Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Running QBs don’t win Superb Owls


Recommended Posts

We can go o-line in this draft, and QB in 2023. No more trading away the future for mediocre QBs in the present. That's how we got to the bottom of the NFL, so I think we're learning not to do that. Our GM is not bright, (see Sam Darnold) but even he can figure out what isn't working. Sadly for us the damage is done, but we can slowly recover with the right decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Let's define some terms here...

Running Quarterbacks: quarterbacks who can run but are lousy to mediocre passers (example: Michael Vick)

Mobile Quarterbacks: quarterbacks who are capable of scrambling to set up passes but aren't necessarily run threats that you have to game plan against (example: Russell Wilson)

Dual Threats: quarterbacks that are capable of being a run threat while also being great passers (example: Steve Young)

Pocket Passers: quarterbacks who rarely run unless they need to, but aren't necessarily immobile (example: Tom Brady)

Here Here to Mr. Scot!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

It must be hell for you living in a world where everything is about race.

It’s hilarious who you choose to attack and go after in threads like this. Not the poster who is being clear with his intent, but the ones calling it out. 
 

Dude called McNabb a running QB but wants to label Allen as “mobile” lmao. You want to go after the one calling it out though.

  • Pie 3
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if all a QB can do is run then he’s probably not going to win a super bowl. If he can run and throw, like Cam, Wilson, Young, Lamar, etc then he can. If Willis is determined to be a The Golden Calf of Bristol or RG3 passer rather than a Cam or Wilson passer then I don’t want him. There’s no telling which category he falls into in the pros yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a kid, Fran Tarkenton and Roger Staubach were the 2 nightmares for defenses at the time.  Tarkenton could run 65 yds in one play, but not down the field, he kept moving just so he could pass.  Roger could do the same, but would go down the field much more.  Tarkenton was a good passer and mobile, went to 3 Superbowls and lost them all.  Staubach had more success there.

Unless you have an incredible Oline, which Brady and Manning always seem to get, then you had better learn to move.  Changing defenses in the last 20 years have dictated that legs and arms are important to keep a defense honest. And QB's beware if you are gonna take off with the ball.  Becoming a "runner" when you cross the line of scrimmage  in todays NFL, can shorten your career.  Cam and Allen can get by with it somewhat because they are in LB bodies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Yes, if all a QB can do is run then he’s probably not going to win a super bowl. If he can run and throw, like Cam, Wilson, Young, Lamar, etc then he can. If Willis is determined to be a The Golden Calf of Bristol or RG3 passer rather than a Cam or Wilson passer then I don’t want him. There’s no telling which category he falls into in the pros yet. 

Te-bow is probably the best example of a running quarterback I've seen in a long, long time.

His mechanics were so horrible I wouldn't even call what he did "passing". It was more like "flinging".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Te-bow is probably the best example of a running quarterback I've seen in a long, long time.

His mechanics were so horrible I wouldn't even call what he did "passing". It was more like "flinging".

I guess my point is QBs like The Golden Calf of Bristol can’t last in the league period. You have to be able to throw as well. He lasted what 2-3 years? I think Vick was a better passer than he is getting credit for the Falcons just didn’t develop him. Andy Reid turned him into a much better passer. So the whole thing is weird and kind of pointless. Is there a QB that has played 10 plus years that couldn’t throw the ball?? It’s like saying QBs than can’t read defenses don’t win Super Bowls. Well yeah they don’t make it period.. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I guess my point is QBs like The Golden Calf of Bristol can’t last in the league period. You have to be able to throw as well. He lasted what 2-3 years? I think Vick was a better passer than he is getting credit for the Falcons just didn’t develop him. Andy Reid turned him into a much better passer. So the whole thing is weird and kind of pointless. Is there a QB that has played 10 plus years that couldn’t throw the ball?? It’s like saying QBs than can’t read defenses don’t win Super Bowls. Well yeah they don’t make it period.. 

cam? He was always been a mediocre passer 

  • Poo 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AggieLean said:

The same coded bs we went through in 2010 lol. 
 

And it’s obvious with the OP and those on his side trying to protect Allen by not calling him a running QB.

First thing I thought of. Literally said, as soon as I saw this thread, "not this poo again."

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...