(August, 2010 - Re: McNabb) Hey, Mike, how about a two-quarterback scheme?

[Oldfan]

I also did the research. I looked at McNabb's numbers compared to other Qbs on third down...last year and even career wise for example and realized that the numbers weren't that far apart. I can post the numbers if you like. So in essence...McNabb by himself was okay on 3rd downs compared to other QBs but the team wasn't. The missing factor was a running game(Eagles) in terms of always throwing even in short yardage situations. Same concept can be somewhat applied to the RZ as well.

I didn't follow you. Why don't you post your numbers so I can see what you're doing?

We have 8 Red Zone Tds...so a 40% rate means we're 8/20. I would be interested to see what the numbers have been like Lately..

Two for two in the Detroit game raised the stats. They were obviously lower through the first seven games.

I would assume that it's improved because in our 1st 2 games especially we struggled for a variety of reasons(drops, poor running, etc.). And on another occassion the snap was high(or you can say McNabb didn't look *shrug*) and thus we squandered another Red Zone opportunity.

You can't pull out excuses when you compare stats to other teams. They have excuses too.

In McNabb's last two seasons, the Eagles averaged a poor 48%, so the current 40% is in line.

There are stats somewhere in this thread showing that the running game was more efficient in the Eagles RZ than the passing game compared to the league averages. So, the "no running game excuse" won't fly.

[scott.sharrer]

I enjoy thinking about the game. For others, well... ignorance is bliss.

I have read all your threads OldFan and have been impressed with all. As with in the Dynasty thread, where I stated I would fully support your idea and would like to see it put in to effect, I see one minor flaw with this one, and in honesty, I think that still makes your idea impressive because very few people can post ideas such as yours without having holes blown through it like a close range shotgun blast through them.

Now to the flaw. You would be in essense rely on 2 starting QBs. one for driving the team (McNabb) and one for in the RZ (lets just say Rex). Now if McNabb goes down to injury, in theory you coud have Rex run the entire team. If Rex goes down, you have to bring in your #3 QB to run the RZ cause you are admitting that McNabb is not who you want during those situations. Now with that said, how many teams honestly have carried 3 QBs that can seriously be trusted that much? Usually when you get down to starting your #3 QB you do 1 of 2 things. 1) Hope and pray that your D can win the game for you or 2) find the best available QB on the market to come in. Now I know we could do the same with your proposal here, but I don't see how that would be effective because in reality you have to work the entire offense with that new QB for the week leading up to the game while sharing practice reps with McNabb and in essense not giving that new QB enough reps to learn your system before the game.

All in all though, YES I think this could be effective for us compared to what we are doing now.

And please OldFan, keep thinkig about the game, the threads you start are very intellectually stimulating

[scott.sharrer]

You can't pull out excuses when you compare stats to other teams. They have excuses too.

In McNabb's last two seasons, the Eagles averaged a poor 48%, so the current 40% is in line.

There are stats somewhere in this thread showing that the running game was more efficient in the Eagles RZ than the passing game compared to the league averages. So, the "no running game excuse" won't fly.

Excuses are like ********, everyone has one.

the 40% is also in line with McNabbs career average.

The Eagles running stats in the RZ over McNabbs Career are above the league average over the same period of time. Part of this is due to in his younger days, he was prone to break free and run, and really liked to do so in the RZ

[nelsonal]

Now to the flaw. You would be in essense rely on 2 starting QBs. one for driving the team (McNabb) and one for in the RZ (lets just say Rex). Now if McNabb goes down to injury, in theory you coud have Rex run the entire team. If Rex goes down, you have to bring in your #3 QB to run the RZ cause you are admitting that McNabb is not who you want during those situations. Now with that said, how many teams honestly have carried 3 QBs that can seriously be trusted that much? Usually when you get down to starting your #3 QB you do 1 of 2 things. 1) Hope and pray that your D can win the game for you or 2) find the best available QB on the market to come in. Now I know we could do the same with your proposal here, but I don't see how that would be effective because in reality you have to work the entire offense with that new QB for the week leading up to the game while sharing practice reps with McNabb and in essense not giving that new QB enough reps to learn your system before the game.

All in all though, YES I think this could be effective for us compared to what we are doing now.

And please OldFan, keep thinkig about the game, the threads you start are very intellectually stimulating

I think you'd have to run the Red zone team like the dolphins with your Red Zone team QB be a RB who would receive the direct snap, because as I understand it teams can only use a 3rd string qb if there's been an injury (there was a big deal made about this when the broncos moved tebow to 3rd qb near the beginning of the season). Then you could keep your 2nd qb (while still having an option to play your 3rd qb).

[scott.sharrer]

I think you'd have to run the Red zone team like the dolphins with your Red Zone team QB be a RB who would receive the direct snap, because as I understand it teams can only use a 3rd string qb if there's been an injury (there was a big deal made about this when the broncos moved tebow to 3rd qb near the beginning of the season). Then you could keep your 2nd qb (while still having an option to play your 3rd qb).

The RB part would work. Or you could use a WR (ie Cribbs) but it is not easy finding a RB or WR who could legitimately fill that role.

As far as the rule on the 3rd QB, I am not sure how that works. Is Tebow still listed as the #3 QB or is he now the #2 QB? Asking because he has played in a select few plays this season in the RZ

[Oldfan]

I have read all your threads OldFan and have been impressed with all.

Good to hear. Thank you.

Now to the flaw. You would be in essense rely on 2 starting QBs. one for driving the team (McNabb) and one for in the RZ (lets just say Rex). Now if McNabb goes down to injury, in theory you coud have Rex run the entire team. If Rex goes down, you have to bring in your #3 QB to run the RZ cause you are admitting that McNabb is not who you want during those situations...

First of all, if you have to have two QBs go down to find fault with my idea, the idea is pretty solid because you're in deep trouble anyway.

From a brief look at John Beck's skillset, I'd say there's a good chance he's my RZ quarterback because he was mobile, had a very quick release, and showed good timing and accuracy on short passes. The only flaw I saw was that his release point seemed low. That's a little scary.

If I'm right about Beck, he could practice full-time on the RZ at one end of the field while McNabb took all the snaps at the other.

If our RZ QB went down and we had to go back to Donovan then we are no worse off than we are now. So, I don't count that as a disadvantage.

[Frostx08]

I didn't follow you. Why don't you post your numbers so I can see what you're doing?

Two for two in the Detroit game raised the stats. They were obviously lower through the first seven games.

You can't pull out excuses when you compare stats to other teams. They have excuses too.

In McNabb's last two seasons, the Eagles averaged a poor 48%, so the current 40% is in line.

There are stats somewhere in this thread showing that the running game was more efficient in the Eagles RZ than the passing game compared to the league averages. So, the "no running game excuse" won't fly.

Quarterbacks on third down :

Donovan McNabb - 80.3 QB rating, 55.6 completion %, 58 TDs, 34 Int

Tom Brady - 86.9 QB rating, 57.3 completion %, 68 TDs, 35 Int

Eli Manning - 78.5 QB rating, 55.3 completion %, 49 TD, 36 Int

Phillip Rivers - 89.8 QB rating, 57.5 completion %, 44 td, 25 int

Small list...can't post everyone though I'm sure there are some who are great at it like Peyton Manning. I'll add more when I can. If the Eagles were struggling overall on third down, considering the lack of a drastic difference I think one can say it's due to a lack of effectiveness on the ground. They are indeed much more effective running this year however

Not to mention his Redskins numbers bring down the numbers he may have had with the Eagles. I think one can reasonably say that both would improve under different circumstances. And considering McNabb scrambled often and still does on occassion...it doesn't even account for that. I'm not saying this just to give "excuses"...I just believe in fair assessments that cover ALL bases

As for the Red Zone, I think factors that exist elsewhere but not with the Eagles(or Redskins) need to be accounted for to again, be fair. The Eagles also don't have that many rushing tds by Rbs in past seasons so I'd be interested to see your claim. But as for this year specifically, If we were to analyze our last 6 games I think we would see a higher efficiency compared to the Rams and Cowboys game to which we struggled for a variety of reasons. If we are 8 for 20 in the Red Zone..then I think that's a fair assessment, especially since we had 2 redzone squanders in the Cowboys game alone if I'm not mistaken

[Oldfan]

Quarterbacks on third down :

Donovan McNabb - 80.3 QB rating, 55.6 completion %, 58 TDs, 34 Int

Tom Brady - 86.9 QB rating, 57.3 completion %, 68 TDs, 35 Int

Eli Manning - 78.5 QB rating, 55.3 completion %, 49 TD, 36 Int

Phillip Rivers - 89.8 QB rating, 57.5 completion %, 44 td, 25 int

Are those career numbers on third down? Where did you get those?

If the Eagles were struggling overall on third down, considering the lack of a drastic difference I think one can say it's due to a lack of effectiveness on the ground. They are indeed much more effective running this year however.

If anything, Westbrook running screens should have raised the third down stats for Donovan more than his pounding off tackle would have done.

The Eagles also don't have that many rushing tds by Rbs in past seasons so I'd be interested to see your claim.

I didn't post the stats originally, but look for the posts with links.

[MassSkinsFan]

I'm bumping this because I've seen comments from Coach Kyle about our QBs being neck and neck in competition for the starting role and also how they both have advantages over the other in certain situations, and I'd be curious to know who people would assign to RZ and who'd handle the rest. Would it be all Beck at this point, all Rex, or a combination (either Rex=RZ, Beck=the rest or vice versa)?

Unfortunately I've been unable to watch any of these games in the preseason, so I don't have an opinion on this, but I'd love to hear what other people are thinking.

[Oldfan]

To me, John Beck looks like he would be better anywhere on the field because of the points made in the OP of my other thread.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?352492-Why-John-Beck-is-Likely-to-Win-the-Job

[TSO]

I love this thread, my favorite from OF. He was spot on in the end, though I had my doubts at first. Gotta give him credit here!

[Oldfan]

I love this thread, my favorite from OF. He was spot on in the end, though I had my doubts at first. Gotta give him credit here!

I appreciate that.

[Jericho]

Two crappy QBs do not equal 1 good QB

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Of,

Can you please, please pull this thread before ASF see's the bump and counters with a technicolor spectacular of absolute bunkum to prove their should be one. And ONLY one. For the Love of God and all the patrons sanity here, pull it first.

PLEASE!

Yours

The members of the board.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

Of,

Can you please, please pull this thread before ASF see's the bump and counters with a technicolor spectacular of absolute bunkum to prove their should be one. And ONLY one. For the Love of God and all the patrons sanity here, pull it first.

PLEASE!

Yours

The members of the board.

Hail.

Nearly peed myself laughing.

The man puts on a show. Gotta give him that.