View topic - It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

by **SteelWolf** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:29 pm

So here's an odd thought, would it be possible to run a dual QB system?

X X O X X
Q Q

have it set up where the QB on the left would be Roethlisberger and on the right would be Dixon. This would mean the center could snap to either or, and depending on who it was snapped to, the defense would have to adjust in a matter of seconds.

Just a thought...

by **Hi5Steeler** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:53 pm

You are wasting a position with two QBs on the field. You need to take someone off. who will that be.

btw you do know that Rashard Mendenhall is a good passer ala ladanian tomlinson....fyi....very frigging dangerous running back we drafted

but to answer your question ...YES....that WAS an idiotic idea

:balloon:

by **SteelWolf** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:03 pm

Hi5Steeler wrote:You are wasting a position with two QBs on the field. You need to take someone off. who will that be.
btw you do know that Rashard Mendenhall is a good passer ala ladanian tomlinson....fyi....very frigging dangerous running back we drafted

but to answer your question ...YES....that WAS an idiotic idea

Arians seems to hate fullbacks, why not Davis?

by **Hi5Steeler** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:08 pm

OK you can take out the fullback but that is also realistically a position that is not always on the field so lets say either the fullback or a tight end is off the field. that means less blocking ...somehow or another.

now here is a MAJOR flaw with that. whoever does not get snapped the ball has to become a blocker.

you dont want to use one of either 2 or 3 qbs on your roster as a blocker. that is a major injury risk on every play. You get one tiny nagging injury on a qb and it could affect his passing when needed.

and qbs do not practice blocking nor should they. their objective is normally to avoid all contact at all costs at all times. on our o line that second qb would see constant pressure and opposing defenses will key on them to kill them. on purpose...its a free hit on a qb....who wouldnt

by **thesteelhammer** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:59 am

Why would we put an unprove rookie like Dixon who is coming off an injury on the field at all?
Wasted draft pick.

by **stillthere** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:10 pm

Arians seems to hate fullbacks, why not Davis?

The funny thing with that statement and the one from last year is why does a guy who hates FB's keep two in his first season in Pitt?

I have read and heard similar stuff just pointing out that he kept two at the expense of someone else's job last season.

by **jstallworth82** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:35 am

Just because you have double vision putting 2 QBs back there wont give defenses double vision.

It just makes you look double stupid

by **86n96** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:34 pm

wow...

by **Nel** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:41 pm

SteelWolf wrote:So here's an odd thought, would it be possible to run a dual QB system?

X X O X X
Q Q

have it set up where the QB on the left would be Roethlisberger and on the right would be Dixon. This would mean the center could snap to either or, and depending on who it was snapped to, the defense would have to adjust in a matter of seconds.

Just a thought...

I think it would be interesting to watch, once, as a trick play. But I think there are good reasons that it will probably never happen unless we know that Dixon is at 100%. But keep those thoughts flowing, man, and don't let the negative replies here keep you from expressing more of them.

by **GodfatherofSoul** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:49 pm

SteelWolf wrote:So here's an odd thought, would it be possible to run a dual QB system?

X X O X X
Q Q

have it set up where the QB on the left would be Roethlisberger and on the right would be Dixon. This would mean the center could snap to either or, and depending on who it was snapped to, the defense would have to adjust in a matter of seconds.

Just a thought...

In theory that would work great, but there are some practical problems.

* Only works if you have two QBs with good passing and scrambling skills. In addition, the free QB must be a good enough threat as a receiver and rusher to sell your fakes. Remember when we'd run Kordell plays with Maddox? It was a joke to watch him in a trick play flaring out for a pass.

* Logistical problems of keeping two healthy QBs on the roster
** Increases the contact that your QBs will take, increasing the likelihood that your valuable, irreplaceable talent will go down.
** Salary cap hit for running that offense, coequal QBs will want coequal pay and QBs ain't cheap.
** You'll probably burn more roster slots to keep more QBs on hand.

* The leadership problem. One of the intangibles in a QB controversy is the very real uncertainty teammates feel about the true leader of a team. QBs have huge egos, and trying to manage team leadership with two QBs is a huge problem. Even if one QB was the declared 2nd stringer, you'll soon run into problems especially if the #2 starts making big plays with limited time. That's why coaches are so reticent in benching starting QBs (while fans always think the backup is Joe Montana).

That's why 2 QB schemes are always relegated to trick plays. I wouldn't call it a "stupid" idea as some people like to respond to posts, it's just impossibly impractical to make it work in the NFL as a base scheme.

by **jstallworth82** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:00 am

Well lets take a look at the suggested possibilities.

First: Ben is not going to become a receiver in ths scheme unlike popular belief his running skills are limited. Not to mention my 6 year old probably runs a faster 40. So no D is going to even pay attention to him if other QB gets the ball.

Second Even if Dixon is a decent receiver why put him in the backfield? Just put him in as a 4th WR.

Third O-Line cant hold D long enough for a trick play that involved to unwind.

Fourth What would Dixon bring in the backfield that fwp couldnt accomplish except maybe a pitch back to pass but we could use Hines for that and it would not be as obvious that he was going to pass as Dixon.

Fifth I would rather see FWP running the ball he is less likely to fumble and he is stronger and FASTER.

So to summarize To pull a TE or FB or some other blocker or weapon off the field to utilize Dixon's athletic ability is STUPID because he becomes more a liability than a weapon. He does not posses athletic ability that is missing from the field, he limits the play calling and is too inexperienced to handle a breakdown in the O-Line or elsewhere.

Simple Answer: Stupid Idea

by **UKBlackNGold** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:18 am

If our shotgun snapping is anything like last season, you'd get the two of them crashing into one another trying to grab the ball every other play!!

by **jstallworth82** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:31 pm

Why stop at 2 why not 3 QBs in the backfield? Then we can run a 7 WR set and have a ton of weapons seeing that our O-Line stinks anyway and Ben will be sacked 50 plus times this year anyway. Or we can get Kordell back real cheap and bang 4 QB set.....orrrrr... maybe we can clone Ben a couple times...........yeahhhh.... that's the ticket

by **SteelWolf** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:42 pm

Gah, can we let this thread die already?

I was probably either drunk or blazed when I posted the idea

by **jstallworth82** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:05 pm

No way I'm bored to death. I need something to rant about...... hahahaha

by **gumband** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:36 pm

At one point in my life played in a single wing with an unbalanced line....hell the QB (his parents were good donors) didn't really have the best arm in the backfield so we designed plays with the running back throwing me the ball instead...I thought why have a QB back there anyways....but like I said I was learning then that cash was king...

by **Hi5Steeler** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:09 pm

godfather of soul. I have issue with this statement of yours

* Only works if you have two QBs with good passing and scrambling skills. In addition, the free QB must be a good enough threat as a receiver and rusher to sell your fakes. Remember when we'd run Kordell plays with Maddox? It was a joke to watch him in a trick play flaring out for a pass.
Kordell Stewart was a starting wide receiver for the pittsburgh steelers in superbowl XXX. So if he flares out for a pass well that just makes sense ....

by **GodfatherofSoul** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:26 pm

Hi5Steeler wrote:godfather of soul. I have issue with this statement of yours

* Only works if you have two QBs with good passing and scrambling skills. In addition, the free QB must be a good enough threat as a receiver and rusher to sell your fakes. Remember when we'd run Kordell plays with Maddox? It was a joke to watch him in a trick play flaring out for a pass.
Kordell Stewart was a starting wide receiver for the pittsburgh steelers in superbowl XXX. So if he flares out for a pass well that just makes sense ....

You misunderstood me, I'm talking about using a cement shoes marshmallow like Maddox to to flair out for a pass. Obviously, that's a strong suit for Kordell. But, it was stupid to run a play designed for Kordell when the QB on the field wasn't a receiving threat.

by **lloydrules** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:33 pm

This is the most worthless topic ever. It makes less sense then using 2 d-lines and no LBs

View topic - It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Board index » Stillers Talk » It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Re: It's been a long offseason, here's a thought

Who is online