Cory’s Corner: College spread offenses are killing the NFL QB

Packers fans, I really hope you appreciate what you have.

And no, this isn’t another one of those Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers success stories.

But this is about the quarterback position.

I think we can all agree that Rodgers is the class of the NFL quarterback. His memory, instincts, accuracy and arm strength are uncanny. Following Rodgers, there’s Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees.

But there’s one common denominator. The last three guys have an average age of 37.3. In three years, all of those guys will either be a shell of their former elite selves or out of the league completely.

Rodgers turns 32 in December and Andrew Luck turns 26 in September. In a couple years, these guys will be the only elite quarterbacks in the league. For some, that may come across as balderdash because many think Russell Wilson is on the cusp of greatness. He’s solid, but Wilson has an elite ceiling that Luck still hasn’t touched.

The question is, why are so many great quarterbacks drying up?

The problem lies with college football. Many big-time passers are schooled to run a particular scheme that benefits the style and players the team has. In college, you’re more apt to see Western Michigan’s Zach Terrell or Cincinnati’s Gunner Kiel look more like a pro prospect because they’re given more freedom to fail at the lower levels.

Marcus Mariota threw only four picks last year, which breaks down to an absurd 0.9 percent of the time. But because he was so robotic in his scripted reads, his gaudy numbers actually hurt him. Nobody actually got to see him fail — and respond from that failure — very often.

It’s kind of like the traveling team for your son or daughter. They could split the teams evenly, making the competition tighter and increasing the odds that a loss would be sprinkled in the schedule. Or the powers that be could load up the star-quality players to the point that players cannot identify in-game adversity as they roll to victory.

The college game has always been criticized for being the minor leagues of the NFL. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The college game is in love with spread offenses and multiple quarterbacks. Just look at Ohio State, which has three. The game has gotten tougher to stop defensively, which is why fans usually see final scores that resemble a college basketball game.

And as the college game has evolved, the NFL is starting to take on a different shape as well. Ever since Cam Newton was taken first overall in 2011, the running aspect of the position has been stressed even more. And Newton’s one career playoff win was enough of a smokescreen to get rewarded as the third-highest-paid quarterback in the league recently. The very next year, the Redskins fell in love with Robert Griffin III and would love to part ways with the broken-down first rounder that caught lightning in a bottle.

And even if a quarterback comes from a non-spread system where he is taught to make more than one read, he often goes to a team where he has to play right away. Those quarterbacks are destined to fail. Guys like Brady Quinn, Jimmy Clausen and Blaine Gabbert come to mind.

There was no guarantee that Rodgers was going to blossom into the quarterback that he is now. But I really think the reason he did is because of the time he was given to observe and absorb everything for three years.

The sooner the air-it-out spread game becomes extinct in college, the sooner the quarterback position in the NFL will make a turnaround.

But unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

 

 

——————

Cory Jennerjohn is from Wisconsin and has been in sports media for over 10 years. To contact Cory e-mail him at jeobs -at- yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter: Cory Jennerjohn

——————

29 thoughts on “Cory’s Corner: College spread offenses are killing the NFL QB

  1. Cory – A very good and timely article on the reasonably near future state of NFL QBs. The spread game in college probably won’t change anytime soon because it puts people in the stands. The overall quality of NFL play has been declining for the past 20 years or so. If you look at the league objectively today, we’ll find that if you take Brady, Brees, Peyton Manning, Rodgers, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning and Andrew Luck out of the league, the games would become unwatchable. Look at Russell Wilson’s performance during the playoffs. He barely completed a pass during the first half of either the NFC championship against the Packers or the SB against the Pats. Stafford at Detroit is slightly above average at best. Cutler, why bother, RG3 is physically done, Romo maybe a little better than Stafford, etc… There are a few defensive stars, WRs and RBs worth watching but it’s like the league is down to about 15-20 players, half of them QBs and then what. Since the days of Unitas, it’s been a QB driven league. As you mention Cory, the future of the QB position does not look great, so what does that mean for the future of the league? As a Packers fan what does it mean for the post-Rodgers era? I’m afraid that Goodell’s answer will be more rule changes to make it easier and easier for the QBs and the offense. Thanks, Since ’61

    1. I always respect your opinions, Since 61, but to me this is an example of everybody remembering the “good ol’ days” … days that never actually existed. You admit that a good 20% of the league has a pretty decent starter. Just as it stands, that’s not actually a bad percentage, but I think you are underestimating.

      You point to Russell Wilson as evidence of QB mediocrity? Hmm. Even if we limit the discussion to his play in last year’s postseason (as you did), he had a 90.3 QB rating in the 2014 playoffs, he threw
      for 241 yards per game on average, and led the post-season with an average of over 10 yards per attempt. Plus he led all postseason QBs in rushing yards. That’s not exactly a picture of ineptitude. If we widen it out to include his three-year career, Wilson has a QB rating of 98.6, which at the moment would put him above every other QB in history other than Aaron Rodgers. His interception percentage is 2.1, which would tie him for third best all time. In three years he has two SB appearances and one ring. Is QB play in the NFL going downhill because of too many schleps like Wilson?

      There are at least three slam-dunk Hall of Famers currently playing QB in the NFL: Brady, P. Manning and Rodgers. That’s three for sure.

      Drew Brees has an excellent shot, and is awfully close to a shoo-in.
      If Russell Wilson continues as he has begun, he’s first ballot, no
      questions asked. Andrew Luck at the very least has made an excellent start. If all of these make it in as well, that’s six.

      Roethlisberger has played 10 years, has a 94 passer rating, 2 SB rings and 3 appearances. Eli Manning has two rings and isn’t
      impossible for the HOF either. Maybe it’s not likely, but is it that much of a stretch to say that 5 to 8 current starters could end up in the Hall? If all 8 made it, that’s fully one-quarter of the current starters.

      Rivers is decent, as are Joe Flacco, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan and Cam Newton. Even “ordinary guys” like Carson Palmer, Andy Dalton, Stafford and Tannehill certainly don’t fall much below the historical average for QB play, if at all. And what does the future hold for Bridgewater
      or Derek Carr, or one of this year’s draftees?

      I’m not saying that the level of QB play is awesome. It isn’t. But it certainly doesn’t suck, either, by historical comparison. It’s about the same as it has always been.

      1. Marpag – it may be a matter of remembering the past but if Unitas, Montana, Starr, Marino, Bradshaw, Jurgensen, Staubach, and many others played in this era with today’s rules many of today’s QBs that you mentioned in your post would not even be in the league. Rodgers, yes; both Mannings, yes; Brees, Brady and Luck, all yes. Rothlisberger, probably

        1. Johnny Unitas played from 1956-73. Starr played from 56-71. Jurgensen from 57-74. Staubach from 69-79. Bradshaw from 70-83. Montana from 79-94. Marino played from 83-99.

          You’ve selected seven players from the past SIXTY YEARS. That’s kind of cherry-picking, isn’t it? I’m
          talking about the guys who are in the league RIGHT NOW. Is it fair to compare a list of all time greats with a list of starters in any single year? In what year – ever – would there have been as much QB talent in the league as there is in a list of the all-time greats? Or if the talent right here today doesn’t measure up to a list of all-time greats, does that mean that the level of talent is slipping? I don’t think so….

          1. At random, QB league leaders: ’68, ’86, ’88 and ’04:

            Bart Star 104.3; Len Dawson 98.6; Earl Morrall 93.2; Don Meredith 88.4; Bill Nelson 86.4; Fran Tarkenton 84.6; Bill Munson 82.3; Sonny Jurgenson 81.7; Daryl LaMonica 80.9; John Brodie 78.0 (Namath 72)

            1.Tommy Kramer 92.6; Dan Marino 92.5, Dave Krieg 91.0, Tony Eason 89.2, Boomer Esiason 87.7 Ken O’Brien 85.8, Bernie Kosar 83.8, Jim Kelly 83.3, Jim Plunkett 82.5, Joe Montana 80.7.

            Esiason 97.4; Wade Wilson 91.5; Jim Everett 89.2; Moon 88.4; Montana 87.9; Neil Lomax 86.7; Kosar 84.3; PSimms 82.1; Marino 80.8;Bobby Herbert 79.3

            Peyton Manning 121.7; Dante Culpepper 110.9; Drew Brees 104.8; Donovan McNabb 104.7; Roethlisberger 98.1; Brian Griese 97.5; Trent Green 95.2; Marc Bulger 93.7; Tom Brady 92.6; Brett Farve 92.4.

            IDK what to make necessarily about the raw data. I note that it’s not until 1998 that one gets multiple QBs with ratings over 100. Surprised by how average the 80s data was, and how good the 60s data was. Lots of names in the top 10 that I wouldn’t have thought ever even had such a good year. Link:

            http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&statisticPositionCategory=QUARTERBACK&d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&tabSeq=1&season=1998&experience=&Submit=Go&archive=true&conference=null&qualified=false

            Darn it, even my links are long!

            1. Reynoldo, you spelled Favre “Farve”. I can’t believe it. Out of all people.
              Ted

              1. Just kidding you. I actually for some reason always spell Tolzien.. Tolzein. Why? I don’t know.
                Ted

  2. “I think we can all agree that Rodgers is the class of the NFL quarterback.”

    Give me Brady.

    If the Packers would have had Brady in the playoffs last year, as apposed to Rodgers, they would have won the Super Bowl.

    Rodgers was flat out awful against the Seahawks… Add that performance to his last couple of playoff games and Rodgers starts to look more and more like Peyton Manning (stats not ringS).

    1. Not even Brady would have survived the flat-lined offensive play calling of the second half and the self grave digging play of the defense that started with the 2 and 29 and SPT’s offered by the Packers.

      The Packers kicked the Seahawks arses and then turned their backs on a wounded prey and paid the price by forced upon self inflicted stabs by their own dagger.

      The Patriots had a game long battle and loss was eminent until Seattle got to wrapped up in attempting to make Wilson a hero on epic proportions as Homer’s Achilles instead of simply winning the game. 🙂

        1. I actually can go in a couple of different directions as to why you deem Achilles as an interesting choice…. I mean, Lynch reminds me of Achilles and Wilson more of Patroclus.

          When I was 5, we brought home a kitten, whom my father named Patroclus. My father explained that Patroclus was a better person than Achilles. It turned out my mother had actually brought home 2 kittens. My father promptly named the other kitten Achilles, so that the two male kittens could be named after the two great friends of mythology. In defense of my father, he labored under the weight of having been sent to a boarding high school run by Jesuits [Campion in Prairie du Chien, WI] and being forced (gasp) to read and write Latin and Greek. Whatever effect that may have had on him, he could tell great stories around the campfire!

          1. As a kid in northern Wisconsin, I had two male Siberian huskies, one black, the other red. The black one was Achilles and the red one was Hector. And yes, Hector was much much cooler, and Achilles was a total prima donna.

            1. Um… interesting naming choices given that Achilles kills Hector in the myth, and then drags Hector’s body behind his chariot instead of immediately giving it back for proper burial (though Achilles eventually relents).

              1. Yup. Like your father perhaps, I’ve read the Iliad in Greek. I’d also point out that Hector killed Patroclus, so you and your cat might want to watch yourself, bro. 🙂

              2. LOL. Just to reassure others, we got Patroclus over 5 decades ago. I don’t remember as we often had 2 or 3 cats at a time, and being outdoor cats some of them came to grief with passing vehicles or predators, but he probably lived a long and extremely spoiled life.

                I can’t claim your erudition, as I was limited to 4 years of Latin and a semester of Greek, during which we mostly studied prefixes and suffixes. My father had a fantastic memory. It was annoying when I asked for help with a passage from Cicero and he would simply just read it aloud in English. My Latin teacher was a young man, and would assign parts of obscure Beatles songs. I distinctly remember my Dad translating “And your bird can sing” and “The long and winding road.” Trust me, my Dad had never heard those songs, being born in 1921, and tone deaf in the extreme to boot.

            2. I used to teach Homer to college freshmen a few years back and used to liken Achilles to Terrell Owens to try to make it more accessible…

    2. Cow – You may forgetting that Rodgers played on one leg in the game against Seattle and he still had his team with a 12 point lead with less than 4 minutes to play when his defense decided prematurely that the game was over and committed suicide on the field. Then he still brought his team back for a game tying field goal to go into overtime, during which he never had a chance to get on the field. I can’t knock Brady but I have no evidence to convince that he would have done any better playing on one leg. Thanks, Since ’61

  3. Meh. Quarterback play has not fallen off a cliff, and it isn’t going to anytime soon. It’s about the same as it’s always been, at least in modern times…. and clearly much, much MUCH better than it was in the “olden days.”

    I remember when everyone was bemoaning how the “run and shoot” was going to ruin football. That didn’t happen either.

    1. ” Quarterback play has not fallen off a cliff, and it isn’t going to anytime soon. It’s about the same as it’s always been, at least in modern times…”

      Can you honestly and with a straight face,say that without the excessive aid offered to help the offense and QB specifically, many of the QB’s of modern times would be as effective as is continuously attempted to make us believe if removed from the rules book?

      A larger number of QB’s in the league now and to come are incredibly enhanced by the porous play of many a defender,who themselves are already made to languish like a roped calf before the snap of the ball due to the erasing of ‘olden times’ rules…like touching a WR.

      The fact,IMO,that many of these ‘modern times’ QB’s with the many beneficial changes placed at their feet,cannot still move past those who need no such help and clearly get it done via real talent and not that which makes even an 8-year-old master the video game as like the assumed professional of ‘modern times’. 🙂

      1. Could you repeat that Tearin? Your quill and ink is working overtime that past two days.
        Ted

        1. Absolutely and a pleasure to so.Hope the repeat is as enjoyable as the original.

          ” Quarterback play has not fallen off a cliff, and it isn’t going to anytime soon. It’s about the same as it’s always been, at least in modern times…”

          Where do you draw the line/date that separates ‘modern times’ from ‘olden times’?

          Can you honestly and with a straight face,say that without the excessive aid offered to help the offense and QB specifically, many of the QB’s of modern times would be as effective as is continuously attempted to make us believe if removed from the rules book?

          A larger number of QB’s in the league now and to come are incredibly enhanced by the porous play of many a defender,who themselves are already made to languish like a roped calf before the snap of the ball due to the erasing of ‘olden times’ rules…like touching a WR.

          The fact,IMO,that many of these ‘modern times’ QB’s with the many beneficial changes placed at their feet,cannot still move past those who need no such help and clearly get it done via real talent and not that which makes even an 8-year-old master the video game as like the assumed professional of ‘modern times’. 🙂

  4. Forget the system — It’s about tangibles and intangibles. At the end of the day, can the man play quarterback? Is he coachable?

    For example, Brett Hundley played in a spread offense at UCLA. That obviously didn’t scare MM and TT. Some guys get thrown into the fire, while others get time to develop.

    Let’s not forget that the spread option uses a lot of shotgun, which the Packers and many other NFL teams like. In March 2015, MM even said the Packers will use the pistol more often this year. That is a version of the spread offense….so are these new age QBs worse off? The game is evolving and changing. If anything, guys like Mariota may initially struggle, but as long as they have the talent and work ethic, they will end up succeeding.

    1. The CBA and not necessarily being able to retain players long-term affects this issue as well. It is simply more difficult to justify taking a project and letting him sit and learn for a few years, often taking up a valuable roster spot in the process. I am much more comfortable drafting Hundley due to his ability to run in case he can’t learn to throw efficiently.

      I’d have to do some research to opine about QBs today. I do recall as a young boy born in Chicago and being left-handed pretending to be (drum roll here) Bobby Douglas! My right-handed older brother didn’t have it much better – he pretended to be Jack Concannon. (Maybe that is why I always point out that Bart Starr was better than just a game manager). Kent Nix and Virgil Carter were our hype/saviour guys for a time. When we moved to Milwaukee in ’73, GB had Hadl, Whitehurst, Tagge, then Dickey, and despite the nostalgia, Dickey and Hadl were both pretty bad. Bart Starr’s stats are much better than any of those QBs.

    2. I agree, but the Pistol is a formation. You can run “Pistol” with split backs, a full house, or any variation of backfields. It is not necessarily a spread offense. In its original design, it was used in a spread, but it doesn’t have to be.

  5. I disagree with your opinion. The college game owes nothing to the NFL. Spread offenses work in the NCAA, why not in the NFL? Smart teams will adjust to the talent they have. Maybe NFL teams should start implementing concepts of the “spread” offense, or simply stop drafting quarterbacks from “spread” offenses.
    Additionally, why don’t we see more option offenses in the NFL? I understand that DE in 4-3 and OLB in 3-4 defenses are extremely athletic, but the option slows them down, they can’t simply rush the QB. I love watching Navy and GT frustrate “elite” college programs with the option. And I don’t mean make Aaron Rodgers run it, I mean, let guys like Colin Kaepernick, Cam Newton, RGIII, Russel Wilson, Marcus Mariota, etc. run this as their man offense.
    If someone could explain why the “spread” and option offenses won’t work in the NFL, I would appreciate it.

  6. Actually it starts in HS not even college. These days the best athletes are put at QB and given spread offenses to take advantage of their athletic ability. The days where the best leader and passer were installed at QB have given way to the best athletes, who used to be WR, RB and CB. Its getting more and more difficult for the passers to be used at QB since the athletes are largely put at QB now to have the ball in their hand more often. It used to be the best passer, leaders and decision makers played QB.
    Learning to overcome obstacles, such as tatent in college also plays a part. Finding QB’s that are able to lead a lesser talented group of players to win against otherwise more talented teams is a part of being a leader, which most HS and college QB’s don’t necessarily need to be anymore.
    Hopefully HS QB’s will start to realize that in order to transition successfully from the college to the NFL game will start seeking college programs, like UW to prepare them better for the NFL.

Comments are closed.