Le'Veon Bell

[BURGH86STEEL]

no, I wouldn't. aside from Russell Wilson, what other run first QB has ever won a Super Bowl?

I'm pretty sure there aren't many and you'll go have to go back many years...

There really isn't such a thing as a run 1st QB. QB's are QB's because they have the ability to pass. QB's that can run have the added dimension of running with the football when plays break down. I don't believe there is a team in the league that drafts a QB simply because of his ability to run. They draft those players because they believe they have the potential to pass the ball.

John Elway was a mobile QB that could pass. Ben is a mobile QB that can pass. Newton is an mobile but inconsistent passer.

A lot of the QB's in the league today can run. It's just an added dimension for an offense. That being said I doubt teams want their QB's running with the ball on a regular basis. Teams can win games with mobile QB's.

[Captain Lemming]

Steve young but he learned to check down to the third option.

As a Hawaii fan I watched Steve Young in person from when he was at BYU. He was an outstanding runner for a QB. He was record setting PASSER in college.

He could run, but he was a better PASSER... historical, among the most accurate ever.

I do not consider him a run first QB.

[Captain Lemming]

no, I wouldn't. aside from Russell Wilson, what other run first QB has ever won a Super Bowl?

I'm pretty sure there aren't many and you'll go have to go back many years...

Wilson holds franchise records for career completion percentage (64.2), career passing touchdowns, passing touchdowns in a single season (35), touchdowns in a single-game (5), lowest career interception percentage (1.9), highest career passer rating (100.3), highest passer rating in a single game (158.3), single season passing yards (4,219), and single game passing yards (452).

Yes he can run. But he is the most effective PASSER in that teams history.

[Captain Lemming]

Every team in the league can't have the same players, strengths, weaknesses, ect. So teams invest in the players that they believe can help them achieve their goals. Doesn't make them wrong or right.

Actually, that is not true. The Pats acquired not one but two elite corners they did not draft. If you don't pay certain positions elite money, you can get yourself elite talent elsewhere.

At the end of the day there are a lot of variables involved in building winning teams and Supberbowl winner. The Rams invested a lot of money into skill position players. As a result they had the opportunity to compete for the Supberbowl. IMO Goeff didn't play well enough in that game. Goeff didn't make the necessary plays to give the Rams the best chance to win. The Rams formula won a lot of games and they gave themselves the opportunity even though they fell short.

Players are worth what teams believe they are worth. That goes for any position. You don't have to agree. It also doesn't make you 100% right in terms of building a winner. Many different types of teams won games and the Supberbowl in the NFL.

Teams won a lot of games and the Supberbowl with mobile QB's. Winning with a mobile QB might not be what's ideal but winning can be done. To believe that a team can't win with different types of players and by using different variables is ignorance. It has been done and can be done. I believe that there are many different ways to achieve goals and win in the NFL.

Yes the Rams "invested" in offense. In a kid who likely is DONE as and elite player.

And if they let him play out his rookie deal he STILL plays last season. Smart move?

You said Geoff had a bad game. Yes he did. You know why?

The Pats made THIS far wiser investment.

[Captain Lemming]

I am not sure what you mean by run first QB? A QB won't be a QB if he can't throw the ball.

My definition of a run first QB is one who's overall effectiveness DEPENDS on his ability to run. You can be able to run like Adrian Peterson in his prime.....but if you are also an elite passer, that is not what I mean. The "ability" to run is indeed an asset.

Old man Randall Cunningham, lost a step and had his best all pro seasons. Not my definition. While never winning it all he was capable in my opinion.

Mike Vick, Tim Tebow? That kid in Baltimore? Not starters without elite run skills. That is what I mean by run first.

They ALL make the playoffs.
They NEVER win SBs.

[Captain Lemming]

My case is SO STRONG that when you guys use actual examples (Gurley) excuses (Geoff) it only makes my point.

BTW, the Rams ALSO invested big in defense. It is what kept them in the game, or else the Pats crush them.

If Pats don't have Gilmore....Rams win.

[BURGH86STEEL]

My definition of a run first QB is one who's overall effectiveness DEPENDS on his ability to run. You can be able to run like Adrian Peterson in his prime.....but if you are also an elite passer, that is not what I mean. The "ability" to run is indeed an asset.

Old man Randall Cunningham, lost a step and had his best all pro seasons. Not my definition. While never winning it all he was capable in my opinion.

Mike Vick, Tim Tebow? That kid in Baltimore? Not starters without elite run skills. That is what I mean by run first.

They ALL make the playoffs.
They NEVER win SBs.

Well your definition doesn't make much sense. I doubt it makes much to most people.

QB's are drafted for their passing ability and potential to pass the ball at the pro level. As with all QB's no one knows how their over all QB skills will transition from the collegiate level to the NFL.

The kid in Baltimore threw for 9043 yards and 69 TD's in college. He had/has a lot of potential. That's why he was drafted.

QB's with the ability to run won Superbowls. You need to be careful when using the words never, can't, or won't.

[BURGH86STEEL]

My case is SO STRONG that when you guys use actual examples (Gurley) excuses (Geoff) it only makes my point.

BTW, the Rams ALSO invested big in defense. It is what kept them in the game, or else the Pats crush them.

If Pats don't have Gilmore....Rams win.

I hate to go back and forth with you. It seems you really don't understand the dynamics of the league.

The Superbowl certainly didn't boil down to the Pats having Gilmore. It boiled down to Goeff having a bad game. Gilmore is only one CB among 11 players. The team couldn't have success if the other 21 didn't do their jobs.

The Vikes invested heavily in defense too and where were they? Other teams like the Jags had top CB's and defense this year and last year. We can continue this debate until we are blue in the face. There are a lot of variables involved in the success of a team. Teams can't have everything. So they have to play with the horses they have.

My stance will always be that there is more than one way to win games and a championship in the NFL.

I don't like to use the words can't, won't, or never in my vocabulary when it comes to sports. As soon it you do something happens to prove you wrong. Cowher will never win a SB. Oh wait.... A 6th seed will never win a SB oh wait. The Giants can't defeat an undefeated Pats team. oh wait. A running QB will never win a SB. Oh wait Young and Wilson won them.

Team with top CB's won SB's. Teams without top CB's won SB's. Teams with back up QB's won SB's. Whatever you said can't or won't happen CAN HAPPEN. That's where you are wrong.

[Disco1981]

I hate to go back and forth with you. It seems you really don't understand the dynamics of the league.

The Superbowl certainly didn't boil down to the Pats having Gilmore. It boiled down to Goeff having a bad game. Gilmore is only one CB among 11 players. The team couldn't have success if the other 21 didn't do their jobs.

The Vikes invested heavily in defense too and where were they? Other teams like the Jags had top CB's and defense this year and last year. We can continue this debate until we are blue in the face. There are a lot of variables involved in the success of a team. Teams can't have everything. So they have to play with the horses they have.

My stance will always be that there is more than one way to win games and a championship in the NFL.

I don't like to use the words can't, won't, or never in my vocabulary when it comes to sports. As soon it you do something happens to prove you wrong. Cowher will never win a SB. Oh wait.... A 6th seed will never win a SB oh wait. The Giants can't defeat an undefeated Pats team. oh wait. A running QB will never win a SB. Oh wait Young and Wilson won them.

Team with top CB's won SB's. Teams without top CB's won SB's. Teams with back up QB's won SB's. Whatever you said can't or won't happen CAN HAPPEN. That's where you are wrong.

I wouldn't consider Young and Wilson " running " QB's ...They were/ are both great passers also

[BURGH86STEEL]

I wouldn't consider Young and Wilson " running " QB's ...They were/ are both great passers also

Through out the history of the league there have been great QB's and bad QB's from the mobile and non mobile categories. Mobile QB's can pass, run, help teams win games, and win the Superbowl.

Steve Young was a mobile QB. Anyone who watched him would know that. Wilson is a mobile QB. He helped Seattle win the Supberbowl.

Several other mobile QB's help their teams win games, made the playoffs, and played in the Supberbowl. A few mobile QB's helped their teams win Superbowls.

I am not sure why people want to make this ish so complicated?

[Steel Maniac]

I agree there is a difference between running qb’s and mobile qb’s.

[Captain Lemming]

Through out the history of the league there have been great QB's and bad QB's from the mobile and non mobile categories. Mobile QB's can pass, run, help teams win games, and win the Superbowl.

Steve Young was a mobile QB. Anyone who watched him would know that. Wilson is a mobile QB. He helped Seattle win the Supberbowl.

Several other mobile QB's help their teams win games, made the playoffs, and played in the Supberbowl. A few mobile QB's helped their teams win Superbowls.

I am not sure why people want to make this ish so complicated?

It is NOT complicated.
You just make it complicated by “reading” what I am not “saying”

Steve Young? I TOLD YOU I am not talking about mobile QBs who were great passers.

AGAIN- A QB could run like Gayle Sayers, Barry Sanders, and Walter Peyton rolled into one....If he is an elite passer.....I ain’t talking about him.

Nobody Disparaged “mobile” QBs. Do a search of this thread,
I said “run first”.
You asked me to explain what I meant and I did.

I said what I mean is a QB who’s effectiveness depends on running.

Steve Young is an elite PASSER who is also happened to be mobile.
Steve Young won SIX PASSING titles!!!!!
Russell Wilson has a better PASSER rating than Ben.

Run first QB’s?
Tim Tebow was a FORTY SEVEN percent passer. Without his ability to get 600 yards rushing.....he was a SCRUB. Heck he was a scrub despite his running ability.
Mike Vick.....NEVER STARTS were it not for his elite run skills

Is it that they aren’t capable of completing a pass? No. But they are subpar passers at the NFL level.

[hawaiiansteel]

Run first QB’s?
Tim Tebow was a FORTY SEVEN percent passer. Without his ability to get 600 yards rushing.....he was a SCRUB. Heck he was a scrub despite his running ability.
Mike Vick.....NEVER STARTS were it not for his elite run skills

Is it that they aren’t capable of completing a pass? No. But they are subpar passers at the NFL level.

I would never want a run first QB as my starter. like you said, they might get you into the playoffs but it's almost impossible to win a Super Bowl with one.

[Captain Lemming]

Well your definition doesn't make much sense. I doubt it makes much to most people.

When it seems someone is not “making sense” the issue might be:
1. One persons ability to communicate clearly
2. The other persons ability to “comprehend”.

Considering you think I am talking about “mobile” QBs which I never said, and Steve Young who I EXPLAINED CLEARLY is not a “run first” QB but rather an elite passer who can run, I’d say “comprehension” is the problem here.

You need to be careful when using the words never, can't, or won't.

I am careful is what I “say”.
I suggest you be more “careful” when reading.
Did I say, “the words never, can't, or won't?”

I use the expression “don't” because it “does not” happen.
The terms “never, can't, or won't” are strong future tense expressions.

For example last year I could accurately say Japanese guys “don’t” play in the NBA. A Japanese guy was just drafted. My prior statement was not wrong because the word “don’t” is not a future tense word.

That would be different than saying it will “never” or “won’t” happen.

I cant say anything is “impossible”. I can suggest it is “unlikely” based on history.

[Captain Lemming]

I hate to go back and forth with you. It seems you really don't understand the dynamics of the league.

The Superbowl certainly didn't boil down to the Pats having Gilmore. It boiled down to Goeff having a bad game. Gilmore is only one CB among 11 players. The team couldn't have success if the other 21 didn't do their jobs.

Did I suggest the other guys didn’t do their jobs? All I’m saying is that Gilmore was the difference maker.

The Vikes invested heavily in defense too and where were they? Other teams like the Jags had top CB's and defense this year and last year. We can continue this debate until we are blue in the face. There are a lot of variables involved in the success of a team. Teams can't have everything. So they have to play with the horses they have.

I have said many times....franchise QB plus elite secondary play are the combination. Those teams were missing the other piece. Go cheap elsewhere to build those parts....it works.

My stance will always be that there is more than one way to win games and a championship in the NFL.

True.....Eagles were a RARE exception to my statement above.

Team with top CB's won SB's. Teams without top CB's won SB's. Teams with back up QB's won SB's. Whatever you said can't or won't happen CAN HAPPEN. That's where you are wrong.

Really? Sure it CAN happen. Smart teams do what makes it LIKELY.

Example:
You are correct, backup QBs HAVE won SBs. Eagles just did it.
Why not just dump Ben?