|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 28, 2015 21:24:01 GMT -5
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. I hope you just mean football related sites and not the whole internet. Anyway, I don't really care if I convince anyone. The point is that this is coming and I just wanted to be able to tell everyone how I saw it coming. I bet Belidick'll be the first to do it when Brady retires. Then everyone'll wash his balls and call him a genius when it was actually such a simple idea that some guy on a messageboard came up with it in 2015. So yeah, keep watching your TV screen and you'll see something new and familiar at the same time, count on it. |
|
|
|
Post by JB1089 on Sept 28, 2015 22:22:00 GMT -5
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. This isn't college. You have 53 players and a 10 man practice squad. There's not much splitting up that you can do in the NFL. |
|
|
|
Post by greenwave on Sept 29, 2015 5:32:01 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. You would have gotten more traction if you suggested the behind-the-back-no-look-alley-oop-to-the-tight-end pass. That's a better idea than what you've suggested here. |
|
|
|
Post by Fishooked on Sept 29, 2015 6:24:52 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 BEAC0NJET on Sept 29, 2015 9:36:56 GMT -5
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. So youre asking your WRs and TEs to go through 3x the number of reps in practice to accomodate three "starting" QBs? Talk about being gassed by Sunday... |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 29, 2015 10:06:32 GMT -5
So youre asking your WRs and TEs to go through 3x the number of reps in practice to accomodate three "starting" QBs? Talk about being gassed by Sunday... No, but you'd be able to give practice squad & back-of-the-roster guys more reps. Coaches would need to balance enough reps for the QB's with not too many reps for everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 29, 2015 10:07:40 GMT -5
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. This isn't college. You have 53 players and a 10 man practice squad. There's not much splitting up that you can do in the NFL. You're right, you'd probably be limited to 2 groups with the 3 QB's rotating among them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2015 10:12:31 GMT -5
CONTINUITY
|
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 29, 2015 10:39:20 GMT -5
...is overrated, or at least it's going to be a lot less important in the near future. Just like having a bell cow running back was seen as important for continuity, but now teams know you can mix RB's. Yeah, of course, it's a bigger change to do this to the QB position, that's why it hasn't happened yet while rotations have become the norm elsewhere, but the NFL is evolving and this will be part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Sept 29, 2015 12:15:10 GMT -5
This isn't college. You have 53 players and a 10 man practice squad. There's not much splitting up that you can do in the NFL. You're right, you'd probably be limited to 2 groups with the 3 QB's rotating among them. Which means your QBs are getting less reps than what they would as a traditional starter. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Sept 29, 2015 12:18:07 GMT -5
So youre asking your WRs and TEs to go through 3x the number of reps in practice to accomodate three "starting" QBs? Talk about being gassed by Sunday... No, but you'd be able to give practice squad & back-of-the-roster guys more reps. Coaches would need to balance enough reps for the QB's with not too many reps for everyone else. You carry 5/6 WRs and maybe 1-2 more on the PS... its not like there's this whole other 10 guys waiting in the wings to catch balls with your expanded plan. And throwing to Marshall and Decker is different than throwing to a PS WR. "Balance" across 3 QBs means not enough reps for all to be ready. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Champion on Sept 29, 2015 13:43:58 GMT -5
You're right, you'd probably be limited to 2 groups with the 3 QB's rotating among them. Which means your QBs are getting less reps than what they would as a traditional starter. Right, it's not a plan with all upside and no downside. My prediction is that the upside will outweigh the downside. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2015 14:10:18 GMT -5
...is overrated, or at least it's going to be a lot less important in the near future. Just like having a bell cow running back was seen as important for continuity, but now teams know you can mix RB's. Yeah, of course, it's a bigger change to do this to the QB position, that's why it hasn't happened yet while rotations have become the norm elsewhere, but the NFL is evolving and this will be part of it. Continuity is about an organization, a team, an OL not a position. There is only one way to obtain it and that is by having the same group playing together for extended periods of time while the GM spots needs and plugs holes. Qb's need reps and time with the same players not a musical circle jerk at the most important position. Athletes don't like change they like knowing they are in control and this clusterfuck of the past 6 years has created nothing but a continual atmosphere of failure. |
|
|
|
Post by greenwave on Sept 29, 2015 14:18:10 GMT -5
Which means your QBs are getting less reps than what they would as a traditional starter. Right, it's not a plan with all upside and no downside. My prediction is that the upside will outweigh the downside. I believe you could benefit from a little more conventional wisdom. You're fixing something that isn't broken. Just quit while you're behind. |
|
