Why don't we adopt a 2 QB system?

[HighOnHendrix]

This is not the NBA, MLS or the NHL where the action is nearly constant and the offense plays continuously as defenders too.

It would be cool to see that again, but it'll never happen.

[Justsomeguy]

It would be interesting to kind of run off of a "wildcat" with randle el or brennan or (Pat White....)and let them play recevier in addition to potential to throw very well and be a true threat in that regard as well.

[turbodiesel#44]

It would be cool to see that again, but it'll never happen.

Yes it would, but I think careers would be much shorter. What this article seems to be totally ignorant on is football. The game is 1 hour. The O averages 30 minutes of play. Subtract the presnap time, time after the handoff, whistle etc. and a QB is only really getting about 10 or 12 minutes of actual live ball time. Stretched over 3 hours. He doesn't block much, get hit much (usually) or do anything but walk to the line, huddle or bench in between. There is absolutely no need for a tandem QB system. Might work for DT's though.

[brandymac27]

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.

Well, I don't know if it would necessarily be better. But I do think that it would give teams that use it an advantage in that it would be really hard for other teams to prepare for 2 QB's.

[turbodiesel#44]

It would be interesting to kind of run off of a "wildcat" with randle el or brennan or (Pat White....)and let them play recevier in addition to potential to throw very well and be a true threat in that regard as well.

Heck yes, I love gadget/trick plays. But that is not what the article is advocating.

[CM916]

I always questioned why teams are so loathe to put in the other guy when the starter throws three picks and is just clearly having an awful day. As long as he is still the starter I don't buy that it will ruin his ego, especially if both guys understand from day one that the coach beleives in using his players. It seems to me that many years ago it wasn't so unheard of to have two QBs ready to start and to let both play.

I think that worked out rather well for us in the 70's with Sonny and Kilmer. The fans saw a big controversy there but the two QBs were good friends and just wanted to see the team win.

That said, I don't beleive we have the two starting caliber QBs required to do this. Campbell-Collins might have worked back when Saunders was here but I think Collins probably would have taken over almost completely if he played as well as he did in those four games. In the Zorn system, Collins is not a starter.

[lars96789]

My high school used a similar system where we'd rotate in two different QBs. One was a really good pocket passer (QB1) and the other was a really good mobile...passer (QB2) and we had some success with it. But both of them were never on the field at the same time (except when QB2 got converted to a TE, with great success).

But I think the article was talking about a system similar to one the Ravens used with Joe Flacco and Troy Smith. The Dolphins already started the Wildcat craze in the NFL, and it was only successful because no team really knew how to stop it. The second time the Dolphins played the Patriots, the Pats shut the Wildcat down. The success of the Wildcat will only be short-lived (in fact, it might already be dead?).

What the Redskins should do? Convert Jason Campbell to WR (if Malcolm Kelly doesn't pan out) so he can be our tall deep threat to replace ARE and put Colt/ARE at QB!

[Oldfan]

It's a good idea.

QB1 takes most of the 60 snaps in the team's base formation. Taking him out allows another big blocker/big receiver on the field.

QB2, a Tim Tebow type, is used in short-yardage and red zone situations (in a compressed field). He takes a direct snap at a depth ideal for running or passing. He has four big bodies (3 TEs and the FB) in a double slot formation where two big players can block or chip and go.

EDIT: Oops! I coincidentally posted this before seeing #32.

[HawaiianTime]

Actually, the 2 QB system worked quite well in Arizona. When I discussed it with my friends, they pointed out a very good fact. It makes it twice as hard for the Defense to prepare for. The Cardinals were doing very well in the 2 QB system until Leinart broke his collarbone. The offense does not suffer because the playbook is still the same no matter which QB is in. It is unorthodox and goes against the grain for most, but it can work.

[Bubble Screen]

Guys, its a TERRIBLE idea. Two quarterback system= FAIL This thread is a reminder of why I rarely venture into this forum. Teams that use two quarterbacks, in essence, don't have A QUARTERBACK!

[Oldfan]

Teams that use two quarterbacks, in essence, don't have A QUARTERBACK!

The logic of your statement isn't obvious. Can you explain?

[scruffylookin]

The vaunted offensive genius Buddy Ryan tried something like this back in 1986 when he had Ron Jaworski as his starter but inserted Randal Cunningham in a QB on 3rd down.

Suffice to say even Buddy finally figured out that this was a stupid idea and went full time with Randal by the end of that season.

Quarterbacks are not pitchers. With the position comes inherent leadership status on the team and you can't have two guys back there. Why not take it a step further and have two head coaches? It just screws everything up.

[Oldfan]

scruffy: The vanted offensive genius Buddy Ryan tried something like this back in 1986 when he had Ron Jaworski as his starter but inserted Randal Cunningham in a QB on 3rd down. Suffice to say even Buddy finally figured out that this was a stupid idea and went full time with Randal by the end of that season.

In my day, the experts said for many years that the shotgun would not work in the pros citing Red Hickey's failed attempt in San Franciso. Over the last ten years, the Patriots and Colts, have made the most use of the gun and the use league-wide is climbing fast.

Before my time, the experts said that putting the QB under center was a stupid idea, citing George Halas's early failures with it. Then the Bears beat the Redskins 73-0 and the following season, Baugh moved from the single-wing to under center in the T.

Quarterbacks are not pitchers. With the position comes inherent leadership status on the team and you can't have two guys back there. Why not take it a step further and have two head coaches? It just screws everything up.

I wasn't thinking of putting two QBs on the field at the same time, so there shouldn't be a conflict. They each lead their unit. There's no more problem than having a special teams captain replace a defensive captain when his unit takes the field.

[tiger187126]

it's another one of those, it works in college but the nfl is too good

you stunt the growth of 2 guys by doing something like this, not to mention every play that went wrong you have to ask which guy should i have had in?

i watched it all last year with OSU. they had an 18 year old insane athlete and a 30-something year old 10th year senior with experience and accuracy.

it took USC a half to figure out that when the slow white guy is out there we blitz everybody.

i don't think it would take an nfl team too long to figure out how to adjust.

[MrJL]

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?

this guy is a moron. There is no comparison to the NBA or NHL because football players don't just run up and down the field randomly tossing the ball and switching from O to D.

[MrJL]

My high school used a similar system where we'd rotate in two different QBs. One was a really good pocket passer (QB1) and the other was a really good mobile...passer (QB2) and we had some success with it. But both of them were never on the field at the same time (except when QB2 got converted to a TE, with great success).

But I think the article was talking about a system similar to one the Ravens used with Joe Flacco and Troy Smith. The Dolphins already started the Wildcat craze in the NFL, and it was only successful because no team really knew how to stop it. The second time the Dolphins played the Patriots, the Pats shut the Wildcat down. The success of the Wildcat will only be short-lived (in fact, it might already be dead?).

What the Redskins should do? Convert Jason Campbell to WR (if Malcolm Kelly doesn't pan out) so he can be our tall deep threat to replace ARE and put Colt/ARE at QB!

No, the article says play the other guy for a series or quarter. They're talking what the Dallas Cowboys did with Roger Staubach and Craig Morton in the early 70's. A situation that lasted only a year.

[MrJL]

In my day, the experts said for many years that the shotgun would not work in the pros citing Red Hickey's failed attempt in San Franciso. Over the last ten years, the Patriots and Colts, have made the most use of the gun and the use league-wide is climbing fast.

Before my time, the experts said that putting the QB under center was a stupid idea, citing George Halas's early failures with it. Then the Bears beat the Redskins 73-0 and the following season, Baugh moved from the single-wing to under center in the T.

I wasn't thinking of putting two QBs on the field at the same time, so there shouldn't be a conflict. They each lead their unit. There's no more problem than having a special teams captain replace a defensive captain when his unit takes the field.

But no one in the NFL uses the shotgun primarily though. I also believe it's a modified shotgun. I read some old football diagram books when I was in high school and when they showed the shotgun the running backs were not right next to the QB but at least a couple steps ahead of a QB that was probably even deeper than the quarterback is in the current shotgun.

[Big Mac Patty Wack]

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.

That's right. And it takes alot longer for a QB to get in a rhythm, and when he does, he gets pulled out to put the other one in.

[Recent Vintage]

I think there should be one starter, but more people should get to throw the ball.

Both ARE and Portis are decent throwing the ball, hell ARE had more TDs with Chris Cooley than Campbell did in 2008.

For whatever NFL teams that Pat White/Tim Tebow end up on, if they don't have them as QBs and convert them to WR/TE they should still have a healthy amount of gadget plays.

This could be done with a lot of players, I know form watching Eddie Royal in college that he has a surprisingly strong arm.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The continued problems of not having a reliable, top class man under center, and fans searching for ANY answer to make us better at the most important position on the team.

I can see the pro's and con's on both sides, but I'd side with having one main man on the field, bar injury. The problem that's so frustrated us for two decades and more, is finding that man we can totally rely on, in all situations, on a consistent basis.....

Nice thinking Brandy btw. A good, different slant on the subject. :applause:

Hail.

[brandymac27]

The continued problems of not having a reliable, top class man under center, and fans searching for ANY answer to make us better at the most important position on the team.

I can see the pro's and con's on both sides, but I'd side with having one main man on the field, bar injury. The problem that's so frustrated us for two decades and more, is finding that man we can totally rely on, in all situations, on a consistent basis.....

Nice thinking Brandy btw. A good, different slant on the subject. :applause:

Hail.

Thank you. I understand it's a completely different approach, and some people will disagree with the idea. I have no problems with that. I just thought about how it could possibly solve some of the issues we have at QB while making it harder for other teams to prepare for us.

On the other hand, I do understand how consistency is important for a QB as well. But at this point, I can't really see how consistency is helping our team with our QB. IMO, we need a change. This may be an unconventional change, but it's a change nonetheless that I thought people on both sides of the "JC" debate might be able agree upon. It's a compromise so to speak. Nobody loses their job, and we also get to see what another QB can do with the same team.

[PROSCOUT]

Call John Madden before discussing this thread. As Big John always says:

"If you have TWO quarterbacks, then you have NO quarterback"

I agree!

[Oldfan]

But no one in the NFL uses the shotgun primarily though.

The 2008 New England Patriots were the first team in NFL history to run more than 50% of their plays out of the gun. The previous year, Brady was in the shotgun until the patriots got a substantial lead. Then, he went under center and they ran the ball more.

The Colts, Tom Moore, was the first to begin heavy use of the shotgun.

I also believe it's a modified shotgun.

The shotgun isn't a formation. It simply refers to the way the QB takes the snap from center, so there are a bunch of possible variations.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Thank you. I understand it's a completely different approach, and some people will disagree with the idea. I have no problems with that. I just thought about how it could possibly solve some of the issues we have at QB while making it harder for other teams to prepare for us.

On the other hand, I do understand how consistency is important for a QB as well. But at this point, I can't really see how consistency is helping our team with our QB. IMO, we need a change. This may be an unconventional change, but it's a change nonetheless that I thought people on both sides of the "JC" debate might be able agree upon. It's a compromise so to speak. Nobody loses their job, and we also get to see what another QB can do with the same team.

Your welcome. And I, as do many others, totally agree that ANY spark at QB is sorely needed. I was more speaking in general terms as to such time we actually do get that franchise QB again we all so crave, but ANYTHING that ignites this offense would be more than welcome.

And to all those that may laugh at the prospect of seeing what another QB on the roster can do with this team, i.e. Colt Brennan, I'd love someone to tell me exactly what we have in him without seeing him in a full speed, regular season NFL game.

I'm not for one minute saying he's the answer to our problems at the position, but without putting him in, nobody can say for certain he isn't.

At least with the OP's idea, you get to see and compare both. One thing's for sure, we'd be hard pressed to get less production than what we currently do get, whatever we tried.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

On the other hand, I do understand how consistency is important for a QB as well. But at this point, I can't really see how consistency is helping our team with our QB. IMO, we need a change. This may be an unconventional change, but it's a change nonetheless that I thought people on both sides of the "JC" debate might be able agree upon. It's a compromise so to speak. Nobody loses their job, and we also get to see what another QB can do with the same team.

There are lots of advantages of the two QB idea. I happen to think that, intelligently done, they outweigh the disadvantages.

Phil Simms griped about his son's lack of progress as third-string at Tampa Bay. Typical of NFL teams his son ran the scout team which did nothing to help him improve his game. Give him a series to run. When he masters that, give him another.

The two-QB idea will probably happen soon -- probably in New England where they are ahead of the pack in creativity.