Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Why don't we adopt a 2 QB system?

brandymac27

By brandymac27
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

brandymac27

brandymac27

Posted
Posted

I was reading this blog at yahoo:

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/blog/roy_s_johnson/post/With-more-games-the-NFL-must-adopt-two-QB-strat;_ylt=AnbbDYf8XQa.PcTaSMqYUvpDubYF?urn=top,150995

After reading this, it seems like it would be a really good idea. Why don't teams (especially us) do this? It seems to me that strategically speaking, it would be a great idea b/c, as the author of the blog noted, it would be so much harder for other teams to prepare for 2 QB's as opposed to just one.

It also seems like it would solve a lot of our QB issues.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketCitySkins

RocketCitySkins

Posted
Posted

I love this line from the article. The writer has obviously never been to this message board. :doh:

"Most fans probably don't even know who's their team's backup."

I'm guessing you would want the two quarterbacks to be Campbell and Brennan? If we had an elite quarterback and an average quarterback I would say go for it. But we have an average quarterback and another one who has never taken a snap of regular season NFL play. I think it would be a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

Interesting thought but I can't really agree. Players get used to each others' tendancies, moves, timing, etc. If you throw a wrench in that all the time it would probably lead to bad things. Think of an intricate dance like Tango where, instead of having one dance partner, you had two and they just substituted once in a while. You'd probably end up off step and fail miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
This guy is soooo lacking in ability to imagine a situation it's funny. Every QB has little nuances. The offense has to prepare extra as well for two different QBs, which means MORE dedicated practice time.

She is a woman. I agree with you, but just figured I'd point that out. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brandymac27

brandymac27

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This guy is soooo lacking in ability to imagine a situation it's funny. Every QB has little nuances. The offense has to prepare extra as well for two different QBs, which means MORE dedicated practice time.

That's true. It would require more preparation. I guess the thing that I like about it is that it would also make it really hard for other teams to prepare for us. And it also allows you to see what your #2 is capable of without having to wait for your #1 to get injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
velocet

velocet

Posted
Posted

This was done before with some success. Van Brocklin and Waterfield split snaps.

From wiki:

"Van Brocklin was drafted in the fourth round (37th overall) of the 1949 NFL Draft by the Los Angeles Rams. He joined a team that already had a star quarterback, Bob Waterfield. Beginning in 1950, new Rams coach Joe Stydahar solved his problem by platooning Waterfield and Van Brocklin. The 1950 Rams scored an (at that time) NFL record 466 points (38.8 per game) with a high octane passing attack featuring Tom Fears and Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch. Fears led the league and set a new NFL record with 84 receptions. Van Brocklin and Waterfield finished 1-2 in passer rating as well. They were defeated by the Cleveland Browns in the 1950 title game, 30-28.

In 1951, Van Brocklin and Waterfield again split quarterbacking duties and the Rams again won the West. That year, Hirsch set an NFL record with 1,495 receiving yards and tied Don Hutson's record of 17 touchdown receptions. This time, the Rams won the title rematch against Cleveland, 24-17. Waterfield (9-24, 125 yards) took most of the snaps, but Van Brocklin (4-6, 128 yards) threw the game winner of 73 yards to Fears. This was the last Rams championship until 1999. Also in 1951, on September 28, he threw for 554 yards, breaking Johnny Lujack's single-game record of 468, a mark that still stands more than a half-century later."

Link... I know, I know but this bit of history isn't exactly controversial.

velocet

Link to comment
Share on other sites
turbodiesel#44

turbodiesel#44

Posted
Posted

I see a lot of issues with a 2 QB system.

  • The QB's would only get 1/2 the walkthroughs and practice time with the starters
  • Just orchestrating 11 men to move exactly on time to a snap is difficult, more so with crowd noise. Familiarity with the QB's cadence and voice helps a lot. Also knowing his footwork and tendencies is important to the line and backfield.
  • Once you pull a guy he's finished. You rarely can cool down then return to a game. That's why pitchers never come back to the mound. If your 1st guy is better, you are better off leaving him in.
  • 2 guys fighting to be the team leader, and the cap implications of 2 starting QB salaries.
  • Timing with the receivers is difficult enough without changing the pitcher.
  • A good QB can finish a full game no problem. Adjustments would be made to the preseason and camp schedule along with a likely additional bye week to preserve the players in a stretched season.
  • No QB in the NFL (or anywhere) will want to share starting duties. Or starting salary. Or the stats.

You pull a QB if the guy is faltering, or you need to preserve him, or you want to look at a backup. I think that article is silly.

No reflection on the OP. Brandy, you're a fine girl...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brandymac27

brandymac27

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I see a lot of issues with a 2 QB system.

  • The QB's would only get 1/2 the walkthroughs and practice time with the starters
  • Just orchestrating 11 men to move exactly on time to a snap is difficult, more so with crowd noise. Familiarity with the QB's cadence and voice helps a lot. Also knowing his footwork and tendencies is important to the line and backfield.
  • Once you pull a guy he's finished. You rarely can cool down then return to a game. That's why pitchers never come back to the mound. If your 1st guy is better, you are better off leaving him in.
  • 2 guys fighting to be the team leader, and the cap implications of 2 starting QB salaries.
  • Timing with the receivers is difficult enough without changing the pitcher.
  • A good QB can finish a full game no problem. Adjustments would be made to the preseason and camp schedule along with a likely additional bye week to preserve the players in a stretched season.
  • No QB in the NFL (or anywhere) will want to share starting duties. Or starting salary. Or the stats.

You pull a QB if the guy is faltering, or you need to preserve him, or you want to look at a backup. I think that article is silly.

No reflection on the OP. Brandy, you're a fine girl...

No offense taken. The issues that you listed are definitely something to consider and would cause problems. I just don't see how they can't be overcome. I mean, the other players would eventually get used to both QB's (Think back to how well we did when TC stepped in when JC got hurt). But, salary and stat issues would be a big issue too and frankly I don't how you would address that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HighOnHendrix

HighOnHendrix

Posted
Posted
I love this line from the article. The writer has obviously never been to this message board. :doh:

"Most fans probably don't even know who's their team's backup."

Here's another good one that brings into question the author's football acumen:

Andy Reid could have "benched" Donovan McNabb last season without "benching" him in the traditional sense, i.e. public humiliation. Playing the backup more could have been positioned as more strategic than punitive.

And what did that "punitive" benching encourage McNabb to do? Throw for over 1100 yds and 9 TDs while leading his team to victories in 4 out of the last five games. Pity that Reid couldn't have avoided huwting his wittle feewings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bubble Screen

Bubble Screen

Posted
Posted
I was reading this blog at yahoo:

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/blog/roy_s_johnson/post/With-more-games-the-NFL-must-adopt-two-QB-strat;_ylt=AnbbDYf8XQa.PcTaSMqYUvpDubYF?urn=top,150995

After reading this, it seems like it would be a really good idea. Why don't teams (especially us) do this? It seems to me that strategically speaking, it would be a great idea b/c, as the author of the blog noted, it would be so much harder for other teams to prepare for 2 QB's as opposed to just one.

It also seems like it would solve a lot of our QB issues.

Thoughts?

Why? This is simple. Because more times than not it doesn't work. Not in college. Not in the NFL. Its just not a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
turbodiesel#44

turbodiesel#44

Posted
Posted
No offense taken. The issues that you listed are definitely something to consider and would cause problems. I just don't see how they can't be overcome. I mean, the other players would eventually get used to both QB's (Think back to how well we did when TC stepped in when JC got hurt). But, salary and stat issues would be a big issue too and frankly I don't how you would address that.
You are assuming that a 2 QB system is somehow better and a team will work towards it. I disagree. And so will the NFL. They know how important their hero's are to the bottom line. They will not change the game totally just trying to stretch the season a game or two.

What is your argument that we even need a tandem QB system? And how exactly would it be better? This is not the NBA, MLS or the NHL where the action is nearly constant and the offense plays continuously as defenders too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...