Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bugg

Running QBs, slow white guys, fast black guys, age

Recommended Posts

Chew on that for a while.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/02/quarterback_injuries_are_mobile_qbs_like_colin_kaepernick_more_injury_prone.single.html

This year’s Super Bowl matchup shows you don’t need a particular type of quarterback to win in the NFL. The Ravens’ Joe Flacco has 38 rushing yards this season. The 49ers’ Colin Kaepernick ran for 56 yards on a single touchdown gallop against the Packers a few weeks ago. But in the long term, when you’re building a franchise, which kind of signal-caller is the better bet?

Conventional wisdom says a runner is more likely to get hurt than a stay-in-the-pocket statue. Just ask Joe Flacco, who told the assembled press on Wednesday that “quarterbacks like [Kaepernick] are eventually going to have to become mostly pocket passers to survive in this league.”

This belief is shared by NFL personnel gurus. During the 2011 season, then-Colts vice chairman Bill Polian was deciding whether to draft pocket passer Andrew Luck or the mobile Robert Griffin III as Peyton Manning’s successor. Polian was ultimately fired before he got to make that call, but he let Sports Illustrated’s Peter King in on his thinking regardless. "I'd probably pick Luck,” Polian said. “When you boil it all down, you worry about running quarterbacks getting hurt."

But is this correct—are mobile quarterbacks like Kaepernick, Michael Vick, and RGIII, more prone to getting hurt than conventional passers such as Flacco, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady? Anecdotes can’t offer a clear answer. Vick, RGIII, Manning, and Brady have all suffered serious injuries. Kaepernick’s career also demonstrates how contradictory the evidence can be when cherry-picked. He wasn’t allowed to run the ball in high school for fear of injury, yet he won his starting role this season because Alex Smith—who ran the ball much less frequently than Kaepernick—suffered a concussion, likely as the result of a quarterback sneak.

Theorizing about the risks of mobility can’t take us very far, either. Don’t Brady and Manning seem more secure, protected by a phalanx of 300-pounders at all times? Or maybe they’re in even more danger, since they survey the field while defenders charge at them from all angles. Mobile quarterbacks can at least choose to some extent which hits to take. They can slide. They can run out of bounds. And with their attention not always focused 30 yards downfield, they may be better able to prepare for impact.

We tried to shed some light on the injury question by collecting quarterback injury data and applying some basic statistical tests. Our first challenge was to decide how to measure injury. Since Football Outsiders’ “adjusted games lost” index goes back only a few years, we pieced together our own data. Players hobble to the bench during games and miss a few plays or entire quarters, but starts lost due to injury (as a percentage of total likely starts) is a commonsense measure of “how injured” a quarterback is during a given season.

Using online databases and news reports, we put together a list of regular-season games started and starts lost to injury—not suspension or benching—for each team’s primary starting quarterback between 2002 and 2012. This yielded 324 total observations over 11 seasons. We omitted a handful of seasons for which quarterback carousels made it difficult to judge who might have started had all QBs been healthy. We also omitted midseason replacements like Kaepernick, instead choosing one primary starter per team per year. (Based on his play as Alex Smith’s replacement, Kaepernick will go into next season as the 49ers’ starter and be counted that way in the next iteration of this study.) Next, for each quarterback season, we collected data on a set of variables we thought might explain injury rates: rushing and passing numbers, sacks, age, and weight.

The test we were most interested in was the most straightforward. If we separate the mobile quarterbacks from the conventional ones, which group misses more starts due to injury? We used a couple of different metrics to separate the Vicks from the Bradys: rush attempts per start and rush attempts per total number of plays called for the quarterback (what we call “rush share”). We also realized that our results might depend on whether we looked at games lost over a quarterback’s entire career instead of treating each QB season as a separate observation, so we decided to measure both. Finally, we ensured that each of the four total ways of separating “mobile” passers from the rest yielded a reasonable set of names. For instance, when mobility is defined by four or more rushes per start over a regular-season career, nine of 82 players in the dataset qualify: Michael Vick, Robert Griffin III, Vince Young, Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Quincy Carter, Colt McCoy, Cam Newton, and Tim Tebow. (Kaepernick would also qualify under the four-rushes-per-start criterion.)

As you’ll see in the chart below, regardless of how we sliced the data, there was no statistically significant difference in injury rates between mobile and conventional quarterbacks. Quarterbacks of both types tend to lose 11 to 14 percent of their starts to injury. Even without counting the thus-far injury-free Kaepernick, three of the four tests produced a lower injury rate for mobile quarterbacks. The gap, though, is small enough that a statistician would call it zero.

130131_SN_Quarterbacks1.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg

This was an intriguing finding. We were worried, though, that we had made too coarse a distinction between quarterback types, so we turned to regression analysis to understand if any combination of variables might explain why we see high injury rates in some quarterback seasons and low rates in others.<a name="_GoBack"> Again, we found no relationship between rush share and starts missed due to injury. This held even when we controlled for age and weight—neither of which were found to have an effect on health—and also for injuries in the season prior, which did turn out to be a weak but statistically significant predictor of injury in any given year.

It turns out that the only gameplay variable that explains injuries with any statistical significance is sacks. On average, a 1 percent increase in sack share—the percentage of plays called for the QB that end in a sack—is associated with a 2.6 percent rise in starts missed due to injury (0.7 percent standard error). This link holds when we use the career-wise dataset and when we use sacks per start instead of sack share.

Skeptics might protest the main finding for two reasons. First, running quarterbacks could have shorter careers because of their bruising style of play. If this were true, though, we’d expect them to sustain more injuries while in the league, and they don’t. Second, maybe types of injury are different between mobile and conventional quarterbacks. We tallied up all the start-quashing injuries suffered by each quarterback in our sample, not double counting any repeated damage across years to the same body part, and classified each into four categories: head/neck, hands/arms/shoulders, torso/back, and feet/legs/groin.

130131_SN_Quarterbacks2.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg

A comparison using this admittedly simple procedure reveals almost no difference between injury-type distributions for the two groups. In each group, the lower body took the most punishment, and just more than 10 percent of injuries affected the head or neck. If mobility is a major determinant of quarterback health, we would expect this comparison to reveal a difference, but the injury patterns are remarkably similar.

In sum, it seems that standing in the pocket is just as dangerous as scrambling around. Yes, RGIII left the Redskins’ playoff game with his knee twisted so badly that you hoped Fox was experimenting with in-game CGI. But when we take the long view, serious injury doesn’t discriminate based on one’s ability to race.

At least one puzzle remains, though. Since sacks are the only significant predictor of injury other than prior medical history, it is tempting to tell a story in which mobile quarterbacks evade sacks more successfully, thus compensating for the injury risk inherent in rushing upfield. Yet the dataset reveals that mobile quarterbacks are sacked slightly more often than are conventional QBs. We can show that mobility doesn’t have a negative effect on health, but we can’t explain exactly how running quarterbacks are able to avoid additional risk.

We aren’t necessarily jumping on the read-option bandwagon, either. There’s still plenty to debate regarding the effectiveness of mobile quarterbacks. They may be less useful in two-minute drills, and their main advantage—speed—may wane quickly with age. But we hope to have shown that, based on the evidence available, conventional fears about quarterback rushing and injury risk may be overblown. If a general manager wants to protect a top draft pick, he should shore up the offensive line and cross his fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.
Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.

This is derp city. The running QB doesn't win the Super Bowl because they don't get through 18 games (plus pre-season) healthy enough to run in the playoffs. Kaepernick is healthy only because he's only played half a season. Let him go out there and run into linebackers for 16 games, then make the Super Bowl. Elway and Steve Young will tell you that you can't get through a playoff run by scrambling, because you'll die.

The difference between Brady, the Mannings, Luck, etc is that--while they get injured, too--they come back post-injury as the same player. If Andrew Luck breaks both legs, he can still come back and play the same game. If RGIII breaks a leg, he has to become an entirely different player.

Edited by T0mShane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neither team is here because of the QB, that is the story. they are 2 well balanced tough teams that hit the crap out of you

Think the Broncos might disagree. Whwt ever you think of Flacco, he made a great pass to get his team to OT in Denver.

This may be overthinking things. Steve Young and Fran Tarkenton, off the top of my head, had tough endings both at 38, but whwew very effective until then because, like Elway, they became more classic drop abck passers. Tarkenton was either their only option or such a big deal that they allowed him to play all 16 games and throw 32 INTs. Remarkbalke while I think of these guys as "running" QBs they statistically are not really comparables. Mike Vick is not gewtting to play at 38, may be not even 34, because he will not amke the transition.

http://www.pro-footb.../T/TarkFr00.htm

http://www.pro-footb.../Y/YounSt00.htm

http://www.pro-footb.../V/VickMi00.htm

Edited by Bugg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the Broncos might disagree. Whwt ever you think of Flacco, he made a great pass to get his team to OT in Denver.

This may be overthinking things. Steve Young and Fran Tarkenton, off the top of my head, had tough endings both at 38, but whwew very effective until then because, like Elway, they became more classic drop abck passers. Tarkenton was either their only option or such a big deal that they allowed him to play all 16 games and throw 32 INTs. Remarkbalke while I think of these guys as "running" QBs they statistically are not really comparables. Mike Vick is not gewtting to play at 38, may be not even 34, because he will not amke the transition.

http://www.pro-footb.../T/TarkFr00.htm

http://www.pro-footb.../Y/YounSt00.htm

http://www.pro-footb.../V/VickMi00.htm

denver is an example of not hitting the crap out of you, and relying too much on a QB who choked in OT. don't forget coaching. Denvers HC choked as well

jim H is an ass, but his team plays like the team I fantasize about the jets becoming. tough smart and fast.

so this SB is about a well coached, tough smart team getting to the SB

it's not always about the QB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, both types of QB's get hurt.. The propensity for injury is less of a factor then post injury effectiveness. Post injury, the pure pocket passer can still be successful in this league, whereas a guy like RG3 is unlikely to have the same success without the threat to run.

Edited by CTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're out of your mind if you don't think QB play has been the driving force behind these 2 teams. Kaepernick had one of the greatest postseason games of all-time against the Packers, then guided the Niners back from down 17 to beat the Falcons. Flacco has made anyone who thought he was an average QB look plain silly all postseason long. He's made a case that he's the best deep-ball thrower in the NFL.

The Niner defense especially hasn't performed spectacularly this postseason, yet they're here. The Raven defense battled with injuries all season long, yet they're here. I wonder why?

Naturally, whichever team gets better QB play today will win. Yet to some of you it'll be because "Team X's defense shut Team Y's offense down" and nothing more.

Edited by Jetsfan80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how good or what style a QB is if he doesn't have a good balanced team around him and luck.

Marino

Moon

Cunningham

Jaws

McNair

Kelly

Vick

Boomer

Kreig

McNabb

Anderson

Fouts

Vinny

Some of the best white, black or other. pocket, mobile or combo QBs not to win a super bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how good or what style a QB is if he doesn't have a good balanced team around him and luck.

Marino

Moon

Cunningham

Jaws

McNair

Kelly

Vick

Boomer

Kreig

McNabb

Anderson

Fouts

Vinny

Some of the best white, black or other. pocket, mobile or combo QBs not to win a super bowl.

The President and Vice President of the "Close but no Lombardi club". Repeat offenders division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neither team is here because of the QB, that is the story. they are 2 well balanced tough teams that hit the crap out of you

Flacco had a postseason that only Joe Montana had. I would say he was one of the biggest reasons the Ravens won.

And this theory that balanced teams win is just pointless to me. Great teams win. Bad teams wind up 4-12. Great QBs win super bowls.

And Joe Flacco has been the best postseason QB the past few seasons. This year? 11 TDs and 0 INTs. Nobody but Montana did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flacco had a postseason that only Joe Montana had. I would say he was one of the biggest reasons the Ravens won.

And this theory that balanced teams win is just pointless to me. Great teams win. Bad teams wind up 4-12. Great QBs win super bowls.

And Joe Flacco has been the best postseason QB the past few seasons. This year? 11 TDs and 0 INTs. Nobody but Montana did that.

drew brees in 2009 had 8 tds and 0 INTs in just 3 games

just a random fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drew brees in 2009 had 8 tds and 0 INTs in just 3 games

just a random fact

There are a few QBs who have 0 INTs. Brees, Montana, Aikman, etc. Only Montana and Flacoo had 11 and 0.

But what is the argument. Drew Brees is an elite QB. He's a guy who throws for 5000 yards and 40 TDs every year. Throwing Flacco's name around with guys like Montana, Brees, Aikman, etc kind of say something about him. To discredit him is to not accept the reality that he is one of the best QBs in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few QBs who have 0 INTs. Brees, Montana, Aikman, etc. Only Montana and Flacoo had 11 and 0.

But what is the argument. Drew Brees is an elite QB. He's a guy who throws for 5000 yards and 40 TDs every year. Throwing Flacco's name around with guys like Montana, Brees, Aikman, etc kind of say something about him. To discredit him is to not accept the reality that he is one of the best QBs in the NFL.

he's not top 5 but he's top 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is derp city. The running QB doesn't win the Super Bowl because they don't get through 18 games (plus pre-season) healthy enough to run in the playoffs. Kaepernick is healthy only because he's only played half a season. Let him go out there and run into linebackers for 16 games, then make the Super Bowl. Elway and Steve Young will tell you that you can't get through a playoff run by scrambling, because you'll die.

The difference between Brady, the Mannings, Luck, etc is that--while they get injured, too--they come back post-injury as the same player. If Andrew Luck breaks both legs, he can still come back and play the same game. If RGIII breaks a leg, he has to become an entirely different player.

exactly ...when you watch Kapernick he has a great arm but his delivery is slow long and deliberate. If the element of run is taken away from him, if he eventually breaks down, things will be much different for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chew on that for a while.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/02/quarterback_injuries_are_mobile_qbs_like_colin_kaepernick_more_injury_prone.single.html

This year’s Super Bowl matchup shows you don’t need a particular type of quarterback to win in the NFL. The Ravens’ Joe Flacco has 38 rushing yards this season. The 49ers’ Colin Kaepernick ran for 56 yards on a single touchdown gallop against the Packers a few weeks ago. But in the long term, when you’re building a franchise, which kind of signal-caller is the better bet?

Conventional wisdom says a runner is more likely to get hurt than a stay-in-the-pocket statue. Just ask Joe Flacco, who told the assembled press on Wednesday that “quarterbacks like [Kaepernick] are eventually going to have to become mostly pocket passers to survive in this league.”

This belief is shared by NFL personnel gurus. During the 2011 season, then-Colts vice chairman Bill Polian was deciding whether to draft pocket passer Andrew Luck or the mobile Robert Griffin III as Peyton Manning’s successor. Polian was ultimately fired before he got to make that call, but he let Sports Illustrated’s Peter King in on his thinking regardless. "I'd probably pick Luck,” Polian said. “When you boil it all down, you worry about running quarterbacks getting hurt."

But is this correct—are mobile quarterbacks like Kaepernick, Michael Vick, and RGIII, more prone to getting hurt than conventional passers such as Flacco, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady? Anecdotes can’t offer a clear answer. Vick, RGIII, Manning, and Brady have all suffered serious injuries. Kaepernick’s career also demonstrates how contradictory the evidence can be when cherry-picked. He wasn’t allowed to run the ball in high school for fear of injury, yet he won his starting role this season because Alex Smith—who ran the ball much less frequently than Kaepernick—suffered a concussion, likely as the result of a quarterback sneak.

Theorizing about the risks of mobility can’t take us very far, either. Don’t Brady and Manning seem more secure, protected by a phalanx of 300-pounders at all times? Or maybe they’re in even more danger, since they survey the field while defenders charge at them from all angles. Mobile quarterbacks can at least choose to some extent which hits to take. They can slide. They can run out of bounds. And with their attention not always focused 30 yards downfield, they may be better able to prepare for impact.

We tried to shed some light on the injury question by collecting quarterback injury data and applying some basic statistical tests. Our first challenge was to decide how to measure injury. Since Football Outsiders’ “adjusted games lost” index goes back only a few years, we pieced together our own data. Players hobble to the bench during games and miss a few plays or entire quarters, but starts lost due to injury (as a percentage of total likely starts) is a commonsense measure of “how injured” a quarterback is during a given season.

Using online databases and news reports, we put together a list of regular-season games started and starts lost to injury—not suspension or benching—for each team’s primary starting quarterback between 2002 and 2012. This yielded 324 total observations over 11 seasons. We omitted a handful of seasons for which quarterback carousels made it difficult to judge who might have started had all QBs been healthy. We also omitted midseason replacements like Kaepernick, instead choosing one primary starter per team per year. (Based on his play as Alex Smith’s replacement, Kaepernick will go into next season as the 49ers’ starter and be counted that way in the next iteration of this study.) Next, for each quarterback season, we collected data on a set of variables we thought might explain injury rates: rushing and passing numbers, sacks, age, and weight.

The test we were most interested in was the most straightforward. If we separate the mobile quarterbacks from the conventional ones, which group misses more starts due to injury? We used a couple of different metrics to separate the Vicks from the Bradys: rush attempts per start and rush attempts per total number of plays called for the quarterback (what we call “rush share”). We also realized that our results might depend on whether we looked at games lost over a quarterback’s entire career instead of treating each QB season as a separate observation, so we decided to measure both. Finally, we ensured that each of the four total ways of separating “mobile” passers from the rest yielded a reasonable set of names. For instance, when mobility is defined by four or more rushes per start over a regular-season career, nine of 82 players in the dataset qualify: Michael Vick, Robert Griffin III, Vince Young, Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard, Quincy Carter, Colt McCoy, Cam Newton, and Tim Tebow. (Kaepernick would also qualify under the four-rushes-per-start criterion.)

As you’ll see in the chart below, regardless of how we sliced the data, there was no statistically significant difference in injury rates between mobile and conventional quarterbacks. Quarterbacks of both types tend to lose 11 to 14 percent of their starts to injury. Even without counting the thus-far injury-free Kaepernick, three of the four tests produced a lower injury rate for mobile quarterbacks. The gap, though, is small enough that a statistician would call it zero.

130131_SN_Quarterbacks1.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg

This was an intriguing finding. We were worried, though, that we had made too coarse a distinction between quarterback types, so we turned to regression analysis to understand if any combination of variables might explain why we see high injury rates in some quarterback seasons and low rates in others.<a name="_GoBack"> Again, we found no relationship between rush share and starts missed due to injury. This held even when we controlled for age and weight—neither of which were found to have an effect on health—and also for injuries in the season prior, which did turn out to be a weak but statistically significant predictor of injury in any given year.

It turns out that the only gameplay variable that explains injuries with any statistical significance is sacks. On average, a 1 percent increase in sack share—the percentage of plays called for the QB that end in a sack—is associated with a 2.6 percent rise in starts missed due to injury (0.7 percent standard error). This link holds when we use the career-wise dataset and when we use sacks per start instead of sack share.

Skeptics might protest the main finding for two reasons. First, running quarterbacks could have shorter careers because of their bruising style of play. If this were true, though, we’d expect them to sustain more injuries while in the league, and they don’t. Second, maybe types of injury are different between mobile and conventional quarterbacks. We tallied up all the start-quashing injuries suffered by each quarterback in our sample, not double counting any repeated damage across years to the same body part, and classified each into four categories: head/neck, hands/arms/shoulders, torso/back, and feet/legs/groin.

130131_SN_Quarterbacks2.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg

A comparison using this admittedly simple procedure reveals almost no difference between injury-type distributions for the two groups. In each group, the lower body took the most punishment, and just more than 10 percent of injuries affected the head or neck. If mobility is a major determinant of quarterback health, we would expect this comparison to reveal a difference, but the injury patterns are remarkably similar.

In sum, it seems that standing in the pocket is just as dangerous as scrambling around. Yes, RGIII left the Redskins’ playoff game with his knee twisted so badly that you hoped Fox was experimenting with in-game CGI. But when we take the long view, serious injury doesn’t discriminate based on one’s ability to race.

At least one puzzle remains, though. Since sacks are the only significant predictor of injury other than prior medical history, it is tempting to tell a story in which mobile quarterbacks evade sacks more successfully, thus compensating for the injury risk inherent in rushing upfield. Yet the dataset reveals that mobile quarterbacks are sacked slightly more often than are conventional QBs. We can show that mobility doesn’t have a negative effect on health, but we can’t explain exactly how running quarterbacks are able to avoid additional risk.

We aren’t necessarily jumping on the read-option bandwagon, either. There’s still plenty to debate regarding the effectiveness of mobile quarterbacks. They may be less useful in two-minute drills, and their main advantage—speed—may wane quickly with age. But we hope to have shown that, based on the evidence available, conventional fears about quarterback rushing and injury risk may be overblown. If a general manager wants to protect a top draft pick, he should shore up the offensive line and cross his fingers.

You have way too much time on your hand to write this lengthy article, just saying,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The CBA practice rules which are negatively affecting tackling ability is making a running QB attractive.

2. The NFL safety rules are making it attractive to take a chance on a running QB.

3, Speed, and other attributes jumping, strength, smarts are both genetic and cultural. Speed however dies seem to be "Johnson" related as my white 4.3 running, 36 vertical and that Australian dude that runs the 200 meters both have big organs.

We are all getting mixed anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're out of your mind if you don't think QB play has been the driving force behind these 2 teams. Kaepernick had one of the greatest postseason games of all-time against the Packers, then guided the Niners back from down 17 to beat the Falcons. Flacco has made anyone who thought he was an average QB look plain silly all postseason long. He's made a case that he's the best deep-ball thrower in the NFL.

The Niner defense especially hasn't performed spectacularly this postseason, yet they're here. The Raven defense battled with injuries all season long, yet they're here. I wonder why?

Naturally, whichever team gets better QB play today will win. Yet to some of you it'll be because "Team X's defense shut Team Y's offense down" and nothing more.

Pretty much. Just because the names of their QB's arent Manning, Brady or Brees, doesnt mean they werent getting elite QB play, they were. Flacco had a post season for the ages and Kap's wasnt nothing to shake a stick at either.

Balanced teams but when push came to shove, QB play was the deciding factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. Just because the names of their QB's arent Manning, Brady or Brees, doesnt mean they werent getting elite QB play, they were. Flacco had a post season for the ages and Kap's wasnt nothing to shake a stick at either.

Balanced teams but when push came to shove, QB play was the deciding factor.

Replace Sanchez's first two years with either one of these guys and we would have won. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're out of your mind if you don't think QB play has been the driving force behind these 2 teams. Kaepernick had one of the greatest postseason games of all-time against the Packers, then guided the Niners back from down 17 to beat the Falcons. Flacco has made anyone who thought he was an average QB look plain silly all postseason long. He's made a case that he's the best deep-ball thrower in the NFL.

The Niner defense especially hasn't performed spectacularly this postseason, yet they're here. The Raven defense battled with injuries all season long, yet they're here. I wonder why?

Naturally, whichever team gets better QB play today will win. Yet to some of you it'll be because "Team X's defense shut Team Y's offense down" and nothing more.

I would agree with you...specifically for the 49ner's...if the kid did not play the way he did in the post season...the 49ners would be playing golf a week earlier than now.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace Sanchez's first two years with either one of these guys and we would have won. Simple.

His first year in the AFCCG I believe we were up at halftime....the reason we lost the first one wasn't because of Sanchez...its because the Colts made adjustments for the second half...and our braintrust HC did NOT!......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His first year in the AFCCG I believe we were up at halftime....the reason we lost the first one wasn't because of Sanchez...its because the Colts made adjustments for the second half...and our braintrust HC did NOT!......

I disagree. Greene went down and Sanchez could not pick up the slack. A QB like Sanchez makes your margin for error so small everything else has to be perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

denver is an example of not hitting the crap out of you, and relying too much on a QB who choked in OT. don't forget coaching. Denvers HC choked as well

jim H is an ass, but his team plays like the team I fantasize about the jets becoming. tough smart and fast.

so this SB is about a well coached, tough smart team getting to the SB

it's not always about the QB

Jim? He's coaching the Niners. They did not look like such a well coached, smart team to me. Things I saw - first couple of plays were blown. First play a long pass was called back because of an illegal formation, the WR covered the TE. On another either the back went the wrong way or Kaepernick turned the wrong way. Some brutal offsides on D that led to 1st downs and scores. Moss letting the ball go over his head and not even waving at it. If that were the Jets they'd be crucified for being "undisciplined." Oh and the guy is constantly throwing tantrums on the sidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Greene went down and Sanchez could not pick up the slack. A QB like Sanchez makes your margin for error so small everything else has to be perfect.

You can't blame Sanchez...he was a rookie QB at that time......yes and your right Greene went down and that was a huge reason for our O doing nothing in the second half and is my point...where was the adjustment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't blame Sanchez...he was a rookie QB at that time......yes and your right Greene went down and that was a huge reason for our O doing nothing in the second half and is my point...where was the adjustment?

Except when you compare this year, Kapernick has 10 games under his belt, Wilson was a rookie, both were big reasons why their teams won and competed. Sanchez was more like Trent Dilfer. Game manager. Don't turn the ball over(Sanchez was horrible at that even his rookie season).

That is the biggest problem with Sanchez. He is really a game manager. And game managers can't ever turn the ball over. If you look at the QBs in this years postseason, last year, the year before, etc the QB is the biggest reason a team won or lost games. Flacco outplayed Brady this year, he did it last year. Flacco had one hell of a first half in the super bowl. Kapernick came back strong in the second half. You put Sanchez on either team and that team probably loses. Thats the problem. Turnovers kill teams. Especially in the postseason. And if you have a QB who can't overcome a turnover or convert on a turnover, you probably lose.

Big Ben got all the glory his rookie season but he was one of the worst QBS in super bowl history. It was one of those bad super bowls on both sides of the ball with some favorable calls going one way. But Big Ben has improved. He's proven to be one hell of a QB. He's become a reason why the Steelers win or lose. Sanchez was a turnover machine his rookie season and has gotten progressively worse every year.

Blame it on coaching, but that is where we are at. Guys like Big Ben, Flacco, etc have improved as they get more experience. Sanchez went from a guy who had 20 interceptions his rookie year to a butt fumble guy. He's not even a good game management QB. Game management QBs don't turn the ball over. Chad Pennington was a game management QB. He just fell apart after a turn over. Talk about thinking too much.

I see Sanchez disappearing from the NFL if he doesn't accept a lower salary. There are guys who accept being a backup at a backups salary. And there are guys who think they are starting QBs and want starting QB money and aren't starters. Sanchez just isn't a starter in the NFL. He's really not a very good backup either. But it's the NFL. Guys like Matt Moore and Tavarius Jackson are still around so. But they are around because of cost. Sanchez will either start learning not to turn the ball over, become a decent enough backup game management QB, or he's going to be out of the NFL.

You can't be a QB who doesn't have a strong arm, doesn't win you games, and is a game management type of QB who leads the league in turnovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×