Read-option quarterbacks are fair game on fakes, NFL says

[NinePointOh]

Except that QBs can--and are encouraged--to slide to avoid being hit. Name one WR or RB who can do this and still keep his job lol.

In fact, name a QB who falls to the ground while still in the pocket to avoid being hit, and see what the reaction is. Pocket QBs are expected to stand tall and take the hit in order to get the pass completed downfield. QBs running downfield aren't expected to "stand tall" and take the hit....they are given options while running to keep themselves safe.

Well yeah, but the conversation was about the ability to withstand hits, not avoid them. Obviously if you can run the read-option without ever getting hit, you probably won't get injured. But despite the ability to slide, every QB who runs the ball a lot still ends up taking lots of hits downfield. And those hits -- when they occur -- are no less severe just because you're a QB instead of a RB.

 

[birdwells1]

Uh, it is the same rule as last year.

And again, you have to a) catch the QB when he does this. The QB is staring right at the DE

Part of the RO is to make the DE confused on who's getting the ball but if his only responsibility is the qb then that confusion goes away, but I could be wrong. Remember the DE is unblocked so I just tell him that you have the qb everytime. Again I maybe wrong.

 

[30yrheel]

Ah, well if you saw every Panther game--which the guys who came up with that stat clearly did not--the stat must indeed be wrong. I stand corrected.

Just that a lot of Cam's runs were scrambles after starting under center. Their offense was different than the skins which depends so much more on deception.
StAts don't tell the whole story.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

It makes me laugh when I see people sooo outraged by the offenses we saw last year. What's so bad about them?

Oh, that the Commanders have a QB who can run. If we had RG3, people would love it.

 

[NinePointOh]

So I'll ask again: how many games have Wilson, Newton, Kaep AND RG3 missed due to injury so far? Should be quite a few...

Why cherry-pick the guys who've only been doing it for a very short time? How many games did Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb, Kordell Stewart, Steve McNair, and Steve Young miss? Every one of those guys had major injury issues.

 

[Califan007]

Well yeah, but the conversation was about the ability to withstand hits, not avoid them. Obviously if you can run the read-option without ever getting hit, you probably won't get injured. But despite the ability to slide, every QB who runs the ball a lot still ends up taking lots of hits downfield. And those hits -- when they occur -- are no less severe just because you're a QB instead of a RB.

Actually, that post of mine was aimed at your saying a QB running downfield is "no different" than a WR or RB in terms of being injured. I was showing that was not quite true.

 

[30yrheel]

You have to get to the QB. That is the point everyone in this thread seems to be missing.

RG3 will put his hands up and carry out the fake 7 yards behind the LOS. By that time Alfred Morris will have a 15 yard gain and the DE will still be 3 yards away from RG3

Again, if this is the strategy, hit the QB, RG3 will be safer because he will always hand the ball off[/quotC

It makes me laugh when I see people sooo outraged by the offenses we saw last year. What's so bad about them?

Oh, that the Commanders have a QB who can run. If we had RG3, people would love it.

Actually I would be worried.

 

[Califan007]

Why cherry-pick the guys who've only been doing it for a very short time? How many games did Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb, Kordell Stewart, Steve McNair, and Steve Young miss? Every one of those guys had major injury issues.

Did they run the read option?

 

[NinePointOh]

Actually, that post of mine was aimed at your saying a QB running downfield is "no different" than a WR or RB in terms of being injured. I was showing that was not quite true.

I didn't say "in terms of being injured." I meant in terms of withstanding hits, which is what the conversation and the entirety of my post were about.

 

[Califan007]

I didn't say "in terms of being injured." I meant in terms of withstanding hits, which is what the conversation and the entirety of my post were about.

You said this:

"And once the QB is running downfield on a read option, he's no different from any other ball carrier -- and where do running backs and receivers get injured most often? Certainly not in the pocket."

 

[NinePointOh]

Did they run the read option?

No, your post specifically referred to "running" QBs, not read option QBs.

Though the difference, in terms of this conversation, is cosmetic at best.

 

[Califan007]

No, your post specifically referred to "running" QBs, not read option QBs.

Though the difference, in terms of this conversation, is cosmetic at best.

Noooo lol...I said this:

"No, see, the argument is that "running" QBs utilizing the option aren't as durable as pocket QBs, and the number of games lost to injury was supposed to show how that is true.

So I'll ask again: how many games have Wilson, Newton, Kaep AND RG3 missed due to injury so far? Should be quite a few..."

 

[dcboy]

Part of the RO is to make the DE confused on who's getting the ball but if his only responsibility is the qb then that confusion goes away, but I could be wrong. Remember the DE is unblocked so I just tell him that you have the qb everytime. Again I maybe wrong.

That was my thinking too. Have the unblocked DE attack the QB every play and he no longer can be responsible for outside containment. He doesn't have to blast him if he clearly doesn't have the ball, but being unblocked and attacking at the snap, he will be on the QB pretty quickly. This makes the QB make a rushed decision and doesn't put the DE in a no win situation. It is not necessarily about injuring the QB, but that is a likely result of more hits. I don't know how the defense will account for this, but having him continue to read the QB isn't going to work.

 

[Califan007]

That was my thinking too. Have the unblocked DE attack the QB every play and he no longer can be responsible for outside containment. He doesn't have to blast him if he clearly doesn't have the ball, but being unblocked and attacking at the snap, he will be on the QB pretty quickly. This makes the QB make a rushed decision and doesn't put the DE in a no win situation. It is not necessarily about injuring the QB, but that is a likely result of more hits. I don't know how the defense will account for this, but having him continue to read the QB isn't going to work.

It won't be a rushed decision, as it will be incredibly and immediately clear where the unblocked DE is going.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

No, see, the argument is that "running" QBs utilizing the option aren't as durable as pocket QBs, and the number of games lost to injury was supposed to show how that is true.
So I'll ask again: how many games have Wilson, Newton, Kaep AND RG3 missed due to injury so far? Should be quite a few...

Sure I'll bite. The 3 you mentioned missed a combined 0 games in there combined total of 55 starts. Peyton Manning missed 0 in his first 208 starts. Eli Manning missed 0 in his first 135. Tom Brady missed 0 in his first 111 starts. Drew Brees missed 2 in his last 142 starts (early in his career he was benched for poor play, so I didn't count his first 3 years where he missed 0 due to injury, and I believe one of these starts was missed in week 17 not due to injury).

Throwing out 3 players with only 55 combined starts shows that what ever argument you are trying to make holds no merit. Running QBs are less durable, not because their physiology is any different, but because......they get hit more. If I said RBs are less durable than WRs, would you argue it by pointing out a few rookie RBs who are more durable than veteran WRs?

 

[birdwells1]

That was my thinking too. Have the unblocked DE attack the QB every play and he no longer can be responsible for outside containment. He doesn't have to blast him if he clearly doesn't have the ball, but being unblocked and attacking at the snap, he will be on the QB pretty quickly. This makes the QB make a rushed decision and doesn't put the DE in a no win situation. It is not necessarily about injuring the QB, but that is a likely result of more hits. I don't know how the defense will account for this, but having him continue to read the QB isn't going to work.

Yeah maybe I wrong but what you'd be doing is taking away the option portion of the RO, now someone else, like you said, would have to account for the rb but I like taking the mystery of it.

 

[Califan007]

Sure I'll bite. The 3 you mentioned missed a combined 0 games in there combined total of 55 starts. Peyton Manning missed 0 in his first 208 starts. Eli Manning missed 0 in his first 135. Tom Brady missed 0 in his first 111 starts. Drew Brees missed 2 in his last 142 starts (early in his career he was benched for poor play, so I didn't count his first 3 years where he missed 0 due to injury, and I believe one of these starts was missed in week 17 not due to injury).

Throwing out 3 players with only 55 combined starts shows that what ever argument you are trying to make holds no merit. Running QBs are less durable, not because their physiology is any different, but because......they get hit more. If I said RBs are less durable than WRs, would you argue it by pointing out a few rookie RBs who are more durable than veteran WRs?

What the...you changed your post while I was responding lol ...had to go and delete a bunch of text. Thanks a lot!

And if those measly 55 starts aren't enough to draw any conclusions about the durability of those QBs, then is RG3 missing one game in 17 enough of a sample size to make any conclusions? Can't have it both ways. RG3 might go the next 5 years without missing a game due to injury for all we know. So would missing one game out of 80+ games show that he's durable?

 

[Vintage]

It makes me laugh when I see people sooo outraged by the offenses we saw last year. What's so bad about them?

Oh, that the Commanders have a QB who can run. If we had RG3, people would love it.

Agreed. Its an offense. Its legal. Quit being outraged because it was difficult to defend last year.

 

[NinePointOh]

You said this:

"And once the QB is running downfield on a read option, he's no different from any other ball carrier -- and where do running backs and receivers get injured most often? Certainly not in the pocket."

Right, because that's where they take most of the hits they take. That's why the very next sentence -- the one you selectively left out -- said, "There's nothing magical about being a QB that makes you immune to hits downfield." My point was that when you get hit, wherever on the field it happens, you are at risk of being injured.

Noooo lol...I said this:

"No, see, the argument is that "running" QBs utilizing the option aren't as durable as pocket QBs, and the number of games lost to injury was supposed to show how that is true.

So I'll ask again: how many games have Wilson, Newton, Kaep AND RG3 missed due to injury so far? Should be quite a few..."

Yes, and most of the QBs I mentioned utilized some form of the option at least a good portion of the time. As I said before, you did not refer to the read option specifically, which is merely the latest iteration of a system that's been around for a while. The read option didn't magically eliminate the ability to hit a running QB, which is why the distinction you're trying to make is completely pointless. It doesn't matter if you're scrambling or optioning or read optioning or load optioning -- a hit is a hit is a hit.

Let me simplify -- do you disagree that read option QBs get hit a lot, even though they retain the ability to slide? Do you disagree that getting hit puts you at risk of being injured, regardless of where on the field it happens?

 

[Vintage]

What the...you changed your post while I was responding lol ...had to go and delete a bunch of text. Thanks a lot!

And if those measly 55 starts aren't enough to draw any conclusions about the durability of those QBs, then is RG3 missing one game in 17 enough of a sample size to make any conclusions? Can't have it both ways. RG3 might go the next 5 years without missing a game due to injury for all we know. So would missing one game out of 80+ games show that he's durable?

Yes, that would be durable.

Its way too early in his career to say if he is injury prone or going to be durable.

I do wonder about his slight build. That would worry me more than this 'read option' nonsense that people keep bringing up. And I would be worried about his build regardless if he has the athletic ability to run a read option or if he ran a 5.8 40 and was a statue.

Either way, we will find out in the next couple of years.