Coach,you better go to the bullpen.I'm just not up to the task.
Posted on 04/19/2015 8:40:28 PM PDT by Colofornian
Now that the Philadelphia Eagles have signed a 4th quarterback -- Tim Tebow -- and talk is being bandied about re: Tebow's potential "role player" status...perhaps a review is in order to ponder a potential paradigm shift that the NFL is perhaps beyond the need to acknowledge.
And for that, we need a quick review of another professional sport: Major League Baseball...and specifically the history of pitching:
1901-1968: For the first 68 years of the 20th century, Major League Baseball didn't even track "saves" by relief pitchers. Yankees pitcher Waite Hoyt was retroactively credited with "eight" saves in 1928. But he was primarily a starting pitcher who won 23 games that year -- about all of them as a starter.
1944 snapshot 45% of games started by pitchers wound up as complete games. (Complete Games)
1954 snapshot Still, over 1/3rd of games started by pitchers were completed by them. (Complete Games)
1969: This became the first season where this "saves" were begun to be recorded
1972: Even though teams in the 40s, 50s, and 60s used pitchers exclusively in bullpen roles -- and some even before that -- it wasn't until 1972 when the Reds' Clay Carroll became the first pitcher to make a third of his season's appearances in the beginning of the ninth inning. And that wasn't to be repeated until the A's Rollie Fingers did it in 1982.
Source: Closer (baseball)
1974 snapshot Complete games by starting pitchers actually rose 3.5% over the 1964 season...to 28%. (Complete Games) But this was the "last hurrah" for the complete game -- as it would drop 13 percent (almost half) by 1984.
1976: The "Rolaids Relief Man of the Year" awards weren't given out until based upon the '76 season (Rolaids Relief Man of the Year). The "winners" that year were Rawly Eastwick of the Reds and Bill Campbell of the Twins (Campbell won it again in '77 for the Red Sox).
In other words, "closers" were not a common strategic part of Major League baseball until the 1980s for all teams -- and the 1970s for some teams.
Through 1972: Instead, teams would opt for "complete games" for starting pitchers. Except for seasons 1957, 1960, and 1967, National League starting pitchers complete-game leaders would finish over 20 games per season thru 1972. Juan Marichal (1968), Fergie Jenkins (1971), and Steve Carlton (1972), were still completing 30 games each for those seasons...as was Catfish Hunter in the American League (Yankees, 1975)...with 29 complete games apiece by AL pitchers Jenkins ('74), Gaylord Perry ('72-'73), and Mickey Lolich ('71).
1980-1981 It wasn't until the 1980-81 seasons in the National League -- when the league leaders were only finishing 14 and 11 games, respectively -- and the late 1980s in the American League -- that complete games began its decline toward becoming a mere memory of yesteryear baseball.
Except for Tampa Bay's James Shields (11 in 2011), all of the Major League leaders in complete games since 2000 have been in the single digit-category. Year-by-Year Leaders for Complete Games
1994, 2004, 2014 snapshots Complete games for these years show only 8 percent ('94), 3 percent ('04), and 2.4 percent ('14) of games started were completed by pitchers. (Complete Games)
#1 Just as Major League pitchers no longer have to "go the distance," neither do NFL quarterbacks these days. Just as the bullpen arose to prominence in Major League baseball, an NFL "bullpen" -- where warming up the legs may mean as much or more than "warming up the arm" -- may become the NFL of the future.
#2 And, unlike baseball, it's not simply for (lack of) durability or injury pre-emptive reasons: Red-Zone based strategic reasons abound. For example, since Red Zone defenses don't have as much turf to cover, a case could be made that NFL teams with mobile quarterbacks can indeed place more pressure upon coverage alignments.
And that's where a quarterback like Tim Tebow comes in.
In 2011, the Denver Broncos were 1-3 on their way to their fourth loss when Tebow entered to tighten up a losing effort vs. the Chargers.
Under Tebow, the Broncos won 8 of their next 11 games -- including a wild card divisional overtime win vs. the Steelers ... before losing to the eventual Super Bowl AFC reps in the playoffs. (Half of Broncos four losses in 2011 under Tebow were to the Patriots)
Under Tebow, the Broncos still struggled at times lighting up the scoreboard, especially putting together some long drives. Yet once the Broncos got the ball to the opposition's 30 yard line (or inside of that), Tebow made sure that the Broncos scored 84% of the time. (And 58% of those scores were TDs)
Only seven times in those drives to the 30 or inside failed to result in a score...and four of those were simply missed field goals. Inside the opposition's 35-yard line, the 2011 Broncos under Tebow scored 80 percent of the time -- and 56 percent of these scores were TDs. [Note: These above stats include the two playoff games]
In other words, Tebow was a "closer" type of quarterback. He could "seal the deal" of a long drive or convert an opportunistic turnover occurring deep in the other team's territory.
Tebow as red-zone rusher: On 16 Red-zone carries in 2011, Tebow scored 6 TDs and garnered another 6 first downs. (He also ran for a 2-point PAT). As one internet commentator put it, that's "crazy efficiency."
Since 2008 when the Miami Dolphins introduced the Wildcat formation to the NFL, where a run-oriented replacement quarterback was often used for certain plays, the NFL began moving away from a "complete-game" quarterback dominant scheme. (See List of formations in American football for "Wildcat" formation)
Perhaps for some NFL teams, it may need to move to the next phase: Closer quarterbacks...quarterbacks like Tebow who can get the job done inside the opponent's 30-yard line.
The question is: Will Chip Kelly and the 2015 Eagles be such a new paradigm team?
Why wouldn't it work?
You have...
...A coach who implemented spread-offenses with QB runs off of them in college (IoW a coach who can operate beyond the NFL "box")...
...A QB who was successful near or within the red zone, leading to 85% of scores on those opportunities? And that was as a mere rookie without an entire pre-season and exhibition season to work up an offense around his skillset.
...And you had a QB who had enough of a red-zone/near red-zone balance (8 TD passes; 6 TD runs) that defenses in those situations need to respect.
1. In baseball, changes in relief pitching took so long to unfold because there's no "free substitution" rule in baseball. Once the pitcher is removed from the game, he's done for the day. Football doesn't have this limitation, and yet this type of situational use of the QB hasn't really been used (except in rare cases) at all. So the hesitation for NFL coaches to adopt this approach has to be related to another factor.
2. Baseball pitchers decline within a game due to fatigue. You might say the same thing about football players in general, but I've never seen any evidence that a football QB is substantially less effective after 40 pass attempts than he was after his 20th attempt. So -- leaving injuries aside -- there would have to be another compelling reason to use a "relief QB" in a situational role.
3. The biggest factor would come down to a simple calculation by a head coach in any given situation: Are we more likely to be successful with a "situational backup" than with my starting quarterback? That's really all it comes down to, and in the vast majority of cases an NFL team isn't well-served by having the starting QB taken out of the game.
That last point is a critical one, for it explains why the Eagles were interested in signing Tebow after he's been out of the game for a while. They don't really have a solid starter right now that inspires a lot of confidence, so they're willing to take a look at some interesting options at the QB position that most teams wouldn't even consider.
Hardly anyone is smart enough to make those adjustments.
As long as he doesn’t have to throw.
Three reasons: they didn't throw as fast, they only had two or three pitches, and the strike zone was "taller" (up to the letters)--that last one forced batters to swing more often, lessening the number of pitches per inning.
Bill Belichick couldn't figure out a use for Tebow because in many ways, Belichick is still a believer in a more conventional offense.
You might also want to take a look at the University Of Oklahoma’s Blake Bell. Was heavily recruited out of high school as a drop back passer. In his early years, OU had Landry Jones who set all sorts of passing records but had issues on short yard and near goal line offenses. OU substituted Bell along with a very heavy set offense. Called it the Belldozer. Bell had 24 rushing touchdowns in two years. He is a legitimate passing threat as well.
Bell makes Tebow look small. He’s 6’6 and weights 259. Last year played tight end and is expected to be drafted as such in the NFL. No question as to his durability.
Marshall's go to pitch was the screwball, not the knuckler. When he won the Cy Young in 1974 he pitched in 106 games ... a record that probably will never be broken
I would just LOVE to have you as coach on an opposition team!!! Oh, and I would VERY much hope Tebow was either your starting quarterback or “finishing” quarterback, preferably both!
“Bill Belichick couldn’t figure out a use for Tebow because in many ways, Belichick is still a believer in a more conventional offense.”
And how’s that been working out for him?
Of course great, because when Belichick has an all-time great quarterback in Tom Brady, you don’t need a gimmicky offense as much.
“Eagles have five QBs..”
MY theory about that is that Chip Kelly must think having five have-arsed quarterbacks could somehow make one good one.
Coach,you better go to the bullpen.I'm just not up to the task.
“And, unlike baseball, it’s not simply for (lack of) durability or injury pre-emptive reasons...”
Look up average ERA for pitchers per times through the batting order. The more times you see a pitcher generally the easier it is to hit off him. A big part of the offensive low problems and length/pace of game problems currently in baseball are because the bullpens are generally more effective and more used than ever before, while taking more time in pitching changes.
Freegards
That vanity screed about relief pitchers and maybe relief QBs
And no mention of
Rollie Fingers
Mariano Rivera
Or my man of my era....Goose Gossage
That’s like writing the Bible and leaving out Genesis Deuteronomy and Leviticus
It’s not the same though
QB needs to be in the game to know lay of the land and tired arm is not the same factor
Now a quick start guy trained to run play after play asap downfield
Maybe
But with the crybabies and show offs who constitute 80% these days
They’d just lie down whining
Perhaps there is a role for a "situational" running QB, such as when you are holding a comfortable lead and need somebody who can "run off the clock" by keeping the ball on the ground with a lot of rushing and scrambling plays, while the primary QB is being rested.
A short yardage QB? Given the timing and rhythm nature of the league I don’t see QB by committee happening, too many people need to think “3 1 thousand” is the same time and same distance for you to be swapping QBs in and out. And in general with less room to work tight in the end zone is considered to be the spot QBs need to be more accurate, not less, so you’re really not going to have a guy who’s not good enough for midfield but good enough to close the drive.
They don’t generally make players go the distance, teams cycle players in and out constantly. That’s why there’s a 53 man roster to fill 22 starting positions. That’s one of the strengths of the hurry-up offense, makes it harder for the other team to sub players.
Pay attention...Rollin fingers was mentioned in the article...
With the way a qb may hit a dozen receivers in a game..with half or more of them only catching 1 or 2 passes for entire game...”timing and rhythym” become overrated...especially given that many if not most teams run the ball 55 to 60% inside the opposition’s 30...see post #19 for details
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.