2 QB set

[Charles Woodson]

Just thought of this, what if we use both A-rod and BF during the game. I mean it would throw the other teams D's off and it would make it harder to prepare. I mean i think splitting time would be the best situation... thoguhts?

[MadtownPacker]

Leaper already brought this up and got roasted. :lol:

[Charles Woodson]

Opps :oops:

[The Leaper]

Yeah...don't go there. :D

I am certain it could work if the Packers wanted it to because the situation is very unique with two capable QBs. However, despite the success of dual QBs in college, most think it can't possibly translate to the NFL under any circumstances.

[K-town]

The Dallas Cowboys tried it in 1971 - alternating series between Roger Staubach and Craig Morton (or as I refer to them, Roger Dodger and Craig-More-Off-Than-On). It was a Godawful mess. IIRC, even the lowly Bears beat them during the Qb-go-round period. By the time Dallas went to the playoffs, Staubach was the man.

FWIW.

[The Leaper]

I also was thinking of it as a Favre being the starter and Rodgers filling in...but in fact it probably would work better the other way. Let Rodgers be the starter...but use Brett in a role where he comes in for a couple series a game as a changeup, or for the 2 minute drills. Talk about bringing an instant jolt of electricity to the offense.

The game is far different today than it was in 1971...and I think the differences between Rodgers and Favre are much greater than between Staubach and Morton.

[Gunakor]

Just thought of this, what if we use both A-rod and BF during the game. I mean it would throw the other teams D's off and it would make it harder to prepare. I mean i think splitting time would be the best situation... thoguhts?


If you have two QB's, that means you don't have one.

[bobblehead]

gimmick offenses have a long successful history in the NFL, I don't know why coaches are so adament about proset, smash mouth run game type offenses. The run and shoot is a prime example...or the option play.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

virtually impossible.

Not enough snaps in practice for both. Generally the starter gets 75% of the reps.

[The Leaper]

If you have two QB's, that means you don't have one.

Perhaps...or it means you do actually have two.

With Favre and Rodgers, the Packers would have two capable QBs. Most teams are lucky to have one.

[The Leaper]

virtually impossible.

Not enough snaps in practice for both. Generally the starter gets 75% of the reps.

Yeah, it would be difficult...but that is why I think it would work best with Favre in the changeup role. He doesn't need as many "snaps".

Of course, none of it matters anyway. Rodgers is the guy for Green Bay.

[texaspackerbacker]

This doesn't make any contribution to the whole Favre mess, but I always though the split back set--Taylor and Hornung, Grabowski and Anderson, etc. was far superior to the currently dominant pro I with a barely productive fullback and an RB who gets worn down in too few years, gets paid way too much, and leaves the team in a helluva mess when he gets hurt.

I see no reason at all why a 215 pound mega-athlete couldn't be coached to reciprocate blocking assignments for his counterpart on the other side, and do just as well as a 250 pound one-dimensional mini-guard in the backfield.

Heaven knows, the colleges produce enough quality RBs to make this work. The split backs would make a passing game to the backs much more effective--screens, swing passes, and even going down the field. Sweeps and traps would be much more effective, as there would be more variability. They only thing that would be even slightly more difficult would be use of a lead blocker, and I never liked those plays as much anyway except for short yardage--for which you revert back to the I. The split backs should also be more effective picking up blitzes.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex once again not understanding progress and specialization.

Guess that whole industrial revolution got in your craw as well. :roll:

[Gunakor]

If you have two QB's, that means you don't have one.

Perhaps...or it means you do actually have two.

With Favre and Rodgers, the Packers would have two capable QBs. Most teams are lucky to have one.


Arizona Cardinals.... And don't give me the whole "no talent surrounding him" crap because they have a wealth of talent. If they would just make up thier damn mind who they want as thier QB they might just make the playoffs. As long as they have both Warner and Leinart, they don't have the one QB that will take them where they want to go.

Teams just don't do this successfully. I can't think of even one time in the SB era that a team went with 2 QB's alternating series' and had a deep playoff run. If you can think of one, please post it. I can't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

virtually impossible.

Not enough snaps in practice for both. Generally the starter gets 75% of the reps.

Yeah, it would be difficult...but that is why I think it would work best with Favre in the changeup role. He doesn't need as many "snaps".

Of course, none of it matters anyway. Rodgers is the guy for Green Bay.

Favre..like any player needs to stay sharp and develop timing. Sorry, but i don't see it. Especially with all the young receivers we have.

That is why anyone who thinks a competition for the QB spot is good is kidding themselves. Arod is #1..therefore he is going to get those snaps. Favre..nor really anybody else is gonna get enough to really challenge.

[The Leaper]

Arizona Cardinals.... And don't give me the whole "no talent surrounding him" crap because they have a wealth of talent. If they would just make up thier damn mind who they want as thier QB they might just make the playoffs. As long as they have both Warner and Leinart, they don't have the one QB that will take them where they want to go.

Teams just don't do this successfully. I can't think of even one time in the SB era that a team went with 2 QB's alternating series' and had a deep playoff run. If you can think of one, please post it. I can't.

Favre and Rodgers are significantly better than Warner and Leinart IMO. Warner was used up 4 years ago...and Leinart is too busy finding liquor and hot tubs to make any real impact in the NFL.

I agree...this would be a first in NFL history. However, I think this situation could be utilized to the Packers advantage if everyone was on board. At this point, it couldn't possibly happen after everything that has gone on.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex once again not understanding progress and specialization.

Guess that whole industrial revolution got in your craw as well. :roll:

Same in sports as in politics, Tyrone. You make some stupid comment, but you're impotent to argue the substance.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If you have two QB's, that means you don't have one.

Perhaps...or it means you do actually have two.

With Favre and Rodgers, the Packers would have two capable QBs. Most teams are lucky to have one.


Arizona Cardinals.... And don't give me the whole "no talent surrounding him" crap because they have a wealth of talent. If they would just make up thier damn mind who they want as thier QB they might just make the playoffs. As long as they have both Warner and Leinart, they don't have the one QB that will take them where they want to go.

Teams just don't do this successfully. I can't think of even one time in the SB era that a team went with 2 QB's alternating series' and had a deep playoff run. If you can think of one, please post it. I can't.

You don't know what you are talking about regarding the cardinals.

On offense:

1. They have a disgruntled receiver in Boldin who will not play for them next year.
2. they have no 3/4/5 WR. Breaston is their hope for #3...and he hasn't done anything.
3. They have no proven ground game. james hasn't done anything (3.4 and 3.8 ypc)..and behind him is shipp and arrington. So, either the backs are good but can't produce cause of a bad line..or they aren't good.
4. They have no proven TE.
5. OL: LOL

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex once again not understanding progress and specialization.

Guess that whole industrial revolution got in your craw as well. :roll:

Same in sports as in politics, Tyrone. You make some stupid comment, but you're impotent to argue the substance.

No, you are arguing in favor of going back in time...as if you know more than the coaches and those who know the game.

The history of production is one of specialization...not generalization.

Buhbye. :oops:

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex once again not understanding progress and specialization.

Guess that whole industrial revolution got in your craw as well. :roll:

Same in sports as in politics, Tyrone. You make some stupid comment, but you're impotent to argue the substance.

No, you are arguing in favor of going back in time...as if you know more than the coaches and those who know the game.

The history of production is one of specialization...not generalization.

Buhbye. :oops:

Idiot, I gave good substantial reasons why I think a split back set would be more effective--and why I can't believe that nobody in position to put it into effect sees it that way. You, typically, were incapable of any intelligent counter at all.

I suspect that the league likes the idea of building up superstars, as is more likely to happen in a one RB/I formation, and that is why everybody does that. Either that or it's just a tendency to follow the crowd--like having one inning "superstar" closers in baseball, etc.

Just because something is "now" instead of "then" doesn't mean it's a step forward.

[Gunakor]

If you have two QB's, that means you don't have one.

Perhaps...or it means you do actually have two.

With Favre and Rodgers, the Packers would have two capable QBs. Most teams are lucky to have one.


Arizona Cardinals.... And don't give me the whole "no talent surrounding him" crap because they have a wealth of talent. If they would just make up thier damn mind who they want as thier QB they might just make the playoffs. As long as they have both Warner and Leinart, they don't have the one QB that will take them where they want to go.

Teams just don't do this successfully. I can't think of even one time in the SB era that a team went with 2 QB's alternating series' and had a deep playoff run. If you can think of one, please post it. I can't.

You don't know what you are talking about regarding the cardinals.

On offense:

1. They have a disgruntled receiver in Boldin who will not play for them next year.
2. they have no 3/4/5 WR. Breaston is their hope for #3...and he hasn't done anything.
3. They have no proven ground game. james hasn't done anything (3.4 and 3.8 ypc)..and behind him is shipp and arrington. So, either the backs are good but can't produce cause of a bad line..or they aren't good.
4. They have no proven TE.
5. OL: LOL

Well, I can't really argue any except for #'s 1 and 2.

#1, Boldin is disgruntled this year but was playing last year and the year before. They weren't producing with a happy Boldin either.

#2, Most teams don't have top flight #3-#5 WR's. Those spots are usually filled by journeyman WR's or rookies. Most teams don't have top flight #3-#5 cornerbacks to cover them anyway, because they fill these spots with - you guessed it - journeyman CB's and rookies. It's a wash. Besides, how often do you see Zona going 4 and 5 wide anyway??

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex once again not understanding progress and specialization.

Guess that whole industrial revolution got in your craw as well. :roll:

Same in sports as in politics, Tyrone. You make some stupid comment, but you're impotent to argue the substance.

No, you are arguing in favor of going back in time...as if you know more than the coaches and those who know the game.

The history of production is one of specialization...not generalization.

Buhbye. :oops:

Idiot, I gave good substantial reasons why I think a split back set would be more effective--and why I can't believe that nobody in position to put it into effect sees it that way. You, typically, were incapable of any intelligent counter at all.

I suspect that the league likes the idea of building up superstars, as is more likely to happen in a one RB/I formation, and that is why everybody does that. Either that or it's just a tendency to follow the crowd--like having one inning "superstar" closers in baseball, etc.

Just because something is "now" instead of "then" doesn't mean it's a step forward.

No, you didn't give substantial reasons.


I always though the split back set--Taylor and Hornung, Grabowski and Anderson, etc. was far superior to the currently dominant pro

You thought...ok..this is substantial. No facts or figures to support your supposition.

Easily countered with...MORE TEAMS IN THE NFL NOW...less good backs available.

1. "Barely productive fullback"..says who? Greatest years receivng for FB are in the present. Greatest years rushing are in pro set.
2. "worn down"...some facts please..you have none.
3. "helluva mess"...facts please. How many rbs were injured and how did this effect teams. How does the cap influence this? Or, if we have to pay TWO SUPERSTARS how is that going to effect things.


I see no reason at all why a 215 pound mega-athlete couldn't be coached to reciprocate blocking assignments for his counterpart on the other side, and do just as well as a 250 pound one-dimensional mini-guard in the backfield.

Oh, you see no reason...that is substantial. :roll: Perhaps it isn't done because the coaches and gms realize it isn't feasible or the best thing for the team. YOu know, i tend to let those who do the job make those kind of decisions..not some idiot who has never coached the game or run a team.

I can see it now...the "mega-athlete" gets hurt blocking and you and the rest are screaming about risking a superstar blocking.


Heaven knows, the colleges produce enough quality RBs to make this work

Facts please. Wow..the stupidity of this statement is off the charts. Our second rounder could barely contribute..yet colleges produce enough quality. Guess that is why we had to run out guys like gado and herron. :roll:


The split backs would make a passing game to the backs much more effective--screens, swing passes, and even going down the field. Sweeps and traps would be much more effective, as there would be more variability

More conjecture..no facts. I can easily saw wrong...most college backs and pros arent' good at catching the ball. Sweeps...right, now we don't have a FB..so we rely on a rb to block.


I never liked those plays as much anyway except for short yardage

Ah, personal preference again.

The biggest point which you are to dense to pickup...is that college backs arent' trained to do what you want them to do....most good college backs aren't good at blocking, picking up blitzes, etc.

Generalist...master of nothing.

Buhbye.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If you have two QB's, that means you don't have one.

Perhaps...or it means you do actually have two.

With Favre and Rodgers, the Packers would have two capable QBs. Most teams are lucky to have one.


Arizona Cardinals.... And don't give me the whole "no talent surrounding him" crap because they have a wealth of talent. If they would just make up thier damn mind who they want as thier QB they might just make the playoffs. As long as they have both Warner and Leinart, they don't have the one QB that will take them where they want to go.

Teams just don't do this successfully. I can't think of even one time in the SB era that a team went with 2 QB's alternating series' and had a deep playoff run. If you can think of one, please post it. I can't.

You don't know what you are talking about regarding the cardinals.

On offense:

1. They have a disgruntled receiver in Boldin who will not play for them next year.
2. they have no 3/4/5 WR. Breaston is their hope for #3...and he hasn't done anything.
3. They have no proven ground game. james hasn't done anything (3.4 and 3.8 ypc)..and behind him is shipp and arrington. So, either the backs are good but can't produce cause of a bad line..or they aren't good.
4. They have no proven TE.
5. OL: LOL

Well, I can't really argue any except for #'s 1 and 2.

#1, Boldin is disgruntled this year but was playing last year and the year before. They weren't producing with a happy Boldin either.

#2, Most teams don't have top flight #3-#5 WR's. Those spots are usually filled by journeyman WR's or rookies. Most teams don't have top flight #3-#5 cornerbacks to cover them anyway, because they fill these spots with - you guessed it - journeyman CB's and rookies. It's a wash. Besides, how often do you see Zona going 4 and 5 wide anyway??

Gunakor..i live in AZ. Boldin is really unhappy.

Producing: Are you kidding me. Warner had a great year last year. 27 tds..17 ints...3400 yards, 62 percent.

Talent: You said they were talented..not me. I merely refuted your supposition. If you wanna retreat go ahead...but, the cards aren't that talened.

As for a 3rd...plenty of teams have better than an unproven KR as their 3rd. Especially the talented ones..which you claim the cards are.

Going wide: More if they had the talent.

[Gunakor]

If you have two QB's, that means you don't have one.

Perhaps...or it means you do actually have two.

With Favre and Rodgers, the Packers would have two capable QBs. Most teams are lucky to have one.


Arizona Cardinals.... And don't give me the whole "no talent surrounding him" crap because they have a wealth of talent. If they would just make up thier damn mind who they want as thier QB they might just make the playoffs. As long as they have both Warner and Leinart, they don't have the one QB that will take them where they want to go.

Teams just don't do this successfully. I can't think of even one time in the SB era that a team went with 2 QB's alternating series' and had a deep playoff run. If you can think of one, please post it. I can't.

You don't know what you are talking about regarding the cardinals.

On offense:

1. They have a disgruntled receiver in Boldin who will not play for them next year.
2. they have no 3/4/5 WR. Breaston is their hope for #3...and he hasn't done anything.
3. They have no proven ground game. james hasn't done anything (3.4 and 3.8 ypc)..and behind him is shipp and arrington. So, either the backs are good but can't produce cause of a bad line..or they aren't good.
4. They have no proven TE.
5. OL: LOL

Well, I can't really argue any except for #'s 1 and 2.

#1, Boldin is disgruntled this year but was playing last year and the year before. They weren't producing with a happy Boldin either.

#2, Most teams don't have top flight #3-#5 WR's. Those spots are usually filled by journeyman WR's or rookies. Most teams don't have top flight #3-#5 cornerbacks to cover them anyway, because they fill these spots with - you guessed it - journeyman CB's and rookies. It's a wash. Besides, how often do you see Zona going 4 and 5 wide anyway??

Gunakor..i live in AZ. Boldin is really unhappy.

Producing: Are you kidding me. Warner had a great year last year. 27 tds..17 ints...3400 yards, 62 percent.

Talent: You said they were talented..not me. I merely refuted your supposition. If you wanna retreat go ahead...but, the cards aren't that talened.

As for a 3rd...plenty of teams have better than an unproven KR as their 3rd. Especially the talented ones..which you claim the cards are.

Going wide: More if they had the talent.

Okay, maybe they aren't a premier team in the league (although I never said they were, just that they had some talent on offense).

Think maybe they'd be able to bring in more talented WR's if they knew coming in who thier QB would be? I for one would be less than enthusiastic coming to a team who's had a QB controversy for several seasons and doesn't seem to want to make a decision. I'm not sure, but I'd think this might be part of Boldin's beef with AZ also. I haven't heard anything about this, just putting myself in his shoes and figuring out how I would feel. I would want to know who the leader of the offense is, and I wouldn't want to hear two names given to me as an answer. Even more reason for them to finally make up thier fucking minds as to who thier QB is. Bottom line, there is only room for ONE starting QB on any football roster. And that's it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

gunakor,

MOst players come for one reason...pay. Simple as that.

Boldin: upset that they haven't renogiated his contract. Very unhappy that he has given it his all, played hurt, practiced hard, etc...and still nothing.

QB: They have named a starter. It is leinart.

the cards suck, like most teams that suck because of bad managment...things start at the top..the bidwells are terrible owners...CHEAP. Always way under the cap..."saving room for roster moves, etc"...when they could be signing impact players.

Think about the pack..bad until the top changed. Same with the Bills...when wilson decided to open his wallet..boom, superbowls. Vikes...Mccombs was way cheap..cheap on assistants, scouting, etc. That was a huge problem.

Bengals..run the same exact way.l

[texaspackerbacker]

Nice effort, Tyrone. I didn't think ya had it in ya.

You're still wrong, of course. All you did really was break it down point by point--sayng negative things without any reason why.

Your point about a top flight RB being injured blocking has some merit--although probably less than the chance of being injured carrying the ball twice as many times. And your point about colleges not producing runners trained to block and pick up blitzes is partly correct. You have to pick up blitzes regardless, and it's more difficult from the I. As for blocking in general, if the pros adjusted, the colleges likely would follow suit.

[Gunakor]

gunakor,

MOst players come for one reason...pay. Simple as that.

Boldin: upset that they haven't renogiated his contract. Very unhappy that he has given it his all, played hurt, practiced hard, etc...and still nothing.

QB: They have named a starter. It is leinart.

the cards suck, like most teams that suck because of bad managment...things start at the top..the bidwells are terrible owners...CHEAP. Always way under the cap..."saving room for roster moves, etc"...when they could be signing impact players.

Think about the pack..bad until the top changed. Same with the Bills...when wilson decided to open his wallet..boom, superbowls. Vikes...Mccombs was way cheap..cheap on assistants, scouting, etc. That was a huge problem.

Bengals..run the same exact way.l

I hadn't heard they had named a starter. That's a good move on thier part, as long as they don't throw Warner in there for the first series of the second quarter in week 1. That would be detrimental to thier chances of making the playoffs in what would appear to be a fairly weak division this year. They need to stick with Leinart if that's the direction they are going.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nice effort, Tyrone. I didn't think ya had it in ya.

You're still wrong, of course. All you did really was break it down point by point--sayng negative things without any reason why.

Your point about a top flight RB being injured blocking has some merit--although probably less than the chance of being injured carrying the ball twice as many times. And your point about colleges not producing runners trained to block and pick up blitzes is partly correct. You have to pick up blitzes regardless, and it's more difficult from the I. As for blocking in general, if the pros adjusted, the colleges likely would follow suit.

You lost...just man up and admit it.

You posted personal feelings with no facts or figures.

The proof is in the pudding..the pros dont' do what you suggest. the whole game is about winning..and not getting fired..if they thought your ideas had merit they would do them.

Now, you start with another stupid thing...colleges would follow....as if they have the same rules as the pros...no. Pros all run pro sets..yet colleges don't. Stop, the hole you are digging is just getting deeper.

You just can't get out of your own way.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

gunakor,

MOst players come for one reason...pay. Simple as that.

Boldin: upset that they haven't renogiated his contract. Very unhappy that he has given it his all, played hurt, practiced hard, etc...and still nothing.

QB: They have named a starter. It is leinart.

the cards suck, like most teams that suck because of bad managment...things start at the top..the bidwells are terrible owners...CHEAP. Always way under the cap..."saving room for roster moves, etc"...when they could be signing impact players.

Think about the pack..bad until the top changed. Same with the Bills...when wilson decided to open his wallet..boom, superbowls. Vikes...Mccombs was way cheap..cheap on assistants, scouting, etc. That was a huge problem.

Bengals..run the same exact way.l

I hadn't heard they had named a starter. That's a good move on thier part, as long as they don't throw Warner in there for the first series of the second quarter in week 1. That would be detrimental to thier chances of making the playoffs in what would appear to be a fairly weak division this year. They need to stick with Leinart if that's the direction they are going.

The cards have named leinart the starter. The do want him to outperform Warner at the camp..but, he is the starter.

The cards are in a certain respect in the same situation as the pack. Warner is the better qb..like favre, but going with leinart/arod is best for the team in the long run. You don't draft a qb in the first round and not see what he can do.

Fairly weak..division aint' the issue...still have pack, hawks, boys, gmen, eagles, skins, bucs, saints, panthers.

Cards are a 7 or maybe 8 win team...plus, remember this is year 2 of the whisenhunt era...but, still have the same bidwell/graves management. Yuck.

[Gunakor]

gunakor,

MOst players come for one reason...pay. Simple as that.

Boldin: upset that they haven't renogiated his contract. Very unhappy that he has given it his all, played hurt, practiced hard, etc...and still nothing.

QB: They have named a starter. It is leinart.

the cards suck, like most teams that suck because of bad managment...things start at the top..the bidwells are terrible owners...CHEAP. Always way under the cap..."saving room for roster moves, etc"...when they could be signing impact players.

Think about the pack..bad until the top changed. Same with the Bills...when wilson decided to open his wallet..boom, superbowls. Vikes...Mccombs was way cheap..cheap on assistants, scouting, etc. That was a huge problem.

Bengals..run the same exact way.l

I hadn't heard they had named a starter. That's a good move on thier part, as long as they don't throw Warner in there for the first series of the second quarter in week 1. That would be detrimental to thier chances of making the playoffs in what would appear to be a fairly weak division this year. They need to stick with Leinart if that's the direction they are going.

The cards have named leinart the starter. The do want him to outperform Warner at the camp..but, he is the starter.

The cards are in a certain respect in the same situation as the pack. Warner is the better qb..like favre, but going with leinart/arod is best for the team in the long run. You don't draft a qb in the first round and not see what he can do.

Fairly weak..division aint' the issue...still have pack, hawks, boys, gmen, eagles, skins, bucs, saints, panthers.

Cards are a 7 or maybe 8 win team...plus, remember this is year 2 of the whisenhunt era...but, still have the same bidwell/graves management. Yuck.


Wouldn't winning the NFC West and making the playoffs be considered a small victory in AZ? I remember last offseason, everybody was talking about how if Green Bay made the playoffs they would consider that a successful season. And we were only 2 years removed from our last playoff appearance. I remember the Cards making the playoffs once in the 90's, but when was the last time before that?

You are absolutely right though, with the roster they have currently they don't have much of a shot at advancing very far in the postseason should they make it. Same goes for any other team in the NFC West.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Winning the west and getting to the playoffs would be HUGE. That wouldn't be a small thing.

the cards are in the same position we are in..fans want/expect playoffs. Reasonable people know that leinart must be given a shot..otherwise wasted pick..and warner ain't the longterm solution.

However, fans are tired of "next" year. So, they are also wanting whoever can get them there. The org itself is wary...as they dont' wanna lose fans/money...and the goodwill of new coach and new stadium.

Playoffs: I'm no card historian..been out here 3 years. I would guess...maybe under lomax. I can look it up when i get time.

the problem always comes back to the bidwells..i was talking with an old timer from chitown..he said the bidwells were cheap then when it was the chicago cards...and left for money to go to st.louis...and then, what a surprise..did the same thing leaving st.lou for phx.