Zwick vs. Smith (official thread)

[BB73]

name the teams whose odds of winning stay the same/increase when the backup plays.

1996/1997 Buckeyes? I'd have to go with the odds increasing on those.

 

[Bestbuck36]

not getting into the playoffs because you played an inferior qb is a tad less palitable than loosing in the playoffs cause your qb was playing hurt. name the teams whose odds of winning stay the same/increase when the backup plays. your idea only works if teams loose little when the #2 guy walks on the field. i can't think of many teams that can say that.

Miami Dolphins. Their QB sucks either way!

Yes I'm a 'Phins fan.

 

[smithlabs]

not getting into the playoffs because you played an inferior qb is a tad less palitable than loosing in the playoffs cause your qb was playing hurt. name the teams whose odds of winning stay the same/increase when the backup plays. your idea only works if teams loose little when the #2 guy walks on the field. i can't think of many teams that can say that.

Not so fast. Name the teams whose odds of winning stay the same/increase when the starting QB is injured. I also think that situational play could allow for less playing time for the starter without significantly impacting the outcome of the game.

Smithlabs

 

[martinss01]

mr corso... is that you? :p

this all breaks down to playing time. the more you get, the better you will be. you split that time between two people and you have two less effective qbs. most teams can't stay below the salary caps as is. adding 2 mcnabs to the payroll isn't going to help much. how many qb's really get knocked out of the lineup due to injury per year?

I also think that situational play could allow for less playing time for the starter without significantly impacting the outcome of the game.

in baseball yes. in football i strongly dissagree. i have yet to see a 2 qb system work outside of qb's who were merely glorified rb's.

as far as guys who play better hurt. mcnair and farve come to mind.

Bestbuck36 and BuckeyeBill73, shaddup you! *shake fist* :tongue2:

 

[OSU Rob]

the question still hasnt been answered as to a college/pro team that has won the championship using two quaterbacks voluntarily (disregarding injuries of course). colorado only used hagan at qb and nebraska didn't use a platoon at qb either, so the question still stands.

 

[smithlabs]

I agree that glorified running backs don't count as a true 2 qb system.

I also agree that McNair and Farve play hurt a lot but play as well, I don't know.

Salary cap is an interesting point. If I were an up and coming QB, the chance to rotate in to significant game time would be exiting to me. Hopefully, enough to accept a lower pay for a chance to play. The team would probably wind up having a lot of qb attrition when the second string qb gets his reps and is ready to start elsewhere but the still might even come out ahead if they manage their trades well.

This is a new idea and outside of the box. Protecting your quarterback becomes more important as the number of games increase and the collesions become more violent. Qb's never used to be hit by 300 lb lineman running 4.7.

People have tried playing two quarterbacks for their strengths. People have tried playing two qb's equally. Heck, Spurrier even ran the plays in with the qb's but I haven't seen the pseudo basketball rotation yet.

There are a lot of good quarterbacks in the NFL that never have seem playing time. Germain was good at OSU and good in Arena Football but he never took a snap in the NFL.

Smithlabs

 

[jimotis4heisman]

alabama teams, they used to play two whole teams...

 

[BB73]

There are a lot of good quarterbacks in the NFL that never have seem playing time. Germaine was good at OSU and good in Arena Football but he never took a snap in the NFL.

Smithlabs

Labs, I'm not out to get you, but I feel obligated to post accurate info when something just isn't true. Here's Joe's line when he saw a little action with the Rams in 1999:


<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=bg1 vAlign=top><TH>Year</TH><TH>Team</TH><TH>G</TH><TH>GS</TH><TH>Att</TH><TH>Comp</TH><TH>Pct</TH><TH>Yards</TH><TH>YPA</TH><TH>Lg</TH><TH>TD</TH><TH>Int</TH><TH>Tkld</TH><TH>20+</TH><TH>40+</TH><TH>Rate</TH></TR><TR class=bg2><TD>1999</TD><TD>St. Louis Rams</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>56.3</TD><TD>136</TD><TD>8.50</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3/23</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>65.6</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[martinss01]

Salary cap is an interesting point. If I were an up and coming QB, the chance to rotate in to significant game time would be exiting to me. Hopefully, enough to accept a lower pay for a chance to play. The team would probably wind up having a lot of qb attrition when the second string qb gets his reps and is ready to start elsewhere but the still might even come out ahead if they manage their trades well.

are you serious? these are athletes who are making millions per year and go on strike because they aren't making enough... these guys all want to be the highest paid athlete and they want to get into the hall of fame. the odds of either happening with your system shoot through the floor. just take a quick headcount of guys who would be willing to take a paycut in order to increase their odds of winning a super bowl. i have money that says its less than 10% of the nfl. more money that says its less than 1% of the starters.

everyone wants to be a big name. you don't get that by playing half a game. you surely don't bench a superstar in a critical game to get another guy experience in hopes he one day will be as good.

the simple facts are if you don't win today, you'll be fired tomorrow. coaches simply can't take that kind of risk. look at companies across the country. the mindset is "producing an extra 10k today is better than producing 10 million 5 years from now". if your not producing today you have 0 value. this is why companies are moving out of the US. no one cares if this is a strategy that is sound over a 10 yr span. all they care about is this quarters numbers. and if it looks good on this quarters numbers, thats what we will do.

if everyone was a team player with your plan and was looking to the future it could potentially work. but no one cares about that. any team owner in the country would pick 5 trips to the playoffs loosing the wild card game over 4 straight 50/50 seasons then winning the super bowl season 5. its all about instant gratification and if you can't provide it... hope your bags are packed.

 

[smithlabs]

Labs, I'm not out to get you, but I feel obligated to post accurate info when something just isn't true. Here's Joe's line when he saw a little action with the Rams in 1999:


<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=bg1 vAlign=top><TH>Year</TH><TH>Team</TH><TH>G</TH><TH>GS</TH><TH>Att</TH><TH>Comp</TH><TH>Pct</TH><TH>Yards</TH><TH>YPA</TH><TH>Lg</TH><TH>TD</TH><TH>Int</TH><TH>Tkld</TH><TH>20+</TH><TH>40+</TH><TH>Rate</TH></TR><TR class=bg2><TD>1999</TD><TD>St. Louis Rams</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>56.3</TD><TD>136</TD><TD>8.50</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3/23</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>65.6</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Thanks for the correction

Smithlabs

 

[smithlabs]

these are athletes who are making millions per year and go on strike because they aren't making enough...

They are also the folks who think they will light up the league if they only get a chance. If every team plays two quarterbacks they have no choice. If only a couple of team plays two quarterbacks than you want to be the backup there until you get a starting job elsewhere. Every year there are teams that pick up bad qb's because the have game experience. Besides, most teams in the NFL have two decent quarterbacks so they are already paying the money.

everyone wants to be a big name. you don't get that by playing half a game. you surely don't bench a superstar in a critical game to get another guy experience in hopes he one day will be as good.

You also get to be a big name with a long, injury free career. The primary benifit isn't the backup getting experience but the starter not getting hurt.

the simple facts are if you don't win today, you'll be fired tomorrow. coaches simply can't take that kind of risk.

The idea is about risk mitigation, not future growth. If your starting qb gets hurt you are screwed. If both two qb's play you still have less chance of hurting your starter and a viable backup. You should pick the substitutions carefully so that the flow of the game isn't altered to much and the best qb is playing at the critical times.

There was a time when the best players played both ways. As the game got more intense and the seasons longer those two way players disappeared. Then, not only are players playing one side of the ball but subbing out players started to happen. Now there are some positions like D-line and running back that are almost played by committee. The only player who doesn't get a break is the quarterback and kickers but kickers don't count.

Smithlabs

 

[GoBucks459]

QB Poll

Flat out plain and simple who do you want the Bucks to be guided under? Zwick or Smith.....or Boeckman? I read earlier that if all goes as going, Smith will start under the gun vs. UT, which is great news...but lets seee how buckeyeplanet.com wants the qb to be.....



My vote: Troy Smith

 

[Cornerback6]

Flat out plain and simple who do you want the Bucks to be guided under? Zwick or Holmes.....or Boeckman? I read earlier that if all goes as going, Smith will start under the gun vs. UT, which is great news...but lets seee how buckeyeplanet.com wants the qb to be.....



My vote: Troy Smith

I like HOLMES for the job......LOL, j/k. Little typo action there.

Honestly though, I like Smith's leadership, poise and athleticism over Zwick any day of the week.

 

[NFBuck]

Ditto above post... though I'm not as down on Zwick after his gutsy Alamo Bowl showing.

 

[osugrad21]

Added the poll to your post 459...I'm a visual learner