Football Philosophy: Examining the Quarterback Position

Evan Habeeb-US PRESSWIRE

In this post the quarterback gets put under the microscope to shed some light on the Eagles' current situation at the position.

In American sports, no other position is as glorified or scrutinized as the quarterback. The closest comparison would be a pitcher in baseball and even they do not reach the same level of recognition that a quarterback does. He is the face of the franchise and is most likely the only player a somewhat casual fan could even name. Naturally, a lot of buzz has been going around about what Chip Kelly will do at the position. With the exception of defensive coordinator, it is the biggest decision Kelly will make this offseason.

Or is it?

Just how vital is the quarterback to success in football? In today's day and age, every football pundit and his uncle would say, "very." "It's a passing league now," they say. "You can't win in football without an elite quarterback. And the position is changing for more mobile QBs." And then they go off into their tangents on who is elite and who isn't and it gets to the point where Skip Bayless is shouting nonsense and I change the channel.

Since we all know that Billy Davis is the defensive coordinator, I'll run through some of the big talking points surrounding quarterbacks and try and sift perception from reality.

"You need an elite quarterback to win the Super Bowl." I'm taking on this one first because it annoys me the most. The word "elite" is ambiguous and it is thrown around so much these days that it has almost lost its meaning. Additionally, the argument seems to revolve around whether or not the quarterback won it all to the point that people end up contradicting themselves. Is a quarterback elite because he won the Super Bowl? Or did he win the Super Bowl because he is elite?

For the sake of the argument, let's say that there are six elite quarterbacks in the NFL: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger. Three of the guys on that list missed the playoffs this year, and only one played in a conference championship game. None of them played in the Super Bowl.

The two quarterbacks that did may illustrate my point the best. Colin Kaepernick was in his tenth career start in the Super Bowl and Joe Flacco was pretty much the poor man's Tony Romo until his playoff run this year. Neither of these quarterbacks are going to be compared to Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. This isn't to say they are bad; Kaepernick has a very rare skill set and Joe Flacco was nearly flawless in the playoffs this year. But unlike Brees or Rodgers, they are not the keystone of the offense or the team. They are role players in a bigger picture. This is the true key for a successful offense that Bill Walsh discovered when he invented the West Coast offense. You don't need an elite quarterback, you just need a system that is conducive to good quarterback play.

Here's a trivia question: If you were around in the early nineties, do you remember Steve Bono? He was San Francisco's third string quarterback who ended up playing about half the season when both Joe Montana and Steve Young were injured. And he won five straight games to keep their playoff hopes alive. In fact, he was only replaced by Young after he got injured in a game. If you can win five games with your third string quarterback, what is the real relative importance of the quarterback's ability? Sure, Bono was surrounded by a lot of talent, but that's exactly my point. The team was built and organized so well that you could simply plug someone in under center and still win. More contemporary examples could be the 2000 Ravens (Trent Dilfer), the 2002 Buccaneers (Brad Johnson) and the 2008 Patriots (Matt Cassel).

I'm not arguing against talented quarterbacks. Obviously you like to maximize talent at every position, quarterback included. But true talent at quarterback only comes around once every few years, unlike the talent at most other skill positions. It is simply bad business to hold out for that "face of the franchise" because your team might have to endure losing for several seasons. And then once that quarterback is obtained, offensive coordinates suffer the pitfall of centering the system around that person. What happens when he gets injured? Well, if you're the Indianapolis Colts, you fall apart and only win two games that year. If you're the San Francisco 49ers, your backup going into the season helps your team reach the Super Bowl. On this example, you can argue that Kaepernick has a very good skill set for a quarterback which made him a better fit for the team. This leads me to my next point.

"Mobile quarterbacks are the future of the NFL." Since Robert Griffin III, Russell Wilson, and Colin Kaepernick took the league by storm this is the new trendy talk of football experts. I'm not going to sit here and try and convince you that having an athlete at the quarterback position will never overtake the pocket passer. But I will tell you that claiming athletic quarterbacks are going to redefine the position based off of the play of three young starters over the course of one season is very superficial.

Let's break down the three big mobile quarterbacks from last season. Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick had the NFL's best and second-best scoring defenses, respectively. They had red-chip running backs in Marshawn Lynch and Frank Gore. They had decent offensive lines. Robert Griffin III did not have the luxury of an elite defense, but he did have a very reliable rookie running back in Alfred Morris as well as a talented receiving corps.

Simply put, these guys were put into a favorable situation (or at least, a situation that ended up being favorable). Wilson or Kaepernick were by no means running the show by themselves. Robert Griffin III came the closest to doing that and he had to sit out a few games because of injury and lost his playoff appearance... to another mobile quarterback... with a better defense.

Additionally, the offensive coordinators organized the offense to maximize the production of the quarterback. Russell Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, and Robert Griffin III did not make a dull offense explosive simply by being mobile; rather, it was the other way around. Look at the NFC Championship Game. Kaepernick only threw the ball twenty-one times, but completed sixteen of those passes. He also only rushed twice for twenty-one yards. That game was won more by smart play-calling and understanding Kaepernick's strengths and weaknesses against Atlanta's defense than it was a mobile quarterback revolutionizing the position.

"The NFL is now a passing league." This is one that, for the most part, is true. Teams are throwing the ball more and the old "three yards and a cloud of dust" is long gone. It has become a big talking point in the NFL as the passing game evolves into a precise science. Is this hype around the passing game the result of teams tossing the rock more often? Or is it the cause?

At the risk of sounding metaphysical, it is entirely possible that teams are throwing the ball more not because it's the path to success in the NFL, but because they believe it is. Have teams with a great passing game won Super Bowls? Yes, but they've either had an elite quarterback, a tenacious defense, or a legitimate threat at running back. The passing game alone has not won a Super Bowl, but teams still try and cultivate it. Yes, it is still essential to having a balanced offense and there is certainly room to be creative with route design. But locking onto the idea that the passing game needs to be incredible in order to win paints the entire organization into a corner and leads to poor decisions like drafting Brandon Weeden in the first round.

Let's take a look at the top ten passing teams in the NFL in 2012, in terms of yards per game. I'll also throw in who the primary signal caller was:

  1. New Orleans Saints (Drew Brees)
  2. Detroit Lions (Matthew Stafford)
  3. Dallas Cowboys (Tony Romo)
  4. New England Patriots (Tom Brady)
  5. Denver Broncos (Peyton Manning)
  6. Atlanta Falcons (Matt Ryan)
  7. Indianapolis Colts (Andrew Luck)
  8. Oakland Raiders (Carson Palmer)
  9. Green Bay Packers (Aaron Rodgers)
  10. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Josh Freeman)
Seven of the ten teams on that list have a "face of the franchise" at quarterback, and even then I'm giving Tony Romo and Josh Freeman the shaft. Moreover, only half of the teams on that list made the playoffs and they all had a franchise quarterback. Metrics for rushing yards per game, scoring defense, and scoring offense all had a better playoff turnout from the top ten (six, seven, and eight respectively). Despite this parity, teams are chaining themselves to the idea of the elite quarterback and the precision passing offense and patiently wait for their guy to show up in the draft, which may be multiple years from now.

So, what does this all mean? To put it quite plainly, football is a team sport. That fact may seem obvious, but with the amount of credit everyone seems to be giving to the quarterback position, the other pieces seem to be lost in the fog. Teams prescribe themselves this formula that success is defined by throwing the ball and having an extremely talented quarterback. They then ignore logic and reason in an attempt to secure this "franchise savior" by giving up small fortunes in exchange for their "guy" (I'm looking at you, Arizona, Kansas City, and Cleveland).

That being said, there are still things a starting quarterback should have. In my book, at the very basic level a quarterback should be able to produce a go-ahead drive when called upon, limit turnovers, and make appropriate pre-snap reads. That's it. If you look at that list, you see even Mark Sanchez has fulfilled those requirements at points in his career. If you say, "Well, he had a defense and a running game," that is exactly the point I'm making. Would it be nice if the quarterback could throw a sixty yard bomb or run a read-option package? Sure. My question is, wouldn't it be nicer if the quarterback didn't have to do those things for the team to win?

There is no one way to win in the NFL. There is no formula. There is only talent and coaching. The trick is to find the appropriate mix of those two in order to produce the maximum results. Everything else is arbitrary. Which brings us to the point we're all interested in.

What does this mean for the Eagles? The only thing we can base speculation on is what Chip Kelly has said and done. Fortunately, he has said and done mostly the right things since arriving in Philadelphia. He's tried to hammer home the idea that he's not tied to a system and that he only wants to do whatever will score points on offense. He's hired assistants with varying amounts of NFL experience to help him adjust to the pro game. Personally, I think that he will eventually try to install some of the inside- and outside-zone read concepts he had in Oregon, but he's smart enough to realize that if the team doesn't show some kind of immediate improvement he may not be around to implement them. And the personnel on the team right now is not fit to run zone-read packages.

The important thing to recognize is that, offensively speaking, the quarterback position has the least amount of proven talent on this roster. This is why I think that it really won't matter who is under center for the Eagles next year. The offense is going to revolve around the speed the Eagles have at other positions and, given Kelly's reported hatred of turnovers, the quarterback could very well be selected based off of who give the rock away the least. While that would make Foles the starter on the surface, keep in mind that Vick has been a reliable starter when only asked to throw the ball twenty to thirty times a game.

In short, the quarterback position might not be the big deal everyone thinks it is. We can banter back and forth whether Vick, Foles, or even Dixon makes for the more ideal starter. But wouldn't the more ideal situation be if it honestly didn't matter?
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Bleeding Green Nation

You must be a member of Bleeding Green Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bleeding Green Nation. You should read them.

Join Bleeding Green Nation

You must be a member of Bleeding Green Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bleeding Green Nation. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9341_tracker