Top 3 QBs You Want & Top 3 QBs You Want to Avoid

Yes, Jay Cutler and Ben Roethlisberger are and have been in the NFL guys that like to use their feet to extend plays and find guys when they uncover. That's just a fact. IN fact, Roethlisberger has described in the past that he actually apologizes to his OLs because he knows that his style leads to more sacks than they legitimately should be allowing, because he's a guy that likes to scramble around. Josh Freeman is the same way, and is one of the most elusive QBs in the backfield in football today.

So 7% is a figure that does not impress you, I see. That's good. You're starting to grasp the folly of labeling guys "run first" when they could more accurately be described as "run tenth". You know what's funny about that 7% figure of Aaron Rodgers'? It's about the same as Vince Young's. It's actually HIGHER than Tarvaris Jackson's. It's about the same as Dennis Dixon's percentage. Michael Vick is probably the most likely QB to take off running in the NFL today, and his percentage is a mere 12%.

Here's the reality. The "run first QB" is a myth. It's a crutch used by people to broadly paint (mostly black) QBs without giving them the benefit of individually evaluating them with any kind of accuracy. The definitions get massaged, stretched and retracted, purely out of convenience. Someone wants to make it seem like it's not a racist generalization and so suddenly Luke McCown is also a running QB...even though he rarely runs. And yet Aaron Rodgers isn't, even though he runs all the time.

In my experience everyone who uses that term absolutely refuses to define it, because they know they'll get tangled in their own definition. And all the while I just wonder why they even bother using such a stupid generality in the first place. It serves no GOOD purpose. Only bad.

 

Ok, so even if "run first qb" is the wrong term (apologies to anyone who this may have offended), he still makes too many plays with his legs and not nearly enough with his arm for my liking. He still struggles to read defenses and his accuracy is questionable.

 

That's fine. I think he struggles to read defenses as well, and got the sense that it was due to lack of study/preparation. Specifically, he could be fooled by disguised coverages, and wasn't prepared for them. I don't really agree from what I saw in 2010 that his inability to read the field on some plays led to him making plays with his legs. He did that no more or less than an Aaron Rodgers does. The problem wasn't a tendency to pull the ball down and make plays with his legs, as I said he did that as rarely as QBs that are not deemed problematic in this regard, rather it was hesitation, bad decisions, wasted plays and in some cases, turnovers.

Also he plays like an effing pansy.

 

I would be against bringing in any QB that cost more than a 4th or 5th round pick. I don't think think there's enough quality out there to make me want to give up the ammo to move up and draft a QB if necessary. I have no problem with Young being brought in and agree with CK's analysis that his problems come from lack of preparation and decision making. I think he has limitations as a passer though. I'm not sure if he'll ever have a full range of passes in his arsenal. It seemed to me that in addition to his defense reading struggles, he always had difficult hitting players accurately while they were moving across from him. His accuracy was great as long as you called a ton of comebacks. And his running ability made those plays more open than they usually are for other less mobile QBs, but he does place some limitations on your offense.

 

Can you give some specific reasons for saying that? I don't see it and just wonder what I am missing.

 

If anything Young no longer runs enough to make himself a viable offensive threat, the one thing he does do at an Elite Level he stopped doing.


Qb has to produce 20 Td's, that is the demarcation line, I do not care if Young throws for 15 Td's and runs for 5 Td's or throws for 20 td's.

 

While we're speaking about Vince Young, here's a great interview.

http://thefinsiders.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Jim-Wyatt-5_10_11.mp3

Jim Wyatt of the Tennessean has been covering Vince and the Titans for a while and he gives a lot of his take on what happened.

It's pretty balanced. He goes out of his way to say that Vince hasn't been a huge troublemaker off the field except for the one night club fight incident, but at the same time it was mainly his work ethic and attitude that turned off all his teammates. He never worked as hard as people thought he should, and he could never handle adversity with any kind of maturity.

One statement really affected me because I know this has been a running argument with another poster here on this board that lives in Tennessee and has tried to say at one point that none of his teammates have really talked bad about him (until we pointed out the quotes from Kevin Mawae), and then the poster tried to say it was just Kevin Mawae. Jim Wyatt said that after the Washington game last year, the incident where Vince Young disrespected Jeff Fisher directly by walking out on him in front of the whole team...only 5 or 6 players in the locker still "had his back". The rest were all selling on him. Keith Bulluck and Chris Johnson have been two of the players that continued to have his back, but Jim Wyatt who speaks with the players off the record often as most beat writers do with the teams they follow...is saying that there were really only a handful of players in the locker room that still had his back. The rest don't want him.

At the same time Wyatt maintains, and I agree with him, that Vince can always turn his career around. Michael Vick did it, so he can do it too. They had similar problems, having to do with work ethic...not achieving what they could because they don't study. This is what lost Vince Young the locker room, the fact that he never worked hard and didn't study hard. Michael Vick admitted to the same things in Atlanta.

My question is...it's one thing to say that Vince COULD turn things around, but what indications do we have that he HAS turned things around? Michael Vick went through a severe bottoming out, a life-changing experience. He spent a lot of time in jail, lost all his endorsements, everyone hated him. I don't think simply being cut is an equivalent. He'll get picked up by someone as a free agent and likely he'll be paid, and likely he'll be viewed as a starter. The only thing that's changed in HIS eyes is likely that he doesn't have to deal with Jeff Fisher anymore. Well, that's great, but Jeff Fisher didn't lose the locker room for Vince Young. Vince Young lost the locker room for Vince Young. Vince Young is the one that gets fooled by disguised coverages, and has had to have simpler reads because he doesn't do his classwork.

That's why I said my interest in him is minimal sans-epiphany. Right now we don't have any reason to believe he's learned any lessons other than "Thank god I'm away from Jeff Fisher".

 

Vince young has gone soft, mentally and physically..I agree with CK about him playing the game like a pansy..First of all, his lack of training on his body has been pretty much non existant, i can see the atrophy..He's a pretty fragile man at this point, and it a lot of that I attribute to being lazy in the weight room..If I was a defensive coordinator, I would have one philosophy, pound that mother grabber, he'll be out of the game soon enough.

What I don't like about his game is the intermediate stuff, He does have nice touch on an array of throws, and he is accurate on the short stuff and some long stuff, but the intermediate game is a mess imo, the delivery, the velocity is untrustworthy imo.I think you have to take a chunk out of your offense with him at the helm..

Will I welcome him if we sign him?..sure, but he better be doing the rambo workout..

 

I don't know that I would blame it on weight room prowess so much as attitude, but absolutely. If I'm a defensive coordinator and I watch tape of Vince Young play, I'm telling my players to hit Vince Young very hard over and over again. Provoke him, taunt him, and above all hit him. He doesn't deal with adversity. That's why he's being kicked out of Tennessee. He goes out of games with the sniffles. He dives to the ground when nobody is around him. He gives up on plays. When the going gets tough, he doesn't get tougher.

 

CK you have made me curious if the stats show what could be considered a run first QB. So far out of all i have checked there are only two active ones that would be run first Vick and Young. Mcnabb was easily his first 3 out of 4 seasons but he has turned that around later in his career. Wanted to share this with everyone i find it interesting.

NFL career / Pass attempts/ Rushing yards / Run First?
Michael Vick 2115 4630 easy YES
Vince Young 1190 1380 close but YES
Drew Brees 4822 479 NO
Mcnabb 5218 3400 wow but NO
Carson Palmer 3217 316 NO
Chad Henne 953 84 NO
Jay Cutler 2207 828 NO
Arron Rodgers 1611 926 NO

If anyone is aware of another one that could be considred run first in this senario please show them.
Anyhow i can see the stats show what we see in this case two run fist QBs / though Vince Young can change those numbers around hes not near as lopsided as Vick.

Rodgers and Culter do put someyards down but i understand why some refer run first.


OMG you guys are turning me into a stat monkey. NOOOOOO!

 

Despite whatever minor misgivings I may have with some of the methodology here (particularly yardage rather than attempts...seems like you're punishing guys for being EFFECTIVE at running the ball when they do run and that doesn't seem right to me)...if you're only finding two guys that you can satisfy yourself as being "run first" (still disagree with that label, as it relates to Michael Vick present day and Vince Young present day), then you can see the futility of even making it into a generality or a label to begin with. These QBs deserve to be evaluated individually on whether or not they read the field and whether or not they're effective. This kind of label only serves the purpose of covering the truth, not uncovering it.

 

4.69 forty isn't slow for a QB.

 

When you looked at him in 2010, you saw muscle atrophy compared to Young earlier in his career? I never noticed it, so will just have to take your word for it.

As for going soft mentally, how does one determine that, other than results on the field? Wasn't 2010 his best season so far?

Someone posted a few months ago something about him working out diligently with one of the bigger name veteran WRs and drawing positive feedback from that WR, though I can't recall with exact certainty who it was. If this is true, wouldn't that be a good sign?

 

I don't really want any QB that will cost us picks to "compete" in a very shortened offseason.

I can see paying the price tag and letting the QBs work through mini-camps and OTAs to see who earns it, but it's not a fair competition in this situation and would only serve as a ***** slap to the leadership Henne has established in player workouts.

The front office needs to suck a big fat Rex Ryan and learn from him in supporting their QB. This continuing talk of bringing in a veteran to compete a few weeks before the season is pathetic. I feel like showing Sparano his press conference with Ross & Ireland about the Harbaugh story on repeat.

 

I'm going to go with Cutler (for less than a 2nd rd pick), Thigpen, Young and Jackson.

And I'm not going to with any of the other options.

I'm not considering Palmer an option at this point, with Mike Brown being known to stick to his guns.

 

Want
1. Palmer
2. Orton
3. Hasselbeck

Don't Want:
1. Young
2. Mcnabb
3. Smith

 

See this is one of those bull**** points that no one can prove. If you can't prove every white DE gets labeled high-motor, stop saying it.

http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/profile_display.cfm?prospect_id=2516

I noticed the word motor is absent.

Here's a quote from Bill Swancutt, the actual player

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2005draft/2005-04-13-profile-defensive-linemen_x.htm

See, this is another bull**** point. You previously said that if one side is "unfairly" labeled something, then the fact that it's not actually unfairly labeling does not matter to you. Just showed you an example from the other side and you essentially said so what. So now, I don't have to show you anything because you're set in your beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Protip: Don't debate something if when you're proven wrong you won't concede.

But here. This is Leonard Hankerson's Scouting Report. One of them anyway.

http://football.about.com/od/Wide-Receivers/p/Leonard-Hankerson.htm

[Citation needed]

 

I'd be pretty tickled with Jay Cutler for less than a 2nd too. Not counting on it at all though.

 

I wonder if Peyton manning is available for that price as well

 

I didn't start refuring to them as run first. I simpley looked up stats to see if there was logical backing to why you where having problems with people calling them run first QB's. To my surprise i was sharing there is and i only found two active ones.