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.

[Charles Woodson]

Opps

[The Leaper]

Yeah...don't go there.

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]

Re: 2 QB set

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]

Re: 2 QB set

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.

[Gunakor]

Re: 2 QB set

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.