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

[BackInDaDay]

 

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.

 

oh, i don't know.. maybe a couple young men who - for whatever reason - didn't get much attention during their collegiate careers, could actually shine at the pro level if teams had the luxury of taking a chance on them. there really is no minor league to develop talent outside the practice squad - and that has limitations to it's participation. as long as no constraints are legislated into the game that allow mediocre QBs to out-perform excetional QBs, what's the harm in trying to identify more exceptional QBs? if i choose to develop 4 or 5 read/option QBs to suit my system, that's on me. if i choose to diversify, and invest my time on an assortment of different styled QBs - that's also on me. the thing is.. on Sunday, i still have to dress whoever gives me the best chance to win - and thats all STP was asking for - a better chance.

Edited January 17, 2015 by BackInDaDay

[Mr. WEO]

 

oh, i don't know.. maybe a couple young men who - for whatever reason - didn't get much attention during their collegiate careers, could actually shine at the pro level if teams had the luxury of taking a chance on them. there really is no minor league to develop talent outside the practice squad - and that has limitations to it's participation. as long as no constraints are legislated into the game that allow mediocre QBs to out-perform excetional QBs, what's the harm in trying to identify more exceptional QBs? if i choose to develop 4 or 5 read/option QBs to suit my system, that's on me. if i choose to diversify, and invest my time on an assortment of different styled QBs - that's also on me. the thing is.. on Sunday, i still have to dress whoever gives me the best chance to win - and thats all STP was asking for - a better chance.

 

Use the draft--there are 7 rounds for every team every year. Plus any UDFA you wish to chose. That's ample opportunity to pick and "develop" a QB every year if a team wishes--yet they don't. Go figure.

 

There is no minor league because none of the owners, the people who you would think would benefit from such a thing, don't see the necessity or utility of it.

 

This entire premise is built on the assumption that there is a population of college QBs who, if just given a bit more time and attention, would join the ranks of, or somehow negate the effect of the "elite" QBs who dominate the league.

 

The problem is that there are too many QBs who came out and started right away, successfully, in the league right now to persuade the owners they are doing it all wrong.

[BackInDaDay]

 

Use the draft--there are 7 rounds for every team every year. Plus any UDFA you wish to chose. That's ample opportunity to pick and "develop" a QB every year if a team wishes--yet they don't. Go figure.

 

backup QBs get little to no reps in season, and 3rd stringers run the scout team - there's no structure to support development of anyone other than that week's starter - and that isn't development, it's working through the gameplan. now add a 4th and 5th QB to the mix. no one get's developed in the pros.. regardless of whether they come into the league as projects, or not. and unless you want to blow your cap space out on one position, you'd have to pick your yearly candidate with in later rounds to keep from stockpiling big contracts - so there's that.

 

There is no minor league because none of the owners, the people who you would think would benefit from such a thing, don't see the necessity or utility of it.

 

and they won't need one if the club has an internal means - a mini passing academy - to develop the skills required to play at a higher lever, without leveraging the active roster and coaching staff. sign your projects to affordable contracts - work with the NFLPA to establish the treatment of this adjunct unit in terms of compensation, rules, and whatever else needs to be worked out.

 

This entire premise is built on the assumption that there is a population of college QBs who, if just given a bit more time and attention, would join the ranks of, or somehow negate the effect of the "elite" QBs who dominate the league.

 

what's the harm in attempting to draw out talented kids who slipped through the cracks? a diamonds in the rough exist. Russel and Brady were Big 10 QBs who could have been missed. given the luxury of obtaining an expanded pool of talent - clubs wouldn't have to compromise the future to address present needs

 

The problem is that there are too many QBs who came out and started right away, successfully, in the league right now to persuade the owners they are doing it all wrong.

 

Wilson and Luck are keepers.. Bridgewater may be, also.

Kaep and RG3 may be memories by 2016. same with EJ and Geno and maybe even Manziel - but if their clubs had the means to offer them a chance to rework their rookie contracts, and stay on to work on their games, they may - through repetition - adapt to the game

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

Use the draft--there are 7 rounds for every team every year. Plus any UDFA you wish to chose. That's ample opportunity to pick and "develop" a QB every year if a team wishes--yet they don't. Go figure.

 

backup QBs get little to no reps in season, and 3rd stringers run the scout team - there's no structure to support development of anyone other than that week's starter - and that isn't development, it's working through the gameplan. now add a 4th and 5th QB to the mix. no one get's developed in the pros.. regardless of whether they come into the league as projects, or not. and unless you want to blow your cap space out on one position, you'd have to pick your yearly candidate with in later rounds to keep from stockpiling big contracts - so there's that.

 

There is no minor league because none of the owners, the people who you would think would benefit from such a thing, don't see the necessity or utility of it.

 

and they won't need one if the club has an internal means - a mini passing academy - to develop the skills required to play at a higher lever, without leveraging the active roster and coaching staff. sign your projects to affordable contracts - work with the NFLPA to establish the treatment of this adjunct unit in terms of compensation, rules, and whatever else needs to be worked out.

 

This entire premise is built on the assumption that there is a population of college QBs who, if just given a bit more time and attention, would join the ranks of, or somehow negate the effect of the "elite" QBs who dominate the league.

 

what's the harm in attempting to draw out talented kids who slipped through the cracks? a diamonds in the rough exist. Russel and Brady were Big 10 QBs who could have been missed. given the luxury of obtaining an expanded pool of talent - clubs wouldn't have to compromise the future to address present needs

 

The problem is that there are too many QBs who came out and started right away, successfully, in the league right now to persuade the owners they are doing it all wrong.

 

Wilson and Luck are keepers.. Bridgewater may be, also.

Kaep and RG3 may be memories by 2016. same with EJ and Geno and maybe even Manziel - but if their clubs had the means to offer them a chance to rework their rookie contracts, and stay on to work on their games, they may - through repetition - adapt to the game

 

 

 

 

If teams want to draft extra late round QBs or pick up UDFA QBs and pay some extra staff to run a team "passing academy", aren't they free to do so now? The Practice squad can have more than one QB, no?

 

As for blowing the cap--even 1st round QBs are pretty cheap compared to 5 years ago. And a guy in the 3rd round, like Wilson, is nearly free.

 

The fallacy is that there is a significant number of "diamonds in the rough" that could be developed into elite or nearly elite QBs to make this all worthwhile. There really is little evidence to believe this is true.

 

Wilson was a star in 2 top college programs. Only massive stupidity on the part of GM groupthink would have prevented him from being drafted. Brady didn't need a "passing academy". He was the backup QB. That's where he developed.

[Martifal]

This topic interests me as the NFLs stated goal has been to have parity in the league, and lots of teams are still in the playoff hunt in December, but it usually boils down to the same handfull of QBs at the conference championships. I believe the answer would be to start a minor league system that played a pro set offense. At the college level there are few teams that use an offensive system that's comparable to the NFL. NFL teams are forced to take QBs and try to quickly develop them into an NFL style QB. At the college level the best programs often are sitting on 3 or 4 of the top prospects in the country while playing only one, perfect axample Ohio State this year they won the championship with their 3rd string QB big question this week was he going to come out in the draft after playing 3 games. With a baseball like minor league system every team could have several QBs developing at any given time, high school players would have a choice get an education or get a paycheck for playing football. Imagine how watered down pitching would be in the majors if baseball relied on college alone to develop players. With a minor league system there would eventually be more than enough NFL ready QBs to go around. It would also solve the problem with Colleges taking advantage of economically disadvantaged youth kids would have a choice top prospects could sign a contract and immediately help their families while pursuing an NFL career.

[maddenboy]

 

 

Why does the game need to be changed now?

 

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

 

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

 

I think you misapprehend the whole point of this thread. No offense intended.

 

Yes, Franchise QBs are out there. About 7-10 of them. Period.

 

Yes, someone will find them. But then there are 20-25 teams without one. And in the current NFL, you pretty much MUST have one to have a shot at a championship.

 

This is about how the NFL's model is flawed and maybe not sustainable, and certainly not maximizing itself.

 

In how many cities can fans seriously say, on opening day, "we are winning the SuperBowl THIS year?" Maybe 5-6. The cities with the top top QBs only. This thread is about the 10s of Millions of other fans, who are stuck every year with "we are getting better" or "we are improving" or "if things fall right we might make the playoffs," or "maybe I should find something else to do with my time and money."

 

-----------------------------

This isnt about "how can the Bills find a franchise QB?" Its about "for those who dont or cant (Bills or not), should the NFL really be all about "Franchise QB?"" Maybe, just maybe, lets make NFL football more about football, and less about stellar QB-ing.

Edited January 17, 2015 by maddenboy

[Fadingpain]

 

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.

I just turned 44 and was in college during the Bills glory years, to answer your question about me being young or having a bad memory.

 

Yes, the top teams when we were going to the Superbowl had top QBs, for the most part. That hasn't changed. But you tend to see things in simplistic, black and white terms. Little in life is all this or all that. The game MOST CERTAINLY has changed and there is way more emphasis on elite QB play now than there ever was.

 

I am thinking of the 1985 Bears and 1986 Giants...two killers....who had nothing close to an elite QB like Rodgers or Brady or Manning. Of course in the same era, the 49ers did a lot of winning, and they had one of the greats of all time. But the game was just DIFFERENT back then.

 

No offense, WEO, but you strike me as one of many on these forums who just enjoys arguing with anonymous strangers for the fun of it. I'm not into that.

[Fadingpain]

 

I think you misapprehend the whole point of this thread. No offense intended.

 

Yes, Franchise QBs are out there. About 7-10 of them. Period.

 

Yes, someone will find them. But then there are 20-25 teams without one. And in the current NFL, you pretty much MUST have one to have a shot at a championship.

 

This is about how the NFL's model is flawed and maybe not sustainable, and certainly not maximizing itself.

 

In how many cities can fans seriously say, on opening day, "we are winning the SuperBowl THIS year?" Maybe 5-6. The cities with the top top QBs only. This thread is about the 10s of Millions of other fans, who are stuck every year with "we are getting better" or "we are improving" or "if things fall right we might make the playoffs," or "maybe I should find something else to do with my time and money."

 

-----------------------------

This isnt about "how can the Bills find a franchise QB?" Its about "for those who dont or cant (Bills or not), should the NFL really be all about "Franchise QB?"" Maybe, just maybe, lets make NFL football more about football, and less about stellar QB-ing.

Thank you Maddenboy. Well said. You represented my intent in starting this thread perfectly.

[dave mcbride]

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.

Perfectly stated.

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

How can you say it doesn't work when I just sighted a prime example of it working at the NFL level.

 

These up-tempo offenses were designed to OVERCOME talent deficiencies.

 

They were installed at perennial doormat programs like Oregon and Baylor....for instance...because they could not compete for talent with the Texas and USC's of their conference.

 

Sound familiar? The Bills can't compete with New England....so the answer is hire Dick Jauron, try to make Trent Edwards imitate Tom Brady and play not to lose the other 14 games? Fortune favors the conservative?

 

Nobody is saying that the QB has to run the ball on the regular. Do Chip Kelly's Philly QB's run the ball a lot? Absolutely not. He hired Schurmur to install a west coast type offense. The key things he brought were tempo and a commitment to playing his game 60 minutes week in and out.

[4thAndInches]

I think you can reduce the reliance on a franchise-type QB quite easily, and without even having to tweak or change a single rule. And that is by developing a 4 down mindset. Stop using 4th down as the "Voluntary Turnover" down and instead use all 4 in an attempt to gain a first down. Instead of needing to average 3.33 yards per down using your typical 3-downs-and-punt strategy, with a 4 down mindset you only need to average 2.5. And that makes the running game relevant again. 2nd and 4 all of a sudden no longer is an automatic passing down. And the more capabile the running game, the less important the QB becomes.

 

Its my opinion that D1 colleges no longer produce NFL-caliber QBs. We're now into our 2nd decade of looking for that elusive franchise QB - how long does it take before you finally stop beating your head against the wall and say to yourself "Heck, maybe its time to try something different." And its not just the Bills. Its the Browns. Its the Raiders. Its the Redskins. Its the Jaguars. The Jets. The Titans. The Texans. The Rams. The Vikings. The Bucaneers. And you could even make the case its also the Dolphins, the Chiefs and the Bears. And there's probably more I'm not thinking of. Sure, a franchise quality QB comes along every so often, but you better time your losing season right in order to get a crack at him. Or you can get lucky. Look at Seattle. They went out and paid big free agent dollars to Matt Flynn to be their franchise QB. And for the heck of it, they drafted a kid named Russell Wilson. They didn't draft Wilson to be their franchise QB -- that guy was going to be Matt Flynn. And then training camp came along and the rest is history.

 

My point is that's its easier to put together a quality offensive line, a good defense and a good running back than it is to find that elusive franchise QB. Focus your energy on those elements and forget mortgaging the future on the crapshoot QB. The QB won't matter much when he's handing off 3 out of 4 downs in a series. But the strategy all hinges on one thing:

 

The 4 down mindset.

[Mr. WEO]

I just turned 44 and was in college during the Bills glory years, to answer your question about me being young or having a bad memory.

 

Yes, the top teams when we were going to the Superbowl had top QBs, for the most part. That hasn't changed. But you tend to see things in simplistic, black and white terms. Little in life is all this or all that. The game MOST CERTAINLY has changed and there is way more emphasis on elite QB play now than there ever was.

 

I am thinking of the 1985 Bears and 1986 Giants...two killers....who had nothing close to an elite QB like Rodgers or Brady or Manning. Of course in the same era, the 49ers did a lot of winning, and they had one of the greats of all time. But the game was just DIFFERENT back then.

 

No offense, WEO, but you strike me as one of many on these forums who just enjoys arguing with anonymous strangers for the fun of it. I'm not into that.

Look I just don't agre you are making a strong argument, that's all. It's unconvincing--no offense. The NFL was dominated by the QB back then, a few outliers like the Bears and Giants notwithstanding.

 

Few at this point consider R Wilson an "elite" QB, but he is poised to lead his team the their second consecutive NFCC game. SF recently went to 3 consecutive NFCC games with Alex Smith and Kaepernick. "Elites", no way.

 

You are proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

As for "the 10s of millions of other fans" out there looking to spend their time and money on something else--well, they obviously haven't walked away from the game. If the Bills had an "elite" QB, you would not have started this thread, correct?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Not even to develop the Stepford QB?? Some may argue that's how Brady found his wife!

 

I agree with you there is more arm and leg talent, but unfortunately I don't think the mind has kept up with it. Once in awhile the guy with the brain does come along ala Fitzpatrick, but then the arm isn't there.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

[boyst]

I'm not going to read all of this, but with all due respect I am just going to add that you watch. When Brady and Manning are out of the league there will be massive changes.

 

Luck, Rodgers and Roethlisberger will be about the only great QB's in the game.