So, I was thinking about the oft used cliche phrase that you cannot win in the NFL unless you have a traditional pocket-passing QB. This is usually backed up with some sort of statistic of how many of the past xxx SuperBowls were won by teams with pocket-passers. Here's my issue with that statement... There aren't many teams that use mobile quarterbacks ala Michael Vick. The case can be made that the reason more SBs aren't won by non-traditional offenses is that numbers-wise the deck is stacked against that possibility. If you have one or two teams using very mobile non pocket passers vs the rest of the league using traditional offenses, the likelihood that a traditional offense would win it all is largely in part to that fact, as opposed to that it is more successful. If 30 out of 32 teams in the NFL ran a college style option offense, I bet you that you would see a one of those college style offense teams would win the SB. I think this would be a good debate considering the criticisms of Tebow's game. Discuss... If you hate Tebow, that is fine, but let's try to discuss football without the trolling or personal attacks and disrespectful comments... thanks.
Jesus Christ the stupidity is at an all time high. The reason why no body runs an option/college offense in the NFL is bc IT DOESN'T WORK AS A BASE OFFENSE ON THIS LEVEL. Do you not understand this????? It's not college! Jesus how old are you, seriously? I've never been this frustrated by another human beings lack of intellect in my entire life. it i s pathetic. Learn the fuckin game before you post.
Like I said in the original post... "If you hate Tebow, that is fine, but let's try to discuss football without the trolling or personal attacks and disrespectful comments... thanks." Please exit this thread and don't come back.
Ok here's the football only translation: The NFL is nothing like college. It's night and day in terms of how advanced it is, complex it is, and how fast and strong the players are. As such, a base option offense is not possible. Now go watch some games on Sunday, instead of Saturday, and you might learn some.
Lmao, How much garbage have you created since you joined this website? You've done nothing but coddle Teebows Nuts Offense doesn't work on this level for many reasons my friend #1 the Intelligence of the Defense's are 100 folds better then College's
I've said many times already that I watch 7-8 NFL games per week as opposed to only watching UF college games (with a few exceptions). I'm not merely referring to the Nebraska Tom Osborne style option, but the spread option like Urban Meyer.
Not sure what you are referring to concerning garbage I've created, or coddling that I've done. Perhaps, you are thinking of someone else. I'm interested in hearing everyone's opinion. So you say that the intelligence of the defenses are 100 X better in the NFL. I'd like to hear you expand on that. I'm a basketball player, not a football player, so I am not as familiar with the Xs and Os of football at least on a coaching level. I understand all the tenents and plays, but when I see the college game and the NFL game, I just don't see the extreme difference. I see better athletes. I see bigger guys. I see more seasoned players. The basics seem to be the same to me. I do not insult anyone and show respect (as much as I can). Please exercise the same towards me.
Good thread. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...ebow-prove-spread-option-will-work-in-the-nfl The link above takes you to an article that expresses my basic view. The following is the text of the article. There are videos at the linked site. Site: nfl.com Article Title: Newton, Tebow prove spread option will work in the NFL Author: Michael Lombardi I love watching the classic games on NFL Network. The other day, "The Catch" game was on featuring the Cowboys and the 49ers. Watching, I was amazed at how much each team stayed in basic formations, simple run sets, and ran basic offenses. For 1981, however, the schemes for both teams were actually considered complex. But by today's standards, they were extremely basic. It is always fun to see how much the league has changed in such a short period of time. The NFL is constantly changing, from the coaches to the players to the schemes. It should be called the National Evolution League. The Tim Tebow offense in Denver is garnering a ton of attention, but Cam Newton and the Panthers are running a similar offense, with even more versatility in the passing game -- as well as more production. Are we seeing a new style of offense coming to the NFL? I believe so. Some might say the spread offense is not new to the NFL. And all the teams do run a version of the four-receiver spread attack. But in reality, few run the spread with the quarterback being a major ball carrier like they do in Denver, Carolina and to some extent Philadelphia. That added dimension is something I could see becoming a new trend in the league. When a team prepares to play Denver or Carolina, they have no player on their team who can simulate the speed of the game in practice in order to get their defense adequately prepared. Who runs the option like Newton plus has the ability to throw the ball down the field? Not many. So when the game starts, Newton is much faster than anyone expects and all those plays that looked easy to defend on Wednesday and Thursday are much harder. I hate hearing the rhetoric that defenses will catch up to Newton or Tebow. They won't, because their speed makes the plays effective. Defenses have caught up to the Packers' schemes, but they can't stop them because of Green Bay's talent level. Teams have been reluctant to run a spread option attack because of the QB injury factor, which clearly affects Philadelphia. But Newton is a big man (6-foot-5, 248 pounds), and he dishes out more contact then he absorbs. Michael Vick is not a big man (6-0, 215), so despite being incredibly fast and explosive, he is not able to absorb the hits like Newton can or, for that matter, Tebow (6-3, 236). The NFL always will be a drop-back passing league and there always will be a huge value in having Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Philip Rivers. But adding a franchise quarterback is never easy. Is Josh Freeman one? Matt Ryan? Mark Sanchez? For me, all three have weaknesses in their game, just like Tebow and Newton. What becomes critical when having a quarterback who might not be able to carry the team to victory is developing a scheme that highlights his strengths and hides his weaknesses. Isn't that what the Broncos and Panthers are doing? For clarity purposes, it is easier to examine the changes in the scheme to benefit Newton or Tebow than to see what Jets offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer has to do to protect Sanchez. Those take a trained eye to see. Schottenheimer knows Sanchez does not read the progression well, so with each call, Schottenheimer makes the decision for Sanchez. Sometimes Schottenheimer is right, sometimes wrong, which explains the inconsistency of the Jets passing game. Back to the spread. The start of this revolution to showcase movement quarterbacks was not Vick. It was Ben Roethlisberger. The Pittsburgh QB's ability to move, create big plays with his feet, avoid tacklers and still make the throws down the field creates huge problems for the defense. His ability to run is great, but what makes him hard to defend is when the play breaks down and Roethlisberger is on the move sideways, looking up the field. Think of the two plays that killed the Jets in the AFC title game -- Roethlisberger moving to his right to make clutch third-down throws. Those plays are impossible to prepare for, impossible to defend. The Colts tried to run the Manning offense with a new quarterback and it has failed. The Broncos tried running a conventional offense with Kyle Orton and it failed. The Panthers knew they had to play Newton, so they tailor-made an offense, adapting to Newton rather than vice versa. Being unconventional is working and will continue to work. That is the essence of coaching and the Panthers' staff deserves praise, particularly offensive coordinator Rob Chudzinski. The spread is here to stay. GMs and coaches must embrace it. In fact, both Denver and Carolina need to acquire backup quarterbacks who can play a similar style to Newton and Tebow so they don't have to change their offense should either QB miss a play or a game. Teams like Cleveland or Miami must not find the player who can fit their schemes, but rather create a scheme that fits the player. This is not revolutionary, but it is the reality of today. Bill Walsh always would say to me, "The search for the perfect player never ends." That saying applies to every position. The scheme must fit the player, and if the scheme is the spread option, then go for it. It is working.
Good article, thanks. I can't just buy the argument that NFL defenses are super-duper-wow fast, and that is why someone like Tebow or Cam will not succeed running or scrambling. Tebow punishes defenders when he hits them as much as they hurt him, and he's broken for a 40 yard running TD, so the argument fails there too. But I'm interested in hearing more opinions (with explanations on their opinions) from more people on here.
The spread option in the NFL is a hot topic in coaching circles now-a-days. More links; http://smartfootball.com/uncategori...ng-to-do-a-180-on-spread-offense-quarterbacks http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sp...tim-tebow-bengals-broncos-spread-offense.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/s...iots-sharpened-spread-offense-at-florida.html
Name me one non traditional qb who's won a super bowl in the past 15 years. Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5
You missed the entire point of my original post if you asked that question. "Here's my issue with that statement... There aren't many teams that use mobile quarterbacks ala Michael Vick. The case can be made that the reason more SBs aren't won by non-traditional offenses is that numbers-wise the deck is stacked against that possibility. If you have one or two teams using very mobile non pocket passers vs the rest of the league using traditional offenses, the likelihood that a traditional offense would win it all is largely in part to that fact, as opposed to that it is more successful. If 30 out of 32 teams in the NFL ran a college style option offense, I bet you that you would see a one of those college style offense teams would win the SB." Brees, Roethlisberger, and Rodgers are mobile QBs. Admittedly, nothing like Vick, Newton, and Tebow.
It's an ignorant argument and a fallacious one as well. Couple of years ago, yo could have said "name me a black coach who has won the SB in the past 15 years". A decade or so before that, you could have said "Name me a black QB who has won a SB in the past 15 years before that". Before that, you could have asked "name me a dink and dunk QB who has won a SB in the last 15 years". Dual threat QBs haven't won SBs because the NFL hasn't had that many, and those that they've had, they've tried to change.
No team in recent memory has won a Super Bowl with a vampire at quarterback. Is this because vampires can't throw, or is it because so few vampires play quarterback that the deck is stacked against them? This is a serious question. If you hate vampires, fine, but lets leave the name calling out of this and address the issue at hand.
They have not had that many really? It is not just dual threat but run first Qbs. In reality the only successful run first qbs are the ones that become pass first. I can start with names i have mentioned them numerous times in these threads but to say there has not been many dual threat Qbs is just plain ignorant.
If you want to go down that route, 2 of the greatest QBs of all time came into the league as "run first" QBs and that's how they played early in their career. The argument is whether or not a dual threat or even a "run first" QB can win a SB. I submit that very few teams have tried, as they bowed to conventional wisdom and forced their QBs to become "traditional pocket passers". That said, compared to the number of "conventional pocket passers" ? No, there haven't been that many dual threat QBs. Math is easy. Not going to take into account league expansion, but just go with the 32 teams now times 3 QBs each. That's 96 QBs. What percent of them are "dual threat" or "run first" QBs ? Then take that back each preceding year and run the numbers.
First of all, being black has nothing to do with the ability to coach. Throwing a consistent accurate pass has almost everything to do with playing quarterback, especially in the NFL. Tebow can't read pass protection and he can't throw. Those are the two most essential things next to calling line protection, which Tebow can't do either. By the way. The last dink and dunk qb to win a Super Bowl was Brad Johnson in 2003. Before that, it was Trent Dilfer in 2000.
I think the spread option could work in the NFL, but the team would have to buy into totally. You'd need 3 good spread option QBs on your roster to cover for the possibility of injury, but they generally go in a later round then a QB out of a pro style offense.
I know that being black has nothing to do with ability. That said, the "conventional wisdom" was the Blacks couldn't coach at that high a level, and they definitely couldn't QB an NFL team successfully. It had nothing to do with reality, and in fact, was completely wrong, BUT, that was the wisdom of the day. Similarly, "conventional wisdom" is that dual threat or running QBs can't win in the NFL. There's no real underlying logic to support such a belief. As for "dink and dunk", umm, Brady ? Brees ? Both are "dink and dunk" passers for the most part. That's the style of game they play. Nothing wrong with it at all, of course, but 20 or so years ago, conventional wisdom was that you couldn't win that way. Are you old enough to remember when most NFL coaches scoffed at Walsh's WCO ?? lastly, Dilfer and Johnson weren't "dink and dunk" QBs. They were game managers who were merely asked to make some plays now and then. The rest of the team basically carried them.
