I was thinking about the longevity of mobile QB's. We talk a lot about the shelf life of RB's and other positions...
I was wondering if anybody has crunched the numbers on the longevity of the mobile QB vs. the pocket passer.
Seems like the distinction isn't made when discussing QB longevity. Clearly the more mobile QB's take more wear and tear than the tradition pocket passers. Do pocket passers drive the shelf life numbers up?
Just thinking about a lot of guys who are mobile that have missed significant time due to injury. Rodgers, Newton, RGIII, Luck....
I think there needs to be a distinction when discussing the shelf life of QB's and while Danile Joness may be mobile, we may want him to be mobile as a last resort, not as a go to option.
Link - ( New Window )
That stuff might affect him on the back end.
Not trying to cry wolf, but in no way should we expect our next QB to be as available as Manning has been.
Who will be DJ's backup next year?
And even among truly mobile QBs, I think style makes a big difference. Russel Wilson has never missed a game (now his 8th season) despite consistently rushing it 5-6 times/game (~90-100x per season). But he'll often slide or duck OOB and from what I've seen, rarely takes a big hit. Newton/Vick are/were awful at avoiding the big hits and paid for it.
I was actually shocked this past week that Dak took a couple unnecessary shots just to gain an extra 1-2 yards. If I'm his coaches, I'm drilling him regarding that shit all week...
That stuff might affect him on the back end.
At least one of the broken collarbones was on a pass and actually led to a rule change (though I personally thought there was nothing wrong with the hit).
A lot of the extra hits Rodgers' takes aren't because he's looking to run, but because he holds the ball longer trying to make something happen rather than throwing it away. Big Ben has this same issue and he's far from a mobile QB. I can see Darnold taking some unnecessary shots for this reason too and he's largely a pocket passer.
That's a dumb sentiment. A QB that can take off and pickup a 1st on 3rd and 5 adds an extra dimension to the offense. But that QB needs to be smart and avoid the hits via sliding or getting OOBs.
There are no prizes just for keeping your QB healthy. Hasn't done much for the Giants in the last 7-8 years.
To me, the more worthy question is what I'll refer to as the "Go Terps Hypothesis" -- are you better off always having a QB on a rookie contract and having a system on offense that makes more frequent turnover at the position realistic and manageable. I don't have conviction either way but it's a worthy question.
There are no prizes just for keeping your QB healthy. Hasn't done much for the Giants in the last 7-8 years.
To me, the more worthy question is what I'll refer to as the "Go Terps Hypothesis" -- are you better off always having a QB on a rookie contract and having a system on offense that makes more frequent turnover at the position realistic and manageable. I don't have conviction either way but it's a worthy question.
I hadn't heard him make that hypothesis, but I've been thinking for awhile now that unless you have an All Pro level QB, you're better off reloading with young QBs on their first contract and strengthening the rest of the team. For example, look at all the money the Rams are paying Goff. They'd do just as well with a journeyman and the journeyman would be much cheaper. The mid tier QBs aren't worth the money anymore.
Quote:
read option 5-10x per game, but I think having an athlete at the position is a big advantage. I'll gladly take some injury risk to have the better playmaker. Hope for some good luck and make sure you're investing in the backup QB on a continual basis to a level that it isn't an unmitigated crisis if your guy needs to miss some games.
There are no prizes just for keeping your QB healthy. Hasn't done much for the Giants in the last 7-8 years.
To me, the more worthy question is what I'll refer to as the "Go Terps Hypothesis" -- are you better off always having a QB on a rookie contract and having a system on offense that makes more frequent turnover at the position realistic and manageable. I don't have conviction either way but it's a worthy question.
I hadn't heard him make that hypothesis, but I've been thinking for awhile now that unless you have an All Pro level QB, you're better off reloading with young QBs on their first contract and strengthening the rest of the team. For example, look at all the money the Rams are paying Goff. They'd do just as well with a journeyman and the journeyman would be much cheaper. The mid tier QBs aren't worth the money anymore.
I have thought this is a valid approach to continue. The QB salaries are just getting out of hand even with the increased cap. College QB's today are better equipped for the NFL day. Draft, UDFA acquisition, some FA but just acquire good football players and be strong on both lines. Even with a good QB you at least have a chance and with injuries if you have good depth you have a chance to make a run. Of course you need great coaching.
Quote:
read option 5-10x per game, but I think having an athlete at the position is a big advantage. I'll gladly take some injury risk to have the better playmaker. Hope for some good luck and make sure you're investing in the backup QB on a continual basis to a level that it isn't an unmitigated crisis if your guy needs to miss some games.
There are no prizes just for keeping your QB healthy. Hasn't done much for the Giants in the last 7-8 years.
To me, the more worthy question is what I'll refer to as the "Go Terps Hypothesis" -- are you better off always having a QB on a rookie contract and having a system on offense that makes more frequent turnover at the position realistic and manageable. I don't have conviction either way but it's a worthy question.
I hadn't heard him make that hypothesis, but I've been thinking for awhile now that unless you have an All Pro level QB, you're better off reloading with young QBs on their first contract and strengthening the rest of the team. For example, look at all the money the Rams are paying Goff. They'd do just as well with a journeyman and the journeyman would be much cheaper. The mid tier QBs aren't worth the money anymore.
The risk there is you need to be highly confident in your scouting. Is Goff topped out or can he develop into a top 10 QB? While it (sorta) worked out for the Chargers, their internal scouting missed big time on Brees. Imagine if they had kept Brees and added Larry Fitzgerald to that team!
QBs gut crushed in the pocket, too, when the OL is poor and/or the QB struggles with decision making. Right now, for example, Watson takes more hits in the pocket than on the move. And he’s a terrific athlete.
Lots of mobile QBs have had long successful careers...Elway, Montana, Young, Cunningham, Wilson, Vick, Favre, Romo, Brunnel, McNabb, McNair, etc. And many of those played when football was much more physical.
QBs gut crushed in the pocket, too, when the OL is poor and/or the QB struggles with decision making. Right now, for example, Watson takes more hits in the pocket than on the move. And he’s a terrific athlete.
Lots of mobile QBs have had long successful careers...Elway, Montana, Young, Cunningham, Wilson, Vick, Favre, Romo, Brunnel, McNabb, McNair, etc. And many of those played when football was much more physical.
Young - started 16 games only 3x, 15 twice and 14 once. Otherwise played <12 games per season.
Cunningham - 7 seasons starting 12+ games (16 - 3x, 15 - 1x, 14 - 1x, 12 - 1x). 1 start in '91, 4 in '93, 4 in '95, 3 in '97, etc. Those should've been his prime.
Vick - only 4 seasons with 15+ starts (all 16 only once). And that doesn't even describe how often he played banged up (like Newton).
Favre - major stretch including him as he's closer to Brady/Mannings than these guys.
Romo - moved around the pocket, but never averaged more than 2.5 rushes/game in any season. That's Eli level.
Brunell - basically done by the time he was 32 thanks to injuries.
McNabb - better than most, but still only averaged 13.5 games/year (excluding his 1st and last seasons) including losing his age 29 and 30 seasons to injury.
McNair - see McNabb
And even with the relatively good health of McNair/McNabb, they were still playing a lot of games at <100% which is obviously going to decrease their effectiveness.
McNabb only played 13 seasons, but was essentially done when he left PHI after 11 seasons and at age 33. Long NFL career, but short for a top QB. Also only started 16 games once in his final 6 years with PHI.
I expect Jones will be more in the Luck/Rodgers mold (style wise, not results wise) and will run to extend plays or pick up yards when nothing else is there, with very few designed runs. But based on the economics of the position, I think is also more desirable to have a mobile QB for a shorter period of time and change them out more often than to keep a traditional pocket passer into their mid-30s.
So you don’t like Russell Wilson lol. There’s running smartly and then there’s the Cam newton method.
Quote:
How a about Wentz. ACL running for a TD. It one thing to buy time with your legs and another to run for positive yardage. I hope a never see Daniel Jones run past the LOS again.
A QB that can take off and pickup a 1st on 3rd and 5 adds an extra dimension to the offense. But that QB needs to be smart and avoid the hits via sliding or getting OOBs.
There! I fixed it for you.
The league is full of guys who can stand in the pocket and make plays, and also run when needed. This "which do you prefer" is really a strawman. I want a guy who can do both.
I expect Jones will be more in the Luck/Rodgers mold (style wise, not results wise) and will run to extend plays or pick up yards when nothing else is there, with very few designed runs. But based on the economics of the position, I think is also more desirable to have a mobile QB for a shorter period of time and change them out more often than to keep a traditional pocket passer into their mid-30s.
Resigning your franchise QB is like kissing your sister. I keep a bunch of young mobile QBs. Maybe Little Bill or somebody will move in that direction with the contingency not to resign your qb.
Plus mobile qbs are fun, as bbiers seem to like. And easier than going through 5 reads.
Luck was a scrambling QB, Newton is a running QB. There's a difference.
Quote:
is worth the stretch.
QBs gut crushed in the pocket, too, when the OL is poor and/or the QB struggles with decision making. Right now, for example, Watson takes more hits in the pocket than on the move. And he’s a terrific athlete.
Lots of mobile QBs have had long successful careers...Elway, Montana, Young, Cunningham, Wilson, Vick, Favre, Romo, Brunnel, McNabb, McNair, etc. And many of those played when football was much more physical.
Young - started 16 games only 3x, 15 twice and 14 once. Otherwise played <12 games per season.
Cunningham - 7 seasons starting 12+ games (16 - 3x, 15 - 1x, 14 - 1x, 12 - 1x). 1 start in '91, 4 in '93, 4 in '95, 3 in '97, etc. Those should've been his prime.
Vick - only 4 seasons with 15+ starts (all 16 only once). And that doesn't even describe how often he played banged up (like Newton).
Favre - major stretch including him as he's closer to Brady/Mannings than these guys.
Romo - moved around the pocket, but never averaged more than 2.5 rushes/game in any season. That's Eli level.
Brunell - basically done by the time he was 32 thanks to injuries.
McNabb - better than most, but still only averaged 13.5 games/year (excluding his 1st and last seasons) including losing his age 29 and 30 seasons to injury.
McNair - see McNabb
And even with the relatively good health of McNair/McNabb, they were still playing a lot of games at <100% which is obviously going to decrease their effectiveness.
The Minnesota version of Cunningham had turned into a pocket passer anyway.
Quote:
In comment 14573818 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
read option 5-10x per game, but I think having an athlete at the position is a big advantage. I'll gladly take some injury risk to have the better playmaker. Hope for some good luck and make sure you're investing in the backup QB on a continual basis to a level that it isn't an unmitigated crisis if your guy needs to miss some games.
There are no prizes just for keeping your QB healthy. Hasn't done much for the Giants in the last 7-8 years.
To me, the more worthy question is what I'll refer to as the "Go Terps Hypothesis" -- are you better off always having a QB on a rookie contract and having a system on offense that makes more frequent turnover at the position realistic and manageable. I don't have conviction either way but it's a worthy question.
I hadn't heard him make that hypothesis, but I've been thinking for awhile now that unless you have an All Pro level QB, you're better off reloading with young QBs on their first contract and strengthening the rest of the team. For example, look at all the money the Rams are paying Goff. They'd do just as well with a journeyman and the journeyman would be much cheaper. The mid tier QBs aren't worth the money anymore.
The risk there is you need to be highly confident in your scouting. Is Goff topped out or can he develop into a top 10 QB? While it (sorta) worked out for the Chargers, their internal scouting missed big time on Brees. Imagine if they had kept Brees and added Larry Fitzgerald to that team!
Yep, which is why you'd look at journeymen as well as college QBs. The idea is that a non-All Pro QB costs SO much that your team is better off strengthening other positions. The Vikings for example were better off with Case Keenum than they are now with Kirk Cousins. And even when Keenum left, they'd have been better off rolling the dice with Bridgewater than they are with Cousins.
Giants have had the most durable quarterback in the league for past 7 years. I get Britt s pt. but don’t see it as a reason to shy away from a quarterback who can extend plays.
Plus there s Russell Wilson and the young Drew Brees as examples of quarterbacks who are both durable and mobile
That stuff might affect him on the back end.
He's 36. He's already proven his "longevity". Not everyone is Brady.
Doing it in the postseason (see Eli in SF) is different than always standing in and trying to force something. For starters, the extra sacks (vs throwing it away) likely outweigh the big play you make 1 out of 10 times, though fans likely remember the highlight reel play more. 2nd, if you're talking about a top 5-10 QB (Big Ben, Rodgers, etc) having that guy available and as healthy as possible for 16 games is far more important than 1 drive or even 1 game.
And that's before even getting into the cumulative effect of all those hits over a players career. There's a reason Brady/Brees are still going strong at 40+.
Quote:
and had multiple concussions.
That stuff might affect him on the back end.
He's 36. He's already proven his "longevity". Not everyone is Brady.
To an extent. He also missed most of 2017 and was far from peak Rodgers last year.
Quote:
In comment 14573776 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
and had multiple concussions.
That stuff might affect him on the back end.
He's 36. He's already proven his "longevity". Not everyone is Brady.
To an extent. He also missed most of 2017 and was far from peak Rodgers last year.
The point I was just about to make.
Missed significant time at 34, and was not his normal MVP self last season.
So now your new thing is to intentionally misspell Shurmur's name in all of your posts?
It's bad enough that you're a troll and a dupe, but you're so juvenile too. How is it enjoyable for you to continue to do this with multiple handles?
Oh, so it's a conscious choice and not because he's slower than molasses on a cold winter day?
Quote:
that he was not going to be making plays with his legs. He saw his father Archie (one tough dude get slaughtered with the Saints for years) as did Peyton. Pocket passers practice evasion and not head down trying to pick up yards.
Oh, so it's a conscious choice and not because he's slower than molasses on a cold winter day?
on the other end of the spectrum (going back a ways) there was Jim Everett and Rob Johnson, neither of whom knew when to get down or get out of the way.
That stuff might affect him on the back end.
I’d say it already is. Having said that, Rodgers and Cam played vastly different styles. Cam used his mobility and size first and foremost. It was his go to move. The panthers insistence to run cam into all those stat padding TDs was at times, unnecessary. I’d bet Cam also insisted on these playcalls. Can’t be super man without the EZ celebrations.
I won’t lie, I love seeing newton struggle.
I think it's because they trust their athleticism more than stationary QBs and are more willing to hold on to the ball longer, believing that may be able to evade a pass rush to give themselves additional time.
But the idea that QBs sustain most of their injuries outside of the pocket just isn't true. Their location on the field, or if they're scrambling are irrelevant. It's just a matter of whether the QB is savvy enough to avoid unnecessary contact from defenders - a skill that perhaps Eli Manning and Russell Wilson (two completely different style of player) should receive more credit for.
It has been posted here before, but QB's who are considered "mobile" have been shown to have an injury rate three times higher than those considered to be predominantly pocket passers.
I'm sure the criteria of what constitutes each QB could be debated, but those results are not insignificant.