How dangerous is Willis as a runner? What makes him special?

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

I'm saying he isn't really a duel threat. His rushing ability isn't something you can take advantage of. If I have to worry about the threat of you running any given down it could cause a mistake in coverage, make a DB hesitant anything, just create more opportunities. I'm not saying running solves darnolds problems.

I think he never looks comfortable in the pocket and has consistent happy feet. What I'm saying with Willis is day 1. You have probably a top 3 rushing threat as far as running quarterbacks go in the league you are going to have to respect that. That's a floor. At worse ot creates opportunities opens throwing lanes whatever. 

A top 10 arm that can challenge any spot on the field. His mobility is going to make DBs have to play in coverage longer than they would like which creates opportunities. Yes he's not drew Brees in terms of processing yet. But from what I seen he's a better thrower than Newton coming out of the draft. He can change up his pitches and has good deep ball accuracy.

Dude, if you're really gonna try to say that Darnold's could be a better quarterback if he had Willis's athleticism, you're losing this debate.

But if that's that you want to stick with, lemme give you another quarterback who was acknowledged to be a superior athlete.

Tim Te... I'm not gonna say the rest of his name but you know who I mean.

Same question: If things like processing and accuracy aren't that big a deal and all you need is the ability to run and throw it really far, why isn't that guy still in the nfl?

And no, the answer doesn't have anything to do with any comparisons you want to make between him and Willis.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, micnificent28 said:

Ok Staubach was superior to Vick in every way.... lol stop it.

As an athlete, no.

As a quarterback? Absolutely.

[micnificent28]

7 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Noo no.no no no.

 

 

Staubach was Vicks superior in every single possible way. It's not even close. 

Staubach is probably top 10 of all time as far as QBs go. He was the best QB of a decade in a career shorted by the War on the Front end and 6 concussions on the back end.

 

Vick was an average NFL QB I doubt he makes the top 100 QBs list.

 

 

So you are telling me Staubach was faster than Micheal vick and a better runner with the football than Micheal vick who is the all time leading rusher and only qb to run for 1000 yards in a season runner Micheal vick?

[micnificent28]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

As an athlete, no.

As a quarterback? Absolutely.

Oh and I agree. I'm not arguing vick was a better qb. 

[micnificent28]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Dude, if you're really gonna try to say that Darnold's could be a better quarterback if he had Willis's athleticism, you're losing this debate.

But if that's that you want to stick with, lemme give you another quarterback who was acknowledged to be a superior athlete.

Tim Te... I'm not gonna say the rest of his name but you know who I mean.

Same question: If things like processing and accuracy aren't that big a deal and all you need is the ability to run and throw it really far, why isn't that guy still in the nfl?

And no, the answer doesn't have anything to do with any comparisons you want to make between him and Willis.

I don't think we should compare Willis to darnold at all. Let's forget that. What I'm saying is quarterbacks who can buy time with their legs like the guys of old you mentioned fran and rodger can create throwing opportunities that might not be there because of coverage. Buy 1 tenth of a second could be the difference between a touchdown and a sack. 

Qbs who can create havoc with their legs just give the offense more ways to stress a defense.  If you had to respect Darnold like you would have to respect Willis do I think it would open up more chances for him to "throw touchdowns" yes. Because the defense can't committ as many guys to coverage. I'm not arguing for a all in running qb like 20 carries a game. I think 7-8 at most is enough to scare defenses. 

I would prefer my qb be surgical with the football but if we can't find a surgeon give me a butcher who can carve up defenses. My projection on Willis all upside. He's not surgical yet, but he's a butcher day 1. 

[ForJimmy]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Where have I ever said that winning and losing aren't team things?

But if that's the route that you want to go, then answer this:

Can we win with Sam Darnold?

You claimed Vick wasn’t a good passer. I showed where get got better instantly with a better coach. Then you said, but he didn’t win (referring to the playoffs). My point is that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good passer. I showed you examples of below average QBs winning in the playoffs (in fact winning the Super Bowl) to show those two things aren’t always related.

 

I’m not sure we can win with Darnold. He just folds so quickly under pressure and has lost the confidence of our staff and some of our players… 

[ForJimmy]

47 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I dont think bias is the word you are looking for here.  I think the bulk of us just realize our situation as a franchise and think there is simply no way we can afford to draft a kid like willis.  We just are not set up for that type of project.  His flaws are in direct contrast with what we need at the moment.

I agree with this. It’s in the best interest for us and for Willis if he goes somewhere else. We need help quickly and would not be the ideal staff/team to develop a QB with his talents. The bias remarks are more directed at posters thinking he will bust simply because he can run too. That is nonsense. 

[kungfoodude]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

If we have a winning season next year, I'm going to say "well that was fun".

I'm also going to say "sh-t, another year of Matt Rhule".

Glass always slightly off...

Yeah, the Rhule thing has soured me pretty badly.

[Mr. Scot]

28 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

I don't think we should compare Willis to darnold at all. Let's forget that. What I'm saying is quarterbacks who can buy time with their legs like the guys of old you mentioned fran and rodger can create throwing opportunities that might not be there because of coverage. Buy 1 tenth of a second could be the difference between a touchdown and a sack. 

Qbs who can create havoc with their legs just give the offense more ways to stress a defense.  If you had to respect Darnold like you would have to respect Willis do I think it would open up more chances for him to "throw touchdowns" yes. Because the defense can't committ as many guys to coverage. I'm not arguing for a all in running qb like 20 carries a game. I think 7-8 at most is enough to scare defenses. 

I would prefer my qb be surgical with the football but if we can't find a surgeon give me a butcher who can carve up defenses. My projection on Willis all upside. He's not surgical yet, but he's a butcher day 1. 

It doesn't matter how much time you can buy to make a throw if you can't throw an accurate pass.

And if you aren't reading the defense properly when you do make the throw, chances are you're gonna get a bad result.

Again, all the athleticism in the world isn't going to save you from being a bad passer.

[Mr. Scot]

20 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

You claimed Vick wasn’t a good passer. I showed where get got better instantly with a better coach. Then you said, but he didn’t win (referring to the playoffs). My point is that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good passer. I showed you examples of below average QBs winning in the playoffs (in fact winning the Super Bowl) to show those two things aren’t always related.

I’m not sure we can win with Darnold. He just folds so quickly under pressure and has lost the confidence of our staff and some of our players… 

Stats aren't what determine how good a passer someone is. We've had plenty of arguments about just how deficient stats are when it comes to judging football performance in general, but especially quarterbacks. Vick was not good on that front, and the reasons weren't physical.

As to Darnold, the reason I asked that is he's a perfect example of a quarterback who has the physical tools but doesn't have what he really needs.

And the answer is no, you can't win with someone who doesn't have those things.

[micnificent28]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It doesn't matter how much time you can buy to make a throw if you can't throw an accurate pass.

And if you aren't reading the defense properly when you do make the throw, chances are you're gonna get a bad result.

Again, all the athleticism in the world isn't going to save you from being a bad passer.

But who's saying he can't throw? You make it seem like he is just a guy running around without skill and can't read defenses. He at worst has general vicinity accuracy and proved to be more accurate than the others I'm a accuracy competition... not bad for a running back 

https://twitter.com/ChaseGoodbread/status/1489358463180410884?s=20&t=n04r2Vu-PWpVTBQhcC3o_w

[DaveThePanther2008]

9 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

He at worst has general vicinity accuracy

In the NFL general vicinity = Interception

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

I will say this before the draft.  If we choose Willis I will be 100% behind him and will not hope he fails to prove my point. 

Me too, but I'll be highly surprised if we do draft him at 6. He's raw as hell, and I just don't see any good coming from it. He needs time to learn, point blank and period.

[micnificent28]

7 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

In the NFL general vicinity = Interception

I used that term because that's the way Mr Scott described Cam and quarterbacks like farve. Not pinpoint but in the general area of the right throw. That said I think he's better than what your saying.