Pro Style or Dual Threat? The liabilities of each.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I know that this has been a much debated topic around here with what different fans want in terms of the direction of our offense.

In reading an article from years ago where Mike Bellotti, the Oregon HC at the time, had suffered a rash of injuries among his Dual Threat QB's. I thought that it was interesting to read his reaction to the media criticism of his choice of a Dual Threat type over a Pro Style.

It was also interesting to read what the solution was for defenses facing a Dual Threat QB in the Spread Option and how that might relate to our defense in the coming season.

Five quarterbacks who ran the spread option under offensive coordinator Chip Kelly, who arrived last season, have been knocked out of a game or suffered serious injury. All but one -- Dennis Dixon -- suffered those injuries in his first or second game in relief of another injured quarterback, or sooner.

An irritated head coach Mike Bellotti pointed out this week that few of the quarterback injuries can be pinned on the spread-option.

"If you look back -- because I'm getting really tired of this discussion, I'll tell you this right now -- look back to the injuries to our quarterbacks," Bellotti said.

Brady Leaf, clearly ill-fitted to run the spread-option, broke his ankle while standing in the pocket against UCLA last season.

Nate Costa tore the anterior cruciate ligament in his left knee twice in practice -- once on a drop-back pass last year and again in a non-contact drill this fall where he was simply decelerating.

Cody Kempt was scrambling when he was hit hard by a linebacker and suffered a concussion in last year's Civil War.

Dixon, of course, was the most celebrated of the bunch, suffering what would later be revealed to be a torn ACL when he was scrambling to his right against Arizona State. He finished off the ligament the following week when he tried to juke a defender in the open field.

Roper's injury really was the only one of the bunch suffered when a quarterback was running the spread-option. On that play, on a third down in overtime against Purdue, Roper was following Bellotti's quarterback mantra -- and taking a hit in the process.

"First down, touchdown, out of bounds or get down," said Bellotti, adding that Roper did the right thing by sacrificing his body to get a key first down.

Defensive coordinators have been trying to catch up to Kelly and other spread-option coaches for years, and there are only so many things they can do when faced with a dual threat quarterback -- the numbers simply are not on their side.

They can get lighter, faster linebackers, more mobile defensive linemen and try -- along with everyone else -- to get the very best athlete possible on the corners. But beyond personnel, there is one effective strategy used to varying degrees by every defense that is forced to deal with the spread-option:

Hit the quarterback.

Hard.

If they put him out of the game, well, that's football. But even if they rattle him, the defense gains a sizable advantage. He who hesitates is crushed in a spread-option, where the fearlessness of a quarterback is as crucial as his quickness.

There is a lot more inside this article but it is clear that both types of QB's, Pro Style or Dual Threat, can suffer injury and by no fault of their own.

Pro Style guys are going to get knocked around if they aren't in-tune with that clock ticking in their head that says, "step-up in the pocket" and/or "get rid of the ball" or if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when someone on the O-Line or a RB misses an assignment. It is never good to be a stationary target and that is why the best Pro Style QB's learn how to move around in the pocket to not only extend a play, but protect themselves as well.

Dual Threat's probably stand a bigger chance of injury because one of any number of negative things that can happen when they run (as mentioned by Bellotti), even if the option of them running does lend another threat that a defense has to account for in preparing for an opponent.

Another thing that Bellotti said in this article was that he didn't look for an athlete who could throw the ball effectively. He said he looked for a QB who could throw the ball effectively first, and then looked for the athleticism to be a Dual Threat, which speaks to the importance of being able to be an effective passer first and foremost.

Your thoughts?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2008/09/bad_luck_not_just_spreadoption.html

[bennyl08]

Obviously, all else being equal, you take the more athletic of the two QB's.

The real question becomes, how much does one weight the different talents of a qb?

Lets pretend we are in video game land and can just assign quantitative numbers to a players abilities. If you have QB who's passing acumen is a 95 and running is a 30 and QB B who's passing acumen is a 90 and running ability is an 80, who do you take?

If passing ability is first and foremost, you take qb A. However, if the coach is being quoted accurately, the QB has to pass effectively first. That suggests a threshold to me. He has to have a QB who is at least an 85 passer, and after that, running ability becomes more important.

For me, I weight the running ability a bit low. Looking at the NFL, every single running qb as they progress don't become better runner, they become better passers and don't need to run. There's a good soccer analogy here. You can always get the ball to go somewhere faster by kicking it than you can by running it there yourself. Same is true in football. You can throw the ball a lot faster than you can run it. So, being able to see the open player downfield better or tweaking your offense a bit to get more players open is going to be superior to running ability. Mallett was not a runner, but he had a great feel for the pocket and almost always made the first rusher miss.

Having said all of that, between QBA and QBB, I would love to sign both, but if I had to choose, I probably take B if I'm in college, A if I'm in the NFL. In the college level, the difference between a 95 passer and a 90 passer isn't that great namely due to being limited by the other players around them and complexity of the offense. At the NFL level, that difference can be the difference between having Ben Roethlesberger or having Ryan Tannehill/Blake Bortles.

[redleg]

A dual threat QB in college can be highly successful and put up huge numbers in the right system. They can receive national acclaim, and win national awards. If a coach were to use an option or spread option offense, a dual threat QB would be almost a requirement. But a pro-style offense, meaning the type of offense run on the professional level, needs a QB that can not only make adjustments on their own according to the defense he sees at the line of scrimmage, but has the arm strength to distribute the ball to his play makers, and do so accurately. Dual threat QB's are plenty smart. But the majority of systems they are in do not afford them the learned ability to read defenses. All of that comes to them from the sidelines and their coaches. Auburn, Ole Miss and Texas A&M are examples of this. This does NOT translate very well at all to the pro level. There are very few option, spread, and spread option QB's that have gone on to a measurable amount of success in the NFL. In fact, League teams often draft these players way too high (media pressure is intense)and then over-pay them for the production the teams receive (or lack of production in most cases). QB's from a more traditional pro style offense are already versed in changing plays on their own, reading LB's and defenses, and they usually have stronger and more accurate throwing arms.
But, on the college level, option and spread QB's can be successful due to a lower level of overall talent than what they would see in the NFL. So in college, these types of QB's can win many games, rack up lots of yards and TD's, win awards, and get NFL scouts attention with their gaudy numbers. But if a player really wants to be prepared for the next level, they will go to a school where NFL skills are taught in a pro style offense, which will translate to a longer, more successful, and more profitable career in the long term.

There is a very long list is dual threat and system QB's that were busts in the NFL (these guys didn't change positions)...Tim Tebow, Johnny Manziel, Robert Griffin III, Dennis Dixon, Troy Smith, Case Keenum, Kellen Moore, Denard Robinson, Eric Crouch, Colin Kaepernick, Patrick White, Colt Brennan, Vince Young, Jason Campbell, Joey Harrington.

The list of successful dual threat and system QB's in the NFL is short...Cam Newton, Marcus Mariota, Russell Wilson.

And you couldn't convince me to draft Deshaun Watson or Lamar Jackson either.
:razorback:

[Atlhogfan1]

College: DT

NFL: Will take a near statue if they are football intelligent, can throw with accuracy and some velocity, make quick reads, make good decisions, get into the right play, understand protection schemes and have a feel as to when to get rid of the ball, etc.

A dual threat QB in college can be highly successful and put up huge numbers in the right system. They can receive national acclaim, and win national awards. If a coach were to use an option or spread option offense, a dual threat QB would be almost a requirement. But a pro-style offense, meaning the type of offense run on the professional level, needs a QB that can not only make adjustments on their own according to the defense he sees at the line of scrimmage, but has the arm strength to distribute the ball to his play makers, and do so accurately. Dual threat QB's are plenty smart. But the majority of systems they are in do not afford them the learned ability to read defenses. All of that comes to them from the sidelines and their coaches. Auburn, Ole Miss and Texas A&M are examples of this. This does NOT translate very well at all to the pro level. There are very few option, spread, and spread option QB's that have gone on to a measurable amount of success in the NFL. In fact, League teams often draft these players way too high (media pressure is intense)and then over-pay them for the production the teams receive (or lack of production in most cases). QB's from a more traditional pro style offense are already versed in changing plays on their own, reading LB's and defenses, and they usually have stronger and more accurate throwing arms.
But, on the college level, option and spread QB's can be successful due to a lower level of overall talent than what they would see in the NFL. So in college, these types of QB's can win many games, rack up lots of yards and TD's, win awards, and get NFL scouts attention with their gaudy numbers. But if a player really wants to be prepared for the next level, they will go to a school where NFL skills are taught in a pro style offense, which will translate to a longer, more successful, and more profitable career in the long term.

There is a very long list is dual threat and system QB's that were busts in the NFL (these guys didn't change positions)...Tim Tebow, Johnny Manziel, Robert Griffin III, Dennis Dixon, Troy Smith, Case Keenum, Kellen Moore, Denard Robinson, Eric Crouch, Colin Kaepernick, Patrick White, Colt Brennan, Vince Young, Jason Campbell, Joey Harrington.

The list of successful dual threat and system QB's in the NFL is short...Cam Newton, Marcus Mariota, Russell Wilson.

And you couldn't convince me to draft Deshaun Watson or Lamar Jackson either.
:razorback:

For ex:  If I were UGa, I would rather have a Watson or Jackson than Eason.  But Eason is another Matt Stafford and is going to be a great  NFL prospect barring injury. 

[EastexHawg]

The best offenses Arkansas has ever had were led by pro-style QBs.  Jon Brittenum.  Bill Montgomery.  Joe Ferguson.  Ryan Mallett.  Tyler Wilson.

Give me a QB who can stretch the field vertically.  Pair him with a coach who knows how to run a vertical passing game down to the most intricate detail and we'll have something.

Matt Jones was a tremendous threat, but we're never going to have another QB who is 6'6", 237 pounds, runs a 4.37 forty, and has that kind of instinctive ability to see the field and avoid defenders.  He wasn't a certain "type" of QB, he just...was.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The best offenses Arkansas has ever had were led by pro-style QBs.  Jon Brittenum.  Bill Montgomery.  Joe Ferguson.  Ryan Mallett.  Tyler Wilson.

Give me a QB who can stretch the field vertically.  Pair him with a coach who knows how to run a vertical passing game down to the most intricate detail and we'll have something.

Matt Jones was a tremendous threat, but we're never going to have another QB who is 6'6", 237 pounds, runs a 4.37 forty, and has that kind of instinctive ability to see the field and avoid defenders.  He wasn't a certain "type" of QB, he just...was.

Of course at the college level these days, should you have an effective run game with your RB's and an effective passing game with a QB that can read defenses, check into better plays, read blitzes and change protections to counter what the defense is showing and then be able to see receivers downfield that have the ability to bend routes between coverage levels and then deliver the ball accurately, you really have something.

College football may still be a matter of blocking and tackling, but it has morphed to a higher level of execution and athletic ability than it was in the days of the guys that you mentioned. Maybe even more than when Tyler Wilson was here, though he is the closest to the competition that we see today. Mallett too, if he appeared on the college scene today could still be successful in a Pro Style for the most part. But I think that even the Pro Style QB's today have to be more maneuverable to a certain degree than what they used to have to be.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

The best offenses Arkansas has ever had were led by pro-style QBs.  Jon Brittenum.  Bill Montgomery.  Joe Ferguson.  Ryan Mallett.  Tyler Wilson.

I'd argue for inclusion of the '77 and '89 teams in the "best offenses" group, and those were led by Ron Calcagni and Quinn Grovey.  I agree with you in general, but we have had explosive offenses led by dual threat QBs.

[Razorbackers]

You can either live and die on the recruiting trail for the a dual threat QB to run your system, or you can find pro style guys that you can build an offense around.

[hawgfan4life]

Dual threat QBs are so effective in H.S. and even in college because it is darn near impossible to defend the run and not give up the pass, defend the pass and not give up the run, and defend a dual QB that may pass or run on any given down and you can't account for him without being weak somewhere else.  In the NFL, the athletes are good enough that they can cover everything moderately well even when focusing on one phase.  They can also recover so fast that a running QB will only be so effective in dominating a game where in H.S. and College they absolutely control the game.  Also in the NFL, the athletes are so fast and good that they will absolutely beat up a QB if he runs very often.  Very few dual threat QBs have very long careers before they eventually limit their running considerably like Wilson and Newton do now.  They are nothing like they were early in their career and in college.  There is a reason for that in the NFL.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Dual threat QBs are so effective in H.S. and even in college because it is darn near impossible to defend the run and not give up the pass, defend the pass and not give up the run, and defend a dual QB that may pass or run on any given down and you can't account for him without being weak somewhere else.  In the NFL, the athletes are good enough that they can cover everything moderately well even when focusing on one phase.  They can also recover so fast that a running QB will only be so effective in dominating a game where in H.S. and College they absolutely control the game.  Also in the NFL, the athletes are so fast and good that they will absolutely beat up a QB if he runs very often.  Very few dual threat QBs have very long careers before they eventually limit their running considerably like Wilson and Newton do now.  They are nothing like they were early in their career and in college.  There is a reason for that in the NFL.

If you go back up and read the last four sentences that I quoted and underlined in the OP you can see that those statements support what you are saying. The NFL has great athletes at every position that can do exactly what is required to defend a spread option most of the time. But that also proves out why it is so much more difficult at the HS and College levels to defend that offense in the absence of a collection of athletes on every team as they have in the NFL.

[bythelake]

What type of quarterbacks have beaten Alabama in recent years?
Clemson- run and pass QB
Ole miss- run and pass Qb
ATM - manzel
Who else?

[bennyl08]

What type of quarterbacks have beaten Alabama in recent years?
Clemson- run and pass QB
Ole miss- run and pass Qb
ATM - manzel
Who else?

SC did, though the qb was largely a non-factor. It was mostly their healthy Lattimore.

LSU: Though again, QB wasn't much of a factor at all in that game either.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

SC did, though the qb was largely a non-factor. It was mostly their healthy Lattimore.

LSU: Though again, QB wasn't much of a factor at all in that game either.

As much as I love the ground and pound and then throwing it effectively, I will say that I am of the belief that you don't need the overall number of highly rated recruits to run a pretty effective Spread-Option attack as you do a Pro Style. It helps to have high level skill players in the Spread Option, but you could say that is true of a truly effective Pro Style as well.

I think that the difference may be that you don't need the collection of developed, highly skilled O-linemen to run a Spread-Option as you do for a Pro Style. It always helps (either offense) to have a skilled QB who can read defenses and check out of bad plays and throw the ball well, but in the Spread-Option you better have a kid at QB that can also pull the ball down and gain some yards and certainly possess the ability to perform the "read" very well without hesitation and have excellent ball handling skills.

Now that doesn't necessarily do a lot to prepare a QB for the NFL, but having a QB like that in college can be a difference maker if you have a decent supporting cast.

[bennyl08]

As much as I love the ground and pound and then throwing it effectively, I will say that I am of the belief that you don't need the overall number of highly rated recruits to run a pretty effective Spread-Option attack as you do a Pro Style. It helps to have high level skill players in the Spread Option, but you could say that is true of a truly effective Pro Style as well.

I think that the difference may be that you don't need the collection of developed, highly skilled O-linemen to run a Spread-Option as you do for a Pro Style. It always helps (either offense) to have a skilled QB who can read defenses and check out of bad plays and throw the ball well, but in the Spread-Option you better have a kid at QB that can also pull the ball down and gain some yards and certainly possess the ability to perform the "read" very well without hesitation and have excellent ball handling skills.

Now that doesn't necessarily do a lot to prepare a QB for the NFL, but having a QB like that in college can be a difference maker if you have a decent supporting cast.

I largely agree. The one thing i would add to that, is that the spread attacks are less likely to lead to an upset of a more talented team than the pro-style. With the spread it is easier to be good, but harder to be great. With the pro-style, it is harder to be good, but easier to become great. So to speak.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I largely agree. The one thing i would add to that, is that the spread attacks are less likely to lead to an upset of a more talented team than the pro-style. With the spread it is easier to be good, but harder to be great. With the pro-style, it is harder to be good, but easier to become great. So to speak.

In the Pro Style unless you have a pretty good running game and a good passing game as well, it makes you makes you more predictable.

The one thing that I can say for the Spread-Option is that it makes a defense have to prepare more carefully for a variety of options and therefore, has to play more disciplined, assignment football. A miss by any defensive player (especially the front 7) on any given play can turn what should be a 2 yard gain into a 10 yard gain. The Spread-Option is designed to do just that, put greater pressure on a defense to play disciplined football.

[arlhog]

Who was the last team not named Alabama that won a natty without a running qb?  Alabama could do it because they had more talent than anyone else.   If you can get a qb that at least an adequate passer that can run, it's just one more thing the defense has to stop and commit resources to do so.  The running qb is here to stay and now even Alabama has seen the light.

[bennyl08]

Who was the last team not named Alabama that won a natty without a running qb?  Alabama could do it because they had more talent than anyone else.   If you can get a qb that at least an adequate passer that can run, it's just one more thing the defense has to stop and commit resources to do so.  The running qb is here to stay and now even Alabama has seen the light.

Florida State. Their pocket passer beat Auburn's running qb. If you think that Winston was a running qb, ask yourself why you think that. Doesn't show up in the stat sheet, combine, pro day, or film.

[bennyl08]

2016: Clemson-Watson-dual threat
2015: Bama-Coker- pocket passer
2014: OSU-Jones-dual threat
2013: FSU-Winston-pocket passer
2012: Bama-McCarron- pocket passer
2011: Bama-""-""
2010: Auburn-Newton-dual threat
2009: Bama-McElroy- pocket passer
2008: Florida-Tebow-dual threat
2007: LSU-Flynn-pocket passer
2006: Florida-Leak-pocket passer
2005: Texas-Young-dual threat
2004: USC-Leinart- pocket passer
2003: LSU-Mauck- pocket passer
2002: OSU-Krenzel- in between
2001: Miami-Dorsey- pocket passer
2000: Okla-Huepel- pocket passer

Been pretty consistently 2:1 pocket passer to dual threat. Now, offenses today are different than they were in the early 2000's. However, look at how consistent that 2:1 ratio is. Doesn't seem to really matter. Dual threat's don't seem to be increasing at all in time with winning the natty.

[bennyl08]

2016: Clemson-Watson-dual threat, bama-hurts-dt
2015: Bama-Coker- pocket passer, clemson, watson-dt
2014: OSU-Jones-dual threat, oregon-mariota-dt
2013: FSU-Winston-pocket passer, auburn-marshal-dt
2012: Bama-McCarron- pocket passer, nd-golson-pp
2011: Bama-""-"", lsu-dt
2010: Auburn-Newton-dual threat, oregon-thomas-dt
2009: Bama-McElroy- pocket passer, texas-mccoy-pp
2008: Florida-Tebow-dual threat, okla-bradford-pp
2007: LSU-Flynn-pocket passer, osu-boeckman-pp
2006: Florida-Leak-pocket passer, osu-smith - (dual threat in 2005, but in 2006, wasn't a dual threat)
2005: Texas-Young-dual threat, usc-leinart-pp
2004: USC-Leinart- pocket passer, okla-white-pp
2003: LSU-Mauck- pocket passer, okla-white-pp
2002: OSU-Krenzel- in between, miami-dorsey-pp
2001: Miami-Dorsey- pocket passer, neb-crouch-dt
2000: Okla-Huepel- pocket passer, fsu-weinke-pp

Been pretty consistently 2:1 pocket passer to dual threat. Now, offenses today are different than they were in the early 2000's. However, look at how consistent that 2:1 ratio is. Doesn't seem to really matter. Dual threat's don't seem to be increasing at all in time with winning the natty.

updated to include the team the winners played. Now there, you do undoubtably see a trend towards more dual threat players over pocket passers. Overall, there is thus an increase in dual threat quarterbacks in the national championship game, but among the winning team, the ratio is almost like clockwork.

[LZH]

Dual threat QBs are so effective in H.S. and even in college because it is darn near impossible to defend the run and not give up the pass, defend the pass and not give up the run, and defend a dual QB that may pass or run on any given down and you can't account for him without being weak somewhere else.  In the NFL, the athletes are good enough that they can cover everything moderately well even when focusing on one phase.  They can also recover so fast that a running QB will only be so effective in dominating a game where in H.S. and College they absolutely control the game.  Also in the NFL, the athletes are so fast and good that they will absolutely beat up a QB if he runs very often.  Very few dual threat QBs have very long careers before they eventually limit their running considerably like Wilson and Newton do now.  They are nothing like they were early in their career and in college.  There is a reason for that in the NFL.

Most NFL players are fundamentally great tacklers, too.

[hawgfan4life]

If you go back up and read the last four sentences that I quoted and underlined in the OP you can see that those statements support what you are saying. The NFL has great athletes at every position that can do exactly what is required to defend a spread option most of the time. But that also proves out why it is so much more difficult at the HS and College levels to defend that offense in the absence of a collection of athletes on every team as they have in the NFL.

.

I wasn't debating your OP.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

.

I wasn't debating your OP.

And I was only meaning to support your post, which I thought was spot on.

[Pig In The City]

Dual threat=college championships.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Dual threat=college championships.

2016: Clemson-Watson-dual threat
2015: Bama-Coker- pocket passer
2014: OSU-Jones-dual threat
2013: FSU-Winston-pocket passer
2012: Bama-McCarron- pocket passer
2011: Bama-""-""
2010: Auburn-Newton-dual threat
2009: Bama-McElroy- pocket passer
2008: Florida-Tebow-dual threat
2007: LSU-Flynn-pocket passer
2006: Florida-Leak-pocket passer
2005: Texas-Young-dual threat
2004: USC-Leinart- pocket passer
2003: LSU-Mauck- pocket passer
2002: OSU-Krenzel- in between
2001: Miami-Dorsey- pocket passer
2000: Okla-Huepel- pocket passer

Been pretty consistently 2:1 pocket passer to dual threat. Now, offenses today are different than they were in the early 2000's. However, look at how consistent that 2:1 ratio is. Doesn't seem to really matter. Dual threat's don't seem to be increasing at all in time with winning the natty.

Not if you go by this.

[Rome26]

2016: Clemson-Watson-dual threat
2015: Bama-Coker- pocket passer
2014: OSU-Jones-dual threat
2013: FSU-Winston-pocket passer
2012: Bama-McCarron- pocket passer
2011: Bama-""-""
2010: Auburn-Newton-dual threat
2009: Bama-McElroy- pocket passer
2008: Florida-Tebow-dual threat
2007: LSU-Flynn-pocket passer
2006: Florida-Leak-pocket passer
2005: Texas-Young-dual threat
2004: USC-Leinart- pocket passer
2003: LSU-Mauck- pocket passer
2002: OSU-Krenzel- in between
2001: Miami-Dorsey- pocket passer
2000: Okla-Huepel- pocket passer

Been pretty consistently 2:1 pocket passer to dual threat. Now, offenses today are different than they were in the early 2000's. However, look at how consistent that 2:1 ratio is. Doesn't seem to really matter. Dual threat's don't seem to be increasing at all in time with winning the natty.

Most of those pocket passers had great defenses that won those championships.

[Atlhogfan1]

I think we need to factor in limited practice time and development time in college football.  Not just the time it takes to develop the pro style qb but the olinemen needed to pass protect.  We had these discussions when Petrino was here in games our oline would struggle whether it was run or pass blocking.  Hard to find olinemen skilled enough to do both run and pass block at a high level as they require different skills and mindsets.  Have to develop the skills.  Developing at least one for each of the 5 spots in the limited practice time isn't easy IMO.  When you add a qb who is a run threat, you help out the oline even if your offense is a more traditional pro set. 

[jm]

I think everyone would love to have a true duel threat QB, but there so few out there. Most "duel threat" QB's are really running backs that are not a real threat in the passing game. Most people have limits, and must live by a "do one job and do it well" philosophy. There will always be a few guys that have a special talent that allows them to play more than one position, play more than one sport, or take on more than one responsibility, but they are rare.

[wildturkey8]

I'd argue for inclusion of the '77 and '89 teams in the "best offenses" group, and those were led by Ron Calcagni and Quinn Grovey.  I agree with you in general, but we have had explosive offenses led by dual threat QBs.

77 Hogs were loaded.  Calcagni, Cowins, Sales and Forrest.  Donny Bobo at flanker (I remember him from his Atkins days).  Leotis Harris (first team All America) anchored the offensive line.  Defense had Dan Hampton and Jimmy Walker (who was first team All America).

[bennyl08]

Most of those dual threats had great defenses that won those championships.

And if you posted this, it would be equally as true.

[Rome26]

I think everyone would love to have a true duel threat QB, but there so few out there. Most "duel threat" QB's are really running backs that are not a real threat in the passing game. Most people have limits, and must live by a "do one job and do it well" philosophy. There will always be a few guys that have a special talent that allows them to play more than one position, play more than one sport, or take on more than one responsibility, but they are rare.

Would you consider Nick Marshall a true dual threat qb?

[bennyl08]

Would you consider Nick Marshall a true dual threat qb?

He completed more passes to our team than his own in the first half of that one game. OTOH, we had completely worn down auburns defense while getting their offense to go three and out a couple times in a row in the first half a different year with Johnson before Marshall came in, flipped the script, and we ended up losing by a big margin.

So, true dual threat to either save his team or be the primary demise of them. He was a good runner as evidenced by him moving to cb in the NFL. He was a terrible passer though, in part evidenced by him moving to cb in the NFL.

[Rome26]

And if you posted this, it would be equally as true.

This is false and you know it.

[Rome26]

He completed more passes to our team than his own in the first half of that one game. OTOH, we had completely worn down auburns defense while getting their offense to go three and out a couple times in a row in the first half a different year with Johnson before Marshall came in, flipped the script, and we ended up losing by a big margin.

So, true dual threat to either save his team or be the primary demise of them. He was a good runner as evidenced by him moving to cb in the NFL. He was a terrible passer though, in part evidenced by him moving to cb in the NFL.

I don't think Nick Marshall is a true dual threat. The point I was trying to make is that a great runner can be just as effective in the right system on the college level.

[bennyl08]

This is false and you know it.

Clemson defense was very good. 12th in ppg, 9th in ypg, 3rd sacks, 6th ints, 9th most efficient d
Ohio State: Great defense. 15th in ypg, 23rd ppg, 7th sacks, 4th ints, 16th in efficiency
Auburn's 2010 defense:  60th in ypg, 53rd in ppg, 17th in sacks, 45th in efficiency.
2008 Florida defense: Great. 5th ppg, 9 ypg, 1st int's, 14th in sacks, 3rd efficiency
2005 Texas team? Great defense. 6th in ypg, 4th in ppg, 21st sacks, 71 in int's, 1st in efficiency
I don't know about 2002 Ohio St defense. Probably safe guess that they were good, but that would just be a guess. , and espn stats stop at 2004 for team rankings at least.

You were saying about something being false...?

Auburn is the one exception to that in what was a flukey year. However, go back to that national championship game. Their offense wasn't what won them that game.

[bennyl08]

I don't think Nick Marshall is a true dual threat. The point I was trying to make is that a great runner can be just as effective in the right system on the college level.

"just as"? Do you remember how many miracle, once in a lifetime plays they needed that season to win games? Even with an infinite number of parallel universes, pretty sure this one was the only won where they made the natty game.

I would consider Marshall to have been a below average passer. It sounds like you would agree with that too, but I don't want to assume. How many other below average passers on a P5 team have made it to double digit wins in a season? The closest I can think of was Colin Klein with KSU. However, even then, he had a greater than 2:1 td:int ratio and at least a 57% completion when we played them and he improved to 65% completion and 2600 yards and nearly a 2:1 his senior season.

[Rome26]

Clemson defense was very good. 12th in ppg, 9th in ypg, 3rd sacks, 6th ints, 9th most efficient d
Ohio State: Great defense. 15th in ypg, 23rd ppg, 7th sacks, 4th ints, 16th in efficiency
Auburn's 2010 defense:  60th in ypg, 53rd in ppg, 17th in sacks, 45th in efficiency.
2008 Florida defense: Great. 5th ppg, 9 ypg, 1st int's, 14th in sacks, 3rd efficiency
2005 Texas team? Great defense. 6th in ypg, 4th in ppg, 21st sacks, 71 in int's, 1st in efficiency
I don't know about 2002 Ohio St defense. Probably safe guess that they were good, but that would just be a guess. , and espn stats stop at 2004 for team rankings at least.

You were saying about something being false...?

Auburn is the one exception to that in what was a flukey year. However, go back to that national championship game. Their offense wasn't what won them that game.

Your definition of great is different than mines. Based on those stats, Florida and Texas are the only ones I would consider great and Texas defense gave up a lot in the championship game. Young single handedly beat USC.

[Rome26]

"just as"? Do you remember how many miracle, once in a lifetime plays they needed that season to win games? Even with an infinite number of parallel universes, pretty sure this one was the only won where they made the natty game.

I would consider Marshall to have been a below average passer. It sounds like you would agree with that too, but I don't want to assume. How many other below average passers on a P5 team have made it to double digit wins in a season? The closest I can think of was Colin Klein with KSU. However, even then, he had a greater than 2:1 td:int ratio and at least a 57% completion when we played them and he improved to 65% completion and 2600 yards and nearly a 2:1 his senior season.

I remember, but you act as if that team was loaded with talent. It wasn't. Marshall and Mason carried that team. Without those guys, they never would have been in a position to need miracle plays.

[bennyl08]

Your definition of great is different than mines. Based on those stats, Florida and Texas are the only ones I would consider great and Texas defense gave up a lot in the championship game. Young single handedly beat USC.

Texas was playing two heisman trophy winners in that game. There were 3 heisman trophy winners total in that game. Young did not single handedly beat them. That Texas defense put in a herculean effort to hold them to as few yards as points as they did. They held USC's offense to 7 points in the first quarter and 3 in the second. By the 2nd half, they wore down, because that USC roster was as good as any we've ever seen and they scored 14 points in the 3rd and 4th quarters. Bama's 2010 defense wouldn't have fared much better if at all. Case in point, the Ohio St game where Elliot was averaging over 10 yards a carry. Most backs are lucky to break a run for 10 yards against them.

If you are a top 15 defense, I'd say you are great. Ohio St's points given up would hurt them since yards was right there at that boundary, but then being top 10 in impact plays with sacks and int's puts them back in the great category, IMO.

I remember, but you act as if that team was loaded with talent. It wasn't. Marshall and Mason carried that team. Without those guys, they never would have been in a position to need miracle plays.

Where did I act like that team was loaded with talent? Genuinely curious to hear your thought process on that one. My point on that was that such a case is the extreme exception that proves the rule. I mean, they couldn't have been favored in more than half the games they played. You were acting like it is some common, every day thing to have a qb that is a below average passer have success. My thought process there was reading your statement "a great runner can be just as effective [as a great pocket passer] in the right system on the college level." Your example was a qb who wasn't actually effective at all and required multiple miracles to win games. Further, overlooked on that Auburn team was that they had the 10th best redzone defense in the country that year and 13th best 3rd down conversion rate on defense. They gave up yards and they gave up some points on big plays. However, when the defense needed to step up, they did.

[12247]

This is very good reading.  It ends up being simple.  Unless you have an offense with an outstanding o-line, you must find a way to get the few outstanding players you do have in space, thus some kind of spread them out offense.  When you cannot go behind your line with success, then you either lose or find a way around by getting your best in space and then getting them the ball. the Dual threat QB has a better chance to buy time than does the pocket QB. even if he rarely actually runs the ball for distance.

[HamSammich]

Lol... liabilities???



If you are good you are good.


Alekhine was one of the best at the Alekhine defense. I challenge anyone to win with it.



Goodnis good. Average is average and yes bad is bad. Screw style.

[jm]

Would you consider Nick Marshall a true dual threat qb?

Absolutely not. He was a great athlete. He was a good at running the ball.

[bennyl08]

In the Pro Style unless you have a pretty good running game and a good passing game as well, it makes you makes you more predictable.

The one thing that I can say for the Spread-Option is that it makes a defense have to prepare more carefully for a variety of options and therefore, has to play more disciplined, assignment football. A miss by any defensive player (especially the front 7) on any given play can turn what should be a 2 yard gain into a 10 yard gain. The Spread-Option is designed to do just that, put greater pressure on a defense to play disciplined football.

Disagree on the first sentence. The pro-style offense incorporates much more complexity than the hurry up spread offenses. Receivers are going to run a wider variety of routes and there is going to be a wider variety of plays.

IMO, and keep in mind, this is a bit too much of a simplification. However, the general idea of the pro-style is that we aren't going to trick you with what we do much as there are a lot of things we might do. The spread offense, otoh, the general idea is that we aren't going to run a wide variety of plays, but we are going to try and trick you and get you out of position when we run the same few plays. I.e. a pro style team may run 100 plays out of the same 5 formations while a spread team may run 5 plays out of a 100 formations.

Defenses that hold to their assignments beat spread teams that try to utilize motion and misdirection to give their team the advantage. That is why such concepts don't work in the NFL. If the team doesn't get messed up by smoke and mirrors, the offense no longer works. Pro style assumes the defense will mind their assignments and tries to use that against them.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Disagree on the first sentence.

I support your right to disagree.

[EastexHawg]

Most of those pocket passers had great defenses that won those championships.

Dual threat QBs don't need good defenses to win championships?