View Full Version : Is it more a matter of style?
Since most every thread turns to the QB position do you think the differnt personal preferences between dropback and mobile QB's are a major reason for the wide disparity of views .Personaly I have always prefered the drop back passer.Q has great escape ability but does not seem willing to stand and take a hit to complete the pass ,although he has shown some improvement.Hutch on the other hand will stand in there unfortunatly too long in many cases which leads to TO's.Is our disagrement on QB's more from thier style of play and our preference for it? :p
jimmy40
05-22-2004, 12:45 PM
Since most every thread turns to the QB position do you think the differnt personal preferences between dropback and mobile QB's are a major reason for the wide disparity of views .Personaly I have always prefered the drop back passer.Q has great escape ability but does not seem willing to stand and take a hit to complete the pass ,although he has shown some improvement.Hutch on the other hand will stand in there unfortunatly too long in many cases which leads to TO's.Is our disagrement on QB's more from thier style of play and our preference for it? :p
Quarterbacks that won't stand in the pocket and take hits to complete passes don't win Super Bowls. Enough said.
Some of my favorite memories are past QB's taking a hit just to help team. :)
Hostile
05-22-2004, 01:19 PM
Since most every thread turns to the QB position do you think the differnt personal preferences between dropback and mobile QB's are a major reason for the wide disparity of views .Personaly I have always prefered the drop back passer.Q has great escape ability but does not seem willing to stand and take a hit to complete the pass ,although he has shown some improvement.Hutch on the other hand will stand in there unfortunatly too long in many cases which leads to TO's.Is our disagrement on QB's more from thier style of play and our preference for it? :p
For some it probably is. There are bound to be other reasons as well.
I do prefer the classic drop back passer, but I have no problem with a QB who can run. I think John Elway very well might be the mold.
There are people who say in today's game a statue at QB cannot help you win. I think that is nonsense. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Warren Moon could win and play in any era.
Ryan Leaf had incredible physical tools. Why did he fail? 10 cent head. Why did Joe Montana succeed when he clearly did not have a canon for an arm? Exactly the opposite. His head was made for the game.
There are so many ways a QB can beat you. Accuracy is one way. Guts is another. The tools around him is another. Running ability may be able to for a game or two, but over the long haul of a season you still need for a QB to be able to throw the ball. That is why NFL teams do not run the Wishbone.
It's a very good question. I am sure that for some people the reasons you state are very much the basis of their opinions. I don't think we can say it is the basis for everyone.
Since it's slow I will say a great example of different styles is Mcnair. When he first came into the league he was mainly dependent on his mobility and is still a good runner ,but he has developed into one of the best QB's in the league I hope he can remain healthy so I can enjoy watching him for a long time.To me a QB should first be a passer I believe he is a great example of that.
Hostile
05-22-2004, 01:34 PM
Since it's slow I will say a great example of different styles is Mcnair. When he first came into the league he was mainly dependent on his mobility and is still a good runner ,but he has developed into one of the best QB's in the league I hope he can remain healthy so I can enjoy watching him for a long time.To me a QB should first be a passer I believe he is a great example of that.
McNair is my favorite player in the NFL right now. I swear he is the toughest guy on the field.
Tsgt Hendricks
05-22-2004, 01:59 PM
Since most every thread turns to the QB position do you think the differnt personal preferences between dropback and mobile QB's are a major reason for the wide disparity of views .Personaly I have always prefered the drop back passer.Q has great escape ability but does not seem willing to stand and take a hit to complete the pass ,although he has shown some improvement.Hutch on the other hand will stand in there unfortunatly too long in many cases which leads to TO's.Is our disagrement on QB's more from thier style of play and our preference for it? :p
Yes That is it, at least with with me, I just do not like the drop back passers. I have said it about a million times already.
Q, has escapability but he does not want to use it, he has said he considers himself a pocket passer.
Personally, I do not want him to stand there and take a beating just to complete the pass, I mean it is okay sometimes, but do not do it to the extent that troy and hutch does it, it shortens your career.
Drop back passers are not playmakers, IMO.
Tsgt Hendricks
05-22-2004, 02:04 PM
For some it probably is. There are bound to be other reasons as well.
I do prefer the classic drop back passer, but I have no problem with a QB who can run. I think John Elway very well might be the mold.
There are people who say in today's game a statue at QB cannot help you win. I think that is nonsense. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Warren Moon could win and play in any era.
Ryan Leaf had incredible physical tools. Why did he fail? 10 cent head. Why did Joe Montana succeed when he clearly did not have a canon for an arm? Exactly the opposite. His head was made for the game.
There are so many ways a QB can beat you. Accuracy is one way. Guts is another. The tools around him is another. Running ability may be able to for a game or two, but over the long haul of a season you still need for a QB to be able to throw the ball. That is why NFL teams do not run the Wishbone.
It's a very good question. I am sure that for some people the reasons you state are very much the basis of their opinions. I don't think we can say it is the basis for everyone.
Warren Moon could hurt you with his feet as well as his arm. He was not a classic drop back passer. I watched him run many times, until he got older, same thing happened with Doug Williams. Moon in the CFL use to kill teams with his feet, I believe.
Hostile
05-22-2004, 02:07 PM
Drop back passers are not playmakers, IMO.
Then why did Bill Parcells say he was looking for a Dan Fouts?
I'll e-mail your comments to CBS and Dan Marino too. I'm sure he needs to know all those records are because he never made plays.
Anyone know where I can reach Warren Moon?
Hostile
05-22-2004, 02:13 PM
Warren Moon could hurt you with his feet as well as his arm. He was not a classic drop back passer. I watched him run many times, until he got older, same thing happened with Doug Williams. Moon in the CFL use to kill teams with his feet, I believe.
3.2 yards per carry career average.
jimmy40
05-22-2004, 02:16 PM
Yes That is it, at least with with me, I just do not like the drop back passers. I have said it about a million times already.
Q, has escapability but he does not want to use it, he has said he considers himself a pocket passer.
Personally, I do not want him to stand there and take a beating just to complete the pass, I mean it is okay sometimes, but do not do it to the extent that troy and hutch does it, it shortens your career.
Drop back passers are not playmakers, IMO.
So you don't like Super Bowl winning quarterbacks?
Since most every thread turns to the QB position do you think the differnt personal preferences between dropback and mobile QB's are a major reason for the wide disparity of views .Personaly I have always prefered the drop back passer.Q has great escape ability but does not seem willing to stand and take a hit to complete the pass ,although he has shown some improvement.Hutch on the other hand will stand in there unfortunatly too long in many cases which leads to TO's.Is our disagrement on QB's more from thier style of play and our preference for it? :p
I doubt it, I think there are other things. I haven't been able to discern all of them yet and don't understand some either.
For me its this. I really don't care what kind of passer Dallas has. If he wins games, can make all the throws, inspires his teammates and is cool in the clutch, he is OK in my book.
Hostile
05-22-2004, 02:18 PM
So you don't like Super Bowl winning quarterbacks?
Nope
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1833
Tsgt Hendricks
05-22-2004, 02:19 PM
Then why did Bill Parcells say he was looking for a Dan Fouts?
I'll e-mail your comments to CBS and Dan Marino too. I'm sure he needs to know all those records are because he never made plays.
Anyone know where I can reach Warren Moon?
You do that. Now tell me how someone just standing there like a statue is making a play.
Just passing the ball is not making a play, IMO. That is your job, to pass and hand off,but when the play breaks down, or no one is open, that is the time to make a play, that is when a QB should be a playmaker, and if he has no mobility, he cannotmake a play, JMO
TwoDeep3
05-22-2004, 02:24 PM
Geez, and all these years I thought the Hail Mary was Roger and Drew making a play.
Little did I know.
Hostile
05-22-2004, 02:30 PM
You do that. Now tell me how someone just standing there like a statue is making a play.
Just passing the ball is not making a play, IMO. That is your job, to pass and hand off,but when the play breaks down, or no one is open, that is the time to make a play, that is when a QB should be a playmaker, and if he has no mobility, he cannotmake a play, JMO
Dan Marino
4967 completions, 61,361 yards passing, 420 tds.
Apparently never made a play.
Dan Fouts
3190 completions, 41,839 yards passing, 224 tds.
Apprently never made a play.
Johnny Unitas
2830 completions, 40,238 yards passing, 290 tds.
Apparently never made a play.
Hostile
05-22-2004, 02:32 PM
Geez, and all these years I thought the Hail Mary was Roger and Drew making a play.
Little did I know.
I thought so too. There is an avatar I want to give him. :D
Jimz31
05-22-2004, 02:55 PM
I'll take whatever wins.....however, I do think that the NFL is changing to the point where the QB needs to be able to avoid the rush.....the defenses are getting bigger and quicker and you can't have a totally immobile guy as your QB, cuz he may not last the entire season.
Hostile
05-22-2004, 03:03 PM
I'll take whatever wins.....however, I do think that the NFL is changing to the point where the QB needs to be able to avoid the rush.....the defenses are getting bigger and quicker and you can't have a totally immobile guy as your QB, cuz he may not last the entire season.
There is some truth to that, but I still maintain that Dan Marino could start for any team in today's NFL. Same with Dan Fouts, Troy Aikman, Warren Moon, Peyton Manning and my predicted future star Byron Leftwich.
None are all that mobile.
Jimz31
05-22-2004, 03:25 PM
There is some truth to that, but I still maintain that Dan Marino could start for any team in today's NFL. Same with Dan Fouts, Troy Aikman, Warren Moon, Peyton Manning and my predicted future star Byron Leftwich.
None are all that mobile.
I'll agree with you on a couple of those guys. Manning still gets happy feet whenever he is pressured too much which is a concern....he still needs to learn how to handle the pressure a little bit better, IMO. If you look at his losses, you will see that they are games in which he was pressured.
Aikman would need better protection to still make it. Actually, they all would.
Marino had a very quick release which helped him.
The only thing is that the defenses are much quicker than they were just 10 years ago. This really does make a difference, IMO.
I'll take whatever wins.....however, I do think that the NFL is changing to the point where the QB needs to be able to avoid the rush.....the defenses are getting bigger and quicker and you can't have a totally immobile guy as your QB, cuz he may not last the entire season.
I don't feel that any imobile QB can be effective either.However if you look at Leftwicth and Mcnair after being injured they could still be effective because they have learned to be great passers not just runners.Mike vic for all his running abilities, will have to excell in his passing to last in this league .I feel that is what Dan reeves taught him and he would agree.PS:Aikman,White and staubach were all mobile,if you don't remember look it up.
jimmy40
05-22-2004, 05:03 PM
I'll agree with you on a couple of those guys. Manning still gets happy feet whenever he is pressured too much which is a concern....he still needs to learn how to handle the pressure a little bit better, IMO. If you look at his losses, you will see that they are games in which he was pressured.
Aikman would need better protection to still make it. Actually, they all would.
Marino had a very quick release which helped him.
The only thing is that the defenses are much quicker than they were just 10 years ago. This really does make a difference, IMO.Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Kurt Warner, Tom Brady. None of these guys are better athletes than Troy Aikman was, none of them have offensive lines as good as Aikman's and none of them had Emmitt Smith. Why have they all won Super Bowls in the last five years?
LeonDixson
05-22-2004, 05:04 PM
To me the argument is not about the style of QB. It is about whether the QB is consistently managing the game and being an important reason why the team is winning, not just being along for the ride and making a lot of mistakes.
Both styles of QBs have won Superbowls, so I don't think you can make a case that one style is the right style. So much depends on the team itself and the style of offense being played that a "running QB" may succeed on one team but might fail on another, and vice versa for the pocket passer.
It's perfectly normal to have a personal preference for one style over the other, but I don't think that is the basis for most of the arguments about QC.
jimmy40
05-22-2004, 05:11 PM
To me the argument is not about the style of QB. It is about whether the QB is consistently managing the game and being an important reason why the team is winning, not just being along for the ride and making a lot of mistakes.
Both styles of QBs have won Superbowls, so I don't think you can make a case that one style is the right style. So much depends on the team itself and the style of offense being played that a "running QB" may succeed on one team but might fail on another, and vice versa for the pocket passer.
It's perfectly normal to have a personal preference for one style over the other, but I don't think that is the basis for most of the arguments about QC.
Are we talking about succeeding or winning Super Bowls? How many " running QBs" have won Super Bowls?
To me the argument is not about the style of QB. It is about whether the QB is consistently managing the game and being an important reason why the team is winning, not just being along for the ride and making a lot of mistakes.
Both styles of QBs have won Superbowls, so I don't think you can make a case that one style is the right style. So much depends on the team itself and the style of offense being played that a "running QB" may succeed on one team but might fail on another, and vice versa for the pocket passer.
It's perfectly normal to have a personal preference for one style over the other, but I don't think that is the basis for most of the arguments about QC.
The mistakes that Q consistantly makes are what drive me crazy.EARLY in his career I could overlook it since he was rushed into starting but it has to stop.That said I would prefer to talk about the different styles of play rather than Q. :D
The mistakes that Q consistantly makes are what drive me crazy.EARLY in his career I could overlook it since he was rushed into starting but it has to stop.That said I would prefer to talk about the different styles of play rather than Q. :D
Good point, I am as guilty as anyone. I think we all want to rise above the debate, since we really have nothing to do with it anyways. However, there is always some comment (from both sides) that gets somebody going. Being told I shouldn't have an opinion got me fired up. :D
Good point, I am as guilty as anyone. I think we all want to rise above the debate, since we really have nothing to do with it anyways. However, there is always some comment (from both sides) that gets somebody going. Being told I shouldn't have an opinion got me fired up. :D
Always glad to hear your opinion,thats why I am here.Me talking to myself tends to drive the LITTLE lady nuts :eek:
big dog cowboy
05-22-2004, 10:11 PM
Just give me a QB who knows his strenghts and weaknesses and knows how to use those strenghts to win and avoid his weaknesses to avoid losing.
Jimz31
05-22-2004, 11:40 PM
Are we talking about succeeding or winning Super Bowls? How many " running QBs" have won Super Bowls?
I think the discussion is more about mobile vs. immobile QB's....not running vs. non-running.
QC is not a "running" QB....he wasn't even in college. He just has the ability to escape a rush which is what would be considered a "mobile" QB.
Just give me a QB who knows his strenghts and weaknesses and knows how to use those strenghts to win and avoid his weaknesses to avoid losing.
Good point..playing to your strengths while not trying to force things works for me.
Sarge
05-23-2004, 01:41 PM
Just passing the ball is not making a play, IMO.
I did not know that.
jimmy40
05-23-2004, 01:53 PM
I think the discussion is more about mobile vs. immobile QB's....not running vs. non-running.
QC is not a "running" QB....he wasn't even in college. He just has the ability to escape a rush which is what would be considered a "mobile" QB.
Still doesn't explaine why so called immobile QBs keep winning Super Bowls.
BadKarma
05-23-2004, 01:57 PM
To me, a quarterback who can drop back and be patient in the pocket is more important than a guy running out before the play develops. A guy running can't gun the ball with the velocity of a guy stepping into his passes. Secondly, he's basically taken the opposite field of vision out of play when rolling out.
There are some obvious advantages for quarterback with mobility, especially with a very suspect offensive line. But what Bill Parcells is doing is fixing that line. He's gearing up his personnel for an offense that will be run first and setup play-action later. Scrambling was a necessity last year.
Kangaroo
05-23-2004, 01:58 PM
Elway made 5 apperances and won 2
Steve Young was very mobile has a Super Bowl
Joe Montana was not statue and bought time with his feet 4 super bowls
But it also depends on how you define a running qb
Are we talking Vick tuck and run or we talking about a guy that can run away from pressure and throw but rarely tries to run for yardage but instead tries to buy time.
By the way being mobile is not the only way to avoid pressure
Brady for instance has a knack for stepping up into the pocket and the right place and time
knowing where the pressure is and how to step away is as important as being able to run away from the pressure (imo)
jay cee
05-23-2004, 02:41 PM
For some it probably is. There are bound to be other reasons as well.
I do prefer the classic drop back passer, but I have no problem with a QB who can run. I think John Elway very well might be the mold.
There are people who say in today's game a statue at QB cannot help you win. I think that is nonsense. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, and Warren Moon could win and play in any era.
Ryan Leaf had incredible physical tools. Why did he fail? 10 cent head. Why did Joe Montana succeed when he clearly did not have a canon for an arm? Exactly the opposite. His head was made for the game.
There are so many ways a QB can beat you. Accuracy is one way. Guts is another. The tools around him is another. Running ability may be able to for a game or two, but over the long haul of a season you still need for a QB to be able to throw the ball. That is why NFL teams do not run the Wishbone.
It's a very good question. I am sure that for some people the reasons you state are very much the basis of their opinions. I don't think we can say it is the basis for everyone.
Great post hostile.
There is just no way to know for certain how a player will turn out, because there is too many intangibles involved.
jimmy40
05-23-2004, 08:46 PM
Elway made 5 apperances and won 2
Steve Young was very mobile has a Super Bowl
Joe Montana was not statue and bought time with his feet 4 super bowls
But it also depends on how you define a running qb
Are we talking Vick tuck and run or we talking about a guy that can run away from pressure and throw but rarely tries to run for yardage but instead tries to buy time.
By the way being mobile is not the only way to avoid pressure
Brady for instance has a knack for stepping up into the pocket and the right place and time
knowing where the pressure is and how to step away is as important as being able to run away from the pressure (imo)Passers that know how to move in the pocket to make plays are pocket passers of which you named several. Elway didn't win a Super Bowl till he got too old to run.
Passers that know how to move in the pocket to make plays are pocket passers of which you named several. Elway didn't win a Super Bowl till he got too old to run.
Pocket QB's are the rule. Brady was dissed as "too slow" What a croc
jimmy40
05-23-2004, 09:51 PM
Pocket QB's are the rule. Brady was dissed as "too slow" What a croc
I just don't understand this BS arguement about you have to have a mobile quarterback to win these days. I heard the same arguements 30 years ago, defenses are too fast now blah blah blah. Quarterbacks that can move IN the pocket and make playswith their arm win Super Bowls, it was a proven fact 30 years ago and again last year. It's always been that way and it always will.
I just don't understand this BS arguement about you have to have a mobile quarterback to win these days. I heard the same arguements 30 years ago, defenses are too fast now blah blah blah. Quarterbacks that can move IN the pocket and make playswith their arm win Super Bowls, it was a proven fact 30 years ago and again last year. It's always been that way and it always will.
I agree with good coaching you cannot beat a pocket passer.A mobile Qb can add to the options available but is not needed.Mike Vick as good as he runs will not realize his potential without focusing on the pass,and he has said so.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.