre one's getting more help...The gap would remain...

I raised this concern in the very first post in the thread; check it out.

 

I think your conclusion here, though, may not be totally valid.

 

Yes of course, rule changes that make it easier for Kyle Orton would make it easier for Tom Brady too. But does that equate to a "wash" with the outcome of the game cemented in place?

 

I don't think so.

 

Look at it this way: you can argue a guy like Brady has the "it factor" and can make a lot of things happen on offense that Kyle Orton can't. Brady is over the "make it happen line" and Orton is under it.

 

Alter the rules to help ALL QBs, including Brady. But now, Orton also is over the "Make it happen" line; he can now do things he could not do before, b/c the rules have made it easier to perform at a higher level.

 

Brady will keep on being Brady...but even then he doesn't complete every pass attempt, sometimes he gets sacked, sometimes (not often) he throws a bad ball into the feet of a receiver, etc.

But now at least the opposing QB (Orton in my example) can do something in terms of mounting his own counter-attack.

 

Over time, would better teams still beat worse teams more often than not? Probably.

Would it alter the look and feel of games? Would it make them closer? Would it give the team not with Brady a feeling that "we can win this" and it would actually allow the Orton to beat the Brady now and again, as compared to NEVER?

 

I would say yes.

[Fadingpain]

 

 

I'm not with your proposed changes but I totally agree that part of the problem is that the talent on the defensive side of the ball has gotten better.

 

I think the de-valuation of the running game over the past decade has been re-directing talent that would have once been in the offensive backfield to well-paid positions like edge rushers and DB's.

 

And the access to technology allows teams to dissect QB's very quickly and identify and expose weaknesses.

 

That's where the advantage of dictating terms to the defense with tempo comes in.

 

It's a game of matchups and if you let defenses match personnel you make the QB's job that much harder.

 

It's pretty simple, if you have a productive run game you will force the opponent to go to run based personnel and that opens up matchup opportunities for your QB. Tempo is the the update to "play action".

 

The QB problem is not physical. There has never been more arm and leg talent than there is in the NFL at the QB position today. It's an information processing problem.

I agree that some of Ed's ideas are very interesting. For example, modern technology relative to creating "film loops" not that long ago probably HAS had an interesting impact on the game. I am sure technology has made it much easier for DCs to plan a defense, and get the message to their players during the week leading up to the game.

 

[Now that I think about it, why isn't that exact point (and lots of other very interesting thoughts in this thread) ever discussed in the media? Why does an NFL reporter with great access to the top defensive coordinators in the game never discuss things like this? Too much "sports media" is actually about anything other than the sport itself, like which player killed someone last weekend while drunk in his S-Class. I digress.]

 

You can argue that technology (video, computers, ease of editing video, IPADS given to players) should help both sides of the ball equally, so any true advantage gained by the D should be negated. I disagree with that. It is entirely possible that, although the technology advantage is the same, the impact it has on the field in real time is not the same. It clearly does seem to favor defensive schemes more than the thought process of the QB.

 

As an aside: I know a lot on here follow hockey and the Sabres, but a lot don't. Scoring in the NHL is way down in recent years and a lot of people don't like this and think it needs to be "fixed". You might ask "where did all the great goal scorers go? Why is it now hard to find a guy who can get 50 goals in a season? There used to be a bunch each year, and some crazy dudes would get 60 or 70. Where has the scoring talent gone?"

 

The answer is NO WHERE. Players, including goal scorers, have never been more talented, properly trained and developed, and they've never been bigger, faster, or had harder shots thanks to the development of composite sticks instead of wood.

 

So why is scoring down? B/C, effectively, the "defense" has greatly improved relative to the scorer. Goalies now are physically HUGE, their equipment is HUGE, and they quite literally simply fill a lot more net than in the old days. Their pads are made of very lightweight high-tech materials, not heavy leather that gets even heavier when wet, so they can move around quickly the entire game....but most of all, the game itself has changed.

 

In the old days, a "shot blocker" was a rare specialist who most people thought was crazy. Now every guy on every team is expected to blocks shots. That's one example. The entire game has simply shifted to a tighter, defensive minded approach, and for all the reasons mentioned and more, it is just really hard to score goals now compared to 1985.

 

I think it is similar in football. The "50 goal scorer" in hockey is now the QB in football. It is really, really hard to find the guy who can still do it. The lucky 3 or 4 teams that can do most of the big time winning.

 

This year the Superbowl champion is going to have Tom Brady, Rodgers, or Wilson as the winning QB in my opinion. We probably could have predicted 1 of those 3 would win it all before the season started, simply based on who the QB is. There are realistically only a couple other names you might have added to the list.

Think about how rare safetys are. Think about how awesome it would be if you had a punter who was good at coffin cornering a punt and putting the opposing team inside their 5 yardline. Why shouldnt the defense be allowed to score a touchdown in that situation? Think about how much more intense these plays would be if you knew that your defense could score if they dont get out of the endzone

 

They call it a TOUCH DOWN--- meaning that someone with the ball touches down in the endzone. THat happens on a safety. Why not make it a 6 point play?

 

 

 

I hear you. I think this is a fun idea and yet not gimmicky. My fear is that a safety is simply too rare of an event to really impact the overall game and address the disparity in QB play. And that was kind of the intention of starting this thread.

 

The idea is to switch a few things around so that more teams (most teams) can get a LOT more out of the QB position and more teams have a shot to win.

 

The difference maker between having Brady and not, often, seems to be his ability to change the outcome of a game at the last minute, if he has to. These guys can all go 80 yards in a minute and a few plays and often do.

So take that away from them and suddenly all other QBs are more even. Easiest way to take Brady's ability to move 80 yards in 53 seconds away from him is to alter the rules on pass defense. Not sure how that should play out, and there have been a lot of good ideas here...but this is a great place to start looking first.

 

Make holding 5 yards but no first down; make interference 2 categories; the lesser offense is 15 yards, no automatic first down. Only the most "he tackled him when he was in the clear and it looked like the pass was very catchable!" kind would place the ball at the spot of the foul with an automatic first down.

 

Then greatly relax rules on touching/physical play between DB and WR. Let more stuff go on prior to the catch, and also create 10 yard "bump zone" at the line where the DB can't be called for interference or holding, etc.

 

All these things, combined, would instantly render New England's advantage, or Green Bay's, not as great.

in fairness to STP, this quote comes from our new O line coach Cromer - the context was a discussion on the importance of intelligence in a QB...

 

There are only so many quarterbacks who can come to the line of scrimmage and have 5 plans for whatever the defense shows and be able to execute them perfectly, the only people who can do that are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers, and Drew Brees"

 

now, i don't interpret that opinion as "there are only so many QBs in the world".. i interpret it as "there are only so many QBs in the league". until clubs place an emphasis on the opinions of the men who work with these guys, and bring the entire organization together - including their scouting and marketing folks - on what's needed, teams will continue to draft players with little chance to succeed

This is an interesting quote which perfectly jives with what I have been saying...but your point is well taken!

 

In other words, what does that quote say? Does it say 4 people on earth can get the job done? Or does it say 4 people that we know about and have been developed to play in the NFL, and who actually do play in the NFL, can get the job done!?

 

It's the latter. It must be. Look at Tom Brady. Every team in the league passed on him a whole bunch of times.

 

He went 199 overall in the 6th round for God's sake.

 

What if New England hadn't taken a wild shot at the guy? What if no one else did either? He would have gone the way of a lot of other undrafted players. Who knows. Maybe he would have ended up in CFL, dominated the league, and then gotten a second chance. Maybe he would have quit and become an insurance salesman. Maybe he would have gone into coaching.

Who knows. The point is that it is entirely possible that he could have simply drifted off into never never land and never been a name really known of, cared about, talked about, or who ever did anything in the NFL!

 

How many of those alter-universe Tom Bradys exist right now?

 

There might be a few, and if there are, that's a shame. They should be playing in the NFL. It should be in everyone's interest to change roster rules, salary cap rules, QB development rules, etc., to find them and get them playing in the NFL.

 

Maybe this the best conclusion of this entire discussion. Change NOTHING about the game rules themselves...but change lots of things to help find and develop more Tom Bradys.

 

I still say all teams should be allowed to take, let's say, 3 or 4 QBs per year that do not count against their regular draft picks.

 

And then "maintenance" of these players in terms of taking up a roster spot, paying them (against the cap) and so on, should not be allowed to penalize the team in any way.

[billsfan89]

The problem is QB development. A rookie QB drafted in rounds 1 or 2 is expected to start right away. When they don't have success year one they get booted or their job becomes subject to removal. A QB like EJ should have been put behind a veteran QB like Orton for the first two or three years of his career. Then he should have been given two years to start no matter what and then judge his career. Asking a kid straight out of college to come in and lead an NFL team is a crazy proposition. Yet that's what happens because its win yesterday in the NFL. Coaches can get fired after just one year and they don't have time to really put 5 years to try and develop a QB.

 

I am not saying the EJ or any bust QB would have been a MVP or franchise type QB with that type of development but I think you would give a lot of guys more of a chance to develop if teams were much more willing to develop a QB properly.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

We never saw that level of QB domination in the game 20 years ago. At least I don't remember it.

 

 

 

You're memory isn't very good--or you are very young. 20 years ago the NFL was dominated by some guys named Kelly, Marino, Elway, Bledsoe, Favre......

 

Your initial post was about how QBs dominate the NFL. It doesn't matter that the Kgun looks slow and "impotent" compared to today's game--your own post disproves your point. It doesn't matter that today's QBs may throw for more yards per season. QBs absolutely dominated the game 20 year, 30 years ago. Elway, MArino, Bledsoe, Moon, Favre were all throwing for 4000-4500 yards a year back in the mid 90's. Montana dominated the SB in the 80s, Aikman and Elway in the 90s.

 

Come from behind wins? If you look at the top 10 leaders in 4th Q comebacks since the merger of the leagues, the 2 Mannings and Brady are the only active players on that list.

 

Nothing has changed in the past 20 years. Nothing needs fixing. The players are there. They need to be properly scouted, drafted and coached. The problem is that the level of competence in these three areas in the NFL is steadily getting worse. Every year there are 4,5,6 HC spots that turnover because the coaches are mediocre--then they get recycled to other teams. Guys like Buddy Nix get hired and despite a lifetime of scouting, he can't be bothered to take a flyer on a slightly undersized but otherwise outstanding pro psrospect like Russell Wilson. It's intitutionalized incompetence. It begins with the owners.

 

Leave the game alone, it's fine.

The problem is QB development. A rookie QB drafted in rounds 1 or 2 is expected to start right away. When they don't have success year one they get booted or their job becomes subject to removal. A QB like EJ should have been put behind a veteran QB like Orton for the first two or three years of his career. Then he should have been given two years to start no matter what and then judge his career. Asking a kid straight out of college to come in and lead an NFL team is a crazy proposition. Yet that's what happens because its win yesterday in the NFL. Coaches can get fired after just one year and they don't have time to really put 5 years to try and develop a QB.

 

I am not saying the EJ or any bust QB would have been a MVP or franchise type QB with that type of development but I think you would give a lot of guys more of a chance to develop if teams were much more willing to develop a QB properly.

 

 

It's really not that crazy. Depends on the "kid". Many current league starters did so .

Edited January 17, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

 

You're memory isn't very good--or you are very young. 20 years ago the NFL was dominated by some guys named Kelly, Marino, Elway, Bledsoe, Favre......

 

Your initial post was about how QBs dominate the NFL. It doesn't matter that the Kgun looks slow and "impotent" compared to today's game--your own post disproves your point. It doesn't matter that today's QBs may throw for more yards per season. QBs absolutely dominated the game 20 year, 30 years ago. Elway, MArino, Bledsoe, Moon, Favre were all throwing for 4000-4500 yards a year back in the mid 90's. Montana dominated the SB in the 80s, Aikman and Elway in the 90s.

 

Come from behind wins? If you look at the top 10 leaders in 4th Q comebacks since the merger of the leagues, the 2 Mannings and Brady are the only active players on that list.

 

Nothing has changed in the past 20 years. Nothing needs fixing. The players are there. They need to be properly scouted, drafted and coached. The problem is that the level of competence in these three areas in the NFL is steadily getting worse. Every year there are 4,5,6 HC spots that turnover because the coaches are mediocre--then they get recycled to other teams. Guys like Buddy Nix get hired and despite a lifetime of scouting, he can't be bothered to take a flyer on a slightly undersized but otherwise outstanding pro psrospect like Russell Wilson. It's intitutionalized incompetence. It begins with the owners.

 

Leave the game alone, it's fine.

 

 

It's really not that crazy. Depends on the "kid". Many current league starters did so .

Oh Really?

I would also like to point out that the fact QBs of today have a bigger impact than 20 years ago. The NFL Passer Rating has remained the same. In 1994 Steve Young was the only passer over 100. This year there were 4. In 1994 the only passer over 90, just barely, was Favre. In 2014, 17 GUYS PASSED THE MARK!!!!!! Including Jay Cutler with an 89 just missing the mark. Does anyone think Jay Cutler in 2014 had a great year? Of course not. Let's just put to bed now once and for all that nothing has changed in the game in 20 years. LUDICROUS!!!

[BackInDaDay]

How many of those alter-universe Tom Bradys exist right now?

 

There might be a few, and if there are, that's a shame. They should be playing in the NFL. It should be in everyone's interest to change roster rules, salary cap rules, QB development rules, etc., to find them and get them playing in the NFL.

 

Maybe this the best conclusion of this entire discussion. Change NOTHING about the game rules themselves...but change lots of things to help find and develop more Tom Bradys.

 

I still say all teams should be allowed to take, let's say, 3 or 4 QBs per year that do not count against their regular draft picks.

 

And then "maintenance" of these players in terms of taking up a roster spot, paying them (against the cap) and so on, should not be allowed to penalize the team in any way.

 

allow me to herd your talking points together before you approach the NFL Competition Committee -

 

• how many Tom Bradys may exist right now?
• it's in everyone's interest to change roster rules, salary cap rules, QB development rules, etc., to find them and get them playing in the NFL.
• change nothing about the game rules themselves, but change lots of things to help find and develop more Tom Bradys
• all teams should be allowed to take, let's say, 3 or 4 QBs per year that do not count against their regular draft picks
• maintenance of these players in terms of taking up a roster spot, paying them (against the cap) and so on, should not be allowed to penalize the team in any way.

now, i believe you are settling into a very 'doable' situation that has no impact on existing gameplay, other than increasing the chance for more clubs to find a capable QB.

there's no certainty that clubs with lazy scouting departments, over-eager marketing departments, and one-trick pony coaches won't continue to squander opportunities to upgrade the position - but i think many clubs who are drifting along with a mediocre QB could benefit from an expansion of the parameters that limit their ability to fill that spot.

Bravo, STP! i actually like that alot. in fact, the separate QB draft (mentioned somewhere in this thread) could be ordered by need - based on some criteria of prior year offensive production measurements.

[RyanC883]

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?

 

 

 

wow, tons of interesting ideas there. I think the "free QB" pick in round 3 onward is an interesting one, and the one I'm most in favor of. I think it would have to be available only to teams who missed the playoffs the past 2-3 years, and then the teams next pick would be 5 spots lower. What do you think:?

Oh Really?

I would also like to point out that the fact QBs of today have a bigger impact than 20 years ago. The NFL Passer Rating has remained the same. In 1994 Steve Young was the only passer over 100. This year there were 4. In 1994 the only passer over 90, just barely, was Favre. In 2014, 17 GUYS PASSED THE MARK!!!!!! Including Jay Cutler with an 89 just missing the mark. Does anyone think Jay Cutler in 2014 had a great year? Of course not. Let's just put to bed now once and for all that nothing has changed in the game in 20 years. LUDICROUS!!!

 

you breath on a WR now and it's a 10 yard penalty for holding or PI. (depending on the ref crew)

[Tintonfallsbillsfan]

how about a special draft for the qb's

worst to first . you can only pick in the top 5 once every three years. you can pass if you don;t want to take anyone and the year will not count against you

This way there is no risk on taking a qb. The worst teams will take one , ten teams plus teams will get one every year.

no trading of the pick

and a lottery system for bottom 5 , no tanking , the NBA is a joke right now

also you are allowed one roster spot for a developmental qb. once designated he can not play for your team for the entire season and can not be traded, of course you can cut him

Edited January 17, 2015 by Tintonfallsbillsfan

[Mr. WEO]

Oh Really?

I would also like to point out that the fact QBs of today have a bigger impact than 20 years ago. The NFL Passer Rating has remained the same. In 1994 Steve Young was the only passer over 100. This year there were 4. In 1994 the only passer over 90, just barely, was Favre. In 2014, 17 GUYS PASSED THE MARK!!!!!! Including Jay Cutler with an 89 just missing the mark. Does anyone think Jay Cutler in 2014 had a great year? Of course not. Let's just put to bed now once and for all that nothing has changed in the game in 20 years. LUDICROUS!!!

 

The OP stated that the game has changed so much because too much emphasis is placed on having an elite QB. Then you post that QBs with a rating over 90 are a dime a dozen today. It doesn't matter if the QB ratings 20 years ago were 10 points lower than now--if you didn't have an elite QB, your chances of ultimate, continued success were no better than they are now.

 

Anyway, we are talking about whether the game today revolves around too small a number of elite QBs. If it does, this hasn't changed in decades. The QB was "dominant" 20 years ago, and still is. Not different. The absolute number of passing yards or rating doesn't change the fact that this hasn't changed over the years. Just like then, you need to find a top QB to succeed at the highest level.

 

The changes proposed would solve nothing and would create a game few would enjoy watching.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Mr. WEO