WSJ: Why the NFL has a Quarterback Crisis

[YoloinOhio]

Wanna bet? If you have been "banging this drum for along time" then you've been wrong for a long time. If anything, running backs are becoming more devalued every year, as the running game becomes less important and teams continue to find productive runners in the late rounds and in UDFA. What evidence do you have to support your proposition?

the teams that have been able to find productive runners in the late rounds and udfa are almost always teams with a strong passing game, aka top QB. RBs are increasingly valuable for the teams that have not found a QB, and therefore don't have a strong passing game to keep defenses from focusing on the run and opening lanes for "less talented" RBs.

[ricojes]

Great line:

 

When they come to the NFL, it’s as if they’re being told to stop playing speed checkers and start playing chess.

[dave mcbride]

the teams that have been able to find productive runners in the late rounds and udfa are almost always teams with a strong passing game, aka top QB. RBs are increasingly valuable for the teams that have not found a QB, and therefore don't have a strong passing game to keep defenses from focusing on the run and opening lanes for "less talented" RBs.

Honestly, Yolo, I think that the argument that a bad qb can be counteracted by a great running game because the running game is the "next wave" is akin to arguing that the horse and buggy would come back and take over the automobile. It's simply too easy to stop run-heavy teams that don't have good QBs. The athletes on defense are too good, and that combined with good schemes can easily shut down a running game no matter how good if the qb sucks.

[YoloinOhio]

Honestly, Yolo, I think that the argument that a bad qb can be counteracted by a great running game because the running game is the "next wave" is akin to arguing that the horse and buggy would come back and take over the automobile. It's simply too easy to stop run-heavy teams that don't have good QBs. The athletes on defense are too good, and that combined with good schemes can easily shut down a running game no matter how good if the qb sucks.

while it can't be always counteracted (AP and Ponder may be the exception) the team will indeed value the RB position higher and not assume they can get the production through a UDFA RB AND a bad QB. A team with a great QB is typically looked at as "just plug any RB in there." Edited September 9, 2015 by YoloinOhio

[PlayoffsPlease]

The article shows that it is more important now to develop a NFL QB , not start his first few years. Hope Taylor learned how to read a defense from his time behind Flacco.

 

Maybe put EJ up in the booth with a coach a few games to get a birds eye view .

How did Flacco do his first few years?

[mannc]

A team with no franchise QB would be better off strengthening its O-line. Even a great RB isn't going to get anything done with a crappy line and no QB. With a great O-line, there are lots of RBs who can be productive.

[BuffaloHokie13]

How did Flacco do his first few years?

2008: 11-5, 2-1 in Playoffs

2009: 9-7, 1-1 in Playoffs

2010: 12-4, 1-1 in Playoffs

[Observer]

while it can't be always counteracted (AP and Ponder may be the exception) the team will indeed value the RB position higher and not assume they can get the production through a UDFA RB AND a bad QB. A team with a great QB is typically looked at as "just plug any RB in there."

 

RB is the most fungible replaceable commodity in football. Sure there are some top guys but the drop off from them to the next level to the next is less than the drop from the top QBs to the next level.

 

RBs are a dime a dozen. They are always valuable but easy to replace.

[YoloinOhio]

 

RB is the most fungible replaceable commodity in football. Sure there are some top guys but the drop off from them to the next level to the next is less than the drop from the top QBs to the next level.

 

RBs are a dime a dozen. They are always valuable but easy to replace.

i believe it depends on the team and the scheme. If it was really that way across the board, there wouldn't be endless threads on Fred Jackson being still worth 2.7 mill or hand wringing about whether McCoy is healthy. We would all be just fine with Bryce Brown or Cierre Wood. Certain teams would feel super confident plugging in that late round rookie who just learned how to pass protect. They have top passing games and OLs.

 

I don't think the RB is more important than the QB (obviously) or the LT or the #1 CB or a dominant pass rusher. I do think the "dime a dozen" label is inaccurate as a generality.

Edited September 9, 2015 by YoloinOhio

[LeGOATski]

i believe it depends on the team and the scheme. If it was really that way across the board, there wouldn't be endless threads on Fred Jackson being still worth 2.7 mill or hand wringing about whether McCoy is healthy. We would all be just fine with Bryce Brown or Cierre Wood. Certain teams would feel super confident plugging in that late round rookie who just learned how to pass protect. They have top passing games and OLs.

 

I don't think the RB is more important than the QB (obviously) or the LT or the #1 CB or a dominant pass rusher. I do think the "dime a dozen" label is inaccurate as a generality.

I think it says something that the Chargers drafted Gordon in the first round this year. A great 3-down RB makes an offense much more balanced and unpredictable.

[dave mcbride]

while it can't be always counteracted (AP and Ponder may be the exception) the team will indeed value the RB position higher and not assume they can get the production through a UDFA RB AND a bad QB. A team with a great QB is typically looked at as "just plug any RB in there."

Oh, you always want better players. If you have the qb, it comes down to whether you think using a high pick to address the weak spot you have at RB is more important using a high pick on, say, DT, CB, or LT.

I think it says something that the Chargers drafted Gordon in the first round this year. A great 3-down RB makes an offense much more balanced and unpredictable.

They also drafted a RB in the top 20 four or five years ago (Mathews). It didn't work out for them.

[KD in CA]

How did Flacco do his first few years?

 

Pretty good. He was discounted by some because he played I-AA ball in college.

[prissythecat]

Honestly, Yolo, I think that the argument that a bad qb can be counteracted by a great running game because the running game is the "next wave" is akin to arguing that the horse and buggy would come back and take over the automobile. It's simply too easy to stop run-heavy teams that don't have good QBs. The athletes on defense are too good, and that combined with good schemes can easily shut down a running game no matter how good if the qb sucks.

 

AP rpetty much single handedly carried Minnesota to playoffs a few seasons back with terrible QBing from Christian Ponder. So it is certainly possible for a great running game to make up for other deficiencies. But then how many APs are there?

[dave mcbride]

while it can't be always counteracted (AP and Ponder may be the exception) the team will indeed value the RB position higher and not assume they can get the production through a UDFA RB AND a bad QB. A team with a great QB is typically looked at as "just plug any RB in there."

AP is an exception, but he had one of the greatest seasons in NFL history and they still barely got to 10-6 (winning in OT of their last game to squeak into the playoffs). They still finished 20th in points and 14th in yards - pretty mediocre.

[atlbillsfan1975]

What about them? They got there because they found a franchise QB.

We will find this out as they can't sign more and more guys because of Wilson's salary.

Prediction- Wilson turns out to be no better than what the Bills have on the roster now.

[dave mcbride]

We will find this out as they can't sign more and more guys because of Wilson's salary.

Prediction- Wilson turns out to be no better than what the Bills have on the roster now.

Wilson is already better than any bills qb in franchise history not named Jim Kelly. And his three great seasons are as good as Kelly's 2 great seasons (and that's all Jimbo had; the rest were good to average).

Edited September 9, 2015 by dave mcbride

[YoloinOhio]

AP is an exception, but he had one of the greatest seasons in NFL history and they still barely got to 10-6 (winning in OT of their last game to squeak into the playoffs). They still finished 20th in points and 14th in yards - pretty mediocre.

again, I didn't say I think a great RB can get a team with a bad QB to a Super Bowl. I think the RB position is more valuable to a team that needs to generate offense without a strong passing game. I doubt that in that example, the Vikes get close to the playoffs with whoever was AP's "dime a dozen" backup that year. Edited September 9, 2015 by YoloinOhio

[White Linen]

 

RB is the most fungible replaceable commodity in football. Sure there are some top guys but the drop off from them to the next level to the next is less than the drop from the top QBs to the next level.

 

RBs are a dime a dozen. They are always valuable but easy to replace.

 

I could not disagree more and the stats do too.

 

The top passing QB for yards last year was Brees at 4,952 the 15th QB was Wilson at 3,475

 

The top yards RB last year was Murray at 1,845 the 15th RB was Joique Bell at 860

 

 

 

You don't see a bigger drop in they type of player you get?

Edited September 9, 2015 by Triple Threat

[dave mcbride]

 

I could not disagree more and the stats do too.

 

The top passing QB for yards last year was Brees at 4,952 the 15th QB was Wilson at 3,475

 

The top yards RB last year was Murray at 1,845 the 15th RB was Joique Bell at 860

 

 

 

You don't see a bigger drop in they type of player you get?

Wilson ran for 849 yards too, and at over 7 yards a clip. That number is something you see with ypa, not ypc. You have to factor that in with him. A lot of those are hybrid run/pass plays too, so it's not easy to categorize them as rushing plays.

[metzelaars_lives]

The QB drought is on for a season or 2.

 

Develop EJ for 1 more season and IF TT does good this season, shop him for a #1 draft pick (or more)

Wait- if Taylor plays well enough that he is worth a first round pick- or more- then turn around and trade him and roll the dice on EJ Manuel? Good plan.

 

For what it's worth, if Tyrod Taylor plays well enough this year that after the season his open market value is a first round pick then that means the Bills just won the Super Bowl. In which case, I probably wouldn't trade him.