Roy S. Johnson Blog

Roy S. Johnson Blog

Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:26 pm EDT

With more games, the NFL must adopt two-QB strategy

By Roy S. Johnson

What Roger Goodell wants, Roger Goodell gets. Or more appropriately, what Goodell says he wants is what the owners really want.

With the NFL commissioner's publicly expressed desire to lengthen the 16-game regular season to 17 or 18 contests, you can bet it's pretty much a done deal. And I'm all for it.

Yes, there are negatives, most particularly the additional damages to the bodies of athletes whose careers on average already last less than the lifespan of a guinea pig.

That's why I hope the expanded season finally rids us of one of the most inane strategies, traditions, beliefs (whatever you may want to call it) in sports: that quarterbacks should never be pulled from a game unless they're a) injured or b) really suck.

Why is it that players at every other position on the field can be taken out for a sub – for whatever reason – then later return without it being a "controversy"?

What if other sports held to such a practice – then Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and other NBA stars would play 48 minutes; NHL stars like Sidney Crosby and Jerome Iginla would never leave the ice. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Those sports don't adhere to such insanity because their stars would never last a month, let alone an entire season.

An NFL QB's season is already about attrition. Coaches, owners, teammates and fans cringe each time one is sacked or tackled after a run. Yet most starting quarterbacks are surprisingly durable. Among the 18 quarterbacks who threw for more than 3,000 yards last season, only Matt Schaub (5 missed games) and Tony Romo (3) failed to play all 16 games last season.

And yet, the loss of a QB, even for a few games, can flush an entire season (see: Dallas). With up to an additional two games destined for 2010 or 2011, the survival of the QB will be atop every coach's list of concerns.

The solution: a true two-quarterback system. Backups should play every game, sometimes for a series, maybe an entire quarter. They could be used to simply give the starter a breather, without creating a buzz in the press box.

Better yet, the No. 2 QB should become a key strategic weapon, not merely an EMS worker with a helmet. They can be used to change the pace of play, to give the defense "another look" at a critical juncture, maybe during the final two minutes of the half.

Teams would actually have to prepare for two QBs rather than one, just as teams would have to prepare two QBs to play each week.

With the two-QB system, we might have actually known who Matt Cassell was before Tom Brady got injured; Vince Young (pictured) would not have become Casper last season; and the Jets might acutally have a clue whether Kellen Clemens, their default '09 starter so far who's been in the league for three years (!), can play.

Andy Reid could have "benched" Donovan McNabb last season without "benching" him in the traditional sense, i.e. public humiliation. Playing the backup more could have been positioned as more strategic than punitive.

Maybe the Cowboys would not have folded when Romo went down with an injury. (On second thought, scratch that.)

Most fans probably don't even know who's their team's backup. Partly due to denial, hoping they never have to know. With the two-QB system, fans won't have to go into apoplectic convulsions when the starter gets hit.

Bring on more games. But also, bring on the backups. Let them play. Let them play. Let them play …

Photos by Baltimore Sun, Getty

digg delicious
more

110 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. Gretchen B
    1. Posted by Gretchen B Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:02 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    hey the lions have a whole roster of backups. that would be great than they all could play!!
  2. footballer327
    2. Posted by footballer327 Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:01 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    ray lewis would stab a back-up quarterback if he could
  3. footballer327
    3. Posted by footballer327 Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:01 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    ray ray would stab the lions too. except for calvin johnson...and maybe ernie sims
  4. Henry F
    4. Posted by Henry F Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:18 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    It's great for the game. Why paid these backup all this money for them to sit. Players don't need time to grow they need to get a feel of the game at full speed that's separate men from boys.
  5. Adam H
    5. Posted by Adam H Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:47 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Don't NBA stars play offense and defense? It's not a fair comparison. Quarterbacks need to be in the whole game to get their rhythm and timing with the receivers and backs. Not to mention the offense getting used to the QB cadence with the snap count.
  6. 1Badboy825 sls / Navlumj
    6. Posted by 1Badboy825 sls / Navlumj Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:34 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    you only need one QB this year... with the new rules to protect Tom Brady uh I mean QB's how could they possibly get hurt ? unless they break a nail or something or Randy Moss slaps Tom's hand for gettin too touchy feely. QB's may be able to play until their 50.....a guy can't go after a QB while he's down on his knees give me a break. Pansieball Goddell is Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones puppet.... i hope Brady and Romo get knocked out for the season in the first game
  7. The Messiah
    7. Posted by The Messiah Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:28 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    some teams may need to do this, but when you have a tom brady or a peyton manning on your team, there is no way in hell that the coach is going to replace them with a jim sorgi or kevin o'connell...besides, the qb position is the most glorious position in football, and if you make it a two person job, then we will never meet the likes of john elway, joe montana, brett favre, peyton manning, or tom brady ever again
  8. Dmitry
    8. Posted by Dmitry Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:45 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    The Cardinals tried this a couple of years ago when they would play Leinart one half and Warner during another half...they failed miserably. Having two quarterbacks playing would be dumb and weird to watch.
    Think about the marketing for the NFL...people want to watch Brady and Manning not their subs.
    Terrible idea.
  9. HuyD
    9. Posted by HuyD Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:22 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I'm so sick of this topic. Adding one or two games to the regular season is not that big a deal. Just deal with the fact that it's going to happen and move on and be done with it. Jesus.
  10. AR
    10. Posted by AR Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:56 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    the Kobe Bryant example is ridiculous...last time I looked, Quarterbacks sat out all defensive plays...
  11. Ronnie G
    11. Posted by Ronnie G Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:30 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    got to love the fans that make fun of brady because of how successful he is.
  12. Fabian R
    12. Posted by Fabian R Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:57 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I agree with Huy D, its really not that drastic of a extension, assuming they take away two pre season games, and im pretty sure they'll add at least another bye week if not two, which would end up evening out the addition of two games.
  13. richard m
    13. Posted by richard m Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    this is retarded... you may as well pull your best WRs out too and play it the way you would a preseason game. Why would you take out your best player at your most important offensive position and risk it costing you a game?
  14. Andy T
    14. Posted by Andy T Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:57 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    This is ridiculous. Those other sports can do it because they don't require the same amount of continuity at those positions. What's next? Changing offensive linemen? A QB is the focal point of a team, the leader, the field general. Going back and forth between QBs in a game would ruin the "gel" of an offensive unit.
  15. bert y
    15. Posted by bert y Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:15 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I have a better idea. How about you have a back up columnist, this article is terrible. I'm sure your sub could do better.
    With the margin of victories being what they are. Why on earth would you want a back up in for the last two minutes of a half? Some QB's are at their best then.
    The NBA comparison is silly too. When those stars come out, they don't run the majority of plays for the back ups. They play the system and hope to produce in it. A QB touches the ball every play (the columnist may not know this)
    If the back up was good enough, he wouldn't be the back up. That's why they have pre season and practices.
  16. jeremy
    16. Posted by jeremy Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:10 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    This is actually a good idea... unless your team has Chuck Norris as your qb. Then you just win by default.
  17. Jared M
    17. Posted by Jared M Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:06 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    The only problem with that is that the QB's stats would suffer in the history books compared to the others that played when they got a whole season alone.
  18. Blake W
    18. Posted by Blake W Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:25 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Your quarterback is spose to be the leader, you don't sub your signal caller out. Count how many plays Ray Lewis, or James Farrior take out, the count is zero or maybe a few if they racked up. You don't sub your signal caller in football, it damages the continuity of your effort.
  19. Mike M
    19. Posted by Mike M Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:04 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I agree with posts 15 & 16, this article is pretty useless. That's like saying "play your #4 and #5 receivers so your top 3 receivers don't get tired of running routes". This idea of playing the back-ups is good in theory but can potentially apply to every position in football. It would actually be more useful for high impact positions, though a lot of these positions already utilize back-ups. I think the worst part of this article is suggesting to use a back-up in the last few minutes of every half for a "change of pace". Maybe it's just me, but if I need a QB to get me a score in the closing seconds of any half I'm taking Manning WAY over Sorgi... Though in the long run remember it's an 11 person Offense, not a 1. I agree that QB can be the most important position in the offense, but if you're going to make an argument of playing back-ups in the softest (physically) position in football, then at least give consideration to those in more demanding positions.
  20. bob z
    20. Posted by bob z Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:10 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    As a fair comparison, Hockey Goalies DO play the whole game, and dont get pulled unless injury or they stink. So really what i'm saying is that the Crosby switching off isn't a fair comparison, it is a terrible point.
  21. MarkT
    21. Posted by MarkT Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:42 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I hate the added games, why? Cause as it stands theres usually two teams in the league who have everything locked up by week 14 and the next two weeks they play half heartedly with a bunch of backups. Now what happens when a team jumps out to a 12-2 start and has clinced everything? We get four games worth of this team not even trying and horrible backups.
    PS: Ratcliff will win the starting job for the Jets.
  22. tnfan62
    22. Posted by tnfan62 Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:14 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    2 QBs as starters - an idea whose time HASN'T come. After the VY fiasco last season, one solid QB with a good mental state about the whole gaame - boos & cat calls included - is more than plenty. Kerry Collins proved such very clearly with the Titans, and Vince showed how not ready for the real world of the NFL he is, and may continue to be. Thankfully, he isn't a copy of ex-Charger Ryan Leaf, but neither is he a model of patience and command like either of the Mannings, Big Ben or, before he was injured, Carson Palmer.
    Imagine the Super Bowl Cowboys with Aikman AND John Doe as QBs (plural)? Dan Marino and Who Knows in Miami would have kept Marino frrom ever making the Hall. I will grant that when they both played for TN, I wished for a least a try of a play with Neil O'Donnell as the QB and Steve McNair as a slash back who could've run with a hand off, or took an O'Donnell lateral and passed to an open receiver for a TD. THAT is the only sensible way for TWO quarterbacks I can envision, and RSJ, I do not believe you'll get many takers for your idea.
    As for V. Young becoming Caspar, I can't help but admit I'd love to see him completely dissapear from the TN roster for a backup QB young enough to start when Kerry retires, but who is mature emotionally to know he needs to thoroughly learn the team's offense before even trying to be a competent backup, because it sure isn't VY, no matter how much Mr. Adams, coach Fisher and "experts" like you may argue otherwise.
  23. Carmen
    23. Posted by Carmen Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:39 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    So far, every comment is dumb. Think about baseball.....
    There is no position in all of sports that is as glorious as a starting pitcher!
    Does a pitcher play every inning? NO.
    Does a pitcher even bat? Only in the National League.
    Does a pitcher even pitch consecutive games? Only if he's a reliever.
    Slow down and think about what you can do with this.....
    Teams like Miami who wish to employ the 'Wildcat' formations can have a QB as in Vince Young or maybe coming out of college now...Pat White to get in there and change the pace of a game.
  24. nick
    24. Posted by nick Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:53 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    so if they do initiate a 17-18 game system should they also increase the roster size from 53 to lets say 60?
  25. Matt C
    25. Posted by Matt C Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:13 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I dont like his idea. The leader cannot abandon his troops. Quarterbacking is not a cardiovascular exercise, he doesnt really need a breather

Roy S. Johnson Blog

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Contributors

Related Photo Gallery

More TOP Photos »

Yahoo! Sports Blog Recent Readers

(provided by MyBlogLog)