Mike Evans: "I did my time with a mobile quarterback"

[Snake]

I for one am glad we are not chasing around a QB in our Div. Brees is the most mobile and that's a good thing.

[bleys]

....and it got you selected in the top of the draft.

Don't be mad..

[@bonafidebanter]

Don't be mad..

 

Mad? For what? 

[caatfan]

"I did my time with a mobile quarterback" = 'I served my sentence with a mobile QB' = 'I don't care how the team does, as long as I get lots of passes thrown my way'. 

[Mr. Scot]

If WRs would actually take advantage of a QB scrambling around and use that extra time to create separation then it would create more opportunities for big plays being made.  I honestly don't understand why Seattle seems to be the only fuging team that gets this.

 

Seriously.  Watch a bunch of Seattle games and pay attention to what those "no name receivers" are doing when Wilson starts scrambling around.  They're scrambling their asses off around with him until the defense breaks and he hits a wide open man.  Usually for some ridiculous big play that crushes the other team's spirits.

 

You know what our receivers usually do when Cam starts running for his life?  Stand around and watch it unfold.  Pisses me off when Seahawk fans bitch about their receivers.  They literally have the perfect receiving corps for their QB.

 

The only time we ever really had a receiver (yes receiver, not receiving corps like Wilson has been blessed with) do this for Cam was 2011 Steve Smith.  Smitty still did it in spurts later on, but even he slacked off at times.

 

It's not really an "advantage" to a receiver.  Quite the opposite.

 

What receivers like best is when they run a route on a play to a spot where the ball is supposed to be delivered, and the ball is there.  When you have a quarterback running all over the place, the routes can break down and they have to improvise.  You can call that 'lazy' if you want, but the reality is regardless of how athletic you are, option two is more difficult than option one.

 

Now the ideal scenario is your quarterback, regardless of whether or not he's mobile, throws the ball where it's supposed to be.  And the probability of that happening has a lot less to do with whether the quarterback is capable of running or not. 

 

It's primarily dependent on two factors:

 

1) Does the quarterback make quick reads, quick decisions and accurate throws?

 

2) Does the offensive line give the quarterback enough time to do what he needs to do?

 

If those two factors happen, then it doesn't matter whether your quarterback is as fast as Michael Vick or as slow as Dan Marino.  Your plays will work.

 

Having a mobile quarterback is a nice thing, but if you're doing it right at the offensive line, then he shouldn't have to depend on that.

 

End Result: Evans statement would make much more sense if he worded it as "I did my time with a panicky, inaccurate quarterback and a bad offensive line".

[RelaxImaPro]

It's not really an "advantage" to a receiver.  Quite the opposite.

 

What receivers like best is when they run a route on a play to a spot where the ball is supposed to be delivered, and the ball is there.  When you have a quarterback running all over the place, the routes can break down and they have to improvise.  You can call that 'lazy' if you want, but the reality is regardless of how athletic you are, option two is more difficult than option one.

 

Now the ideal scenario is your quarterback, regardless of whether or not he's mobile, throws the ball where it's supposed to be.  And the probability of that happening has a lot less to do with whether the quarterback is capable of running or not. 

 

It's primarily dependent on two factors:

 

1) Does the quarterback make quick reads, quick decisions and accurate throws?

 

2) Does the offensive line give the quarterback enough time to do what he needs to do?

 

If those two factors happen, then it doesn't matter whether your quarterback is as fast as Michael Vick or as slow as Dan Marino.  Your plays will work.

 

Having a mobile quarterback is a nice thing, but if you're doing it right at the offensive line, then he shouldn't have to depend on that.

 

End Result: Evans statement would make much more sense if he worded it as "I did my time with a panicky, inaccurate quarterback and a bad offensive line".

 

Uh okay, I know all that.  Point still stands that it CAN be an advantage if you coach it into your WR corps.  Look at Seattle... the receivers running the scramble drills together in synch until the defense breaks is damn near well over half of their passing attack.  The Seahawks don't throw nearly enough for any one receiver to rack up a lot of stats - mainly thanks to Marshawn Lynch, and partially thanks to the fact they don't need to with that sort of passing system.  They all manage to get huge wide open plays due to the scramble drill and coming back to the ball.  

 

I already gave an example of it working out well for a receiver: our very own Steve Smith.  He gave it his all to make sure he was getting open for Cam in 2011.  Selling out his body for catches, coming back to the ball, running as Cam was running.  He also had an amazing season that year as a result.  So it's obviously something that works with Cam (even though it never happens).  Steve just happened to get a bit lazy with it as the seasons racked up and he got older.

 

It's not traditional by any means, but it fuging works.  I've seen it work time and time again from the Seahawks.  These type of plays are usually back-breaking plays for the opposing defense.  It's one reason why Wilson is "so good" at throwing on the run.  Because his receivers help him out while he's running.

 

Now with all that said, would I like for Cam to stand tall in the pocket and throw darts on time where they're supposed to be?  Of course I would.  I only want him running around when he needs too (and the receivers NEED to run with him).  But first off we actually have to get him an offensive line that can protect him well enough to consistently do that.

[Mr. Scot]

Uh okay, I know all that. Point still stands that it CAN be an advantage if you coach it into your WR corps. Look at Seattle... the receivers running the scramble drills together in synch until the defense breaks is damn near well over half of their passing attack. The Seahawks don't throw nearly enough for any one receiver to rack up a lot of stats - mainly thanks to Marshawn Lynch, and partially thanks to the fact they don't need to with that sort of passing system. They all manage to get huge wide open plays due to the scramble drill and coming back to the ball.

I already gave an example of it working out well for a receiver: our very own Steve Smith. He gave it his all to make sure he was getting open for Cam in 2011. Selling out his body for catches, coming back to the ball, running as Cam was running. He also had an amazing season that year as a result. So it's obviously something that works with Cam (even though it never happens). Steve just happened to get a bit lazy with it as the seasons racked up and he got older.

It's not traditional by any means, but it fuging works. I've seen it work time and time again from the Seahawks. These type of plays are usually back-breaking plays for the opposing defense. It's one reason why Wilson is "so good" at throwing on the run. Because his receivers help him out while he's running.

Now with all that said, would I like for Cam to stand tall in the pocket and throw darts on time where they're supposed to be? Of course I would. I only want him running around when he needs too (and the receivers NEED to run with him). But first off we actually have to get him an offensive line that can protect him well enough to consistently do that.

I know I'm going to offend Hawk when I say this, but I honestly would not want to emulate Seattle on offense.

Seattle's MO of late is that they can look mediocre for an entire game, and then suddenly pull a win out of their ass in the fourth quarter on two or three big plays.

Now to be fair, there was a time when that was our profile too. Delhomme was a master of that.

I'd just rather not go back to it.