The QB-centric NFL desperately needs a visionary

[CommonCents]

Jordan Palmer is leading us towards a QB revolution. How could you not be excited?

[Boatdrinks]

22 minutes ago, Blue on Blue said:

I wasn't looking for lots of running and little scoring.  I was looking for variety of any sort, and for nonconformist thinking that could free the game from its present QB-centric structure and strictures.

I get it, but it won't happen unless you alter the rules. 

[Prickly Pete]

The OP just asks for ideas, and everyone wants to beat up on him instead, and tell him how he is "wrong". 

 

He never said "I want more running", or "I don't want QB's to be the focus".

 

I could imagine how a visionary coach could devise a new offense that, while still focusing on the QB, fit the skill set of a wider range of QB's and/or easier for "mediocre" QB's to excel at.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by OJABBA

[Luxy312]

1 hour ago, Blue on Blue said:

I can remember when the primary position in the NFL was running back.  Running backs are now paid on a par with kickers and punters.

Over time, the game became so QB-centric that a five-game starter in San Francisco becomes the league's richest player, until (weeks later) a QB with more career losses than wins becomes the league's richest player, until (a few months later) teams are scrambling to give away years of first round picks for any of four or five unproven college quarterbacks.

Could there/will there be a visionary (or a visionary coach/GM/owner troika) who envision a new way -- to draft, pay, trade and play the game on the field -- in such a way that leverages the a$$ets now devoted to QB into a competitively superior team with a totally different approach to the game?

I invite comments from any free thinkers out there who know way more about this game than I do, and who are sick of reading about hand size and how many years of first round draft picks it will cost us to see if Joe Schmoe from Kokomo State will ever pan out.  The game is over-due for a revolution.

 

To a degree, I would argue that the Ravens is the model that you're looking for.  Joe Flacco is getting paid a decent chunk of change, but is not the guy that's going to go in and win you games by throwing the ball all over the field.  The Ravens since getting Joe Flacco have been spending almost 40% more of their available cap space on their defense than they have their offense.  Going into 2018, that's about 38.5%, so pretty consistent.

The problem that you have none the less with this model is that a good game manager that is not a turnover machine (like Joe Flacco) can't carry the team when the defense isn't all that good.  The offense still has to have other playmakers that can help you score as well.  For all of those playoff years, they had Boldin and Rice and some pretty darn good talent on defense.  Now that their defense is getting older, the offense just isn't able to hold up when other teams are able to score.

The single biggest problem with the idea of a "revolution" is that there's no equivalent QB anywhere else.  The QB touches the ball on every single play and is the only one that can audible if he doesn't like what he sees from the defense.  The closest thing to a QB on the defense is the MLB, but they can't make every play defensively.  There's a great degree of imbalance when the QB can decide to attack your worst defenders by choice.

That's my take.  Ravens have basically done this with an average QB, but there will always be a premium even for that.

[whatdrought]

I mean, I don't know if this counts, but I think we saw several coaches do this this past year with Pederson, Shumur, and even Marrone. Hiding QB's weakness and playing towards their strengths. As much as I was never convinced that TT would be a bona-fide franchise guy, I was always upset when the offense looked like it was tailor made to hide his strengths and heighten his weaknesses. 

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

So wouldn't it make sense - if you don't have a franchise QB - to build an offense of bruisers who believe in three yards and a cloud of dust?  Start with some beefy linemen and an Earl Campbell type running back.  Then get some speedy WRs and a strong-armed (if not Brady-esque in terms of accuracy) QB who will make the defense think twice about loading the box.   

 

You've just described the perfect offense--which unfortunately could never be built in the salary cap/free agency, "not for long" NFL.     

 

IMO, today's GMs are nothing more than little Dutch boys continually plugging holes in their roster.   Those that get lucky enough to stop the water from rising too quickly often get a ring.    The rest just drown or learn to swim really well.

 

Getting the elements of your proposed O-Line in place would probably mean the WR group would have a weakness.   Or the lack of a QB would rear it's head, like we've seen in Buffalo for so many years.   Or a RB, TE or WRs would want "big money" and screw up the team's salary structure.

 

We can all build a fantasy team that kicks ass.   The problem is, it's a fantasy...

[Luxy312]

12 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

I mean, I don't know if this counts, but I think we saw several coaches do this this past year with Pederson, Shumur, and even Marrone. Hiding QB's weakness and playing towards their strengths. As much as I was never convinced that TT would be a bona-fide franchise guy, I was always upset when the offense looked like it was tailor made to hide his strengths and heighten his weaknesses. 

 

I think you mean Taylor-made.  LOL.

[The Wiz]

2 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Jordan Palmer is leading us towards a QB revolution. How could you not be excited?

Who the hell was it that went on and on about him and his footwork???

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, horned dogs said:

I will say,  often have wondered if someone won't take advantage of the smaller, speedier D fronts people are building more and more. Try to beat it with size, strength, power and different packages. Some of it is done now, just not so much. 

 

I was watching a pre season game last year.  49ers against somebody.  The announcer said he thought that would happen and was already starting.  He said teams have gone to smaller faster defenders.  Teams will load up on road grader offensive lineman and ram the football down their throat.

 

Pretty much what we did in 2015 and 2016.  Then, we hired Rico and he had better ideas.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I will say that having different approaches to winning is good for the game. In boxing its the puncher vs the technician. It makes for the best action. I do feel like there was a period a few years ago where the league was very much of an antiseptic product. In the last few years beginning with Seattle teams have become more creative. Perhaps some newer ideas have filtered in.

Edited April 4, 2018 by horned dogs

[OldTimer1960]

5 hours ago, horned dogs said:

Another guy who remembers the Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson, OJ Simpson era!

 

I think rules are so blatantly slanted toward passing it is very unlikely in the near future. No motivation for the league to change the rules away from passing either.

 

I will say,  often have wondered if someone won't take advantage of the smaller, speedier D fronts people are building more and more. Try to beat it with size, strength, power and different packages. Some of it is done now, just not so much. 

I do agree with this- smaller LBs and DL to provide coverage and pass rush could be taken advantage by a contrarian power run game approach.  Not sure if that would be enough to overcome other teams if you don’t have at least a competent passing game.  

[Saxum]

I think the change which will occur will be teams will start attacking QBs knowing that if the QB is hit enough he will make mistakes.  They will accept getting burned early in games knowing that when the third and fourth quarter comes around the starter will be too flustered or replaced by backup who cannot get job done.  We have seen games like this in past but teams rarely keep up pressure.

[Stanley Lombardi]

I appreciate your replies!  Someday, somebody is going to re-think this game from the ground up without any deference to convention or tradition.  Then we shall see what we shall see...

[ddaryl]

I agree with the OPs premise and believe the current over focus on qb in todays nfl is growing into a problem. 

[slaphappy]

3 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I was watching a pre season game last year.  49ers against somebody.  The announcer said he thought that would happen and was already starting.  He said teams have gone to smaller faster defenders.  Teams will load up on road grader offensive lineman and ram the football down their throat.

 

Pretty much what we did in 2015 and 2016.  Then, we hired Rico and he had better ideas.

An example of what that might look like is what the Saints did to the Bills in one series last year. Drove the entire field and scored without a pass. Not saying having their QB didn't make that much easier.. but if someone dominated like that on the ground and you couldn't stop it you would be completely helpless like the Bills were at the time.

[BringBackOrton]

9 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

If it is an ignorant opinion then why does everyone scream from the mountaintops that getting a QB above all else is the only thing that matters?

 

It is called imbalance.

 

In baseball, starting pitching is the most important position, but that is mitigated by needing 5 different guys.  Literally anyone on the team with any style at any position can be the most important guy.  You don't pass up a top CF prospect because you have to go SS at all costs.  

 

Is there another position in any sport that gets 25% of the attention a QB gets before his career even starts?  Is there another position where fans advocate trading everything to get one of the "top 4 of this year"?  Sure there are Lebrons and McDavids that come along, but they are individuals, not positions.

 

There are arguments about whether Josh Allen can hit the ocean from a boat, yet people scream that we neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed to get him.  Roquan Smith has very few question marks.  Would anyone on the planet advocate trading 14 picks to move up to 2 and get him?

 

Imbalance

 

Another thread asks the question if someone can come up with a roster or scheming strategy that makes QB need less important.  You answered that with one word: "NO".  So in one thread you emphatically state that among the hundreds of great minds in football not one can come up with an idea that lessens the importance of QB, and in this thread you call it ignorant to say there is an imbalance?  How does that reconcile?

 

Edit: It isn't even a separate thread.  It is thus one.

But that's where your argument fails.  Eliminate Brady/Peyton and the QB position is not so lopsidedly important.  It's just the most important position, just like pitchers and we are living in the era where some of the best to ever play are going strong.  You're basically saying the Jordan-era NBA is imbalanced because the shooting guards are too good.

 

I called your point ignorant because you said the QB-centricity of the NFL means you can't win in multiple ways.  That's not true AT ALL.  As evidenced by the vastly different styles in the last 5 Super Bowl Champions.  It's not "Get good QB, win the Super Bowl every year."

[Doc Brown]

10 hours ago, Blue on Blue said:

I can remember when the primary position in the NFL was running back.  Running backs are now paid on a par with kickers and punters.

Over time, the game became so QB-centric that a five-game starter in San Francisco becomes the league's richest player, until (weeks later) a QB with more career losses than wins becomes the league's richest player, until (a few months later) teams are scrambling to give away years of first round picks for any of four or five unproven college quarterbacks.

Could there/will there be a visionary (or a visionary coach/GM/owner troika) who envision a new way -- to draft, pay, trade and play the game on the field -- in such a way that leverages the a$$ets now devoted to QB into a competitively superior team with a totally different approach to the game?

I invite comments from any free thinkers out there who know way more about this game than I do, and who are sick of reading about hand size and how many years of first round draft picks it will cost us to see if Joe Schmoe from Kokomo State will ever pan out.  The game is over-due for a revolution.

We tried that the last three years.

[GreggTX]

I couldn't agree more, OP. Let's bring back bump 'n run. Let the DB's play football again. The passing game has become anticlimactic and WR's have it WAY too easy. Heck, OL couldn't even extend their arms back when I was in school, but I think that rule should be the same for offense and defense.

[Green Lightning]

10 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

No.  

That's just unnecessarily blunt. How about - absolutely not?

[GreggTX]

1 hour ago, ddaryl said:

I agree with the OPs premise and believe the current over focus on qb in todays nfl is growing into a problem. 

True dat. If you have a shortage of elite QB's, it makes the outcomes too predictable. QB will always be the most important position, but it doesn't have to be so ridiculous.