The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Scott Turner's off like his dad's is not one to sit in neutral and grind things out. They want a controlled ground game but really push the ball in the air. Guys will be open. They were open last year. Taylor just could not make Ds pay for it. Wentz can. Will he? Remains to be seen. But I like his and the teams chances. 

This is a huge season for Scott Turner.

 

Some have crushed him.  I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt because he has to try and teach the offense to Haskins, which didn’t work, run the offense with a one legged Alex Smith, lost Fitzy after 16 plays, and then ran an entire season with a backup QB which limited what they could do.

 

But as much as this year is a “prove it” year for Wentz, it’s also a prove it year for Turner.

 

This is the year he needs to establish himself as a legitimate OC and not just next in line in Ron’s favorite club.  
 

We’ll see.  I liked a lot of what I have seen from his offenses.  Guys are schemed open,  I think I like most is the offense adapts both to personnel but also to take advantage of defensive weaknesses. 
 

So we’ll see.  

[Forever A Redskin]

45 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To follow up with my point, when Sheehan likes to say people are naive when they latch on to the idea that he was just a random irrational move by Irsay, IMO based on listening to narratives -- as to Sheehan's point its yes and no but mostly no. 

 

Yes in that apparently it wasn't purely about Irsay reacting to one game.  And yes in that he wasn't completely on an island about it as to their FO (apparently some of Colts FO brass had concerns and it was a mixed opinion among the brass). According to a Colts reporter, the narrative that Wentz doesn't come through in big spots was building throughout the season and the Jacksonville game was the culmination of their frustration with him on that front -- versus they loved most of what they saw from Carson on that front but that game alone changed their narrative about him in one fell swoop.  

 

But to me the odd overreaction for Irsay is I gather hearing from players in that locker room that Wentz wasn't this gregarious mobilize the troops type of player which he seem to find unforgivable.   Just seems really strange that it was some major revelation to him.  Also as Keim likes to say the context with the Colts probably didn't favor Carson on that front.  Rivers for example wasn't that great as a player,for the season they had him but they did still make the playoffs and Rivers is one of those locker room leaders on steroids type.     Ryan is kind of like that, too.  So Wentz is somewhat sandwiched in to that backdrop considering that's who preceded him and are succeeding him.  

 

I'd presume Reich told Irsay and company that Wentz isn't a locker room leader type, that's not what he majors in.   You'd figure they'd know that coming in.  Not every QB has that kind of personality.  Granted plenty do but I'd guess give our take 25% or so of the starting QBs aren't like that.  And IMO its not a fatal problem -- if you win, the QB's personality IMO doesn't become an issue.  And digesting Wentz there is nothing wrong with his personality, its just that he's more of an introvert than an extrovert type.

 

I agree with Keim that i don't think his personality will likely be an issue here.  This team has a lot of more quiet-introverted types.  I think Wentz blends in better here.  And as for lack of clutch play, IMO that's a mindset.  And the first way to fix any problem is to be aware that it is a problem -- and judging by Wentz's comments about the season, he comes off like he gets it.  And i know he had one year in Philly where he was touted for some clutch play so IMO he has it in him. 

 

I don't know about the clutch narrative. I think he's just a risk taker. He tries to be clutch and sometimes he wins, sometimes he fails. Against us early in his career I remember Wentz vividly escaping what looked to be a guaranteed sack, only to pop out of the pile and throw a bomb down-field. That's "clutch" play if you ask me.

 

What's exciting to me is it's unknown how much of the hero-ball he played could be due to the pressure he took upon himself due to not having an arsenal of weapons. Hopefully we can encourage him to trust our receivers, backs and TE to make plays for him instead of trying to make them himself.

 

We don't even need his near-MVP season level of play. If he sniffs even 75% of that season we will be a serious threat. If we can start games hot and get up by 10 points, I think our defense will be dominant. Del Rio can be more aggresive.

 

 

 

 

[LD0506]

3 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

I don't know about the clutch narrative. I think he's just a risk taker. He tries to be clutch and sometimes he wins, sometimes he fails. Against us early in his career I remember Wentz vividly escaping what looked to be a guaranteed sack, only to pop out of the pile and throw a bomb down-field. That's "clutch" play if you ask me.

 

What's exciting to me is it's unknown how much of the hero-ball he played could be due to the pressure he took upon himself due to not having an arsenal of weapons. Hopefully we can encourage him to trust our receivers, backs and TE to make plays for him instead of trying to make them himself.

 

We don't even need his near-MVP season level of play. If he sniffs even 75% of that season we will be a serious threat. If we can start games hot and get up by 10 points, I think our defense will be dominant. Del Rio can be more aggresive.

 

 

 

 

 

On a tangent, but Wentz was afflicted by Foles, for whatever reason that situation got inside his head and pushed him off center. The media narrative took it and ran and all of a sudden a young, new, highly drafted up-n-comer becomes the butt of jokes and mocking jinx memes. Now I am entirely enough of a cranky ole fart to lay that on him, he is responsible for the psychological or emotional or wtf-ical reasons underlying this and he has to sort that **** out, but the evidence speaks for itself, the kid got utterly stoned by it and floundered.

 

Act 2 and he's dealt to Indy, Reich is gonna rescue his career. Now Frank Reich is a helluva good guy, I've liked him since he was playin in college but Wentz didn't need coaching, he needed mentoring, and that ain't Frank's bag. Add in an obnoxious, invasive, intrusive drug-addled douchecanoe like Irsay and you just might be boned.

 

So now we have him as a Craigslist firesale reclamation project. I totally get why some might be slightly less than thrilled here. IMO most of this will not come down to reading Ds or being "clutch" or any other buzzword BS, it's going to be a case of can Ron Rivera connect to him and help him grow into himself as a player and as a person. This is a kid that has been sheltered and coddled and lauded forever and suffers from PTSD from finding out that the rest of the world don't give a rat's ass about how much scripture you can quote or what his mom says about him or what a hometown hero from East Zero he was. I see this as more a matter of maturity as a person than a player. And ALL that **** is invisible, intangible, unmeasurable, you can only tell from the results.

 

He is either going to be that gawky clumsy kid that finds himself over the summer and comes back to school transformed into someone else, or he's going to be tossed on the trashheap as another galoomph that never got his **** together. 

 

Stay tuned 

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This is a huge season for Scott Turner.

 

Some have crushed him.  I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt because he has to try and teach the offense to Haskins, which didn’t work, run the offense with a one legged Alex Smith, lost Fitzy after 16 plays, and then ran an entire season with a backup QB which limited what they could do.

 

But as much as this year is a “prove it” year for Wentz, it’s also a prove it year for Turner.

 

This is the year he needs to establish himself as a legitimate OC and not just next in line in Ron’s favorite club.  
 

We’ll see.  I liked a lot of what I have seen from his offenses.  Guys are schemed open,  I think I like most is the offense adapts both to personnel but also to take advantage of defensive weaknesses. 
 

So we’ll see.  

 

This is where you lose me.  I am not sure how the last bolded can be true and you still think the first bolded is true. For me, what he has done with the tools given him thanks to Covid and injury has been nothing short of amazing. And if Taylor had an NFL we make the POs last year.

 

5QBs in 2 seasons, one a 1 legged wonder, the other a total self centered POS, one with a wet noodle for an arm, one guy plays 16 snaps and is gone to injury and the other non-descript and he wins 14 gms and PO berth. And almost won that PO game. Let's not even talk about injuries' to people Logan T and JD. 

 

So not sure about a prove it season, but I do see this as a break out season for the offense if Carson can play to even 75% of his previous level of play. If he goes full 100% this can be a very good offense. Now he could also **** the bed so it's not all peaches and cream. So I do agree with we'll see. 

 

 

[Koolblue13]

We are absolutely going to be a throw first team. 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

I don't know about the clutch narrative. I think he's just a risk taker. He tries to be clutch and sometimes he wins, sometimes he fails. Against us early in his career I remember Wentz vividly escaping what looked to be a guaranteed sack, only to pop out of the pile and throw a bomb down-field. That's "clutch" play if you ask me.

 

What's exciting to me is it's unknown how much of the hero-ball he played could be due to the pressure he took upon himself due to not having an arsenal of weapons. Hopefully we can encourage him to trust our receivers, backs and TE to make plays for him instead of trying to make them himself.

 

We don't even need his near-MVP season level of play. If he sniffs even 75% of that season we will be a serious threat. If we can start games hot and get up by 10 points, I think our defense will be dominant. Del Rio can be more aggresive.

 

 

 

 

 

I like Wentz.  He's just a risk taker in big moments but otherwise is fine in the clutch is a very positive spin for Wentz.  The risk taking is yes part of the narrative but him not being the dude in big moments is what give or take 90% or so of the narratives have been about him.   I used to say the same narrative is overdone about Kirk because Kirk has mounted his share of comebacks among other things, statistically you can make a case for Kirk but that narrative has dogged Kirk and to some extent justifably so.  Kirk has done some good things in the clutch.  But he hasn't come through too many times in big spots where its stuck to his reputation. 

 

I didn't realize how intense that same narrative was about Wentz until we acquired him but wow the narrative is just as intense as it is about Kirk.  Even some of the people pushing him have said he has to stop pressing in big moments and prove he can come through when the lights are brightest.  It's not some occasional mention but its a key plot line that is tough to ignore.   The personality beef that some have with Kirk also mirrors a lot of the Wentz criticism -- where they are nice but aloof and not one of the guys so to speak.

 

I think most major deals have a grey component to a trade.  I recall for example, many citing circumstance as for Haha Clinton Dix's struggles that season in GB and we got a steal when we traded for him.  When we acquire players, we tend to give it a positive spin and believe it was the other team that got it wrong, not us.  I do it too so I get the mindset.

 

As for Carson, i was in favor of the move.  But I am not thinking the Colts are just a bunch of dopes and we of course the smart ones in a pure binary way.  I think there is a grey area to this move and how it plays out is key.   I think it likely will work out but I try not to ignore consistent narratives especially if it comes from both friend and foe.  To that point,  the narrative seems to be something like this

 

Upside

A.  smart and competitive dude

B.  Nice guy

C. As far as pure raw talent he's arguably the best we've had since RG3.

D.  This is a good system match to his style of play

E.  The naysayer stuff and all these revenge type teams on the schedule is the perfect recipe for a Rocky 3 type reemergence - some think this is a good setting for him to rebound

F.  He was at his best when he had his best supporting cast -- now arguably he's got that again

 

Questions

A.  Can he reign in his hero play.  He plays in that Mahomes style but his decision making burns him much more than Mahomes to the extent where some say he's not a good decision maker

B.  As Ballard says make the layups.  Take the checkdowns, master the easy throws in the flat

C.  I am not as worried about this as the Colts apparently were but that is can he be more social and extroverted in the locker room

D.  Can he make the big plays in big games more often that not

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

On a tangent, but Wentz was afflicted by Foles, for whatever reason that situation got inside his head and pushed him off center. The media narrative took it and ran and all of a sudden a young, new, highly drafted up-n-comer becomes the butt of jokes and mocking jinx memes. Now I am entirely enough of a cranky ole fart to lay that on him, he is responsible for the psychological or emotional or wtf-ical reasons underlying this and he has to sort that **** out, but the evidence speaks for itself, the kid got utterly stoned by it and floundered.

 

 

I get the same impression listening to Eagle reporters.  Wentz comes off to them a nice guy but sensitive and stubborn.  Foles supposedly had that same G style personality as Wentz but he was more of an extrovert and related better to the locker room.    Then Hurts arrives who fit the PG-13-R rated Eagles locker room much better and supposedly had no interest in pandering to Wentz.  Supposedly Hurts gained locker room support very fast over Wentz.  

 

Here's the part that most national and local reporters get wrong.  They say the Eagles couldn't wait to dump Wentz.  But according to Eagle reporters it was Wentz who wanted to go.

 

3 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

Act 2 and he's dealt to Indy, Reich is gonna rescue his career. Now Frank Reich is a helluva good guy, I've liked him since he was playin in college but Wentz didn't need coaching, he needed mentoring, and that ain't Frank's bag.

 

Agree with the mentoring point.  I am guessing Wentz needed a boost to recover from the Eagles locker room favoring Foles and Hurts over him.  I recall reading an article that when he was drafted by the Eagles he was worried that he would not fit in because he was an uber religious dude from the midwest and might be a bit different from the other players.  But was happy to find a small group of players who shared his deep religious beliefs among other things.  

 

I get the feeling that Carson needs a mentor to help him get through stuff -- especially with the Ballard and Irsay piling on the narrative about him. I think Ron fits that mentor role well.

 

3 hours ago, LD0506 said:

This is a kid that has been sheltered and coddled and lauded forever and suffers from PTSD from finding out that the rest of the world don't give a rat's ass about how much scripture you can quote or what his mom says about him or what a hometown hero from East Zero he was. I see this as more a matter of maturity as a person than a player. And ALL that **** is invisible, intangible, unmeasurable, you can only tell from the results.

 

He is either going to be that gawky clumsy kid that finds himself over the summer and comes back to school transformed into someone else, or he's going to be tossed on the trashheap as another galoomph that never got his **** together. 

 

Stay tuned 

 

Agree.  I think this is the perfect swim or sink situation for him.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[zCommander]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

We are absolutely going to be a throw first team. 

 

 

Sure if you like losing. You can't run 15 run plays and the rest pass and expect a team to win. Balance 50-50 wins you games.

[goskins10]

8 hours ago, zCommander said:

 

Sure if you like losing. You can't run 15 run plays and the rest pass and expect a team to win. Balance 50-50 wins you games.

 

Pass first does NOT mean pass only. And NFL balance is around 58/42 pass to run. Ph last year was the only team in the NFL to be 50/50 and they were 50.13 pass.  BTW the Rams who won the SB were 59.31% pass and Tampa led the league in passing with 66.46%. We were 25th with 55.42% pass. In fairness seasons past there were 1 to maybe 3 teams that passed less than they ran. Baltimore with L Jackson was one. 

 

It depends on your offence and the personal you have. Anything close to 50/50 is more dictated by personnel and opponent. 

 

Data: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/passing-play-pct 

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by goskins10

[Koolblue13]

23 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Sure if you like losing. You can't run 15 run plays and the rest pass and expect a team to win. Balance 50-50 wins you games.

[Forever A Redskin]

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Pass first does OT mean pass only. And NFL balance is around 58/42 pass to run. Ph last year was the only team in the NFL to be 50/50 and they were 50.13 pass.  BTW the Rams who won the SB were 59.31% pass and Tampa led the league in passing with 66.46%. We were 25th with 55.42% pass. In fairness seasons past there were 1 to maybe 3 teams that passed less than they ran. Baltimore with L Jackson was one. 

 

It depends on your offence and the personal you have. Anything close to 50/50 is more dictated by personnel and opponent. 

 

Data: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/passing-play-pct 

 

 

I think whats nice about our roster is we can be either pass heavy or run heavy depending on opponent and situational football.

 

If we identify front seven weakness, we can go heavy run ratio gameplan with the run setting up the deep ball for our speedy wideouts.

 

Vise versa, if we see DBs we can exploit, we can start the gameplan with a ton of short passes and passes out of the backfield to Curtis/Gibby/McKissic to put the ball in the hands of our YAC guys.

 

Get up by 10-14 points early? Switch to TOP control ball and let our defense unleash the pass rush.

 

The "positional flex & versatility" team building philosophy is really starting to take shape.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

This is where you lose me.  I am not sure how the last bolded can be true and you still think the first bolded is true. For me, what he has done with the tools given him thanks to Covid and injury has been nothing short of amazing. And if Taylor had an NFL we make the POs last year.

 

5QBs in 2 seasons, one a 1 legged wonder, the other a total self centered POS, one with a wet noodle for an arm, one guy plays 16 snaps and is gone to injury and the other non-descript and he wins 14 gms and PO berth. And almost won that PO game. Let's not even talk about injuries' to people Logan T and JD. 

 

So not sure about a prove it season, but I do see this as a break out season for the offense if Carson can play to even 75% of his previous level of play. If he goes full 100% this can be a very good offense. Now he could also **** the bed so it's not all peaches and cream. So I do agree with we'll see. 

 

 

Yeah, the way I look at it, he's had "excuses" for the last couple of seasons.  I'd call it more "context" but regardless, there have been reasons to say the offense was what it was.  

 

Now that he has no excuses, or at least we think with the weapons and at least an average, if not above average QB, the results have to be there.  

 

If the offense gets stuck in the mud, if they revert to a really conservative style of play, if they run on the majority of meaningful first downs, if it looks like they are still trying to win games 17-15 even though you'd think they shouldn't have to do that any more, I think that's going to be a bad look for him.  

 

Now, I'll grant you, if that does turn out to be the case, I'm not sure how much would be Ron vs. Scott.  

 

But from what we can tell, the coordinators have a whole heck of a lot of latitude as to what they want to do. 

 

Which is why I think this is a big season for him.  Now that there shouldn't be either "context" or "excuses" they have to perform.  

 

Parenthetically, I think they WILL perform.  But I still think it's a big season for him, because it will either validate the critics, or mostly make them go away.  

[FootballZombie]

Practically every team in the NFL passes more then they rush, but that does not constitute a pass first offense. Nobody is confusing our team last season w/ being a pass first attack, despite passing more than we ran. Ditto for the Colts last year. These were squads w/ heavy reliance on the run.

 

What matters is having an above average rush rate in comparison to the rest of the league. Building around the run game to that degree is what makes you run-centric.

[zCommander]

15 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

I know you got all giddy and **** after watching the highlights of Wentz even if his team was losing with all of those passes he was throwing. But the reality is still the same. You don't win games if you are pass heavy team. You still have to run to setup the pass. By saying 50/50 it meant balance and not actual 50/50. But I see you took that as literal...lol 

[Voice_of_Reason]

36 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

Sure if you like losing. You can't run 15 run plays and the rest pass and expect a team to win. Balance 50-50 wins you games.

50-50 balance is 50-50 stupid.

 

One of the college coaches said that, and he's right.  

 

In today's football, that's not balance.

 

Balance is getting the ball to all of your playmakers, and keeping the defense guessing as to which playmaker is going to get the ball on every down.

 

If you run on 50% of the plays, that means the defense basically KNOWS the play half the time. That makes their lives easier.

 

For a moment, let's say Logan Thomas and Samuel are both healthy (the word is Samuel is, Thomas is obviously still recovering from the ACL.

 

So, you have, as primary weapons:

 

McLaurin (WR)

Samuel (WR)

Dotson (WR)

Brown (WR)

Logan Thomas (TE)

Gibson (RB)

McKissic (RB)

Robinson (RB)

 

(I put Cam Sims, Brown, Bates as secondary targets at the moment. That could change with injury or development.)

 

So, ideally, you want something like:

McLaurin (WR) 10-12 targets

Samuel (WR) 6-8 targets

Dotson (WR) 6-8 targets

Logan Thomas (TE) 8-10 targets

Gibson (RB) 10 rushes per game, 4-6 targets

McKissic (RB) 4-5 rushes per games, 2-4 targets

Robinson (RB) 10 rushes per game

 

If you just take the minimums, you have 40 pass targets and 24 rushes. 

 

Now, if you get a lead and you can sit on it, by all means, run the stuffing out of the ball.  If you're behind, you're going to have to throw a bit more.   And obviously there will be a few other folks who will get touches, like Bates, Brown, Cam Sims.  And Samuel will have a few jet-sweeps here and there, probably McLaurin also.  

 

THAT is balance.  None of this stupid 1980's 50/50 antiquated thinking.  

 

That will allow them to be explosive, give Wentz the ability to stretch the field, and not try and press and throw deep on the 4-6 times they are called.  Which is what he dealt with in Philly and Indy.  

 

I think we've seen what happens with Wentz when he's asked to just be a game-manager QB with a strong running game.  It doesn't end well.  It limits his opportunities, and he presses. Give him the opportunity to sling it.  Run the ball off of that, and stay balanced.

16 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

Practically every team in the NFL passes more then they rush, but that does not constitute a pass first offense. Nobody is confusing our team last season w/ being a pass first attack, despite passing more than we ran. Ditto for the Colts last year. These were squads w/ heavy reliance on the run.

 

What matters is having an above average rush rate in comparison to the rest of the league. Building around the run game to that degree is what makes you run-centric.

Which we absolutely should not do. At all.  In any way. 

 

I feel like I need to have an exorcism or something to get the bad "run first" juju out of the board.

 

We need to be a definite, aggressive pass first team with the ability to run.  If we do anything other than that, then it's a complete and total huge failure that is going to end in disaster.  It lowers the margin of error, makes the games slow and plodding, and makes you rely on your defense a ton more.

 

Don't do it.  Score more points.  Sling it.  Running is fine.  But the run game complements the pass game, not the other way around.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

13 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

I know you got all giddy and **** after watching the highlights of Wentz even if his team was losing with all of those passes he was throwing. But the reality is still the same. You don't win games if you are pass heavy team. You still have to run to setup the pass. By saying 50/50 it meant balance and not actual 50/50. But I see you took that as literal...lol 

This is so fantastically false.  

 

The entire premise of the WCO was to throw to set up the run, and just about every offense in the league uses that as the premise.

 

You DO NOT run to set up the pass.  Unless you are the Titans or Ravens.  Or, I guess the Eagles. Even the 49ers, who are committed to the run as much as anybody, are not truly a "run first" team.  But if you want to toss them in as well, fine.

 

The Rams are not a run-first team, they just won the SB.  The Bucs are not a run first team, they were in the NFC Championship game, and won the SB the year before.  None of the Patriot teams with Brady were run first.  

 

Get out of here with the Run First, or Run to set up the passs.

 

AAAAKKKK.  I feel like I want to go brush my teeth.  

 

This is some bad juju.  

[FootballZombie]

9 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That will allow them to be explosive, give Wentz the ability to stretch the field, and not try and press and throw deep on the 4-6 times they are called.  Which is what he dealt with in Philly and Indy.  

 

2020 Philly was a top 10 Passing rate offense. Few teams opted to throw the ball more then them.

 

10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think we've seen what happens with Wentz when he's asked to just be a game-manager QB with a strong running game.  It doesn't end well.  It limits his opportunities, and he presses. Give him the opportunity to sling it.  Run the ball off of that, and stay balanced.

 

The last time Wentz was given the reigns to a pass first attack, he led the league in INTs, sacks and turnovers... despite only playing 12 games... with only 218 yds/game to show for it. We have seen that story play out too.

 

The last two seasons have shown no reason to just hand free reigns of any offense to this guy. He either played like the worst QB in football like in 2020, or was relegated to a game manager like 2021.

 

We are set up from last season to have a good rushing attack. Build on your strengths. You work him in, see what he can handle and expand from there. Setting this guy loose after what we have seen the last several years is a recipe for disaster. You don't build your gameplan around Wentz(2017) when you have Wentz(2022), you work w/ what you got. 

 

 

You have a horse who has not demonstrated he is capable of carrying that kind of load in years, and have evidence that when asked to do so could not work effectively. The first response should never be to throw the house on his back and pray he does not collapse.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Conn]

4 hours ago, zCommander said:

You don't win games if you are pass heavy team. You still have to run to setup the pass. By saying 50/50 it meant balance and not actual 50/50. But I see you took that as literal...lol 

You are way behind the modern NFL and everything analytics says about it, if this is representative of what you believe. A few anomalous teams aside, good offenses pass to set up the run now. Not the other way around. Pass to gain a lead, run to keep it and grind the clock from ahead while asserting your will on the opposing defense, making it easier on your big men on the OL, and setting a tone. Every single analytic out there also supports the idea that Play Action passes work without a running game. Defenses bite regardless. You don’t get a better play action game by having an elite running game, and your play action game doesn’t suffer from having a poor running game. Those are facts supported by numbers. 
 

Staley of the Chargers had an extremely intelligent and enlightening answer from a presser last year where he explains the importance of the run game in the modern NFL and how it can be both important but also not important. It matters but not in the way that some fans think, and the numbers bear that out. It’s almost more mental than strategic, but yes as a good team you do need to be able to run the ball at the optimal times—you need to not be one-dimensional, especially in the red zone—and preferably with a big enough lead that your defense can be aggressive and you can make the opposing defense want to quit due to your physicality as the clock runs down.
 

But no, “balance” and running to set up the pass should not itself be the goal—it’s not optimal or efficient in today’s NFL. 

[zCommander]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This is so fantastically false.  

 

The entire premise of the WCO was to throw to set up the run, and just about every offense in the league uses that as the premise.

 

You DO NOT run to set up the pass.  Unless you are the Titans or Ravens.  Or, I guess the Eagles. Even the 49ers, who are committed to the run as much as anybody, are not truly a "run first" team.  But if you want to toss them in as well, fine.

 

The Rams are not a run-first team, they just won the SB.  The Bucs are not a run first team, they were in the NFC Championship game, and won the SB the year before.  None of the Patriot teams with Brady were run first.  

 

Get out of here with the Run First, or Run to set up the passs.

 

AAAAKKKK.  I feel like I want to go brush my teeth.  

 

This is some bad juju.  

 

It really depends on the identity of the team and the type of offense the coach wants to play. Sure WCO is all about short to intermediates throws to setup the run but Ron does like to grind it out and control the clock too. There is no reason one option has to be extreme to the other. Balance like I said. Sure you could still do 40 runs to 60 passes. But don't abandon the run because now you have a QB who can sling it.. 

 

Just because Wentz can throw 50+ yards shouldn't be the norm but the option instead. Tempered expectation and a balance offense is what I want to see from Wentz led offense and to win games. 

[Koolblue13]

6 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

It really depends on the identity of the team and the type of offense the coach wants to play. Sure WCO is all about short to intermediates throws to setup the run but Ron does like to grind it out and control the clock too. There is no reason one option has to be extreme to the other. Balance like I said. Sure you could still do 40 runs to 60 passes. But don't abandon the run because now you have a QB who can sling it.. 

 

Just because Wentz can throw 50+ yards shouldn't be the norm but the option instead. Tempered expectation and a balance offense is what I want to see from Wentz led offense and to win games. 

I get that we could only win when we ran it last year, but that's because we didn't have an NFL QB on the roster. It'll be different this year.

[Voice_of_Reason]

10 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

It really depends on the identity of the team and the type of offense the coach wants to play. Sure WCO is all about short to intermediates throws to setup the run but Ron does like to grind it out and control the clock too. There is no reason one option has to be extreme to the other. Balance like I said. Sure you could still do 40 runs to 60 passes. But don't abandon the run because now you have a QB who can sling it.. 

 

Just because Wentz can throw 50+ yards shouldn't be the norm but the option instead. Tempered expectation and a balance offense is what I want to see from Wentz led offense and to win games. 

I don’t want to see a bomb on every throw. 
 

But I damn sure don’t want to see them run the ball on half their plays. 
 

You run to make sure the defense has to account for it, and in situations where it’s advantageous to do so.  You also mix it up at times and run in situations the defense wouldn’t expect it to catch them off-guard.

 

If you limit yourself to 50/50 ratio, you completely sub-optimize all but 1 or 2 of your skill position players.

 

I get we had to do it last year because it was the only formula which had any chance of success with a limited QB.

 

And the results were pretty expected.  It worked for a while, and they were able to stay in some close games.  
 

But you can’t play to win games 17-15. It’s just nit sustainable.  And rhe only way to score more points is to be aggressive.  
 

In todays NFL.  This would have been different 20 years ago. 

7 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I get that we could only win when we ran it last year, but that's because we didn't have an NFL QB on the roster. It'll be different this year.

Oh now you’ve done it. 
 

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

The last time Wentz was given the reigns to a pass first attack, he led the league in INTs, sacks and turnovers... despite only playing 12 games... with only 218 yds/game to show for it. We have seen that story play out too.

That Eagles team was completely decimated by injury and had mediocre skill position players.  Ironically, Wentz was about the only offensive player not to be injured.  
 

I personally just take 2020 and toss it back like a bad fish. There was so much going on in that season, some of which was Wentz’s immaturity, but also organizationally, it s sortof an outlier. 
 

And frankly, if he isn’t a QB you can lean on and run this offense through him, I want to know that this year, because if that’s the case, they made a mistake and need to go fishing again next off season.  
 

If we’re paying $27/year for a QB who you’re trying to limit to 30 passes a game, then you need to reevaluate and go in a different direction.

 

I personal think he can be a prolific passing QB and have the offense run through him.  
 

However, if I’m wrong, and I could be, then I want to know asap.  

[mistertim]

5 hours ago, zCommander said:

 

Sure if you like losing. You can't run 15 run plays and the rest pass and expect a team to win. Balance 50-50 wins you games.

 

I agree that if you throw for an entire game and barely run at all it's probably not a recipe for long term success. But the bolded part is just not true. There were only a few teams last season who had a 50/50 pass/run ratio.

 

One of them was the Titans, but they have Henry so that makes them a bit of an outlier because they have an unstoppable RB. Another was Philly, but that is probably also skewed a bit by the fact that Hurts ran for a lot of yards. I think the last is SF, who have the weapons to do it and who also had an All Pro dual threat guy in Samuel.

 

The rest of the teams passed more than they ran, many by a good amount. The average pass percentage is closer to the upper 50s with many teams being in the 60s. Unless someone forgot to inform a whole lot of teams that they actually lost a lot of games that the record says they won, then the "you have to have an even run and pass balance to win" thing is factually inaccurate.

 

Being able to run the ball is absolutely still important, but it's a passing league now.

Edited May 15, 2022 by mistertim

[zCommander]

j

4 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I get that we could only win when we ran it last year, but that's because we didn't have an NFL QB on the roster. It'll be different this year.

 

We won't know for sure but not having Curtis or Logan limited TH as well. We would have at least won a wild card spot but obviously probably not gone any further. GB game was really bad with his early slide or else we had that game won as well. But yeah will see how well Wentz does with all the old and the new weapons he is going to be surrounded by. 

 

We have to win the division and a playoff game minimum with Wentz. 

 

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Oh now you’ve done it. 

 

Please I am not that petty.