Why the NFL Has a Quarterback Crisis - from today's WSJ
From today's WSJ
Why the NFL Has a Quarterback Crisis
Coaches see more QB prospects entering the league without the skill sets to excel; Will the classic NFL passer go extinct?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-nfl-has-a-quarterback-crisis-1441819454?mod=trending_now_4
Remember "read the Mike?"
September 10th, 2015 at 9:34 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 8:24 PM ^
He was immobile and very slow to throw under pressure. A deadly combination.
You can be immobile like Dan Marino if you've got a lightning release. Navarre's release time was longer than the time he had once he realized he was in trouble.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 1:51 PM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 9:25 AM ^
It's all RichRod's fault!
September 10th, 2015 at 9:28 AM ^
Two points:
1) The spread offense proliferation has made the necessity of reading defenses pre-snap less important since the generally up-tempo pace allows the coach more time to audible at the line of scrimmage instead of putting it on a 19-21 yr old. The decision trees for the QB during the play are inherently simpler in order to reduce the processing a QB has to perform, allowing more effort to be devoted to the QB's athleticism. The margin for error is greater since you RPS your opponent far more often in college from a coaching perspective.
2) The NFL offensive coordinators are for the most part very slow to adapt to new techniques and philosophies. The ones that do try new things are usually one trick ponies that once a defense finds an adaptation, the "gimmick" is gone. So you are typically left with low variance offensive systems which require more skill in the mental side to execute by the players instead of more skill on the coordinators to analyze and adapt. QBs in the NFL typically then have to be superior mentally to process the pre-snap information, analyze what happened, and then utilize their generally greater arm strength to execute throws in tighter windows beacuse (A) the DB's are better physically than in college, and (B) there are less RPS moments-- even the worst defenses in the NFL generally don't get outright outschemed.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:37 AM ^
Yeah, it's not like the NFL can just decide to run the college spread as their offense. The spread is designed to exploit major mismatches in space. But there are no major mismatches in the NFL. They're all 5-stars.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^
I think most of them are 2-3 stars, but I get your point...
September 10th, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^
That makes no sense. It's still two teams, with roughly equal talent, looking for mismatches on a position-to-position basis. Just the same as any NCAA spread team that plays a team with roughly equal talent.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:49 AM ^
One one hand, LJ's right in that NFL teams exploit mismatches just like any other level of football. On the other hand, though, M-Dog's right in that the mismatches are far less common at the NFL level of competition.
The NFL is comprised almost exclusively of NCAA stars and superstars, and the high degree of talent on NFL defenses makes the spread (IMO) less viable in the NFL than in the mismatch-rich environment of the NCAA. Which doesn't mean that spread elements won't work into the game (they already have, and will continue to do so). But I don't see the NFL becoming basketball on grass.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:04 AM ^
This is a good point. But I don't even know that the spread is more mismatch-reliant than any other offense. As I see it, the spread relies on two main principles to be effective: (1) tackling guys one-on-one in space is harder than tackling guys amongst a wad of bodies, and (2) playing defense is harder when the QB is a constant running threat who never turns his back to the defense (often allowing the offense an extra blocker). Why would those principles be less effective in the talent-rich enviornment of the NFL?
September 10th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
Because the defensive players tend to be bigger, faster stronger and can tackle in space better. It also remains true that quarterbacks who consistently run the ball take big hits and get hurt. It's not good for their longevity and they are the most valuable (and expensive players on the field). Ask Mike Vick about this. At the some point in the game (at any level) your team will be down and you need a QB who can complete longer throws which requires standing in the pocket longer, reading the defense and making an accurate throw. There are trade offs between systems, it's not like the spread is just so much better in every situation, otherwise every NFL team would already be playing that way.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:50 AM ^
Yes it does. You still want to exploit mismatches in the NFL, but they are very small. You don't have the yards of difference you do in college when a linebacker is on a slot receiver or a safety is on a running QB in the open field.
You have to exploit mismatches very quickly that are very small, like Tom Brady hitting a pass in two seconds on the numbers to his TE covered tightly by a linebacker. You can't count on your running QB to be able to cover 7 yards of field that opened wide because the DE is much slower than him and is out of position.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
If everyone in the NFL is better than everyone in the NCAA, why would the mismatches be any different? The good NCAA slot receiver vs. good NCAA linebacker mismatch is the same as the elite NFL slot receiver vs. elite NFL linebacker. The linebacker is faster, but so is the slot reciever. What is the difference? Why would you not have the yards of difference you do in the NCAA? The speed/ability differential between that slot and that linebacker is the same at both levels.
Maybe you're arguing that defenders at the NFL level have improved more from NCAA defenders than offenseive players have. If true, that might harm spread offenses. But I don't see any evidence of that.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^
The good NCAA slot receiver vs. good NCAA linebacker mismatch is the same as the elite NFL slot receiver vs. elite NFL linebacker. The linebacker is faster, but so is the slot reciever. What is the difference?
The difference? The bigger and faster players get, the smaller the field gets contextually.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
Good point. I'm sure that makes some difference. I'm doubtful it makes enough difference to make the spread obviously the most effective offense in the NCAA yet totally ineffective in the NFL.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
The spread obviously isn't "totally ineffective" in the NFL - almost all teams use some spread concepts.
It's just less effective.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
Lightning quick 6'0, 180lb slot receivers are common enough that most programs can have a few.
Lightning quick 230-240 linebackers are hard to come by. There are only a few every year.
The difference in athleticism between NFL level slot receivers and middling college slot receivers is a lot less than the difference between the same tiers in linebackers.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^
In NCAA you don't typically have excellence across all 11 positions. There's almost always a mismatch, and it's almost always glaring. Just look at the position charts Seth puts up each week, and you can see mismatches abounding.
You don't see that as much in the NFL. In part, because the league promotes parity (one of the few things it does well, unless you're Cleveland and persistently shoot yourself in the pecker). There are mismatches (e.g., Calvin Johnson vs. most everyone, Ndamukong Suh vs. most everyone), but not every week in such great numbers.
The second thing is that an NFL spread QB would need to be great at both running and passing, and there aren't many out there that can do that. RGIII and Vick come to mind, but they are incredibly rare and also get broken frequently. And to make a spread your main offensive set, you'd have to go at least two-deep on this type of QB.
Again, spread elements (and hurry-up offenses) are coming into the game. But I don't see the NFL becoming a spread league any time soon.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
1) Is the spread any more mismatch-dependant than any other offense? I've never thought of it that way. I think it just puts defenders in difficult positions, especially safeties, who have to come up to deal with the run game that has an extra blocker via the QB run, but also worry about the deep pass.
2) Why would they have to be great at both? We see medicore passers excel in NCAA spreads all the time becuse the run game opens up much easier passes. Why would those not be there in the NFL?
September 10th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
Well, I'm a bit out of my depth here, since I'm just a fan and haven't coached football. But I think the idea is that space creates one-on-one match-ups, where it's difficult for teammates to help (at least before yardage is gained) if the defender messes up. So the spread is partially premised on those one-on-ones, where a player's athleticism becomes critical.
In NCAA football, if you spread out the defense, you may get 2-3 critical mismatches to exploit each down, because the talent level is not as evenly-distributed as in the NFL. In the NFL, you may not get any gross mismatches from the same sets.
As far as having to be great at both, if you take a one-dimensional player like Denard (love his game, but it's nearly all run) and put him behind center, the NFL can go single coverage and bring the wood against the run. That won't work out well for Denard, even though it might work fine against many NCAA defenses that can't contain that sort of speed.
To pile on, a mediocre passer gets picked off in the NFL. You can't get away with poor passes against an NFL backfield. Again, based on my perspective as a fan.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^
NFL personnel also are less restricted in their ability to prepare and have a lot more continuity.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
Spacing means something.
The spread needs open space - and when DL run like college LB, there is just a lot less space to be had.
Faster players and the same size field means that the higher the level your at, the less effective the spread will largely be (and all other offenses).
September 10th, 2015 at 12:03 PM ^
I know that this has been looked at before....
but for run based spreads even if running a QB doesn't statistically increase his chances for injury, I think think its just human nature that a coach/GM isn't going to want to take their $70 million QB and run him into a $20 million LB who is looking for blood.
Having them largely sit in the pocket behind their collective $50 million line is going to feel alot more comfortable.
Just IMHO.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:29 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 9:55 AM ^
I liked this quote about development: "When they come to the NFL, it’s as if they’re being told to stop playing speed checkers and start playing chess."
September 10th, 2015 at 9:30 AM ^
This is part of the constant ebb and flow of the game, I think. Personally, I really like to watch great quarterbacks work (Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, etc.), but I used to really like watching great running backs when those workhorses were en vogue.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:36 AM ^
that there aren't 32 men on the face of this planet who can successfully run a NFL team as a QB. Not in the whole entire world! There are really only about 20 in the NFL right now who can do it. Goes to show how smart/athletic/inspiring/quick diagnosing those guys have to be. Crazy...
September 10th, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^
Its weird to think about. I'm sure there are men in other countries, where American football isn't played, that have the skillset to do it. They are just playing crickett or rugby or soccer or something. Do you think Steph Curry could play QB in the NFL had he played it all of his life? What athletes in other sports do you think have the mental capabilities of being a NFL QB?
September 10th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
If he's starting games in the long-term for your favorite NFL team, it's probably not a good thing --- but he has become a viable NFL backup QB.
He's earned everything he has in the NFL and I do root for the guy. The Raiders brought in Christian Ponder (who did once start 16 games at QB for a playoff team) to be the Raiders' backup QB this off-season, and McGloin simply beat-him out for the job.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^
Your perspective is skewed by the fact that there are elite defenders on the other side of the ball. Any time you pit the elite against the elite, there are going to be tiers. Does every NBA team have a dominant point guard? Does every MLB team have a Cy Young-caliber pitcher?
September 10th, 2015 at 9:49 AM ^
Moving the ball for a successfull drive (something every NFL starting QB SHOULD be able to do) is not the equivilent of dominating a position within your league.
Wouldn't defense skill level be relaitve throughout all levelos of football? As the number of defensive players decreases at each level, only allowing the elite to move on, the exact same thing happens for the offensive players. The QBs have elite offensive lineman, WRs, and RBs, TE's too....not buying that argument...
September 10th, 2015 at 10:06 AM ^
"Moving the ball for a successfull drive (something every NFL starting QB SHOULD be able to do) is not the equivilent of dominating a position within your league."
Your criteria appears to be very vague. "Moving the ball" seems to indicate completion percentage. In 2002, 19 quarterbacks had a completion percentage above 60%. In 2014, 25 quarterbacks completed 60% of their passes.
The best athlete in middle school, high school, and sometimes college is the QB - he's the guy who can run the fastest, throw the ball the farthest, make decisions quickest, etc. That domination fades as you get older, players get whittled away, etc. In the NFL you largely get guys who were the best athlete in high school, but they stop concentrating on speed, add on some muscle so they can take a pounding, etc. and become pocket quarterbacks.
But there are only so many quarterback spots. In college, the high school QB (Desmond Morgan, Courtney Avery, Antonio Bass, etc.) is now playing LB, CB, WR, etc. It's hard to change positions late in your career after college, but Denard Robinson is now a RB, Scott Frost became a safety, Julian Edelman became a WR, etc. Victor Viramontes might end up playing FB, LB, or S in college.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:09 AM ^
Also, you didn't address the fact that this happens in every sport. The reason you think the Jaguars QB is bad is not because he is a terrible football player, but because the QB for the Packers/Patriots/Colts/etc. is so good. Lionel Messi, Neymar, and Cristiano Ronaldo are not the only capable soccer players in the world, but they make their counterparts on lesser teams look bad in comparison.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
By any measure, he is EXCELLENT at his craft.
But many folk don't see that because he has consistently ranked between 20th-40th over his career, in a field where only 32 guys get the spotlight, and only 16 of them get to play for teams with winning records.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
Because I'm fairly sure there are more than 20 QBs in the US capable of "Moving the ball for a successful drive" even against the best NFL defenses; however, it's only the "elite" that can do it consistently.
And the simple answer to the question is its harder to gain ground (offense) than to hold ground (defense). That's why, especially in the NFL, mediocre QBs win more championships with great defenses than elite QBs with so-so defenses.
Plus passing game strategy hasn't progressed much for the last few decades so defenses continue to close the gap.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:48 AM ^
You're really buying into the whole 'only 32 people in the world can do this job' thing?
I don't buy it. I think the framework for being an NFL QB is very rigid and the position requirements don't change based on the person playing it. That's on the coaches in the NFL and trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
You saw how they were actually adopting college schemes (read option/wildcat/pistol, etc like the 49ers did with Kaep). Before that it was thought 'this is the NFL, no way you can do anything buy pocket pass'.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 9:37 AM ^
If this bothers you that much you could develop your own minor league like every other sport on the planet. Until then, college coaches will be sorrynotsorry.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 10th, 2015 at 10:29 AM ^
And got someone else to pay for it! Brilliant! You get what you pay for, I guess.
September 10th, 2015 at 9:42 AM ^
Why would anyone expect quarterbacks to play as rookies? Its not like this was common in the 70's or 80's. Seems like, regardless of the era there will always be a steep learning curve for quarterbacks when they come into the league. And unsurprisingly most will not be very good at the highest level.
Also, this article really feels like it was written for readers who have never actually watched football.
"A bat-signal, for listerners who might not know, refers to the children's character the 'bat'-'man,' a strong gentleman who fights crime nocturnally."
September 10th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
I hope you are writing this from that yacht. Even if you are not, just humor my fantasy and tell me that you are. Talk dirty to me.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:13 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 4:22 PM ^
I am "that yacht."
September 10th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
September 10th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
Isn't this being seen in every sport across the country? Athleticism has replaced skill development and fundamentals. Just a couple weeks ago some radio personalities were talking about how MLB managers and coaches are now teaching things at the big league level that they never had to (framing pitches, base running, etc). I coach basketball and it's the same thing there - the community's emphasis is on speed and transition vs skills and grit.
September 10th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
They say it is difficult to find a franchise QB that played in a hurryup spread option, yet keep drafting them. Why not spend more late-round picks on the Tom Savages, Sean Mannions, and Keith Wennings rather than the Bryce Pettys or Garrett Graysons? GMs and coaches don't seem like they have the luxury of developing QBs when the pressure to win is so great.
Ryan Fitzpatrick is still a starter in the NFL. Derek Anderson is the backup in Carolina and Rex Grossman and Kellen Clemens are also backups. I find it hard to believe that these guys' talents are that much greater than some of the new QBs coming out of college, or that the gap is insurmountable. If it is, I think it is not the colleges and their systems to blame but the players themselves.