The Running QB

[dw49]

I haven't yet tried to access the SI aricle this link speaks to but here's to all those that said the zone read was here to stay. I mentioned in another thread that Kapernick had regressed terribly this year and they also mention Cam Newton. So you now have RG3 , Kap and Cam really struggling after being called "undefensible" just a couple of years ago. I guess Russell Wilson is still piling up rush yards and my answer to that one would be that a lot of those yards come when he scrambles on plays where he's just breaking the pocket. 

 

From rotoworld....

 

Former NFL GM and current ESPN analyst Bill Polian believes "what we’re seeing this year is the incredible erosion of the running quarterback."

NFL.com draft guru Gil Brandt agrees, saying "I think we’re slowly, slowly going back to the age of pocket quarterbacks." Specifically, Colin Kaepernick and Cam Newton have been two of the least-accurate quarterbacks in the league this season, and they've noticeably regressed or flatlined as passers. Both have cannons for arms, but don't display the touch and aren't making plays with their legs due to injuries or the realization by the coaching staffs that it's not worth the unnecessary hits after seeing Robert Griffin III tear up his knee in 2012 and ankle in 2014. SI's Peter King has a good read on the topic at the link below.

 

 

Source: Sports Illustrated

Dec 3 - 9:38 A

 

 

 

[amfootball]

I think it is too soon to say the running QB is a thing of the past. I am not sure it was ever on the forefront to be honest. It was believed when Newton, RG and Kaep got drafted that they could throw as well as run. They were thought to be the complete package and not surprising all of them are struggling in year 2 and 3 not unlike other young QBs. Even Luck has taken a step back in terms of his turnovers from last year. This is a hard game and QB is the toughest position. I think GMs and coaches will not look at this year's draft class and not select a player because of the struggles of RG, Kaep or Newton. I think they will evaluate which guy best fits their system. I do think athletic QBs are here to stay however.

[Valpo2004]

I heard it said on the NFL network that the NFL wants quarterbacks who can run, not running quarterbacks.

 

Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck are quarterbacks who can run.  Colin Kaepernick and RG3 are running quarterbacks.

 

Basically it comes down to this. . . you need to be able to make plays from the pocket.  It's the most important thing. . . If you can't do that then nothing else matters at all.  The running ability is a nice extra but without being able to make a play from the pocket, it's all meaningless to playing quarterback.  

 

And the traditional pocket passer who can't run will still be viable until we have 32 QB's who can make plays from the pocket and run.  Which I don't see that happening any time soon because as of right now I can think of maybe 3 QB's in the league who can do both.  Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson.  

 

 

I think it is too soon to say the running QB is a thing of the past. I am not sure it was ever on the forefront to be honest. It was believed when Newton, RG and Kaep got drafted that they could throw as well as run. They were thought to be the complete package and not surprising all of them are struggling in year 2 and 3 not unlike other young QBs. Even Luck has taken a step back in terms of his turnovers from last year. This is a hard game and QB is the toughest position. I think GMs and coaches will not look at this year's draft class and not select a player because of the struggles of RG, Kaep or Newton. I think they will evaluate which guy best fits their system. I do think athletic QBs are here to stay however.

 

To be fair Luck's turnover mark last year is very difficult to best and nearly impossible to best when he's throwing as much and for the number of yards he's throwing for.  On the whole Luck has hardly regressed.

[amfootball]

I heard it said on the NFL network that the NFL wants quarterbacks who can run, not running quarterbacks.

 

Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck are quarterbacks who can run.  Colin Kaepernick and RG3 are running quarterbacks.

 

Basically it comes down to this. . . you need to be able to make plays from the pocket.  It's the most important thing. . . If you can't do that then nothing else matters at all.  The running ability is a nice extra but without being able to make a play from the pocket, it's all meaningless to playing quarterback.  

 

And the traditional pocket passer who can't run will still be viable until we have 32 QB's who can make plays from the pocket and run.  Which I don't see that happening any time soon because as of right now I can think of maybe 3 QB's in the league who can do both.  Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson.  

 

 

 

To be fair Luck's turnover mark last year is very difficult to best and nearly impossible to best when he's throwing as much and for the number of yards he's throwing for.  On the whole Luck has hardly regressed.

Good post. That is was my main point. Coaches would take the complete package any day. A guy who can pass and run like Rodgers. Of course! But I don't think the other QBs were taken as run QBs. The teams that selected them believed they could be viable passers as well. They just are not flourishing for one reason or another. Some are the teams they are on.

 

I did not say Luck regressed, I said he took a step back compared to last year. He is in year 3 and still turning it over when more is asked of him. Same as his rookie year. He will improve.

[Clem-Dog]

Even Luck has taken a step back in terms of his turnovers from last year. This is a hard game and QB is the toughest position.

Last year Luck had 23 TDs against 9 interceptions to go along with 3800 yds.

This season through 12 games Luck is already crushing last years numbers. These numbers project to a grand total of 45 TDs, 15 ints, & 5300 yds.

In short, his increase in turnovers is directly related to a substantial increase in attempts. Despite the increased attempts, yards, TDs, ints, etc, andrew is on pace to finish with a passer rating above 100.

He can not be in a discussion about regressing QBs unless you're comparing polar opposites.

[Valpo2004]

 

I haven't yet tried to access the SI aricle this link speaks to but here's to all those that said the zone read was here to stay. I mentioned in another thread that Kapernick had regressed terribly this year and they also mention Cam Newton. So you now have RG3 , Kap and Cam really struggling after being called "undefensible" just a couple of years ago. I guess Russell Wilson is still piling up rush yards and my answer to that one would be that a lot of those yards come when he scrambles on plays where he's just breaking the pocket. 

 

From rotoworld....

 

Former NFL GM and current ESPN analyst Bill Polian believes "what we’re seeing this year is the incredible erosion of the running quarterback."

NFL.com draft guru Gil Brandt agrees, saying "I think we’re slowly, slowly going back to the age of pocket quarterbacks." Specifically, Colin Kaepernick and Cam Newton have been two of the least-accurate quarterbacks in the league this season, and they've noticeably regressed or flatlined as passers. Both have cannons for arms, but don't display the touch and aren't making plays with their legs due to injuries or the realization by the coaching staffs that it's not worth the unnecessary hits after seeing Robert Griffin III tear up his knee in 2012 and ankle in 2014. SI's Peter King has a good read on the topic at the link below.

 

 

Source: Sports Illustrated

Dec 3 - 9:38 A

 

 

I like the article but I think it talks about Philly dumping Foles. . . why would they do that?

[amfootball]

Last year Luck had 23 TDs against 9 interceptions to go along with 3800 yds.

This season through 12 games Luck is already crushing last years numbers. These numbers project to a grand total of 45 TDs, 15 ints, & 5300 yds.

In short, his increase in turnovers is directly related to a substantial increase in attempts. Despite the increased attempts, yards, TDs, ints, etc, andrew is on pace to finish with a passer rating above 100.

He can not be in a discussion about regressing QBs unless you're comparing polar opposites.

I was just focusing on the turnovers which also include 5 lost fumbles. He still has areas to work on was my point in year 3 just like every other young QB in the league.

[Valpo2004]

Good post. That is was my main point. Coaches would take the complete package any day. A guy who can pass and run like Rodgers. Of course! But I don't think the other QBs were taken as run QBs. The teams that selected them believed they could be viable passers as well. They just are not flourishing for one reason or another. Some are the teams they are on.

 

I did not say Luck regressed, I said he took a step back compared to last year. He is in year 3 and still turning it over when more is asked of him. Same as his rookie year. He will improve.

 

The thing about that though is that when you have a guy who's a quarterback and better known for his running ability then any other skill he has then I think you are in trouble.  And that was the case with a lot of those guys.  

 

When people looked at Luck his ability to run was one of the less talked about things.

 

Where the article talks about the draft being hope. . . I think that's one of the biggest reasons why we see huge reaches for quarterbacks who have tons of faults.  

[dw49]

Good post. That is was my main point. Coaches would take the complete package any day. A guy who can pass and run like Rodgers. Of course! But I don't think the other QBs were taken as run QBs. The teams that selected them believed they could be viable passers as well. They just are not flourishing for one reason or another. Some are the teams they are on.

 

I did not say Luck regressed, I said he took a step back compared to last year. He is in year 3 and still turning it over when more is asked of him. Same as his rookie year. He will improve.

 

 

 

Just when I thought you were coming around , you come up with a bomb like that. The guy executed a play fake a few times and turned around and found like two defenders 1/4 inch away . He was blasted and a few fumbles. Gosh big deal. On his way to 5000 yards and 40 TD's with a very acceptable int %. So you come up with he had 5 fumbles so he's just like all the other 3rd year QB's and "same as rookie year." Here's a news flash for you ... Andrew Luck is a top 5 NFL QB today. Right now... even with the 5 fumbles

[amfootball]

Just when I thought you were coming around , you come up with a bomb like that. The guy executed a play fake a few times and turned around and found like two defenders 1/4 inch away . He was blasted and a few fumbles. Gosh big deal. On his way to 5000 yards and 40 TD's with a very acceptable int %. So you come up with he had 5 fumbles so he's just like all the other 3rd year QB's and "same as rookie year." Here's a news flash for you ... Andrew Luck is a top 5 NFL QB today. Right now... even with the 5 fumbles

So you are saying Luck's game is perfect as is? Because that was my main point, he still has areas to work on in year 3. As good as he is, and he is very good, he is still learning. I don't know where you got the rest or somehow inferred that I was saying he was on par with the other QBs.

[dw49]

I like the article but I think it talks about Philly dumping Foles. . . why would they do that?

 

 

Did you see many of Foles' games this year He's not very agile and he often was very inaccurate throwing the ball. That Chip Kelly offense really does pike up yards and I think maybe can bloat a QB's stats. I'm guessing you didn't see a ton of Foles this year ?

[Valpo2004]

Did you see many of Foles' games this year He's not very agile and he often was very inaccurate throwing the ball. That Chip Kelly offense really does pike up yards and I think maybe can bloat a QB's stats. I'm guessing you didn't see a ton of Foles this year ?

 

No but my thing is that I don't think you want to mess with what is working.  Especially for a rookie.  

 

Even if Foles isn't that great and a product of the system, he's still on a rookie contract.  Bring someone in to compete with him, even if through the draft and see what you have then.  Don't just straight up dump him and cross your fingers that Marcus Mariota is going to tear it up.

[dw49]

So you are saying Luck's game is perfect as is? Because that was my main point, he still has areas to work on in year 3. As good as he is, and he is very good, he is still learning. I don't know where you got the rest or somehow inferred that I was saying he was on par with the other QBs.

 

 

On par with what other QB's ?

 

Nobody said he was perfect and every QB has things he can work on. Even the magnificent Brady worked on not being a statue in the pocket this offseason. I mean c'mon don't play with us... we can all read .

[amfootball]

On par with what other QB's ?

 

Nobody said he was perfect and every QB has things he can work on. Even the magnificent Brady worked on not being a statue in the pocket this offseason. I mean c'mon don't play with us... we can all read .

The running QBs listed in the article.

 

I am not sure why you are looking at picking a fight on this. I think Luck is great.

[dw49]

No but my thing is that I don't think you want to mess with what is working.  Especially for a rookie.  

 

Even if Foles isn't that great and a product of the system, he's still on a rookie contract.  Bring someone in to compete with him, even if through the draft and see what you have then.  Don't just straight up dump him and cross your fingers that Marcus Mariota is going to tear it up.

 

 

Which rookie are you referring to ? I thought the article just more or less questioned if Chip Kelly was content on staying with Foles or wanted to bring some competition in. I don't feel like reading it again as Foles really wasn't a focal point in the article or thread anyway. Anyway I think Foles is an OK enough guy but not a top QB. 

[dw49]

The running QBs listed in the article.

 

I am not sure why you are looking at picking a fight on this. I think Luck is great.

  That's better . Much better.... We good

[MJD42]

Just when I thought you were coming around , you come up with a bomb like that. The guy executed a play fake a few times and turned around and found like two defenders 1/4 inch away . He was blasted and a few fumbles. Gosh big deal. On his way to 5000 yards and 40 TD's with a very acceptable int %. So you come up with he had 5 fumbles so he's just like all the other 3rd year QB's and "same as rookie year." Here's a news flash for you ... Andrew Luck is a top 5 NFL QB today. Right now... even with the 5 fumbles

To each their own, but I would rather have less TDs if that meant less INTs especially in the post-season. Volume stats are great but they don't often correlate to rings. 

[Derakynn]

I don't think the fumbles are a fair assessment. He had like 3 through the first 10 games and that is with bad snaps by Harrisson. Like 6 have come in the past two where the right side of the line decided to welcome the defender into the backfield. He shouldn't fumble that much, but he wasn't being helped with Lmost nonexistant blocking.

[dw49]

I think it is too soon to say the running QB is a thing of the past. I am not sure it was ever on the forefront to be honest. It was believed when Newton, RG and Kaep got drafted that they could throw as well as run. They were thought to be the complete package and not surprising all of them are struggling in year 2 and 3 not unlike other young QBs. Even Luck has taken a step back in terms of his turnovers from last year. This is a hard game and QB is the toughest position. I think GMs and coaches will not look at this year's draft class and not select a player because of the struggles of RG, Kaep or Newton. I think they will evaluate which guy best fits their system. I do think athletic QBs are here to stay however.

 

 

 

To each their own, but I would rather have less TDs if that meant less INTs especially in the post-season. Volume stats are great but they don't often correlate to rings. 

 

 

Other than the NE playoff game , he really hasn't had a big issue with Ints. He has made a few bonehead throws this year but they have really not been a problem. If the defense plays well , the O line holds up a bit and the running game is enough to at least afford play action , I think you'll see that the int rate will be just fine. BTW... other than Brady and Rodgers , he's right there with the other good QB's . Manning .. Brees 

[B~Town]

I was just focusing on the turnovers which also include 5 lost fumbles. He still has areas to work on was my point in year 3 just like every other young QB in the league.

To be fait most his int's are tipped balls unlike in past years most were thrown to the Defense

[Colts_Fan12]

I agree and knew this was gonna happen Cam might be ok he isn't that inaccurate he just has no help right Kaepernick wasn't anything special IMO and neither is RG3

[dw49]

I think it is too soon to say the running QB is a thing of the past. I am not sure it was ever on the forefront to be honest. It was believed when Newton, RG and Kaep got drafted that they could throw as well as run. They were thought to be the complete package and not surprising all of them are struggling in year 2 and 3 not unlike other young QBs. Even Luck has taken a step back in terms of his turnovers from last year. This is a hard game and QB is the toughest position. I think GMs and coaches will not look at this year's draft class and not select a player because of the struggles of RG, Kaep or Newton. I think they will evaluate which guy best fits their system. I do think athletic QBs are here to stay however.

 

 

Back to the thread.... I don't think Kap and RG3 were taken with the plan to run them to death. I think the league more less evolved into that for a year or two . I think the fact that they were athletic added to their value and it's great to be able to run when needed. I think the major point of the thread was this QB running the ball offense is coming to an abrupt halt.

[amfootball]

Back to the thread.... I don't think Kap and RG3 were taken with the plan to run them to death. I think the league more less evolved into that for a year or two . I think the fact that they were athletic added to their value and it's great to be able to run when needed. I think the major point of the thread was this QB running the ball offense is coming to an abrupt halt.

Yeah, read option is still used but more as a change of pace. The QBs main job is to throw the ball. The easiest way to beat a defense is to step back, make a good decision and make a good throw. I don't think that will ever change but I can see how GMs and coaches salivate when you see some of these guys run in the open field.

[shakedownstreet]

The Running QB

 

the long awaited sequel to the running man

[dw49]

the long awaited sequel to the running man

 

 

I'm old and mean. You'll be very sorry if you keep making fun of me....

 

 

 

Mods .. please change thread title to QB's that depend on athletic ability to run the football

[shakedownstreet]

I'm old and mean. You'll be very sorry if you keep making fun of me....

 

 

 

Mods .. please change thread title to QB's that depend on athletic ability to run the football

 

at least you probably remember the movie

[dw49]

at least you probably remember the movie

 

 

Rings a bell ... agh just looked it up . It's that horrible Arnold Swartz movie with Richard Dawson  ! Terrible pie of poop of a movie.

[BOTT]

Rings a bell ... agh just looked it up . It's that horrible Arnold Swartz movie with Richard Dawson  ! Terrible pie of poop of a movie.

It's entertaining in cheesy way

[dw49]

It's entertaining in cheesy way

 

 

Was it.. ? I don't really remember it too well. I did see it though.

[ColtsBlueFL]

So you are saying Luck's game is perfect as is? Because that was my main point, he still has areas to work on in year 3. As good as he is, and he is very good, he is still learning. I don't know where you got the rest or somehow inferred that I was saying he was on par with the other QBs.

 

Yes, turnovers regressed a touch from last year for Andrew.  Otherwise he's doing fantastic, and this tidbit should make every one else scared.  Luck is on pace/surpassing every stat projected in this clip from the (old) Numbers Never Lie (now His&Hers) on why Luck will be considered elite (they say the Best) QB in the league after this year.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSiMHOvgw0s

 

Projected- career high in TD passes.  Yes!! improvement by 11 over prior best and still 4 games to go!!

Projected- 17% increase passer rating to 102.   Yes!  Actual increase >17% to 103!!

Projected- 12% increase in yds/gm to 307.     Yes!! Luck is at 334 yds/gm

 

Brees and Manning >4500 yards and >95 passer rating last year.  Luck easily on pace!  Luck at 4011 yards and his 103 passer rating with 4 more games to go!

 

Here's his whole career on stats on Luck. I wonder how other year 3 QB's fared here?

 

 

Luck will have something to work on every year.  But nothing puts him near the other regressed QB's, and surpassing the Numbers Never Lie predictions. Incredible! and only getting better, not regressing in any meaningful way.

[Malakai432]

I was just focusing on the turnovers which also include 5 lost fumbles. He still has areas to work on was my point in year 3 just like every other young QB in the league.

It is scary to think he can improve much more but I'm sure he can. I think a lot of this will be contingent upon building a feasible OL. Colts fans are very fortunate that he's a young tank and hasn't been injured yet with the way this OL protects him.

Over the years we've seen how Manning and Brady can play while being sacked, pressured and knocked on their butts a dozen time in a game, Luck is no different. Manning and Brady have also had the leisure of playing behind some all world OLs in which Luck hasn't. This thing has to get fixed, paving way for more room for Lucks improvment.

[Bobbycovert]

To each their own, but I would rather have less TDs if that meant less INTs especially in the post-season. Volume stats are great but they don't often correlate to rings. 

   

 I don't understand why you would sacrifice TDs (guaranteed points) for less INTs (which may lead to points but often are no worse than a bad punt ).  I suppose I could understand if the number of INTs is relatively close to equaling the number of TD's but even then I question the logic.  Also, INT totals are one of those "volume stats" you mentioned.  If you look at interception percentage, Luck's is at 2.24% this season which is extremely good.  

 

     I'm all for minimizing INTs but why would you sacrifice points to do so? Especially when the INTs aren't occurring at an unreasonable rate.  

[amfootball]

It is scary to think he can improve much more but I'm sure he can. I think a lot of this will be contingent upon building a feasible OL. Colts fans are very fortunate that he's a young tank and hasn't been injured yet with the way this OL protects him.

Over the years we've seen how Manning and Brady can play while being sacked, pressured and knocked on their butts a dozen time in a game, Luck is no different. Manning and Brady have also had the leisure of playing behind some all world OLs in which Luck hasn't. This thing has to get fixed, paving way for more room for Lucks improvment.

One of the reasons Manning and Brady have been sacked so few times is not just their Oline but their ability to get the ball out of their hands quickly. I think that is also something for Luck to work on. Quicker reads, quicker decisions. Even the best Olines struggle so it is key for the QB to help them by not holding the ball.

[MJD42]

 I don't understand why you would sacrifice TDs (guaranteed points) for less INTs (which may lead to points but often are no worse than a bad punt ).  I suppose I could understand if the number of INTs is relatively close to equaling the number of TD's but even then I question the logic.  Also, INT totals are one of those "volume stats" you mentioned.  If you look at interception percentage, Luck's is at 2.24% this season which is extremely good.  

 

     I'm all for minimizing INTs but why would you sacrifice points to do so? Especially when the INTs aren't occurring at an unreasonable rate.  

Because turnovers are the one statistic that most correlate to wins and losses. You can get away in the regular season with having a lot because the competition is not as good as the post-season. Luck's two turnovers vs the Redskins did not hurt because it is the Redskins and he was able to put up TDs on them for the win. If he does that against Denver or NE in Jan than it is lights out. 

 

And yes I would gladly sacrifice points for no turnovers. That is how Wilson has been so successful in Seattle and why in part they won it all last year. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

One of the reasons Manning and Brady have been sacked so few times is not just their Oline but their ability to get the ball out of their hands quickly. I think that is also something for Luck to work on. Quicker reads, quicker decisions. Even the best Olines struggle so it is key for the QB to help them by not holding the ball.

 

While there's truth there, it is too general to explain why this is so.  Not only is Brady and Manning quicker through the progressions thus knowing where they are going to go with the ball. They have seen more D alignments over the years and likely know what the D is going to do  and thus have a better idea who the best matchup on the field will be.  They'll go through the progression but if they see #1 covered but #2  has your guy one on one and beating his man, they had a good hunch that was the play and was ready to quickly look there.  I think Luck is getting better at that.  Finally, neither Brady nor Manning will take a big direct hit.  They'll slide in the pocket to create time, but neither is a run QB and if someone comes clean they'll throw it away or get down and take a sack (especially Peyton) very quickly and live another play.  Luck, OTOH, can stand in and take a hit and still deliver a ball to a receiver that needed that extra .4 seconds to open a pass window.  Or, Luck can shake the tackle at times make a pass on a broken play or take off and run up a seam in the D.

 

So while Luck can still improve in some areas, he also possesses traits even Tom Brady would like to be able to do.

 

"He does a lot of things I wish I could do."

Asked what those things are, Brady expounded on the 6-foot-4, 240-pound Luck.

"He's big, fast, shrugs off blockers. He makes a lot of extended plays,"

[amfootball]

While there's truth there, it is too general to explain why this is so.  Not only is Brady and Manning quicker through the progressions thus knowing where they are going to go with the ball. They have seen more D alignments over the years and likely know what the D is going to do  and thus have a better idea who the best matchup on the field will be.  They'll go through the progression but if they see #1 covered but #2  has your guy one on one and beating his man, they had a good hunch that was the play and was ready to quickly look there.  I think Luck is getting better at that.  Finally, neither Brady nor Manning will take a big direct hit.  They'll slide in the pocket to create time, but neither is a run QB and if someone comes clean they'll throw it away or get down and take a sack (especially Peyton) very quickly and live another play.  Luck, OTOH, can stand in and take a hit and still deliver a ball to a receiver that needed that extra .4 seconds to open a pass window.  Or, Luck can shake the tackle at times make a pass on a broken play or take off and run up a seam in the D.

 

So while Luck can still improve in some areas, he also possesses traits even Tom Brady would like to be able to do.

 

"He does a lot of things I wish I could do."

Asked what those things are, Brady expounded on the 6-foot-4, 240-pound Luck.

"He's big, fast, shrugs off blockers. He makes a lot of extended plays,"

Yes, a lot of it with Brady and Manning is pre-snap recognition and why the two of them have been the best to ever play.

 

In terms of Luck shaking off tacklers, he is a big, strong guy but I would not want Brady and Manning doing that. Big Ben does that a lot and it has led to a lot of injuries over his career. Luck is young now but those hits will build up and take their toll. He has to realize that as the franchise QB he needs to take less hits and live to play another down vs trying to make something happen on every play. The most important thing he is to the Colts is available.

[Bobbycovert]

Because turnovers are the one statistic that most correlate to wins and losses. You can get away in the regular season with having a lot because the competition is not as good as the post-season. Luck's two turnovers vs the Redskins did not hurt because it is the Redskins and he was able to put up TDs on them for the win. If he does that against Denver or NE in Jan than it is lights out. 

 

And yes I would gladly sacrifice points for no turnovers. That is how Wilson has been so successful in Seattle and why in part they won it all last year. 

 

 Teams who win the turnover battle win the game roughly 80% of the time.  Teams who win the point battle are undefeated. 

 

     Lol only half serious with that one.  I get what you're saying but I don't agree that sacrificing points for less turnovers would win more games in january. I suppose it comes down to how many turnovers you can avoid and how many points you have to sacrifice to avoid them.  Also, how good is your defense, running game, etc, etc.  In the end, points are the only absolute in the equation so I'll take as many as I can get.

 

     As far as Wilson goes, he manages the game well and he's had some success but I think his ability to play conservative is predicated on the existence of that smothering defense and the running game.  In a lot of cases that formula works in the playoffs and I've got no problem admitting it but I don't see it as a possibility for this team right now.

[MJD42]

 Teams who win the turnover battle win the game roughly 80% of the time.  Teams who win the point battle are undefeated. 

 

     Lol only half serious with that one.  I get what you're saying but I don't agree that sacrificing points for less turnovers would win more games in january. I suppose it comes down to how many turnovers you can avoid and how many points you have to sacrifice to avoid them.  Also, how good is your defense, running game, etc, etc.  In the end, points are the only absolute in the equation so I'll take as many as I can get.

 

     As far as Wilson goes, he manages the game well and he's had some success but I think his ability to play conservative is predicated on the existence of that smothering defense and the running game.  In a lot of cases that formula works in the playoffs and I've got no problem admitting it but I don't see it as a possibility for this team right now.

lol. I like that quote. I will have to remember that.

 

I think with everything there is a balance. Not having turnovers but not leading scoring drives is not going to work obviously but if I had my choice between my QB throwing 2 TDs and no picks vs 4 TDs and 2 picks. I would take option one every time. 

 

Wilson is kind of a rare QB. He does not put up high volume stats but he makes plays all over the field with his arm and legs. He does takes risks with his play but they are calculated and rarely does he make a terrible decision. I agree that much of that is predicated on having a great defense to fall back on and Lynch. 

[Bobbycovert]

lol. I like that quote. I will have to remember that.

 

I think with everything there is a balance. Not having turnovers but not leading scoring drives is not going to work obviously but if I had my choice between my QB throwing 2 TDs and no picks vs 4 TDs and 2 picks. I would take option one every time. 

 

Wilson is kind of a rare QB. He does not put up high volume stats but he makes plays all over the field with his arm and legs. He does takes risks with his play but they are calculated and rarely does he make a terrible decision. I agree that much of that is predicated on having a great defense to fall back on and Lynch. 

 

   We just look at this differently.  I see those options you mentioned and I take 4tds with 2ints without hesitation.  My thinking is this option gives me 28pts guaranteed and puts a lot of pressure on the opposing team.  I don't necessarily love the two turnovers but, at worst I'm up by 14 (equal to your favored scenario) with a good possibility of a larger lead.  I understand that this is kinda looking at things in a vacuum which isn't realistic.  Its a lot messier in actuality and you're perspective makes sense in a lot of ways.  I still want the points though 

 

   In any case, thinking about this in a different way was pretty helpful.  I understand the conservative approach a little better now.  Thanks for talking it over.

[runthepost]

Cam lost all his wr