|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on May 20, 2009 17:13:52 GMT -6
With the advent of all the dual threat QBs over the last few years and the fits they give defenses, today I caught myself wondering: why and how did the "prototypical" QB become a tall, immobile stiff who could only really do one thing: throw the ball?
I know it wasn't this way from the beginning. In the early days, back when the Single Wing and other direct snap offenses were the norm, the QB was the name of the blocking back. The passing duties were usually divided up among several backs, but the primary one was usually the FB: a power runner first and a passer second.
Nowadays people look at how guys like Vince Young and Tim Tebow have brought the position full circle, but there've always been the rare athlete who could do it all: Steve Young, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, Steve McNair before the injuries, etc. But now truely competent dual threat QBs are so much more common than they ever were before. Obviously, not every QB is a freak of nature, but you see a ton of athletic HS players every year spreadin' and shreddin' defenses for 1,000 on the ground while also throwing for 2,000+. Where were all these guys for the last 50 years? And why is it that the "pocket passer" guys like Peyton Manning still seem to always be the best passers.
I guess what I'm asking is, with the benefits of having a mobile, running QB always apparent, why was the position so dominated by slow, one dimensional players for so long? Why and how did that evolution occur? Was it the advent of under center offenses like the Wing T and the innovations of Paul Brown, which led to more and more specialization throughout the game? And why didn't coaches take the old single wing FBs and teach them how to take a snap under C, take a few steps away from the line, and throw? Everyone has always known that mobility was a great thing to have in a QB, yet nobody ever seemed to care much about it unless they were running an option offense.
My theory is that mechanics and strength training techniques were poorly understood so coaches just looked for a kid with obvious natural talent because they were usually clueless how to "develop" him or correct flaws with his throwing motion, release, etc. I'd like to see what others who've been around the game a lot longer think.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 20, 2009 22:42:24 GMT -6
With the advent of all the dual threat QBs over the last few years and the fits they give defenses, today I caught myself wondering: why and how did the "prototypical" QB become a tall, immobile stiff who could only really do one thing: throw the ball? It might've happened even sooner were rules not adopted that for a long time banned platoon substitution in college football. High schools developed passing specialists who if they went on to play in college had to be hidden somewhere when they played defense, and then if they turned pro could be specialists again. It was thought that if the player were good enough a passer the other criteria could be neglected, because he'd be as important to your game as a baseball pitcher who can't hit or field for anything. Systems were developed such that even if you had a good runner at QB, the only designed plays for him to keep on would be slow developing ones like after faking two belly handoffs or bootlegging deliberately slowly, sneaking a yard for a first down (the only quick hitter for the QB), or running a draw after sending everybody out. They depended so heavily on the element of surprise that being quick was hardly a criterion. In fact, being slow added to the surprise factor. Yes. They did, going from HS to college or from college to the pros. But only if they were superior passers to begin with. |
|
byuwolverine
Junior Member
Life is a game of inches --- Add them up in any aspect and there is your outcome.
Posts: 285
|
Post by byuwolverine on May 21, 2009 8:53:28 GMT -6
The whole "field general" theory and his job is to distribute the ball
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 21, 2009 9:00:08 GMT -6
I guess what I'm asking is, with the benefits of having a mobile, running QB always apparent, why was the position so dominated by slow, one dimensional players for so long? Why and how did that evolution occur?
Dan Marino and Vinnie Testevede!
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on May 21, 2009 9:16:26 GMT -6
Fear of injury-
I think there is a common belief that a mobile QB is more likely to be injured than a pass-first QB. I know that people will be able to cite hundreds of situations/data sets saying otherwise, but you can't tell me that the Saints are going to let Drew Brees (who has tremendous wheels by the way) run for his life next season.
Rules were imposed that protected the valuable QB position from head shots/concussions/low blows WHILE they are in the pocket. Once that guy got out of the pocket he was free game and more likely to get head-hunted.
Also-
The higher the level, the greater the skill set of the defenders. Having a semi-mobile QB in HS will KILL teams due to lack of team speed. College level requires a special person because now the LBs run like safeties...then you get to the NFL- unless the QB runs significantly faster than a 4.5 he won't run away from most decent front 7's...too much risk/too little reward...
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 21, 2009 9:50:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 21, 2009 11:17:17 GMT -6
Agreed Coach. Favre although an inigma now, was proof that good skills and game sense are more important than athleticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on May 21, 2009 11:47:18 GMT -6
I guess what I'm asking is, with the benefits of having a mobile, running QB always apparent, why was the position so dominated by slow, one dimensional players for so long? Why and how did that evolution occur? Dan Marino and Vinnie Testevede! the advent of the quick passing game is what made Dan Marino and Vinnie testevede types popular. tall so they could see and throw over the lineman quickly. you go back to when those guys where playing college ball and early pros the defenses were playing cover 3 zone or loose man coverage on the corners. when you see this the quick game is like stealing candy from a baby. the I formation with sprint or lead draw action is also why pocket QB became so successful. it is pocket play action. This is where Payton manning excels is ppap off zone or boot cup off of zone. I personally do not want a dual threat QB because they are thinking with their feet when they fell pressure and they should be stepping up in the pocket. |
|
|
|
Post by dg1694 on May 21, 2009 12:36:05 GMT -6
A lot of it is also perception. Jim Kelly was a D1 LB prospect -- but as a QB he couldn't run?
I coached the a kid in both college and HS...a pocket passer (meaning he went through progressions and did not pass up open receivers) who ran for 500 yards a season, district's leading rebounder in basketball at 6'2, 6'4 high jumper, and offered by Nebraska (when Solich was there) as a QB and another Big 12 offered him as a DB....
Anyway, goes to college, an put in a situation where he had great receivers and RB and never had to run - throws for 12000 yards and 120 TDs in his carreer and now the knock by the pros is that he's not a good enough athlete (unquestioned arm strength from what i was told). 40 time at Nike combine and NFL scouts was almost identical.
Few people remember Troy Aikman was a 4.7 guy out of college, or Gannon was tried out as a DB, or the Joe Montana actually has a pretty darned good arm. Sometimes I wonder how they can just slap a label on someone, and that's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 21, 2009 15:47:38 GMT -6
Rules were imposed that protected the valuable QB position from head shots/concussions/low blows WHILE they are in the pocket. But that was many years after the development asked about here. Reminds me of the passage in Death of a Salesman wherein Biff, about to play QB in the NYC PSAL football championship, boasts that he'll remove his helmet (which I'm sure was illegal to play without even then) and then run up the middle. His brother's line: "But you're supposed to pass." |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 21, 2009 15:50:06 GMT -6
the advent of the quick passing game is what made Dan Marino and Vinnie testevede types popular. tall so they could see and throw over the lineman quickly. you go back to when those guys where playing college ball and early pros the defenses were playing cover 3 zone or loose man coverage on the corners. when you see this the quick game is like stealing candy from a baby. the I formation with sprint or lead draw action is also why pocket QB became so successful. it is pocket play action. This is where Payton manning excels is ppap off zone or boot cup off of zone. I personally do not want a dual threat QB because they are thinking with their feet when they fell pressure and they should be stepping up in the pocket. But the type of QB play asked about began long before these developments. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 21, 2009 15:56:51 GMT -6
I guess what I'm asking is, with the benefits of having a mobile, running QB always apparent, why was the position so dominated by slow, one dimensional players for so long? Why and how did that evolution occur? Dan Marino and Vinnie Testevede! Way before that. Here's a link to the Hall of Fame. Check out the rushing stats for HOF QBs including those from the 30s and 40s. NFL QBs have never been there to run with the ball. www.profootballhof.com/hof/positions.htmlAnd believe me, no NFL team was about to model their QB play after Testaverde. |
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on May 21, 2009 20:37:03 GMT -6
Great answers guys. I like reading this stuff.
I guess I should clarify a few things, though. I wasn't necessarily talking about the NFL, nor was I talking about guys who can run but can't throw... they've been around for years at every level, and they can work very well in offenses that don't ask/need them to throw much.
What I was referring to was the "pocket passer only" mentality, and this is something I see pop up at all levels of football. If a QB can run 4.6 and get 20 yards on a broken play, it seems like many coaches would rather he sit in the pocket for 4 seconds trying to check down and dump the ball off to someone for 4. Otherwise he's not doing his job. These same coaches will frequently put a guy like that at another position so their more "prototypical" passer can step in and actually be much less efficient as a field general. That just doesn't make much sense to me. Yards are yards and points are points.
The stuff about the short shelf life of running QBs in the NFL and how an undisciplined, selfish QB who's always looking to run can cripple an offense is dead on, but how is a guy who plays the game like Michael Vick or Vince Young an inferior QB to, say, a Rex Grossman or any other stiff who can't run AND is only a marginally better passer? And how is NFL longevity relevant to the college or HS game?
DG1964, your points about how players are perceived vs. what they can actually do are interesting. I never knew that about Aikman or Kelly. Who was this kid you're talking about? I really think that a lot of NFL scouts get caught up trying to top each other in finding little flaws that no one else sees as if that somehow proves what a great, perceptive evaluator of talent they are.
But there's still this bias against QBs who can run and throw. If they can run, people claim they can't pass, even when it's obvious they can. Then people knock their smarts, leadership, etc. If a QB sits in the pocket and throws all the time, even when it means taking sacks though he can scramble around and make defenders look stupid with his feet, he's seen as a smart "overachieving" field general who's a huge asset to his team. The guy who doesn't run is perceived as the ideal so long as he can throw decently, while the guy who can run and throw just as well is usually "more of an athlete than a QB."
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 22, 2009 5:06:55 GMT -6
I have coached in a pocket passer high school system for 25 years, Coach and the reason we do the things like you are asking is very simple and it has already been said. INJURY. We never let the QB play defense for the first 24 years. This year we have a blue chip kid that has to play defense as well and he is our QB that played WR as a freshman and sophomore. He is being recruited as a junior athlete and can play any position O or D that requires a 6'4" 220# kid that runs a 4.55 and can catch the ball and throw it. The point is we have always spent a lot of time developing the QB so the offense is predicated on that kid getting all the reps at QB. If you run Iso-Trap Counter 80% of the time that isn't a factor. You have to protect that QB if you are a 70-30 pass to run team. Take a look www.scoutingohio.com/index.php/view-profile.html?task=userProfile&user=295&srid=193 |
|
|
|
Post by struceri on May 22, 2009 7:27:06 GMT -6
do you think the advent of the wishbone and veer option teams pigeon holed those "system" qb's as only running qb's and not throwers? It seems that any qb considered a good runner was only be considered as an option qb or a potential wr or db IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on May 22, 2009 8:58:01 GMT -6
I guess what I'm asking is, with the benefits of having a mobile, running QB always apparent, why was the position so dominated by slow, one dimensional players for so long? Why and how did that evolution occur? Dan Marino and Vinnie Testevede! Time invested into a Q can be lost on a big hit with him running around, hence one reason the option is not as predominant anymore (although still attractive on paper). If a running back goes out of the game, it can be easier to have another trained to run through the right hole (maybe not as well). If the Q goes out, well training a good second can be very difficult. |
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on May 24, 2009 10:39:58 GMT -6
The passing duties were usually divided up among several backs, but the primary one was usually the FB: a power runner first and a passer second. Not so, Grasshopper -- the "triple-threat tailback" (running, passing, quick-kicking) was a staple of sporting lore for a couple of decades. For every single wing team which featured a passing FB during the heyday of that system (1920's and 30's), I wager that there were 2 or 3 which gave the bulk of the passing duties to the tailback... This is exactly what happened to single wing tailbacks like Sid Luckman, Charlie Connerly and (eventually) Charley Trippi when they reached the NFL. I think it had much more to do with the skills that different offensive systems asked of athletes. While the preferred paradigm in the single wing was a triple-threat at tailback, you could get by with a passing (and even ball-handling) fullback and a tailback who could only run and carry out fakes. The Shaughnessy T formation, OTOH, required ball-handling and passing from the man under center. These in turn were the skills which got practiced in developing young QB's, leaving running for the few "naturals" like Tarkenton who really could do both things well. Even so, he was not without his detractors, and they still tell stories in Minnesota about Bud Grant's hair turning white in the middle of one of Tarkenton's epic scrambles... |
|
lgoody
Freshmen Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by lgoody on May 24, 2009 16:11:07 GMT -6
I think you can also see it at WVU and Pat White - what's the game plan? Make him throw it to beat us. Ohio State is going to find the same thing with Pryor, he's huge, he's a great athlete but his passing ability...  ...not so much....that doesn't work so well when Pat White starts throwing laser beams all over the field. I've seen what happens when you force that guy to pass and beat you...it isn't pretty. Pryor's passing ability may not be great, but he has a decent arm.
|
|
...not so much.