The Running QB

Gorgon · Jan 12, 2020

Over the past year several teams---the Chiefs, Cowboys, but particularly the Texans and the Ravens---seemed to be gravitating to a new QB model, the "running QB." Especially in the case of the Texans and Ravens, the QB run was an instrumental part of the offense. Until the playoffs it looked like this was, in fact, the "new" model. In the past, a Michael Vick or Randall Cunningham always had good early success, but when crunch time came and you had to pass well from the pocket, these guys ran into trouble.

I wonder if, after today, that new model is questioned. This is the second year in a row where Jackson has not come through in a playoff game; Tannehill replacing the (more) mobile Mariota was to some degree a return to the more "normal" QB model. It could be argued that KC is less of a QB-run team than either Houston or Baltimore. Last year, Dallas was somewhat more of a QB run team.

If Watson is bounced (like I think he will be), and if the NFC really comes down to Rodgers and Garappolo as the championship QBs, virtually all of the "running QBs" will be out.

Now I understand oversimplification and, yes, there are variations across the board. Wilson, Rodgers, etc. all run from time to time. But I'm talking about the game plan of featuring the QB, especially Jackson and Watson, as runners. If Houston loses, does this cause a re-thinking and, in particular a re-thinking of Dak and how to properly use him?

Just questions. I don't have answers.

mattjames2010 · Jan 12, 2020

Lamar Jackson has ran 323 times since his first start last season. That is unreal and not sustainable in the NFL. Whether immediate or slowly, the body will break down - no one is superman. It will happen at Jackson's weight. No QB that has ran at a high rate got through it without major injuries that had them miss significant time.

Become a pocket passer or find yourself in the medical tent more often than you'd like.

CATCH17 · Jan 12, 2020

No.

Teams want their QB to be as dynamic as possible. That is what they are drafting.

Everyone is searching for a Aaron Rodgers or Patrick Mahomes.

I don’t like having a QB that is just a pure runner like Lamar Jackson because he is so vulnerable to injury.

ThreeandOut · Jan 12, 2020

The running (or mobile) QB isn't going away because that's what the colleges are supplying.

Runwildboys · Jan 12, 2020

Dak is not a running QB. He's a QB who can run some, but certainly not in the vein of Lamar, and he doesn't want to be a running QB. He wants to be a pocket passer, to the degree that there were multiple instances in which he probably should have run, but opted not to. I prefer that he be a pocket passer who can scramble when necessary, much like Romo was, but with more durability.

Gorgon · Jan 12, 2020

CATCH17 said:
No.

Teams want their QB to be as dynamic as possible. That is what they are drafting.

Everyone is searching for a Aaron Rodgers or Patrick Mahomes.

I don’t like having a QB that is just a pure runner like Lamar Jackson because he is so vulnerable to injury.

I get that, but even beyond that, it seems like the "running QBs" are never as accurate or reliable as the "traditional" QBs.
I recall Staubach, and how Landry worked to turn him into a pocket passer. He was somewhat successful. Roger's tremendous advantage was his leadership and competitiveness, not his accuracy. So I'm not sure he's a great example. But Landry never had Roger running option plays.

Shinaoi · Jan 12, 2020

I like how Russel Wilson plays. He moves around a lot behind the line of scrimmage to extend plays but isn’t always trying to actually gain yards with his feet.

CATCH17 · Jan 12, 2020

Gorgon said:
I get that, but even beyond that, it seems like the "running QBs" are never as accurate or reliable as the "traditional" QBs.
I recall Staubach, and how Landry worked to turn him into a pocket passer. He was somewhat successful. Roger's tremendous advantage was his leadership and competitiveness, not his accuracy. So I'm not sure he's a great example. But Landry never had Roger running option plays.

It’s like Parcells said.. You gotta take what the colleges are giving you.

The college game has moved away from the Troy Aikman types and it’s basically a requirement to have mobility at the position.

vnick · Jan 12, 2020

I don't think a run first QB is sustainable, but a QB who can run gives the offense one more weapon at its disposal. Just because Jackson lost last night doesn't mean he can't or won't be able to win a championship.

mattjames2010 · Jan 12, 2020

Gorgon said:
I get that, but even beyond that, it seems like the "running QBs" are never as accurate or reliable as the "traditional" QBs.
I recall Staubach, and how Landry worked to turn him into a pocket passer. He was somewhat successful. Roger's tremendous advantage was his leadership and competitiveness, not his accuracy. So I'm not sure he's a great example. But Landry never had Roger running option plays.

Roger Staubach, like Young, Rodgers, and Wilson, are ideal model for QBs. Great mobility but pocket passers first. 3 of those 4 QBs have top 5-10 adjusted ratings. Young's 1994 season is the single greatest season when adjusting for era, if I remember correctly, while Staubach's 1971 season is quite high as well.

I, personally, think Dak is a little too heavy footed to be be great running wise.

mattjames2010 · Jan 12, 2020

vnick said:
I don't think a run first QB is sustainable, but a QB who can run gives the offense one more weapon at its disposal. Just because Jackson lost last night doesn't mean he can't or won't be able to win a championship.

Whether he wins a championship is a whole other story, Jackson simply gives you a smaller window to get this done. You can't have a QB running nearly 200 times a year, that is not sustainable at QB weight.

MojaveJT · Jan 12, 2020

After watching the Ravens last night, that offense looks very gimmicky. They took away Jackson’s running ability and the offense looked like dookie. I prefer the traditional true pocket passer and the latest SB QB winners have been more traditional. The more “running” QB I like is Wilson but even then he is pass first then run. I’m all for athletic QBs but for some reason, they seem to be less accurate, just my opinion.

OmerV · Jan 12, 2020

Gorgon said:
Over the past year several teams---the Chiefs, Cowboys, but particularly the Texans and the Ravens---seemed to be gravitating to a new QB model, the "running QB." Especially in the case of the Texans and Ravens, the QB run was an instrumental part of the offense. Until the playoffs it looked like this was, in fact, the "new" model. In the past, a Michael Vick or Randall Cunningham always had good early success, but when crunch time came and you had to pass well from the pocket, these guys ran into trouble.

I wonder if, after today, that new model is questioned. This is the second year in a row where Jackson has not come through in a playoff game; Tannehill replacing the (more) mobile Mariota was to some degree a return to the more "normal" QB model. It could be argued that KC is less of a QB-run team than either Houston or Baltimore. Last year, Dallas was somewhat more of a QB run team.

If Watson is bounced (like I think he will be), and if the NFC really comes down to Rodgers and Garappolo as the championship QBs, virtually all of the "running QBs" will be out.

Now I understand oversimplification and, yes, there are variations across the board. Wilson, Rodgers, etc. all run from time to time. But I'm talking about the game plan of featuring the QB, especially Jackson and Watson, as runners. If Houston loses, does this cause a re-thinking and, in particular a re-thinking of Dak and how to properly use him?

Just questions. I don't have answers.

I think you are confusing “mobile QB” with “running QB”. Dak, for example, has never been featured as a runner in the NFL in the manner you mentioned, and while he has had some success running, lots of QBs run for about the same yardage. Same for Mahomes, and he runs less than Dak. These are guys that are mobile, and run once in awhile, but their running is not a featured part of their game or the offense they run.

erod · Jan 12, 2020

Running typically lasts for 3-4 years, then it's over. Injuries pile up quickly, and athleticism rapidly declines.

Look at Dak. He already lost it.

You have to be able to stand in thre pocket and throw into tight windows if you want to play 10 years.

McKDaddy · Jan 12, 2020

erod said:
You have to be able to stand in thre pocket and throw into tight windows if you want to play 10 years

Which is why you should be very careful in evaluating what you have and what kind of contract you can offer them regardless of what they produce early on.

Creeper · Jan 12, 2020

Running QBs will be the thing until one of them is injured and has to sit out 8-10 games.

TheMarathonContinues · Jan 12, 2020

Shinaoi said:
I like how Russel Wilson plays. He moves around a lot behind the line of scrimmage to extend plays but isn’t always trying to actually gain yards with his feet.

HE never takes unnecessary contact as well. Rarely do you see him get drilled. He's mastered that. Wentz could really watch film on him.

kskboys · Jan 12, 2020

Gorgon said:
Over the past year several teams---the Chiefs, Cowboys, but particularly the Texans and the Ravens---seemed to be gravitating to a new QB model, the "running QB." Especially in the case of the Texans and Ravens, the QB run was an instrumental part of the offense. Until the playoffs it looked like this was, in fact, the "new" model. In the past, a Michael Vick or Randall Cunningham always had good early success, but when crunch time came and you had to pass well from the pocket, these guys ran into trouble.

I wonder if, after today, that new model is questioned. This is the second year in a row where Jackson has not come through in a playoff game; Tannehill replacing the (more) mobile Mariota was to some degree a return to the more "normal" QB model. It could be argued that KC is less of a QB-run team than either Houston or Baltimore. Last year, Dallas was somewhat more of a QB run team.

If Watson is bounced (like I think he will be), and if the NFC really comes down to Rodgers and Garappolo as the championship QBs, virtually all of the "running QBs" will be out.

Now I understand oversimplification and, yes, there are variations across the board. Wilson, Rodgers, etc. all run from time to time. But I'm talking about the game plan of featuring the QB, especially Jackson and Watson, as runners. If Houston loses, does this cause a re-thinking and, in particular a re-thinking of Dak and how to properly use him?

Just questions. I don't have answers.

Prescott and Watson are not running QB's. Both are good passers.

Jackson/Vick/Cunningham are/were not good passers.

To understand this, you'd have to make the distinction between running QB's and Qb's who can run. The QB running is not the problem, the QB running too much and not being a good enough passer is the problem. Quite simply, a QB who depends on running the ball himself is too one dimensional. Against good D's, those type QB's get exposed.

One of the problems is that after a QB has taken off and run a good ways, he's huffin' and puffin' a bit, and this throws off his passing for a play or two, sometimes a series.

kskboys · Jan 12, 2020

CATCH17 said:
No.

Teams want their QB to be as dynamic as possible. That is what they are drafting.

Everyone is searching for a Aaron Rodgers or Patrick Mahomes.

I don’t like having a QB that is just a pure runner like Lamar Jackson because he is so vulnerable to injury.

And playoff type D's all too often take away his running, making him ineffective.

kskboys · Jan 12, 2020

vnick said:
I don't think a run first QB is sustainable, but a QB who can run gives the offense one more weapon at its disposal. Just because Jackson lost last night doesn't mean he can't or won't be able to win a championship.

Ah, now turn it around. Because he's not a great passer, that makes him one dimensional.

Your last sentence is obvious stuff. Any QB can win w/ enough talent around him.

The Running QB

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1st Round Pick

Well-Known Member

Confused about stuff

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1st Round Pick

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member