|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 28, 2015 15:03:55 GMT -5
Conventional wisdom is that if you have two starting quarterbacks, you don't have one good one. But just like the league's gotten away from having a feature back and has gone more to RB by committee, I think the QB position is in for the same overhaul, and we're in the perfect situation to innovate. There are a few variations on this (excluding the gimmicky wildcat QB thing we had), the one most appropriate for us, I think is this: throw an int, get pulled in favor of the next guy. Put the 3 of them in a rotation, and rotate every pick. That's real competition: you know if you you fuck up and throw a pick, you might not get another throw for weeks. Plus imagine teams having to spend time on all 3 QB's. I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, but we'll talk again in 3 years when other teams are doing this and having success with it.
|
|
|
Post by Peebag on Sept 28, 2015 15:05:28 GMT -5
um...no.
|
|
|
Post by Harrier on Sept 28, 2015 15:09:39 GMT -5
And just think how fresh they would be. 3 roster spots on QB's aswell, shit why stop there? How about 16 head coaches get a game each.
Jets needed 4 QB's yesterday to replace each pick. I love a good thinker.
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 28, 2015 15:12:10 GMT -5
Most teams carry 2 or 3 QB's on their gameday roster anyway, so it wouldn't matter there.
I'm just glad this place wasn't around when someone first suggested the forward pass.
|
|
|
Post by Harrier on Sept 28, 2015 15:14:06 GMT -5
Most teams carry 2 or 3 QB's on their gameday roster anyway, so it wouldn't matter there. I'm just glad this place wasn't around when someone first suggested the forward pass. I was thinkin 3 roster spots for starters, then 3 for backups to said starters.
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 28, 2015 15:18:01 GMT -5
No, just the 3 already on the roster. If an injury happens you rotate the remaining 2, and if 2 injuries happen you're back to where you started (except the remaining player isn't automatically your worst QB). You don't need extra backups, rotation doesn't increase the total # of snaps.
|
|
|
Post by JB1089 on Sept 28, 2015 17:28:20 GMT -5
What you suggest is actually impossible under the current rules. The 3rd active QB is an emergency QB. Once he enters the game, the other 2 QBs are ineligible for the remainder of the game.
And beyond that, it's a stupid idea that will never even be considered at the NFL level. There's simply not enough practice time. You think that every player is intimately familiar with every play in the playbook at all times? They're not. The offense does weekly installs for each game. You simply cannot adequately prepare 3 QBs for a game every week unless you're going to be running a very limited playbook, in which case you're going to become extremely predictable regardless of who's under center. You really can't even prepare two QBs. For years, Peyton Manning was anal about taking every snap in practice. The only work Curtis Painter ever got during in-season practice was on the scout team.
There aren't enough reps in the week for what you've proposed. There's less practice time now than there's ever been before, and going forward there will be even less of it (especially if the NFL is determined to lengthen the regular season).
|
|
|
Post by rangerous on Sept 28, 2015 17:40:21 GMT -5
Conventional wisdom is that if you have two starting quarterbacks, you don't have one good one. But just like the league's gotten away from having a feature back and has gone more to RB by committee, I think the QB position is in for the same overhaul, and we're in the perfect situation to innovate. There are a few variations on this (excluding the gimmicky wildcat QB thing we had), the one most appropriate for us, I think is this: throw an int, get pulled in favor of the next guy. Put the 3 of them in a rotation, and rotate every pick. That's real competition: you know if you you fuck up and throw a pick, you might not get another throw for weeks. Plus imagine teams having to spend time on all 3 QB's. I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, but we'll talk again in 3 years when other teams are doing this and having success with it. many teams have tried to use situational substitutions at qb with very mixed results. heck the jets tried it with ray lucas and odonnell and they also tried it a while back with sanchez and i firget who the guy was. i think the biggest attempt was with slash and the steelers. i think it was odonnell again. anyway it doesn't seem to work very well because neither qb cn develop a rythm.
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Sept 28, 2015 17:42:15 GMT -5
one general on the field...rb has never been a general...
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Sept 28, 2015 19:04:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 28, 2015 19:28:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Sept 28, 2015 20:17:07 GMT -5
Conventional wisdom is that if you have two starting quarterbacks, you don't have one good one. But just like the league's gotten away from having a feature back and has gone more to RB by committee, I think the QB position is in for the same overhaul, and we're in the perfect situation to innovate. There are a few variations on this (excluding the gimmicky wildcat QB thing we had), the one most appropriate for us, I think is this: throw an int, get pulled in favor of the next guy. Put the 3 of them in a rotation, and rotate every pick. That's real competition: you know if you you fuck up and throw a pick, you might not get another throw for weeks. Plus imagine teams having to spend time on all 3 QB's. I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, but we'll talk again in 3 years when other teams are doing this and having success with it. You know, I think you are on to something. Just kidding, your an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by JB1089 on Sept 28, 2015 20:42:46 GMT -5
I'd forgotten about that. Although the impact has been a decrease in the odds of a 3rd string QB ever seeing the field. I just looked through the inactives and depths charts for this past week. All but 2 teams in the league dressed 2 QBs and used that "extra" spot on another position this week. We were team #1, as Geno and Petty were both active, I presume because of the high chance for re-injury if Geno were to take a hard shot to the head at this point. The other team was Buffalo, because Rex is......Rex. Rule change aside, the rest of my point still stands: There's not enough time to prep 3 QBs to play week in, week out. That's why every time a backup has to replace an injured starter, the coach says "We'll see what he looks like with a full week of practice."
|
|
|
Post by Hollywood Nosebleed on Sept 28, 2015 21:09:26 GMT -5
Conventional wisdom is that if you have two starting quarterbacks, you don't have one good one. But just like the league's gotten away from having a feature back and has gone more to RB by committee, I think the QB position is in for the same overhaul, and we're in the perfect situation to innovate. There are a few variations on this (excluding the gimmicky wildcat QB thing we had), the one most appropriate for us, I think is this: throw an int, get pulled in favor of the next guy. Put the 3 of them in a rotation, and rotate every pick. That's real competition: you know if you you fuck up and throw a pick, you might not get another throw for weeks. Plus imagine teams having to spend time on all 3 QB's. I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, but we'll talk again in 3 years when other teams are doing this and having success with it.Promise not to talk again until this becomes successful in the NFL? Because that was the stupidest shit I've read on this site or any other site.
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 28, 2015 21:19:26 GMT -5
Rule change aside, the rest of my point still stands: There's not enough time to prep 3 QBs to play week in, week out. That's why every time a backup has to replace an injured starter, the coach says "We'll see what he looks like with a full week of practice." It would be an interesting challenge for teams, they'd have to change how practices are run. Hire more coaches, have split-squad practices, even split up some of the team meetings into 3 groups. The benefits are huge, worth the price if you ask me.
|
|