SMART FOOTBALL HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND THE FOOTBALL: 2 QB SYSTEMS

by Orson on Sep 16, 2009 10:44 AM EDT

Every Wednesday, Chris from Smart Football puts on his sturdiest of work clothes, leaves Brown Manor, and lowers his overall IQ by spending a few moments with us helping the masses understand a bit of actual football through questions submitted by you via our Twitter feed. If you have a question about football strategery, tactics, fluid dynamics, tort law, or orchid taxonomy, please submit them to us at twitter.com/edsbs . Enjoy.

Question from @cdbarker: Is it possible to successfully use two quarterbacks of similar but divergent styles effectively, ie Tate and Denard?

The traditional wisdom -- and it is a notion I generally have agreed with -- is that having two quarterbacks is a euphemism for not having any. There are a few interesting counter examples, though none are truly compelling, like Mark Richt rotating D.J. Shockley and David Greene, or Spurrier rotating Doug Johnson and Noah Brindise every other play against Florida State. But, generally, it is a bad recipe. There are lots of reasons, but none may be more important than simply repetitions in practice. If you have two quarterbacks the receivers have to get used to both; the gameplan has to be taught in detail to both, film must be gone over with both, etc; and then there's that old saw about "rhythm" and how it is disturbing with different guys in the huddle. I don't find those latter ones all that persuasive, but there is at least a little truth to them.

But I think the winds are changing, and a two-quarterback system is quite possible.

At its best you are likely to have the system Florida used to win the 2006 title: a starting quarterback in charge of most of the offense (Chris Leak), and a second guy with special abilities for whom a package is installed (then-freshman Tim Tebow). This example has now been made universal throughout football under the nauseatingly overused rubric, "the wildcat." (Had "wildcat" been around in 2006 think of all of the puns Dan Shanoff could have used to describe how Meyer used his young talent.) The reason that works though is because you choose a starting quarterback for one set of skills (passing, reading the defense, making checks, accuracy, some athleticism, etc) but another guy opens up a new dimension because of their running ability, and the spread with a mobile guy gives the offense certain numerical advantages it doesn't get with an immobile quarterback.

A beautiful marriage, when it works.

Aside from this though there are other forces pushing towards a two-quarterback system being right. One is the no-huddle offense, be it in its super fast forms or the kind where the play is signalled in from the sideline. Having eliminated the huddle, it is no big deal for a different triggerman to run onto the field; most of the players get the playcall from the sideline anyway. Indeed, this might be a bit overblown, but I think the no-huddle reduces the "field general" role for the quarterback to something more akin to a point guard or ball distributor. In ye olden days, guys like Bart Starr or Johnny Unitas not only played quarterback as we think of it now, but called all their own plays, made all the checks at the line, and made all the adjustments themselves. Contrast that with today. Gary Pinkel, the head coach of Missouri, remarked in a clinic that his squad hadn't called a single audible in the last three years because of their no-huddle spread -- all the calls came in from the sideline. With this "plug-n-play" approach substituting a new changeup quarterback isn't such a huge deal.

Finally, the "rhythm" and practice time aspects. This is where the question is a good one, and the key language is in "similar but divergent styles." There is little point (sorry Ol' Ball Coach) in rotating guys who have basically the same skill set. Even if they are close in talent your team gains more benefits if the team picks a guy and develops him. If the Michigan hubbub has taught us anything, it is that there is only a limited amount of time to directly coach up players. But if they bring different skill sets, then it is worth it; the starting or "main" quarterback can still work on all the passing drills necessary while the other one works on their "package." The fact that this change-up package includes some passes doesn't change that.

The rhythm or leadership stuff I buy less, but that is a judgment every team is going to have to deal with. I don't buy that a quarterback has to play every single snap to be a leader. In basketball, even Michael Jordan and Lebron James head to the bench sometimes. And seriously, how much more can your rhythm be thrown off than running a simple hand-off play? I think much of that talk from quarterbacks -- often NFL guys -- is mostly hubris. But, again, each coach will have to determine where the leadership comes from and whether his guys can handle it. Every decent player wants to be out there every play; you just have to find a way to make it work. I think the two-quarterback stuff is very viable, and will continue to be as offenses get more and more multiple, and roles and packages get more and more specialized and diverse.

Chris contributes here at EDSBS every Wednesday during the football season. Ask him questions by dropping a tweet at twitter.com/edsbs. He just figured out what's causing that squeaking noise in your refrigerator and fixed it, and you didn't even bother to thank him. Dick.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That photo needs to be in a heart shaped frame. Either those two are really secure or really flamboyant.

by EDSBS Dawg on Sep 16, 2009 11:00 AM EDT reply actions

and what about the “two qb’s in the game at the same time” a’la Auburn this year?

by WarChiziken on Sep 16, 2009 11:08 AM EDT reply actions

Good read, however, “the wildcat” was definitely around in 2006 a la Darren McFadden and Felix Jones via Gus Malzahn. Most notably being used to propel Arkansas into the SEC Championship Game by defeating heavily favored and then 2nd ranked Auburn (by defeating Florida the week prior) at home.

by ALGator on Sep 16, 2009 11:13 AM EDT reply actions

#2, Michigan is doing this as well. Both Forcier and Robinson have been on the field simultaneously for a
number of snaps already. This forces the defense to maintain its base personnel. Robinson is currently
a run-first qb, but obviously the D can’t sell out to the “Wildcat” threat with Forcier on as well. Much
M-board speculation revolves around the matter of whether this will become a much larger portion of
the offense as the season wears on.

by Nothsa on Sep 16, 2009 11:21 AM EDT reply actions

I would say that if the other positions on the field are substituted at times, why not the QB? Its not stupid to have the backup play in case the starter goes down, or have specific packages just for him.

Far too often a backup comes in with no game reps, and can’t get the job done at all. He should get live reps every week, and definitely in any game you’re way ahead.

Clemson is trying to do it with Korn and Parker this year.

Teams like Florida or USC stay so good because they can substitute liberally, and FSU made a living of playing the 2nd and 3rd teams in the ’90s and that helped them immensely when someone like Ward or Kanell graduated.

by DrB on Sep 16, 2009 11:22 AM EDT reply actions

Gotta love a guy who calls “wildcat” nauseatingly overused, then hits us with “…as offenses get more and more multiple.”

by Black Kerouac on Sep 16, 2009 11:22 AM EDT reply actions

I definitely think there is a place for the 2 QB system, but they have to almost be a part of 2 different packages, usually meaning you have one passing based QB and one running based QB.

See David Greene/DJ Shockley, Leak/Tebow, even Todd/Burns at Auburn.

It’s effectively what you see with all the Wildcat busines, except if you have a real QB back there that has some ability to throw, you have an added dimension to your run-based QB package.

If you have 2 QBs running the same system (Smelley/Garcia), it usually doens’t work.

by rebel84 on Sep 16, 2009 11:26 AM EDT reply actions

@ 3 ALGator

I think that Auburn actually lost at home to Arkansas the week before Florida played them. Carry on.

by Panhandle Gator on Sep 16, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

@ #2

USF has lined up a 3 QB set. The third string QB is in the active WR rotation. Then they bring in the “loco toro” (wildcat) package and put Grothe (starting QB) split wide, and BJ Daniels (2nd QB) to run the package.

3 QBs > sissy 2 QB package

by Leavitt Town on Sep 16, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

I see the Michigan will be running the Ghost and the Darkness offense, because the defense, much like East African railroad workers does not know where the attack will come from. I approve.

by Anonymous IV on Sep 16, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

ALGator – the Arkansas game came before the Florida game in 2006…

by Philip on Sep 16, 2009 11:33 AM EDT reply actions

I stand corrected.

by ALGator on Sep 16, 2009 12:14 PM EDT reply actions

What games were you guys watching…the two QB system was almost certainly a failure at Georgia. If not an outright failure, it wasn’t a winner, either. If I recall correctly, the games Georgia won while using the two QB system could’ve been won by David Greene alone, and the system may actually have cost us one very crucial game, Florida 2002, where David Greene was yanked the few times he had a rhythm going (we may even have eventually converted a third down that game). I seem to recall a pretty costly error resulting from the 2 QB system in the 2003 Sugar Bowl as well, but I barely remember what went down that game it was so utterfly forgettable.

That’s not a knock on Shockley at all, who was a wonderful college QB when given the reins (and one of the best Dawgs ever, to boot) and also had time to moonlight as JD Stokely, but he definitely wasn’t able to excel in an offense designed for David Greene.

by JoeDawg on Sep 16, 2009 12:19 PM EDT reply actions

#9, regarding your 3 QB package: I’m reminded of a great Onion article when I say, “fuck everything, we’re going to 5 QBs.”

by Tim on Sep 16, 2009 12:29 PM EDT reply actions

#6
I am guessing Chris’s biggest problem with the term “wild cat” is that it is an overused term that people (NFL types) think is new, but isn’t.
Teams have been direct snapping to running backs since before most of our grandparents were born, but then after 70 years when a team in the NFL does it (Dolphins), it all of a sudden becomes the revolutionary wild cat and must be applied to every even semi-applicable scenario. It’s undeniably obnoxious and annoying.

As for offenses growing “more and more multiple”….I don’t really know how else I might describe it, but you’re right, that one is used a lot.

My favorite wild cat play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG9cd2fWsNQ

by Kecalf Bailey on Sep 16, 2009 12:43 PM EDT reply actions

Arizona did it very well in 1998 and ended the season at #4.

by Josh on Sep 16, 2009 12:55 PM EDT reply actions

The problem with the 2 QB system is walking the fine line btw. riding the hot hand and hurting the confidence of your starter. Richt would plan a series each half for DJ and stick to the plan religiously (no pun intended). Not letting DJ finish off the Tennessee game in 04 was probably a mistake, but made to benefit David Greene.

by Go Gaytah on Sep 16, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions

@14 – You beat me to it. That was indeed a great article.

by HudiBlitz on Sep 16, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions

#18
Gene Stallings used this “wildcat” with David Palmer back in ‘92, and Dubose did it with Freddie Milons quite a bit. It worked well vs Florida in some game, I can’t recall, uh…..oh yeh, the SEC Freakin’ Championship, took the snap, and basically hauled ass down the sideline for 70+ yrds for a TD. Why this baffles teams, I’ll never know, especially if the “wildcat” player can’t pass. I say, screw it, a QB at every position. Lets roll the dice and see what happens.
I wish there was a “wildcat” version for defense. Like putting Terrance Cody at Free Safety.

by Mr.Pelican Pants on Sep 16, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions

Out of curiosity, what are Chris Brown’s football credentials? I couldn’t find them on his site. Just wondering where/how he acquired his expertise.

by JB on Sep 16, 2009 1:54 PM EDT reply actions

Fran Tarkenton wants to know what all the fuss is about.

by Roll Fizzlebeef on Sep 16, 2009 2:38 PM EDT reply actions

Chris,

Interesting read. I agree the two QB system has value if used prperly with game tempo to keep your opponent off balence.

However, you are overlooking the added strain this puts on the O-line. The best two QB syetems are the ones you correclty identified that cause matchup problems for the defense. A starting QB gives way to a running QB for a minority of plays to run a limited, and completely different offensive look. For these syetems to work it may be required to switch the blocking scheme completely, to zone blocking for instance.

Of course, these are all familiarity problems best worked through in practice and will come in time. While I achnowladge the tactical advantages of a successful 2 QB system, the reality is it stretches the teaching resources of the coaching staff vs. the learning curve of developing o-lineman.

So, if you are thinking of a 2 QB system you need to do the following to assure success:

1. Carefully evaluate the of value add of the second threat (QB#2) vs. assuring your kids know the core system to the level they should.

2. Use the change of pace QB sparingly and with only a few specialty plays that the offense can learn easily-especially if the added offensive system is widely divergent to the established system.

3. If changing the blocking scheme for special plays, it is best to simplify the philosophy rather than complicate it. This puts the focus on the added talent (QB 2) to do what comes natural, find a hole and go. This is a large reason for the popularity of zone blocking.

4. Make damn sure you prepare your kids. Give them every look imaginable over, and over and over again.

Sorry for the rant. I have a love/hate with higher level coaching staff implementing 2QB systems when they are not beneficial.

by tzubear on Sep 16, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

What about Tennessee’s no quarterback system?

by MrRedDevil on Sep 16, 2009 6:06 PM EDT reply actions

Honestly, right now I think Michigan’s running a “whatever works” system rather than a specifically 2 QB system.

by Craig on Sep 16, 2009 9:23 PM EDT reply actions

The wildcat is definitely overused today.

When Gus ran the wildcat at Arkansas in 2006, he was getting variations of current Raider Darren McFadden, current Cowboy Felix Jones, current Bronco Peyton Hillis and current Razorback Michael Smith on the field at once. McFadden was also a threat to pass going 7-9 with 3 TD’s, 1 INT in 2006 even though the formation was not used until midway through the season. So many teams who use the wildcat today have no passing threat which makes it much less effective because the 2006 Arkansas players always got man coverage on the WR’s since the D had to key on the others.

by Jim Grizzle on Sep 17, 2009 7:40 AM EDT reply actions