Gibberish, but ok.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
QB Recruiting - Clear trend toward dual-threat
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Gibberish, but ok.
Would you like to try adding value and expanding on this?
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
I wouldn't call Andrew Luck a dual threat any more than I would call Aaron Rodgers dual threat. They are throw first, pocket passers who can escape and pick up a first down I'd they need to.
Ok, define Dual Threat then.
I see Peyton, Brady, Brees, Rivers, Eli, Romo, Palmer, Flacco, Stafford, etc. as the prototypical statue, pocket passers that are not DT. Then there are guys like Luck, Wilson, Rodgers, Alex Smith, Tannehill, Big Ben, and Cutler who are all "pass first" QBs that present a "dual threat" to the defense by being able to easily scramble and pick up big chunks of yards. Other than Wilson, these guys aren't running the read option much, but are still Dual Threat QBs, IMO.
Kaepernick RG3 Manziel are DT QB's. The others are mobile pocket passers.
I'm with TShekler here. "Dual-threat" means that the QB pressures/threatens the defense with his legs as well as his arm. Running ability has to be accounted for in the game plan. In the NFL, the QB has to be able to win from the pocket. That's a job requirement. But being dual-threat is the trend. What I doubt will ever work in the NFL is a run-first QB. That works in college, though.
Define "pro style offense" in a league where the majority of snaps are from shotgun and chip Kelly is a head coach. I'm basically accusing you of speaking in platitudes. Also, you apparently don't know anything about pre Wisconsin Russel wilson
That said, buffnik already gave you an out.
I see this as another way of saying Dual Threat, but it's however you want to look at it. In my opinion, just because a guy looks to pass first, it doesn't mean he fails to present a dual threat that the defense has to account for.
The guys you named are the opposite of the Luck, Wilson, Rodgers group, in that they are still dual threat QBs, but the defense game plans around their running abilities more than their passing.
The pro-style offense isn't exclusive to taking snaps from under center. Formations have evolved over time just like the frequency of passing vs running the ball has increased. The 7 step drop is basically obsolete, and there has been a shifting trend toward the shotgun formation, but the basic concepts and foundations remain more or less the same.
Yes, there are outliers in the NFL and Chip Kelly is certainly one of them. However, are we so sure it's working? So far, he's failed to have a QB make it through an entire season in his offense without getting injured and missing significant time. There are rumors that they are prepared to do whatever is necessary to move up and draft Mariota. If that happens, we'll really get to put this debate to the test but his offense and philosophy is still the exception, not the rule.
As far as Russ Wilson goes, I admit, I don't don't know much about his tenure at NC State. I know that what made him a 3rd round draft pick was his success he enjoyed in a "pro-style" offense at Wisconsin, and what has made him successful in the NFL is his pass first mentality complimenting his dual threat abilities.
In other words, a run-first QB may hold up for 1-3 seasons and deliver some success before it breaks down. Michael Vick's another good example of that.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Fair enough, I guess "dual threat" can be interpreted pretty broadly. To me is like porn, I can't define it but I know it when I see it. I just see guys like Luck, Rodgers, and Big Ben being a lot closer to Manning, Flacco, etc than RG3 or Kaepernick.
Take away their legs, can they still hurt you - that's kind of how I look at it.
It's semantics on how you want to view them. For example, most people would say Tim Tebow was a DT QB because he could run. I would argue that he was no more of a Dual Threat to the defense than Peyton Manning is because he didn't present a consistent, legitimate passing threat.
Re: wilson. He enjoyed a LOT of success at NCstate. He just got a much bigger spot light at Wiscy (and a much better team around him).
As for pro style, it seems you just admitted there is no such thing as a pro style anymore.
The one thing that makes sense is buffnik's point, which you adopted: to be a good, long term QB in the NFL, you need to be able to make the throws. But more and more, it looks like you also need to be able to hurt teams with your legs
Your "pro style" QB Wilson led the league in QB rushing last year with 849 yards on just over 7 attempts per game. He ran triple run/pass options plays to good effect. Here's the main thing: Chip Kelly is no longer an outlier.
Kap was #2 in rushing yards, and had less attempts per game. Both Andrew Luck and Aaron Rodgers (the best QB in the game last year, imo) rushed/scrambled a fair amount as well, although almost never on designed runs like Wilson or Kap. I actually think Kap was handcuffed (for no reason I could tell) last year by scheme.
Basically, the clear trend towards dual threat guys is actually showing up in the NFL as well. They just can't get away with being mediocre passers.
http://pickingpros.com/nfl/quarterback-rushing-leaders.php
I appreciate buffnik supporting my argument but I said that is the trend in my original post. That's why he said "I'm with TSchekler here"....
The pro style offense as constructed in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s is not a common offense that is run. Certain aspects of it (100% under center, 7 step drop) are obsolete, but the basic concepts are still alive and well (Multiple running concepts, passing read progressions with the short, intermediate and deep passing game, the mix of under center and shotgun formations) I was more comparing and contrasting the difference between offenses run at programs like USC, Stanford, Wisco, Bama, etc. and offenses run at Oregon, Ohio State, Arizona State, etc. and the kind of QBs they produce for the NFL.
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that Oregon, Ohio state, Arizona State, etc don't have multiple running concepts, passing read progressions, or a short, intermediate, or deep passing game? I don't think you know what those mean.
(P.S. Bama ran a spread offense this last year, but were multiple as well).
My theory is that you are looking at teams that have, or historically had, an offense that featured the i formation in college and are simply declaring that those teams are the ones that produce good QBs for the NFL.
How many Bama QBs in the saban era are actually playing in the NFL, btw?
NFL teams will figure it out.
It may mean that they figure out how to develop guys into pocket passers, it may mean that they adapt their offenses to the QBs they have available.
Pure passers in college aren't going to go away completely either. It will probably mean that you see more QBs drafted from smaller schools/conferences that take advantage of the availability of the guys who get passed over by the top college programs in favor of prospects who run better.
The result will be that guys like Grayson from CSU will get more pro attention than they would have 10 years ago. It also may mean that teams go back to having young QBs on the bench for a few years instead of looking for guys who can start almost immediately.
It may mean that they figure out how to develop guys into pocket passers, it may mean that they adapt their offenses to the QBs they have available.
Pure passers in college aren't going to go away completely either. It will probably mean that you see more QBs drafted from smaller schools/conferences that take advantage of the availability of the guys who get passed over by the top college programs in favor of prospects who run better.
The result will be that guys like Grayson from CSU will get more pro attention than they would have 10 years ago. It also may mean that teams go back to having young QBs on the bench for a few years instead of looking for guys who can start almost immediately.
First - The Oregon and Ohio State "spread" type offenses are very much centered around the read option/zone read in the running game, relying on spreading the field and using superior speed to allow their athletes to make plays. That running scheme doesn't translate to the NFL. In the passing game, those spread offenses are centered around 1 read and throw. Very seldom do QBs in those offenses actually make 4+ reads in a progression during a play. Just because a team completes short, intermediate and deep passes doesn't mean their QB is going through multiple progressions each time.
Bama ran a spread because they have Lane Kiffin as their OC and a QB that was a better runner than a passer (Blake Sims is working out at the Combine as a RB as well).
The variations of the I formation are definitely the "base" formations of "pro style" offense as constructed back in the day. Like I said, the offense has evolved and may look a little different at times now, but the basic concepts are the same (I've now said this 3 times). I never once said if a QB didn't run from UC and out of the I form, he wasn't going to be a successful NFL QB. I said that I believe QBs in the Spread offenses, that simplify the passing games compared to what I'm calling the "Pro Style" offense, are not being properly prepared for the NFL.
How many Oregon QBs have succeeded in the NFL? Ohio State and Florida (under Urban Meyer) QBs?
*Edit* I apologize. I shouldn't say the zone read/read option doesn't translate to the NFL, because the Seahawks have shown that it to work when executed correctly. They are also not using it as their bread and butter running play. Again, I believe that to be the exception, not the rule.
Last edited:
Good point. There's always going to be a prime place for a 6'5" 240 lb QB with a rocket arm and concrete feet, whether we're talking major college football or the NFL.
also, for those interested in where dual threat QBs (and offenses) are going, here's an interesting article discussing how the spread game has been changing. It's long, but the short of it is that basically, spread QBs coming out of HS are getting LESS prepared for complicated offenses, not more, which is rippling and forcing changes on the college game as well.
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...reat-quarterback-spread-option-Malzahn-Briles
Basically, its going to get harder and harder for the old "pro style" offenses to find QBs ready to play that system as less and less QBs/athletes are trained that way.... and the smart college teams will adapt so they can build useful QB depth (Ohio st, cough cough)
This will trickle up to the NFL as well. Basically, TS's theory is wrong. There will still be old fashioned QBs going to the NFL (like Nik said, the best pocket passer prospects will always have a place), but there will be more and more DT QBs coming from spread type offenses that will be getting simpler, not more complicated - for now anyways.
The ones that stick, of course, will be the ones that are really good at passing as well as smart about how they get hit. Basically, Wilson is looking to be the epitome of that trend/harbinger of things to come. He came up in the spread, spent one season at Wiscy, and now runs a very advanced offense at Seattle that includes all the good spread stuff mashed with an old fashioned power run game.
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...reat-quarterback-spread-option-Malzahn-Briles
Basically, its going to get harder and harder for the old "pro style" offenses to find QBs ready to play that system as less and less QBs/athletes are trained that way.... and the smart college teams will adapt so they can build useful QB depth (Ohio st, cough cough)
This will trickle up to the NFL as well. Basically, TS's theory is wrong. There will still be old fashioned QBs going to the NFL (like Nik said, the best pocket passer prospects will always have a place), but there will be more and more DT QBs coming from spread type offenses that will be getting simpler, not more complicated - for now anyways.
The ones that stick, of course, will be the ones that are really good at passing as well as smart about how they get hit. Basically, Wilson is looking to be the epitome of that trend/harbinger of things to come. He came up in the spread, spent one season at Wiscy, and now runs a very advanced offense at Seattle that includes all the good spread stuff mashed with an old fashioned power run game.
On that note, NFL offenses have also gotten simpler. I think that player movement through free agency necessitated that at first. But we're definitely seeing it with QBs. Used to be that pretty much every QB sucked until his 3rd year. These days, it's not unusual at all to be able to win games with a rookie or for a rookie QB to not be a turnover machine. Seems like what is happening more is that QBs have early success and defenses make adjustments to force them out of their comfort zones. Some adjust well, many haven't been able to. Even Wilson, who everyone puts up as the new age QB, would have probably gone to **** this year if he didn't have the best RB in the game as the defense's gameplan focus.
Good point on the FA effect etc. It's also coaches like Chip. It's not just cause of Chip Kelly, but Chip Kelly might be the harbinger of things to come. Hell, he made sanchez a viable QB.
And yea, Wilson really struggled at times throwing the ball, and the offense was stagant for long stretches in the playoffs, even though they had their starting center back.
His scrambling/running is really what saved his bacon. The OT win against the Broncos, the comebacks in the playoffs, etc. He was a difference maker on the ground.
Niner fan me says I hope his struggles continue. I think he will be fine though, he's good. But there are a lot of other DT guys coming into the league, or in the league. Mariota is going to be a lot of fun to watch I think.
Haha, I like how your main goal every time you interact with me is to argue and prove me wrong. Smh. I said the future of the NFL is moving toward the DT QB. But he will always, with no equivocations, have to be able to pass first.
Also, is it a stretch to say Russell Wilson is unlike any QB we've seen? That may be a little hyperbole, but the guy is extremely multiple in his abilities and has shown the ability to perform at an elite level in a wide variety of offensive schemes. I understand the shift at QB to more of an athlete who can pass, and how it has changed the HS and college games, but we haven't seen that fully translate into the NFL yet. If Russell Wilson is the model that NFL teams are trying to emulate, I'm wondering if he's going to be the unattainable Gold Standard of QBing, much like Manning and Brady have been the past decade.
Helfrich has definitely taken it in more of a pocket passing direction. It's like he's melded Chip's offense with Koetter's offense. I'm curious to see how it works, but it may be the way for NFL teams to implement these dual-threat concepts. I'm not sure it's going to work out well in college since Oregon's run game is a shadow of what it was. Ohio State and Auburn are ground attacks first and foremost.
No. You said this, which is not that:
Nik was right, and he's a nice guy who steered the conversation away from me pounding you on this point because he knows how persnickety I get. Hell, Cam Newton is still in the NFL and doing well on a horrible team. He came from Auburn. Mariota being successful on any level will also be strong evidence against your statement. Wilson coming from a primarily spread background is probably the best evidence, actually.
Big Yes to bolded 1. And no to bolded 2, unless he dramatically improves he's not going to be the gold standard of QBing. That will be Luck, who seems so far to be a more athletic Peyton Manning. Hell, he even gets to deal with the same type of crappy support Peyton had most of his career.
Auburn's running game is much different than Oregon's. Auburn utilizes the Power and Counter running schemes a lot more than Oregon and OSU. Auburn doesn't rely on being faster than everyone and their RBs getting in space. They have big, extremely skilled O Linemen that can move and it allows them to pull and lead up into the hole. Oregon's, OTOH, rely's on speed, good decision making, creating space for the cutbacks in the inside zone and the opponent's lack of discipline. It's not to say Oregon doesn't use some Power or Counter stuff and Auburn doesn't use other schemes, but there is a distinct difference between them.
Ok, I'm not going to continue to argue over semantics of what was said and how nik was supposedly defending me against big, bad Darth. My OP was to point out the fact that there aren't many QBs succeeding in the NFL today that hail from a typical run-first, read option, Spread offense in college. If you want to continue the argument over my statement of "Pro-Style", even though I was one of the first to say the prototype going forward is Russell Wilson/Andrew Luck, go ahead. You use Russell Wilson, Cam Newton and Marcus Mariota as your examples... Russell Wilson has a Super Bowl ring (should have 2), is a pass first QB who can run and improvise with the best of them. Cam is mediocre, at best, with a huge arm that has still not lived up to #1 overall draft hype and someone who the league has generally "figured out". The other is a college QB who hasn't even made it through his pro day, so pump the breaks.
I think Luck and Wilson will be considered together as the Gold Standard that teams strive for, much like Peyton and Brady. And much like Peyton and Brady, teams will try to find the next "Russell Wilson" or "Andrew Luck" and fail, more often than not, because guys like them are once in a decade type players.
Thanks for the conversation, Darth. Have a good day.
Last edited:
I think OSU is closer to Auburn than Oregon. Much more running between the tackles than Oregon. Very physical.
I would say OSU is most physical, Auburn is a mix, and Oregon is the speed end of the spectrum. Not that either OSU or Auburn are slow, it's just a different mentality.