I used to think this too but now not so sure seems like for every Rogert Griffin there's a Joe Theisman. i think it comes down to running intelligently, and to some degree their size (though banking on the latter is risky). Montana and S. Young were effective. More recently, Wilson runs very intelligently If the QB is big, e.g., Cam and Allen, i think issues are mitigated yet again because they're larger than the secondary guys that they usually face on those scrambles (though again this makes me nervous) running and the threat to run can really open things up and at worst gives the opponent one more thing to think about and have to plan for
not quite sure fields did the jets any favors yesterday..... IMO jones may warrant a bit more attention BUT the buzz will stay with fields just because he can run.
I think the Russell Wilson's who run safely are more rare than the ones who hurt themselves. Certainly, a running QB puts so much pressure on a defense that it covers up many of his flaws from the pocket like Allen and Jackson. I just question their longevity.
there are other ways to interpret this data. for example oddly the data doesn't include 2015 which had Winston and Mariotta 1 and 2, and doesn't mention Brees or Wilson who were after round 1 and having 14 starters shouldn't be a surprise, because that almost follows by virtue of the fact that they were first round and the team is going to play that guy. The real uestion is how many were any good. Take 2016 for example and the questions circling around Wentz and even Goff to some degree. Is Dak the best of that lot? the one thing for certain is first round gives you more options. Does the gamble payoff? it's a bit of a chicken versus the egg issue. Does the QB make a team great. or does a team make the QB great? i'm still biased toward the latter. of course you select a QB of he's worth the draft slot, but that lost has a lot of JAGs
agree 100%. underscore intelligently when saying run intelligently. pains me to to say it but even brady would run intelligently even if it were rare. i do not like the types who simply run when there's nothing there, sometimes smarter to just chuck it out of bounds
I just looked at last 5 years to get an idea. Colorado then provided a link that covers up to 2015, which basically has similar stats over prolonged period of time. SO, we have a huge spectrum of data to look at, and the data has been overwhelming, there is no point to argue the obvious.
