With that out of the way, the first whackjob idea:
As more and more athletic QBs filter into the league, I think it's about time that someone get creative and play around with a 2 QB set.
- Picture RGIII going to Denver, for example. Tebow and 3 are in a variety of option formations. Defenses stack the box at their own peril, because as a pitchman, either of them can suddenly plant and throw or just throw on the run.
- In an option system, TEs and WRs are called upon to block (okay, rules guy, I mean "take a screening position.") In a 2 QB option they can slip their block at any time and head into a pattern, on purpose or simply if they can't hold the block.
- Both guys are dangerous running the ball. And say what you want about Tebow's passing ability, you have to respect it as a legitimate threat/possibility until he crosses the LOS.
X's and O's thoughts around this:
In a traditional option/triple option, the DE or OLB (depending on they offensive and defensive systems) is left unblocked, and the QB reads his action. If he comes down at the QB, pitch, if he floats out towards the pitchman, keep and go off the downblocking OT's butt.
I'm picturing a TE on the playside. The player between the OT and the TE is left unblocked, and the TE releases into one of several patterns. For example, if the guy on his outside shoulder is headed into the backfield he could run a 5/10 and out. If that guy is trying to prevent an outside release he releases inside on a slant, and if he doesn't stay with him to cover it's a Z-cut to be a release valve. If they're playing the run hard with a softer zone underneath he settles under the safety and finds the hole in the zone. If the guy sticks with him, then screw it, run him across the field away from the play until he's in the Sudetenland. That's better than a pancake block.
Think: on a wide sweep, the defense tries to beat the back to the corner and force him to cut back to the inside. To do this they have to flatten out in a line to fill those lanes, or else cutting back inside is worse than the back getting to the corner. This uses up a bunch of people - defended well in the traditional style it pulls in the CB on that side as well as safeties and backers. It is one of the slowest developing plays in football. If that "back" is Tebow or Griffin, all that time is time that the DBs have to stay with their man.
To make this work, you'd need 2 QBs that can run or pass - not necessarily at the highest levels, because you're "giving" them additional effectiveness by slowing the defense with uncertainty, but they have to be at least colorable threats for either, and be able to read defenses.
- At the highest end of the spectrum, Vick/Rodgers/Newton/Griffin.
- Mid-level guys could be Tebow/Vince Young.
- Low level possibilities could be your Julian Edlemans, Pat Whites, etc.
In terms of cap, paying 2 "starting QBs" is rough (and realistically you'd need at least one other guy you're not afraid to roll out there), but I think it would be okay for a few reasons.
- This system would allow a lot of those guys who were college stars and crappy pros an opportunity to use the pure instincts that made them successful in a league that has traditionally punished that. I'm thinking Seneca Wallace, Andre Ware, Eric Crouch, Doug Flutie, etc.
- I think you'd be able to use at least one of them that another team would not consider a "starter." Guys that other teams consider a tweener, a conversion project, or simply are shorter than 6'2" fall in the draft, so you can acquire prospects cheaply.
- Similarly, you can likely acquire guys like this on the cheap in FA once they've failed with their first team.
- So I'd forsee paying 3 guys a salary that totals something around franchise level. If you've had success in this system, the QBs are going to be stars which may unbalance it over time, but on the other hand you can be pretty sure that you're not going to be spending huge money for RBs and stud WRs. I think it would more or less balance out in the end.
Which leads me to my next point - what does a team that is built for this look like? I hadn't thought through this one too deeply, but off the top of my head I'd think that if you have 53 players, 25 on offense, it would break down like this:
- 5 starting OLs, 3-4 backups - they have to be good in space, but the stud pass blocking LT who can give you 3-4 seconds in the pocket against an edge rush is much less of a priority. I think overall you save money here.
- 4-5 QBs - As discussed above. I think you save money here in early days, but if you establish a star you'll spend somewhat above what other teams spend on the position. At the same time, I think you can constantly be fishing for cheap options.
- 2-3 RBs, 1 FB - you don't need a stud here, you should definitely save money. Very much fungible, even though you're running a lot.
- 3-4 WRs - Hines Ward would be tremendous in this system - tremendous blocker who excels at finding the holes in a zone and running short routes. You'd want at least one decent deep threat, but you don't need a true #1 by any stretch. Definitely save money.
- 3-4 TEs - TEs will be used extensively in this system because of their block/recieve flexibility. I can see a lot of 2 TE sets, as well as the possibility of a bunch of 3 TE combinations - 3 TE, 1 WR, 2 QB could be very, very dangerous. This is a place you'd likely spend some extra dollars. If you had Gronk & Hernandez in this system it would be...fun to watch.
I know that the option doesn't work well in the NFL, and I understand why (that the OLBs are too fast and can get away with not committing to either pitch man or QB). I think this is a different story for a number of reasons.
I also can see this working in a non-option system, though it would be less fluid and more gimmicky. But I'm sure I haven't thought through all the possibilities.
I've been carrying this around in my head for a long time now, thinking it can work. I'm better off not carrying wrong ideas around, so please tear it apart! I'll probably push back, but I'm not trying to win the point, just flesh out the argument.
