About Robert Griffin III And The "Running Quarterback" Thing ...

by an_auburn_fan on Feb 21, 2012 5:35 PM EST

1. The pick will be Andrew Luck, as it should be. Luck is a better prospect and a better fit for what the direction that the organization wants to go in.

2. Why is RG3 considered a "running quarterback" anyway? Name the last QB to complete 291 passes for 4300 yards that was considered a "running QB."

Still, let us PRETEND that the Colts actually are weighing the two against each other, and that RG3 is in fact a running QB. So what? The whole "no running QB has won a Super Bowl" thing is a canard. The reason: not enough running QBs have had a chance to make a good sample. Now let us narrow our view to running QBs that teams have actually invested money and time in: guys that were 1st or 2nd round picks and/or started for 3 or more years, not every running QB to have ever gotten a training camp invite or something. And also let us only consider guys that were actually running QBs, and not guys that get labeled as such for various reasons that will not go unnamed. When you do this, you come to the conclusion: not many dual threat QBs have ever played in the NFL.

Consider this: the Bills, Dolphins, Patriots and Jets have never had a running QB. Neither have the Ravens, Bengals or Browns. Nor have the Texans or Colts, Kansas City, Oakland or San Diego. Neither have the New York Giants, nor the Washington Redskins (unless an aging Doug Williams and Donovan McNabb count), Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, or Minnesota Vikings (unless an aging Randall Cunningham/Donovan McNabb counts). Neither have the New Orleans Saints, Arizona Cardinals, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks, or Saint Louis Rams. So, 19 of the 32 NFL teams have NEVER truly had a running QB.

Of the teams that remain? The Steelers had 1 (Kordell Stewart, Joe Gilliam doesn't count because he started only 20 games). The Jaguars had 1, David Garrard. The Titans had 2: Steve McNair and Vince Young. Excluding John Elway from the analysis, the Broncos have only had 1, Tim Tebow, who hasn't had his 3 years yet. The Cowboys had 1: Quincy Carter (Roger Staubach was too long ago). The Eagles have had 3: Cunningham, McNabb and Vick. The Falcons had 1: Vick. The Panthers have had 1: Newton, who is also still in his 3 year period. The Bucs: 1, Shaun King. And that is really it. All right, let us go ahead and include Aaron Brooks of the Saints: 1. Add those numbers up? You get 10 QBs. That is all. 10 QBs since the running QB experiment began with Randall Cunningham in 1985.

Really, the whole argument is silly anyway, because it relies on excluding John Elway, who had 3400 career rushing yards and 33 career TDs. It also requires excluding Steve Young, who rushed for 4200 yards and 43 TDs in only 9 seasons as a starter! But still, claiming that running QBs as a rule can't win a Super Bowl because 10 guys in 25 years didn't get it done is utterly ridiculous. It really is a failure of those 10 guys alone. Even further, it is a failure of the Philadelphia Eagles and Tennessee Titans' organizations, who have played HALF of the NFL's running QBs. While Donovan McNabb, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Michael Vick and Vince Young certainly had their flaws as players, it is difficult to claim that the Eagles or Titans would have been better with dropback QBs.

So end the "running QBs can't win the Super Bowl" nonsense. That is, at least until enough running QBs get a shot for us to be able to really tell.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Your logic is flawed

Pretty sure Steve Young was a “running QB” and he won a couple of MVPs a SB and is in the HOF…also you failed to mention Big Ben he extends plays with his legs and has won a couple of SBs….just sayin

by trueblue1984 on Feb 21, 2012 6:49 PM EST via mobile reply actions

I'm an idiot

ignore my first comment. I failed to read the last paragraph and jumped the gun and couldn’t delete it. Good post. I agree with you there hasn’t been enough “running QB’s” to say RG3 or Cam Newton wont win a SB only time will tell

by trueblue1984 on Feb 21, 2012 7:05 PM EST reply actions

From my post on DBD

The running quarterback

Fact: out of Cam Newtons 126 rushes he scrambled only 49 times (scrambled defined as during a designed pass play quarterback tucks it and runs). Aaron Rodgers who played one less game than Cam Newton rushed 60 times in 2011… 58 of them on designed plass plays. So by that Logic Aaron Rodgers is more of a “run first quarterback” than Cam Newton.(under the context many use) And incase you think that is a fluke or a blip on the radar. Newton at Auburn only scambled 43 times in all of 2010’s heisman season. Aaron Rodgers during his 2010 SuperBowl season scrambled 56 times out of 62 total rush attempts through 16 games. So I guess a “running quarterback” can win a Superbowl. Moral of the story is don’t fall for media hype research yourself and don’t by the ESPN hype machine

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2012/2/23/2820025/why-robert-griffin-is-more-advanced-as-a-quarterback-that-andrew-luck

by Shankdiddy on Feb 23, 2012 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

What a great post

I felt more manipulated in one minute of reading that I did with 10 years with my ex. By the end I was arguing with myself.

"If they want me to be a crazy, emotional, frenzied fan in section 603, then they can't expect me to be reasonable about the business of football"

by indylator on Feb 21, 2012 7:27 PM EST reply actions

Damn, this was very informative and well-written

1). I have seen years when the better rated prospect (regardless of position) get outplayed by lesser praised prospects, what I’m saying is no matter how much one prospect is better than the others, they still have one thing in common: they’re all UNPROVEN in the NFL. Until they are drafted and take snaps or see the field, every prospect is in the same boat

To answer your question about #2:

what does RGIII have in common with Michael Vick, Donovan McNabb, Kordell Stewart, Vince Young, Steve McNair, David Garrard, Cam Newton, Quincy Carter?

"I stepped on bullet-shells and crossed over dead bodies -Soulja Slim

by BlueHorseShoe on Feb 21, 2012 8:04 PM EST reply actions

Or it could be the stats.

All numbers are for total college career:
Starred names are guys I wouldn’t consider running QBs (and I’m not sure I’d consider them all running QBs anyway but I’m going with the public mind)

RG3 – 510 rushing attempts
*A. Luck – 163
*Landry Jones – ~ 120 so far
*P. Manning – 153
M. Vick – had 223 attempts over two years so it would be 446 over four full years (RG3 didn’t have four full years)
McNabb – 465
K. Stewart – 302
V Young – 457
C. Newton – 285
S. McNair – 375
Garrard – 389
Carter – 254 (I don’t really know anything about this guy but he’s on your list)
Steve Young – 269
John Elway – 259

I consider RG3 to be a running QB because he runs. He ran more times than anyone on this list in college. He’s got a great arm, too, so I guess it depends on whether you consider the monikers of “Running QB” and “Pocket Passer QB” to be mutually exclusive. The problem here seems to be people associate “running QB” with “QB that can’t pass.” That’s not necessarily true.

The bottom line is people consider him a running QB because he ran. A lot. Mike Vick wasn’t even on pace to run that much and all he can do is run. Vick’s got a powerful arm but inaccurate. RG3 has a powerful arm that is accurate. He’s a great combo, but does that mean he’s not a running QB? Does that make him a “Pocket Passer QB?” Maybe he’s a pocket passer with mobility? I don’t know, but you’ve basically made it a race argument when the stats show he likes to run.

Maybe the line should be set at the Antwaan Randle El level: 857 attempts. No question he was a running QB. Lots of fun to watch, too.

by ActionOxford on Feb 22, 2012 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

The bottom line is people consider him a running QB because he ran. A lot. Mike Vick wasn’t even on pace to run that much and all he can do is run. Vick’s got a powerful arm but inaccurate. RG3 has a powerful arm that is accurate. He’s a great combo, but does that mean he’s not a running QB? Does that make him a "Pocket Passer QB?" Maybe he’s a pocket passer with mobility? I don’t know, but you’ve basically made it a race argument when the stats show he likes to run.

i don’t know about all of that race talk.. but stats don’t show that he “likes to run”. Stats show that he did run.

This number of rush attempts doesn’t reflect any decision making traits. As most of his runs are called plays with 2 or 3 runs during designed passing plays. It is kinda of a “lazy title” really because this really doesn’t account for decision making. And honestly that is the entire point of emphasis when refering to a “running quarterback”. Is this guy going to stand in the pocket and make decisions? That is the question… and i think RG3 answered that. In a pro offense where a Pro team calls little to no designed run plays those 500 something rush attempts would tail off big time.. i don’t see a fault in his game for excuting a play that a coach tells him to run….. nor do i see it as a sign of decision making.

by Shankdiddy on Feb 23, 2012 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

your article tiptoes arund the entire answer to your question

You put it allout ther but you dont tie it all together. I cnma understand why, its a sensitive subject

The reason RG3 is considered a running QB is nor only is he fast, hes black

While Donovan McNabb, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Michael Vick and Vince Young certainly had their flaws as players,

All those Qb you mentioned are black as well and didnt win a Super Bowl.

Thats what people fear from RG3.

Personally, I would give him a shot.

He has a much stonger arm than Luck….Systems be damned, Cam Newton was in a spread at Auburn, and so was Drew Brees at Purdue

He had some better stats then Luck last season including more passing TD’s and more passing yards. He had better rushing stats all around as well…(I have heard a lot of pro-Luck arguments where his better than Peyton athleticism and mobility has been championed as a reason to draft him, well RG3 is even faster and more athletic)

He comes form a military family where his Dad fought in Iraq and RG3 became the defacto man of the house…Shows: LEADERSHIP & MATURITY

Graduated college EARLY…3.6 GPA (Shows smarts & dedication)

Have you seen him play?

Hiesman winner

I’d love to see him as a Colt.

Unfortunately this is all a moot point as we will most likely be drafting Luck

Go Blue!

Revenue - Expenses = Profit

by dezznutz1001 on Feb 22, 2012 12:13 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

I apologize if this post upset anyone

that was not my intent, but after reading my post again i realized i didnt bring my post all together either.

I agree with the writers premise that many of these guys were close to a title but just couldnt get over the hump…but using Elway and Young, two white guys as your example of the only running Qb’s to win a Super Bowl while all the other ones you mentioned were black Qb’s and had failed or not yet won, confused me and made me wonder if you were using the ole racial adage about Black Qbs not being able to win the big game.

I assume(d) you were saying why cant RG3 lead a team to Super Bowl title.
if thats what you meant I agree, why not?

Go Blue!

Revenue - Expenses = Profit

by dezznutz1001 on Feb 22, 2012 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

Two things worry me about RG3: his ACL and his overall stats. Two years ago he had a devastating ACL injury. While he looks to have recoevered, he’ll be dealing with better and larger players in the NFL. Most importantly for me, though, is that RG3 is a one year wonder. What I want from a college prospect is consistent production. Luck has it. RG3 doesn’t.

Plus, arm strength is overrated. People said Peyton had a weak arm back in 98. They were wrong. Luck can make all the NFL throws. His arm is plenty strong.

by TrueBlue87 on Feb 22, 2012 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

He has improved

His last season was definitely his best. He improved every season in college. That and completion percentage are the two stats that show the best chance of future success. Luck actually did very slighlty worse than last season. It’s definitely nit picking, since he still had over a 70% completion percentage. I’m just saying that he wasn’t a one year wonder when you see that he improved each season. He’s more of an improving player who is finding his talent level. That’s why the draft gurus say that he has a higher ceiling than Luck. There’s no guarantee that either gets there, but RGIII has not had a dip in production, yet.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 23, 2012 1:07 AM EST up reply actions

You think Aaron Boroks was a running QB?

I thought of him as more of a pocket Qb..mobile enough but a passer first. A poor mans Aaron Rodgers, who is athletic and mobile and can scramble quite well

Quincy Carter, Shaun King and David Garrad are more pocket passer Qb’s too.

Go Blue!

Revenue - Expenses = Profit

by dezznutz1001 on Feb 22, 2012 12:20 PM EST reply actions

Lets put this in perspective

The reason RG3 is considered a running is because he runs… and a great deal too. Although he had 402 pass attempts, he also had about 180 rushing attempts. Think about that for a second. That means he chooses to run the ball a whooping 30% of the time (about once every three plays). Thats not something you want an NFL QB to do.

Theres another reason why he is a running QB and not a pocket passer. He doesn’t pass in the pocket! He runs in a spread offense where he often gets the ball in shotgun. That also doesn’t happen to such frequency in the NFL. Its hard judging his pocket presence when he, like many college QBs, need extra space to feel comfortable with their game and make reads (if they can do that). You could argue he is a system QB as well, whereas Luck helped plan play books for his offense.

Theres another surprising stat. RG3 was sacked 27 (27!) times last season. In the shotgun position. You can argue thats because he runs, or has a weak line, or whatnot…. but hell if you’re as fast as he is, and getting the ball in shotgun… to get sacked 27 times is absolutely ridiculous. Whats he going to do if he faces the lions, ravens, 49ers, or Steelers…

This guy may lead the league in getting sacked. And if he were to go to the Colts.. with our weak line.. then those numbers will just skyrocket. I don’t get why this isn’t a concern. Also, health issues associated with this.

Final point I’d like to make, both Luck and RG3 threw 37 TD passes last year. But the thing with Luck is he’s essentially posted identical stats every game for the last 2 seasons. Thats really impressive. Anyways, I don’t get why people always point to yards thrown. RG3 benefitted from a high paced offense with very athletic wideouts. Luck’s best receiver only played 8 games last year. It makes sense he throws for less yards when he’s throwing to TEs. The fact that he throw 700 less yards but still had the same amount of TD’s is noteworthy.

Look RG3 may be very good. But we shouldn’t care about him. He shouldn’t come here… and that means he becomes our enemy next year. Forget him and move on.

by DoItAlone on Feb 22, 2012 9:30 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

excellent points. take a rec.

by TrueBlue87 on Feb 22, 2012 9:36 PM EST up reply actions

Sidenote

The thing you didn’t point out when saying that he may lead the league in sacks with our weak line is that Luck has had one of the best offensive lines in the nation with a power running game. He gets neither of those here. Make sure you include that side, if you are going to bring up adjusting to our line.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 23, 2012 1:12 AM EST up reply actions

RG3 also happens to have olympic speed that he could’ve run away from defenders if he made the reads quicker (this counteracts the effects of Luck having superior linemen). Also he’s in shotgun so he has more time to get rid of the ball..

Heres the thing – Luck has excellent pocket presence. Even if its a matter of half a second, Luck can make the read quickly and get rid of the ball. He can also scramble if need be. RG3 has brilliant athleticism and with that he ideally has more options whenever he has the ball. But his reaction time in making reads is slower (even if only a tad slower) and thats why he got sacked so many times. We’re talking about 27 to 11 (for luck).. thats almost a 3 fold difference. You can’t just attribute that to a line… which frankly Luck made look better than they are.

by DoItAlone on Feb 23, 2012 1:34 AM EST up reply actions

Sure

The two who are entering the draft this year are a top 10 and first round pick. Are you saying that scouts are wrong about their skills, but completely accurate about Luck. Linemen are much easier to grade, because you can focus on their footwork, hands, and how quickly they get off on the snap. QBs can have the skills, but they still have to rely on others around them to make them look good. Luck has had an amazing line, great running game, and a top flight tight end. He is very skilled, but they helped make him look good, too.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 23, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions

One more thing

I’ll add this too… whoever drafts RG3 needs to completely remodel their offense. Thats quite expensive (time and money wise). The reason is because to fully utilize RG3, you can’t make him just a pocket passer (which he’s never been before). Instead you gotta get quick linemen who can block for him if he wants to run. Also, since he operates in the shotgun, you have to have guys who can cover and block more space (hence the spread offense)..

You also need athletes downfield who can get open and make plays. Guys like RG3 and Cam use their running game to open up big passing plays. You’re not going to see the consistent, time consuming, short pass play drives that you’d get with Luck.

For the Colts, who are already remodeling the defense, its going to take a huge investment to go full on RG3. We need to realize that. And frankly, its not worth the cost. We are, as is, missing a lot of pieces. So why add to that list?

Another point, Luck’s ability to consume clock is very critical to our defense. We don’t want them on the field that long since they are not very good yet. RG3 is a big play QB.. very exciting and will score points, if he turns out to be good in the NFL. LIke Cam. But Carolina had a decent defense. We don’t.

by DoItAlone on Feb 23, 2012 1:42 AM EST up reply actions

A couple of questions

I know I’m coming off as PRO-RGIII. I’m not necessarily advocating picking him over Luck. I’d be fine if we traded down for picks, then used a couple to get back to number two to grab him. I’m more interested in your strange arguments against him.

Don’t we currently have an undersized, quick line? They run half of the current offense from the shotgun, and our biggest run play involves half the line pulling across the field. Seems like we already have that in place.

Also, if we don’t have offensive playmakers for RGIII, then we definitely don’t have them for Luck, since we would have fewer draft picks having not traded down. Seems like in that situation the ability to break the pocket for yards would be beneficial to sustaining drives. Not a hindrance.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 23, 2012 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

Valid Points

I’m not aware of all of our linemen’s mentality and whether they can spread the field to block for RG3. Even if they could, I still think its an adjustment because the Colts do not run a spread offense. Its not just the fact that you’re in shotgun… its also the fact that your QB is going to be moving around, running, and throwing on the run.

This will likely increase injuries… at a number of positions.

But my main concern, which I did mention, is that we will be utilizing less clock. Even though an individual play may run longer, the game speeds up and more bigger plays (yardage) are made. I know this sounds like a stupid thing to complain about… but given our poor defense, I think its really important to have a consistent, time consuming offense on the field.

Also Luck does not need a whole bunch of playmakers. The way he works, he’ll need a power running game to establish the play action, and he’ll need possession receivers – guys who can catch the medium passes and gain yardage bit by bit. That’s where we’re at offensively anyways. Hence he’s a better fit.

There’s just a lot more risk with RG3.

And in your idea of trading the #1 (which I think is ABSURD)… I’d rather pick up Barkley next year who I think is also a good prospect (but nothing compared to Luck).

Luck’s on field awareness is off the charts. He can play chess. RG3 is still playing checkers.

by DoItAlone on Feb 23, 2012 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

“Luck’s on field awareness is off the charts. He can play chess. RG3 is still playing checkers.”

Brilliant. We’re on the same page. Here’s yet another rec!

by TrueBlue87 on Feb 23, 2012 12:49 PM EST up reply actions

Who are our possession guys?

Collie and Clark are seam guys. Garcon is almost exclusively a deep threat. They are the ones who will, or are most likely to, return. Wayne is more of a possession receiver at this point, but he’s the most likely to not be on the roster. Clark would be a monster with his shiftiness and ability to break off routes, if they brought in RGIII. Again, I’d take Luck over RGIII, if they draft someone first. I still feel that these two could either be the guy from this draft. It will solely depend on the offensive line for their teams. Considering we need 3 interior linemen, I’m not sure which would be better for us.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 23, 2012 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

what is a seam guy?

and if clark and collie are just “seam” guys then we can just get rid of them

garcon is almost elusively a deep threat? hmmmm. ok

by omahacolt on Feb 23, 2012 7:03 PM EST up reply actions

Seam routes

Go over the middle behind the linebackers to put pressure on the safeties. Garcon is a speed receiver with below average hands, so deep threat. Neither would be a possession receiver who typically runs routes over the middle, and tries to make a move to get past the linebacker level of the defense. Quit trying to act smart with your comments, and just go back to saying people are dumb without backing it up. You make yourself look foolish when you talk.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 23, 2012 9:54 PM EST up reply actions

the why dont you educate me

1) why can clark and collie only run seam routes?

2) garcon had above average hands this year. can hands not be improved

3) garcon cant go over the middle? or does he just drop everything unless it is deep?

i would appreciate it if you could teach me.

by omahacolt on Feb 24, 2012 7:17 PM EST up reply actions

My big issue

Is one simple thing. Both have all the physical tools. RGIII is stronger, faster, and has a stronger arm. Luck has better pocket presence, and is a bigger student of the game.

Which of those things can be taught by a quality coaching staff? Arm strength? No. Speed? No. Pocket presence? Yes. Making adjustments based on the defense? Yes, he could be an understudy of the best ever. That’s why I feel like RGIII would be a better long term guy, if Peyton plays 2-3 more years in front of him. If Peyton is gone, then Luck it is.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 23, 2012 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

First off, arm strength is overrated. Both can make all the NFL throws, that’s what important. Second, speed isn’t important for a quarterback. It’s more important they have a feel for the pocket and can move around inside of it. Luck can, while RG3 prefers to get out of the pocket, which can get you killed in the NFL. And it’s not like Luck can’t run either. Finally, the most important things you’re leaving out are size and injury history. RG3 has a big injury history and is at least 2 inches shorter than Luck. Though he’s listed at 6’2, I think he’s closer to 6’1. That’s a HUGE difference. Remember, Drew Brees is the exception to the rule.

I don’t think RG3 will work out in the NFL and it has nothing to do with style of play or any intangibles. I just don’t think he has the body and durability for it.

by TrueBlue87 on Feb 24, 2012 12:10 AM EST up reply actions

A lot of I thinks

Arm strength isn’t overrated. He will be able to hit tighter windows, and throw across the field better. Moving the pocket is a great quality in a QB. Roethlisberger and Rodgers do it all the time. 3 rings. Also, 2 of your points counter each other. You say he won’t be in the pocket, but you also say he’s too short. If he’s not behind linemen, then his height doesn’t matter. Luck also has an injury history with a hand surgery.

The fact is that RGIII can learn the tools Luck has that he doesn’t yet have. Luck can’t learn to have a much stronger arm and develop world class speed.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 24, 2012 1:03 AM EST up reply actions

Luck’s arm is strong. It’s not like he’s Chad Pennington out there. You’re overrating the ability to throw a ball down the field. Luck can make the same NFL throws RG3 can.

Second, moving outside the pocket isn’t what you want to do in the NFL. You want to move WITHIN it. Roethlisberger can get away with moving outside the pocket because of his size. Vick also moves outside the pocket too much and it gets him killed. RG3 is more Vick in that respect.

Again, speed doesn’t matter in a quarterback. I don’t want my quarterback running down the field like a sprinter because that’s not his job.

Also, really? Rings? You’re using that argument? Everyone knows that rings aren’t a measure of a quarterback because Trent Dilfer isn’t better than Dan Marino.

Clearly there is a disagreement here, so I’m going to stop trying to convince you. Just don’t be upset when they draft Luck and turns out better.

by TrueBlue87 on Feb 24, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions

Why would I be upset about that?

Why would I be mad that the Colts have a good QB? Your arguments are just silly. They’re all about your wants and your thoughts. Everything is “I think” or “I want”. I’m just pointing out that you’re trying to tear down a guy who has all the abilities needed to be great in this league.

He measured in at 6’2" and 3/8. Easily tall enough to
fit into any system, and taller than you thought. You
also say he isn’t smart enough to make reads. Cam
Newton had the same doubts. He just went out and set
about a dozen rookie records including throwing for
over 4000 yards. He didn’t have a completion
percentage in the mid 60s in college, either.

Also, there are throws that a stronger arm can make in the NFL. An average arm cannot throw from the right sideline to the left safely. Cutler can make that throw. He’s one of the few in the NFL. He can’t make many other throws, but saying having a stronger arm doesn’t
help is ridiculous. He will be able to hit tighter
windows over the middle, too.

The reason there is a disagreement here is that you are arguing about who is better right now. I pointed out early on that I feel like Luck is better right now, but RGIII has a much, much higher ceiling in what he could become. I’m talking about how great he would be after sitting behind Manning for 2-3 years. If he has to come out and play right away, his numbers probably won’t be close to Luck’s. 3-4 seasons from now it will be interesting to see how they are, if they both land in good situations.

by PeytonTheManning on Feb 24, 2012 3:16 PM EST up reply actions

The reason RG3 is considered a running is because he runs… and a great deal too. Although he had 402 pass attempts, he also had about 180 rushing attempts. Think about that for a second. That means he chooses to run the ball a whooping 30% of the time (about once every three plays). Thats not something you want an NFL QB to do

this is kinda off considering the amount of designed pass plays. Which directly disputes the point of "That means he chooses to run the ball a whooping 30% of the time ".

reminds me of what was said about Newton when you fact check this theory of “run first quarterback” is seriously dispelled.

Its not fair too look at the number of rush attempts and associate that will his decision making as quarterback NOR try to factor this into a % of rushes….. you simply aren’t accounting for the amount of called run plays. And i imagine that number would likely be higher than say Tom Brady but massively lower than 30% of his plays….

Kinda like Cam Newton who ONLY scrambled 43 times at Auburn through 14 games. Infact he only scrambled 15 times in the final 6 games of the season (2.01 scrambles a game).. this is by no means over saturation of rush attempts. Do you think a Pro team will call those read option and quarterback option plays?….

And Newton Scrambled LESS than Aaron Rodgers did!!!! 126 total rushes but only 49 of which during a pass play….. Aaron Rodgers scrambled 58 times on 60 total rushes!!!!!

This is a misleading way to use this stat to prove one clear and defining point >>> decision making.

Too me a MORE disturbing stat is how Andrew Luck was sacked only 23 times in college yet had more interceptions that RG3 (RG3 17 to Lucks 22)….And RG3 threw the ball 128 MORE times while getting sacked 79 times…in short. While under more pressure and throwing the football alot more he made less mistakes…. too me that is more concerning than the rush attempts that clearly don’t truely reflect decision making… the turn overs however and responds to pressure doesn’t give a better clue.

by Shankdiddy on Feb 23, 2012 6:00 PM EST up reply actions

I see RG3 in much the same vein as Steve McNair: he can do both.

People forget that McNair got the “Air McNair” nickname in college, where he still holds the Division I-AA career passing record.

He threw for over 14,000 yards in college, ran for less than 2000.

And yet somehow he got dubbed a “running QB” before the NFL draft, and the label stuck.

by hartley on Feb 24, 2012 1:18 PM EST reply actions

Also, he quite possibly would have had more passing yards in the NFL, as well, if not for injuries and spending most of his career in the hyper-conservative Jeff Fisher offense.

by hartley on Feb 24, 2012 1:20 PM EST up reply actions