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

[ForJimmy]

21 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

He was/is a bad passer that never had back to back winning seasons.  Make all the excuses you want but those facts.  

 

I thought you were ignoring me 

You are blaming CAM for never having back to back winning seasons??? Wow. How many decent LTs did Cam have? Who was his best WR aside from rookie year Smith when he broke 4000 passing yards? How many back to back winning seasons did Stafford have on the Lions. It’s amazing what happens when a talented QB goes to a sound organization that puts talent all around him. Take away Stafford’s OL, elite defense, and weapons the Rams provided him and he can’t win a playoff game. Surround him with talent and he wins the Super Bowl. It’s why we have guys like Foles, Flaco, and old Manning winning. 

Now we have the Ravens letting their center (who just had a great year) walk for a cheap one year contract. You have to build a OL around these QBs once you get one. It’s the same argument you say about the Panthers. We have to draft OL to give our QB success. The first thing Brady did when he came out if retirement is get his center back on the team. 

[Mr. Scot]

7 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

They don't count because they don't support the argument of the people arguing against him.

All the "RuNnInG qBs CaNt WiN" people are just butthurt that the game has changed.

Except it hasn't, at least not in the way that quarterback athleticism or mobility can substitute or make up for poor passing.

And barring some pretty major rule changes, I seriously doubt it ever will.

Mind you, the game changes in little ways on pretty much an annual basis (especially with the aforementioned rule changes) but the core of the game largely remains.

[kungfoodude]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Except it hasn't, at least not in the way that quarterback athleticism or mobility can substitute or make up for poor passing.

And barring some pretty major rule changes, I seriously doubt it ever will.

Mind you, the game changes in little ways on pretty much an annual basis (especially with the aforementioned rule changes) but the core of the game largely remains.

The game has dramatically changed. Especially QB play. Look at how all the statues are basically all but gone from the starting QB ranks. Being athletic(albeit not necessarily a running QB) is almost a necessity at this point. While the rules have favored passing offenses, they have also made life very hard for the OL in pass protection. 

QB mobility has never been able to make up for poor passing. That has not been a thing that has ever existed in the NFL for a significant length of time. 

[ForJimmy]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

The game has dramatically changed. Especially QB play. Look at how all the statues are basically all but gone from the starting QB ranks. Being athletic(albeit not necessarily a running QB) is almost a necessity at this point. While the rules have favored passing offenses, they have also made life very hard for the OL in pass protection. 

QB mobility has never been able to make up for poor passing. That has not been a thing that has ever existed in the NFL for a significant length of time. 

Thank you! I swear people on here are acting like QBs that run aren’t capable of throwing. Murray, and Lamar are great passers and were in college. There is a guy on here that was saying Cam couldn’t pass well/ran too much and that’s why we never had back to back winning seasons (a stat that existed long before Cam arrived in Charlotte). I can’t figure out where this nonsense is coming from. Kyler Murray can throw and read defenses as can Lamar Jackson which is why they are successful in this league.

[micnificent28]

23 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Thank you! I swear people on here are acting like QBs that run aren’t capable of throwing. Murray, and Lamar are great passers and were in college. There is a guy on here that was saying Cam couldn’t pass well/ran too much and that’s why we never had back to back winning seasons (a stat that existed long before Cam arrived in Charlotte). I can’t figure out where this nonsense is coming from. Kyler Murray can throw and read defenses as can Lamar Jackson which is why they are successful in this league.

I for the life of me can't understand the resistance to the idea that the game is changing. As it has been in motion for years. Colleges are producing less pure pocket passers. Colleges for the majority do less under center work and primarily operated out of the gun. We are seeing that reflected in the pros as well.

The gun allows for the qb to see the rush coming better and take advantage of a qbs mobility. The rpo read option offense is the evolution of that. Not saying teams are doing that 100% but since a lot of quarterbacks did that in college smart coordinators in the NFL are adapting to what there qbs already did well with success.

[kungfoodude]

38 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Thank you! I swear people on here are acting like QBs that run aren’t capable of throwing. Murray, and Lamar are great passers and were in college. There is a guy on here that was saying Cam couldn’t pass well/ran too much and that’s why we never had back to back winning seasons (a stat that existed long before Cam arrived in Charlotte). I can’t figure out where this nonsense is coming from. Kyler Murray can throw and read defenses as can Lamar Jackson which is why they are successful in this league.

People just aren't accepting of the fact that the expectations of QB's changing. Being an athlete and being able to be a threat with your legs adds to the effectiveness of your throwing. It's an extra element that stresses a defense. Hence why it is valued even beyond a "running QB."

[Mr. Scot]

9 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

People just aren't accepting of the fact that the expectations of QB's changing. Being an athlete and being able to be a threat with your legs adds to the effectiveness of your throwing. It's an extra element that stresses a defense. Hence why it is valued even beyond a "running QB."

But thats not something new. It's been true since the days of Staubach and Tarkenton.

The two most active elements that I see in today's game with regard to mobile quarterbacks are...

1) Today's quarterbacks in general are better athletes then the ones of years past. So are today's defensive lineman, linebackers, offensive lineman, defensive backs and pretty much everybody else so it's hardly unique.

2) While they may be greater athletes, over the last five to ten years or so the quality of blocking among offensive lineman has most definitely gone down. So unfortunately, many quarterbacks are running because they have to.

I know folks want to act like this is some kind of seismic change in the game of football, but it's not.

[Mr. Scot]

I'd add this...

A big part of the problem is in the evaluation. Fans see a guy who can run fast, throw the ball very hard and throw it really far and think that makes the guy a good quarterback.

It doesn't.

Running fast doesn't mean anything if you can't throw it or read a defense.

Throwing the ball hard doesn't mean anything if your passes aren't catchable.

And throwing the ball far doesn't mean anything if it isn't thrown accurately.

If you really want a good quarterback, you've got to set your bar higher than just finding someone who has great physical characteristics. That's not enough. It never has been, and it still isn't.

Show me somebody who's smart, who can read a defense, who can process his information quickly and throw the ball accurately first. Then if you want to talk about physical characteristics, we can talk.

But as I've said many times, if they don't have those other things I don't care how great a physical freak they are. They're not going to be great in the NFL. They might be fun to watch, but being fun to watch doesn't win championships.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Mr. Scot

[kungfoodude]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

But thats not something new. It's been true since the days of Staubach and Tarkenton.

The two most active elements that I see in today's game with regard to mobile quarterbacks are...

1) Today's quarterbacks in general are better athletes then the ones of years past. So are today's defensive lineman, linebackers, offensive lineman, defensive backs and pretty much everybody else so it's hardly unique.

2) While they may be greater athletes, over the last five to ten years or so the quality of blocking among offensive lineman has most definitely gone down. So unfortunately, many quarterbacks are running because they have to.

I know folks want to act like this is some kind of seismic change in the game of football, but it's not.

The difference is that being an athlete is almost a requirement now, because of the factors you and I have mentioned. 

The idea that running QB's don't have value or aren't successful is as ridiculous as saying the QB position hasn't changed dramatically because of the increased athletic ability of the average NFL QB.

The game changed and being athletic was a part of that.

[kungfoodude]

34 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'd add this...

A big part of the problem is in the evaluation. Fans see a guy who can run fast, throw the ball very hard and throw it really far and think that makes the guy a good quarterback.

It doesn't.

Running fast doesn't mean anything if you can't throw it or read a defense.

Throwing the ball hard doesn't mean anything if your passes aren't catchable.

And throwing the ball far doesn't mean anything if it isn't thrown accurately.

If you really want a good quarterback, you've got to set your bar higher than just finding someone who has great physical characteristics. That's not enough. It never has been, and it still isn't.

Show me somebody who's smart, who can read a defense, who can process his information quickly and throw the ball accurately first. Then if you want to talk about physical characteristics, we can talk.

But as I've said many times, if they don't have those other things I don't care how great a physical freak they are. They're not going to be great in the NFL. They might be fun to watch, but being fun to watch doesn't win championships.

Fine but you are quite literally ignoring that the NFL examples referenced don't have major accuracy issues. 

Running QB's that can't hit the broadside of a barn(The Golden Calf of Bristol for example) don't survive long in the NFL.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Fine but you are quite literally ignoring that the NFL examples referenced don't have major accuracy issues. 

Running QB's that can't hit the broadside of a barn(The Golden Calf of Bristol for example) don't survive long in the NFL.

Never said they did.

I don't have a problem with mobility or running ability. What I disagree with is the notion that you can take any guy who's a great athlete and just teach him to be a great quarterback.

If they can't throw with at least a Brett Favre standard of accuracy or read a defense on some level by the time they're in college, I seriously doubt they're going to make it in the NFL.

The athletic stuff is, and always should be, a secondary consideration to actual quarterback skills.

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Never said they did.

I don't have a problem with mobility or running ability. What I disagree with is the notion that you can take any guy who's a great athlete and just teach him to be a great quarterback.

If they can't throw with at least a Brett Favre standard of accuracy or read a defense on some level by the time they're in college, I seriously doubt they're going to make it in the NFL.

The athletic stuff is, and always should be, a secondary consideration to actual quarterback skills.

Brett Favre is a pretty bad example by accuracy standards. He's basically a backup by today's @ standard 

[frankw]

Favre has a career 62% completion through two decades. I legitimately think we may need a separate subforum for the football purists and old timers who just want to reminisce about how the game used to be played.

[Mr. Scot]

6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Brett Favre is a pretty bad example by accuracy standards. He's basically a backup by today's @ standard 

Favre was who I always compared Newton to.

He had "general vicinity" accuracy most of the time but was wildly inconsistent. He could throw something that looked like it was laser-guided on one pass and then throw one immediately after that made you wonder if he needed corrective lenses.

Yes, you can win with that kind of quarterback if you build around them properly (the Packers and Panthers both showed that) but it's going to be a lot more challenging than it would be with, say, a Drew Brees or Peyton Manning level passer.