tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33736811.post5325216648227136200..comments2014-04-10T15:35:12.561+01:00Comments on Keeping the Chains moving - My take on the NFL and all things football: Zone ReadUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33736811.post-23626347046131658942010-07-13T15:02:08.915+01:002010-07-13T15:02:08.915+01:00"'how the quarterback position was VIEWED..."'how the quarterback position was VIEWED'<br /><br />not<br /><br />'how the quarterback position was played' "<br /><br />"This may also fundamentally change the way the professional quarterback (prototype) is viewed..." <br /><br /><br />Let me tell you a bit about myself Brophy. I'm a big believer in Democracy, especially as it stands in the USA, what I would refer to as a "Constitutional Democracy".<br /><br />But for Demmocracy to work properly, people must be given all sides of an argument in a factual manner and then allowed to make their own judgments. <br /><br />The biggest barrier to this in the modern world is what I would call "Political Quotes" where politicians mis-quote, or quote out of context in order to shed their opponents in a bad light and/or make themselves look better.<br /><br />At the top of this comment I posted your last response, followed by your actual quote from your blog. You'll notice that by leaving in the word "Prototype" in brackets as you wrote it, the meaning of that sentence changes.<br /><br />It changes from 'The way we look at how we use our Quarterbacks and what they do on the field' to 'The type of players we try and recruit as our quarterbacks, to meet the needs of our offense'.<br /><br />That one word, 'prototype' has a huge impact on the sentence. Now we're no longer talking about a play that asks our quarterbacks to do something new, we're talking about a play that fundamentally changes the kind of athlete we want to play QB.<br /><br />That's a huge difference.<br /><br />Now if you'd kindly stop cluttering up my comments section and get on with your own life, that'd be wonderful.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33736811.post-58299674569693132262010-07-13T13:56:48.081+01:002010-07-13T13:56:48.081+01:00'how the quarterback position was VIEWED'
...'how the quarterback position was VIEWED'<br /><br />not<br /><br />'how the quarterback position was played'<br /><br />Many will/have said zone read is a college gimmick.....however, the post (the entire intent of the post) illustrated MANY NFL teams currently using it, and not just in "wildcat".<br />That was the intent of the blog post; not to make a declarative assertion, but deliver an open-ended question about managing personnel.<br /><br />So, either that point was misinterpreted (and a post about a post was made) or you're saying I'm a liar.<br /><br />again, dealing with the 53 man roster limitation. It isn't enough to dictate 21 / 11 personnel....now you have to account for an additional athlete. How do you do that on defense? This isn't an impossibility, but just another squeeze the offense can put on the defense.<br /><br />The zone read is just the evolution of the zone/stretch + boot from the 80s, and what lead to the success of Donovan McNabb & Mike Vick (who's team was rushing king for years in ATL, primarily because of the horizontal stretch you get with IZ/OZ/boot).brophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01533102260799641755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33736811.post-57954564228368013342010-07-13T12:26:51.679+01:002010-07-13T12:26:51.679+01:00Brophy,
"No assertion was made on the play c...Brophy,<br /><br />"No assertion was made on the play changing the quarterback position..." - From your comments<br /><br />"This may also fundamentally change the way the professional quarterback (prototype) is viewed..." - from your blog post.<br /><br />I'd say that was pretty conclusive. <br /><br />Now I understand you may feel this post was an attack on you but it was simply a response to a question raised from someone who I believe reads both our blogs.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33736811.post-62536771063892016972010-07-12T21:52:55.209+01:002010-07-12T21:52:55.209+01:00the article itself, was just pointing out the evol...the article itself, was just pointing out the evolution of offenses, and how they adapt through the seasons.<br /><br />The video illustation went on to show 5 NFL teams running the play.<br /><br />No assertion was made on the play changing the quarterback position (as it was pointed out that this is a play run for years in the NFL). The open-ended question was whether some teams would take advantage of the 53-man roster limitation to use hybrid players (Tebow, Stewart, Vick, Brown, etc) to stress defensive personnel groupings (teams likewise constrained by roster limitations.)brophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01533102260799641755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33736811.post-42686429107105221572010-07-11T02:00:57.743+01:002010-07-11T02:00:57.743+01:00Thanks for the response. I'd be curious to see...Thanks for the response. I'd be curious to see your discussion on CoachHuey's site. I frequent it and respect both of your football knowledge from what I've read.<br /><br />I think that the "wildcat" is something to consider when you look at how many athletes playing QB that can now run and pass. I guess my sneaking suspicion is that the up and coming QBs are being groomed to be so athletic that it would hard NOT to use them as a runner. Another angle is that it might be like the "spread offense" in general. Many argued that that offense would not work because the NFL didn't want to have so many receivers on their roster..etc...<br />From a numbers standpoint it can't be argued that a running QB poses an extra dimension for the defense.<br />2 arguments against myself include the raw speed and adaptation of all NFL defenses and the damage a running QB takes. Either way, it's a nice twist to see it being developed.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09482969203999985290noreply@blogger.com