Could a multi QB offense work?

[WhoTom]

I support the idea of two QBs: one starter and one backup.

 

Heck, I'd even add a third-stringer.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yes.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

I support the idea of two QBs: one starter and one backup.

 

Heck, I'd even add a third-stringer.

 

 

 

 

....so bring back "Joe's Package" then..........

[Chandler#81]

JMO, but I think -Today- every team is either satisfied with or excited about their future QB on their team. Which, in my 6 decades plus watching NFL, is unique. Sure, a trick play or short yardage situation may lend to another guy taking a snap or 2, but the concept of platooning QB’s has no validity. Again, JMO.

[Tipster19]

I just want to clarify a bit. I was not suggesting that Buffalo should or would incorporate multiple QBs or any other team other than the Ravens, which if you read the following link then maybe you could understand why they could be a template this season. I was only suggesting that maybe in the near future we might witness a different type of offensive strategy, one where 2 QBs are in on the same play but moreso where they are in at different times during the same game, based on the flow of that particular game. 

 

Some of you refer to the past with this approach and imo that has nothing to do with the future and/or of what I’m referring to. This game changes all the time, the NFL is always trying to keep it fresh and exciting. For those who think that this innovation holds no merit I think that you might be in for a surprise. 

 

If I had to pick a coach who would be a good candidate to use different QBs at different times in the same game not due to injury I would suggest Gruden as a good possibility. He loves to glom QBs and it wouldn’t surprise me if he used “relief pitchers” if he didn’t like what he is seeing on the field. I don’t believe that he would as long as he has a healthy Carr playing but if that were to ever change then I could see him doing something like that. I think that the time for something like this offensive concept isn’t too far off or away simply due to the lack of marquis QBs in the league.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/20/ravens-practicing-plays-where-multiple-quarterbacks-touch-the-ball/

[Dablitzkrieg]

I don't think so, not in the NFL

[Doc Brown]

The Sanchez/Tebow experiment was hilarious, but I could see the Ravens doing what the Steelers did with O'Donnell and Stewart back in Stewart's first two years.  They were somewhat successful.  I would start Jackson at quarterback as soon as he's ready, but there's nothing wrong with trying him to get him the ball in open space on a limited basis in the mean time whether lined up at QB, RB, or WR.

[reddogblitz]

On 7/19/2018 at 7:12 AM, row_33 said:

Craig Morton and Roger Staubach was probably the last time it worked?

 

each play for at least one game

 

 

 

 

Tom Landry's protege Dan Reeves ran the QB shuffle in Denver with John Elway and Gary Kubiak.

 

In 1997 Marv Levy alternated starts with Todd Collins and Alex Van Pelt.

 

[SouthNYfan]

Well after last year, we know a  "no QB offense" doesn't work, so why not go full swing the other way?

[Mr. WEO]

Remember when the wildcat completely changed modern pro football forever?

[vincec]

On 7/19/2018 at 10:31 AM, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Remember 'Strockley' for the Dolphins?  There was a fair amount of swapping out of Don Strock / David Woodley for the Dolphins in the early 80s, since I believe neither was setting the world on fire.

Woodstrock

 

NFL teams platoon at every position except QB and kicker. I get kicker but it seems strange that no one has really tried it at QB.

 

I don’t think it’s because it wouldn’t work. I think the real reason is financial and personal. If you have two good QBs there’s no way you could keep them together so it’s not stable as a concept. One or both would want out so that they could be the undisputed starter for another team and there’s no way you could pay two good QBs and have any money left for the rest of the team.

Edited July 21, 2018 by vincec

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

3 hours ago, vincec said:

NFL teams platoon at every position except QB and kicker.

I am in no way demeaning what today's bigger, stronger, and faster players do, but there was a time that many players did play offense and defense.  It's a different era today.

[Mr. WEO]

The "closer" in football already exists.  It's the running back.

[/dev/null]

If you use two quarterbacks you don't have one

[Chandler#81]

Age old adage; “If you have a quarterback controversy, you don’t have a quarterback”

[KD in CA]

I'm having flashbacks to the "Brad Smith is unstoppable on 3d and 1" days.   

[GreggTX]

No.

[Rochesterfan]

22 hours ago, vincec said:

Woodstrock

 

NFL teams platoon at every position except QB and kicker. I get kicker but it seems strange that no one has really tried it at QB.

 

I don’t think it’s because it wouldn’t work. I think the real reason is financial and personal. If you have two good QBs there’s no way you could keep them together so it’s not stable as a concept. One or both would want out so that they could be the undisputed starter for another team and there’s no way you could pay two good QBs and have any money left for the rest of the team.

 

 

NFL teams usually do not platoon the O-Line either.  The O-Line and the QB tend to work more in unison to set blocking and blitz and platooning either will impact that.

 

Could platooning either by series, by quarter or in game time frame, or even by game work?  Yeah, but only if you have 2 distinct QBs that neither is good enough by themselves for long term success.  The issue becomes if one starts to win or move the ball more consistently- then you look like a fool as a coach for playing the other.

 

Flutie/Johnson could have been a great example of that as Flutie provided a free wheeling, open concept and Johnson a more traditional drop back role.  Neither was good enough to hold a long term starting NFL role and both had strengths and weaknesses, but they never would have co-existed long if this had been tried because both wanted to start.

 

I think in the end the competitive nature of these guys would destroy any chance at it working long term.  Baltimore will be ok if they limit Lamar’s role to more wildcat style plays, but if they pull Flacco and try to run entire series with Jackson - I think Flacco will flip out and the team will begin to splinter behind different camps.

[mikemac2001]

The only way I could see this working is with 2 Vick style QBs both who could run and throw you can’t have a Flacco just standing there wasting a player 

[Bill_with_it]

Tipster if you have watched for years of football then you have seen multiple teams try and employ a 2 qb approach and fail miserably. Too include the great Tom Landry.

[Tipster19]

1 hour ago, Bill_with_it said:

Tipster if you have watched for years of football then you have seen multiple teams try and employ a 2 qb approach and fail miserably. Too include the great Tom Landry.

 

The game continues to evolve and so does the athlete. Yesteryear’s athlete could not sustain in today’s game, they went the same way as the dinosaur.

There is another topic in it’s own right, today’s athlete vs yesteryear’s athlete. How would they stack up in today’s game.

[klos63]

Some teams don't even have 1 quality QB, let alone 2.

[Bill_with_it]

34 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

 

The game continues to evolve and so does the athlete. Yesteryear’s athlete could not sustain in today’s game, they went the same way as the dinosaur.

There is another topic in it’s own right, today’s athlete vs yesteryear’s athlete. How would they stack up in today’s game.

I beg to differ. The athletes of yester year in my opinion were much tougher. Singletary, Butkus, etc. Those guys brought and took a beating. The qbs if you look at them wrong today its over. I watched replays of old Raiders’ game where I personally thought Biletnikoff was dead. 

[Big Turk]

Often wondered the same thing. On the pro side ot would force teams to spend more time preparing for varius options and less time preparing for specific things. On the con side it would prevent them from getting into a rhythm...

 

I guess it could even go so far as some games it might be 50/50 down to some games one of them might not even play depending on what the matchup is like...in those games i would think they should have an advantage simce the defense has spent time preparing for both even though they are only facing one...

[3rdand12]

On 7/20/2018 at 2:14 AM, Thurman#1 said:

Do you mean on the field at the same time?

 

Or do you mean as a closer as you say at one point? 

 

Sure, there could be a closer type guy to play a few downs per game. Or both guys at once every once in a while, as an interesting gimmick play. It would give defenses more to prepare for, make things harder on opposing DCs. But the bottom line is that it would be a gimmick for a few plays a game, because you want your most dangerous, effective guy on the field all the time.

 

Reports are Jackson ran a 4.34 40 in a private workout. Be interesting to see him set as a WR on the left side, run a jet sweep right and have an option to run or pass. That would put tremendous pressure on one side of the D.

 

It will be really interesting to see what happens with Baltimore. I expect to see Lamar Jackson a few plays a game. And then if he turns out to be better than Flacco, to entirely replace him.

 

 

Thoughtful response !
I suppose Baltimore will be the team to watch. If is going to happen it would happen there.
Packages. Bills did a little of that with EJM actually. and it was not as horrid as some are feeling.

Not everyone gets a Franchise QB.  simple as getting a leftie and a right handed QB might be enough..  : )

[Doc Brown]

On 7/21/2018 at 3:32 PM, Chandler#81 said:

Age old adage; “If you have a quarterback controversy, you don’t have a quarterback”

There was a lot of controversy between who should start for the Chargers in 2004 (Rivers or Brees).

There were a lot of 49ers fans calling for Young to start over Montana in the late 80's.  Same goes for Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre.

 

That's all I could come up with, but that saying is generally true.

[Prickly Pete]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 3:33 AM, Tipster19 said:

I watched the NFL over the years (40+) evolve in so many ways. Some good, some not so good. Before parity there were dynasties, before specialists there were 3-4 down players,  which leads me to speculate if the time is near where there will be teams employing a multi QB offense. I have been feeling like that the last few years and thinking that there is only a handful of premiere QBs playing in today’s game, especially since Manning retired. While the majority of today’s QBs are better athletes they still don’t have marquis attraction. 

 

Michael Vick really propelled the modern day athletic QB and it has grown even more the last few years imo. It’s firmly a part of today’s game and is here to stay. Baltimore’s Lamar Jackson just might be the next player to make another turning point in today’s game. It won’t surprise me one bit if the Ravens’ start using him this year in a relief role. Flacco won’t like it but that’s too bad, Baltimore is actually the perfect scenario for an experimental evolution of the QB position, kind of like a perfect storm type of situation, underwhelming the last few years, drafting a thrilling electrifying athletic QB who is far from being a finished product and a very underwhelming offense led by an Cutleresque type veteran in Flacco who has appeared to be just punching a clock. If Harbaugh (a former ST Coach) can find any kind of success by using an unorthodox offense then it won’t surprise me if other teams/franchises starts considering utilizing a “closer type” QB.  Just saying...

 

 

I think having a RB that threw 5 times a game (maybe even more in some games) could be worked out, be a great weapon.

[billsfan89]

The modern NFL offense is streamlined into a single QB. The QB is the fulcrum of the offense. Even a team with a "game manager" has all of their offense based off of their QB's strengths or weaknesses. Having a second QB that is a great athlete like Lamar Jackson come in and do a few trick plays might work for 3-5 plays a game. Trick plays help keep a defense honest and once in awhile, you can pull off a massive gain. 

 

But I don't see an offense that regularly switches QB's near a 50/50 split working nor do I see an offense with 2 QB's on the field at the same time working consistently. Not saying it can't be done but it just doesn't seem like from what we know about the NFL and how it is currently structured that an offensive gameplan with multiple QB's would makes sense other than for a few trick plays. Think about how hard it is for an NFL offense to get 1 good QB now try to find 2 of those guys.

35 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

There was a lot of controversy between who should start for the Chargers in 2004 (Rivers or Brees).

There were a lot of 49ers fans calling for Young to start over Montana in the late 80's.  Same goes for Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre.

 

That's all I could come up with, but that saying is generally true.

 

There are 2 types of QB controversies. The first being a rookie or young QB vs. an established veteran starter. In that case, you can have a good QB situation because you are deciding between your future and your present. However the other type of QB controversy is almost never successful and that's between two veteran QB's, odds are if you have two older QB's on the roster competing your QB situation isn't very healthy.