NFC East Preview Podcast

So I was walking the dog around the block, and I figured why not try out an NFL preview podcast before the season starts? I ended up only doing the NFC East because I talked for so long, but… nonetheless, give a listen!!


0:00 Intro

3:34 Giants

24:20 Cowboys

27:40 Redskins

31:51 Eagles

41:05 Wrap Up


What is the Value of a Quarterback?

It seems like everytime a Quarterback not named Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers is handed a new contract, criticism is rampant. For years on end now, it seems like Quarterbacks have been given massive contracts that tend to eat up most of the salary cap. Many people often think that these players are not worth this type of money, as it used to be reserved for top-notch starters like Peyton Manning, Quarterbacks who were good enough that they could compensate for other areas of the team that were weak. This supposed jump in Quarterback salary likely started with Joe Flacco’s Superbowl XLVII run in 2012. At the start of that season, the Ravens chose not to offer Joe Flacco a new deal but instead let him play out the season. This was an understandable move in some respects as Joe Flacco had been a decent, but inconsistent starter up to that point, and the Ravens were a team built on running the football and playing strong defense.

That season, Joe Flacco essentially  bet on himself and won. He got hot at the right time and led the Ravens to a Superbowl victory, earning Superbowl MVP in the process. He had a tremendous postseason, throwing for 1140 yards, 9 yards per attempt, 11 touchdowns and no interceptions, and a passer rating of 117.2. At the end of the season, he knew he had the Ravens in a bind. He asked for big time money, and of course, they paid up. It was likely either that or let Joe Flacco hit the market. Letting Joe Flacco go after a Superbowl win would be a PR nightmare. Plus, they wouldn’t have a Quarterback.

It could be argued that that point changed the market for Quarterbacks as Flacco’s salary essentially became the asking price/market price for your average starter. It gave Quarterbacks and agents leverage. So since that point, we’ve seen a lot of non-elite Quarterbacks been given big time contracts. (Assuming “elite guys” are the top 3-5 guys, ie Brady, Rodgers, and Brees, that can win no matter who you put around them.) Some of these “non-elite” starters that have been given big money–and often criticized in the process–include Jay Cutler, Andy Dalton, Ryan Tannehill, Colin Kaepernick, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford, and I believe since then the Ravens even gave Joe Flacco a second big contract.

Now, it is worth saying that a lot of these contract numbers are misleading. NFL contracts are almost never guaranteed and players almost never play out the entire deal. A lot of people just look at the raw number and assume that’s what the player is getting paid, and this is rarely the case. And there are a lot of people that have a problem with athletes getting paid so much money, or asking for so much money. (There are even some people who think that even when only looking at the guaranteed money, that Quarterbacks are still getting paid too much.) I would disagree with this stance, A) because NFL players are at risk of suffering severe, debilitating lifelong injuries, and B) because what players get paid is negligible compared to the money the owners make.

But that’s a conversation for another day. Putting aside the question of whether Quarterbacks, or even players in general, deserve to be paid this kind of money from an ethical standpoint, the issue I’m focusing on for this article is whether it makes sense from an NFL/business standpoint for Quarterbacks to be making the kind of big money that they often do.

As I’ve said, it seems that everytime a big new QB deal comes out, there is criticism all over the place. “They overpaid!”, “he’s not worth it!”, etc etc etc. Now, it’s easy to offer this kind of critique from at home sitting on your couch. But at the end of the day, teams need a Quarterback. It’s the most important position on the team, outside of kicker. (Kidding, kidding. But seriously, I do love Kickers.) The search for a QB drives coaches and franchises crazy. Too often, letting a serviceable guy go is just too big a risk to take, because QBs aren’t a dime a dozen. No one wants to be the Browns, Redskins, Bills, Dolphins, etc.

At the end of the day, if the market demands a certain price for a QB, the team has two choices: either pay that guy, or let him walk and not have a Quarterback. It’s easy for us to sit on our couches and say it’s not worth it, but we’re not the ones who have to put a product on the field to start the season. Someone’s gotta play. If it’s not the guy you currently have, who is it gonna be?

In the same sense, a lot of people will make the argument that paying for an average QB is paying to go 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 and miss the playoffs, and that if you’re going to pay that much money to do that, then you might as well go 5-11 and get a high draft pick and draft a Quarterback. Again, this makes sense in theory, but no coach thinks like that. Coaches are being paid to win games. As are players. Most coaches’ jobs are on the line every single year. We know how quickly coaches get fired in this league. Their job is to create a winning product. No coach is going to tank/purposely lose games for any reason.

Most Quarterbacks that are getting paid big-time money aren’t guys that are going to single-handedly be carrying their teams to the playoffs. There aren’t that many Tom Bradys in the world. In fact, there’s only one. Yet a lot of these Quarterbacks are held to Brady-esque standards when pundits are criticizing these contracts. Ideally, should a Quarterback be paid his value proportionally to where he stands among the QB hierarchy of the rest of the league? Sure, but the league, and the market, don’t work like that.

Coaches would love to have Tom Brady, but they have to work with what they have. And outside of that group of about 3-5 elite QBs who can be successful in almost every situation, most QBs are situation dependent. I was once listening to a podcast where someone said–I don’t remember who, might have been Chris Burke or Doug Farrar, but not sure–that when it comes to QBs, there are a group of guys at the top who are going to have success no matter what situation they’re in, there are a group of guys at the bottom who are going to be bad and bring the team down no matter what situation they’re in, and the rest of the guys are dependent on situation. That rings true to me. I think when teams pay a non-elite QB big time money, they think (or are hoping) that if they can get enough team around him, he can win them a Superbowl or at least get to the playoffs, a la Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton.

This brings us back to the initial problem though: If a QB is dependent on team to be successful, why would you pay him so much money that you don’t have enough to build up the rest of the team? This is a tough question and you could argue it even applies to the elite guys–Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers have been good enough to keep their teams in the playoff mix, but they all had more success winning rings on their earlier contracts. It’s just the case that early QB contracts are more conducive to team success, which is why it’s crucial to win a ring (or multiple ones, if you can) when you have a big time QB on his first contract. It’s going to be hard for the Seahawks to keep this defensive core together now that Russell Wilson has been extended. If I remember correctly, his first contract was incredibly team friendly, seeing how he wasn’t even expected to be the starter when he was drafted.

None of this is meant to defend any particular QB contract, nor is it meant to defend the signing of supposed “non-elite” QBs to big time contracts either. It is simply meant to point out that the criticism we hear regarding such contracts is often naive and fails to recognize the reality of the situations many of these teams are in and the options that they actually face. It’s always easy to criticize “after-the-fact”. But how many of these teams would have been criticized just as much had they cutoff ties with their QB and went into the season without a QB?

For years, teams have paid the QB, because they see it as the only viable option. For years, teams have been criticized for paying the QB because people see it as the wrong option. Could we now be starting to see a change in things? There are some situations that seem to suggest that, yes, teams may not be as willing to pay the QB going forward.

The Washington Redskins with Kirk Cousins and the New York Jets with Ryan Fitzpatrick both opted to give their QBs one year, “prove-it” deals rather than long term contracts. Both QBs had good years, statistically at least, and their teams were successful–the Redskins made it to the playoffs and the Jets were one game away–but these are guys you might hold your breath signing to long term deals. At least, that’s what the Jets and Redskins thought. Neither has a long track record of success, and neither is exceptionally physically gifted. Both played in well designed offensive schemes with talent at the skill positions. The Jets, especially, took a surprisingly long amount of time to sign Ryan Fitzpatrick, much longer than people expected. They did eventually get him signed, but they played hardball, and for a while it looked like they were ready to go into the season with Geno Smith as their starter.

Then you have Sam Bradford, who, not wanting to be a placeholder for a younger QB, decided to test the market after the Eagles drafted Carson Wentz. It turns out no one wanted him, and he eventually reported to training camp with the Eagles. Teams may have been turned off by the fact that he likely wanted to be guaranteed a starting position, and wanted big time money to do so. And I know he doesn’t have a track record of success in this league, and is injury prone, but it’s still a little surprising that a former No 1 overall pick who is likely more talented throwing the football than maybe half the QBs in this league wouldn’t garner any attention, especially this day in age when so many teams are looking for Quarterbacks.

Lastly, you have the most glaring example: The Denver Broncos. Last year, Brock Osweiler stepped in midseason for an injured Peyton Manning and played pretty well, going 4-2 in his absence. I was actually surprised that they gave the job back to Peyton, to be honest. But they did, and Brock had to sit back on the bench and watch while Peyton went on to be part of the Superbowl winning team.

Osweiler was drafted by the Broncos in 2012, and everyone assumed he’d be Peyton Manning’s replacement once Manning retired. Outside of that brief period last year, Osweiler didn’t get to see the field as a starter in those four years. Yes, Osweiler was drafted under a different coaching staff than the one currently in place (although Elway had still been there, and he seems to be making the decisions with this club), but it was still surprising, to say the least, when the Broncos decided so casually to not pay Osweiler and let him seek out a trade. (Not sure if he was traded or just released and then signed, but basically Denver made a conscious decision to move on.)

What happened was Osweiler wanted a certain amount of money and Denver didn’t want to give it to him. Osweiler likely felt disrespect from a team that had him sit on the bench for four years, and then bench him again and make him watch the Superbowl from the sidelines after he thought the job was his. Elway likely watched his team win a Superbowl off the heels of a dominant defense–after a regular season during which his Quarterback, Peyton Manning, was borderline atrocious–and thought that he had a formula for success (play good defense) that he didn’t want to mess with by paying a Quarterback money that, in his eyes, he didn’t deserve based on the caliber of player he was. In theory, it makes sense for both sides, but at the end of the day, Elway is going into the season with either Mark Sanchez, Trevor Siemian, or Paxton Lynch as the starter (still to be determined). He essentially doesn’t have a Quarterback right now. That’s a bold move to make, but Elway’s never been afraid of doing things his way.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, you have the Houston Texans. They represent the opposite philosophy, the “pay the QB” philosophy. They gave Osweiler the money he wanted, despite going 9-7 the previous two years with Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Hoyer at QB, respectively. Those QBs played okay, and Houston even got into the playoffs last year, although Hoyer imploded in the playoff game. But they saw Osweiler as an upgrade at the most important position on the field, so they gave him the money he wanted.

Both moves make sense in some respects and are questionable in others. Ultimately, only time will tell who made the best move.

The point is, it’s always easy to say from an outside perspective, not to pay the QB. But the alternative means going into the season with an unknown at QB, which could be just as dangerous, if not more. It seems that now some teams are finally beginning to take this option. It will be interesting to see what this means moving forward, as pundits who have always criticized teams for paying the QB will now get to see what the alternative looks like, and will have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Click here for Archives

The Johnny Manziel Conversation: Exploring the Idea of the Mobile Quarterback

Johnny Manziel has probably been hyped and discussed more than any prospect in the NFL draft this year. Whether it be because of his celebrity antics or his unorthodox yet highly successful college career, it seemed like no one could stop talking about Johnny Manziel in the months leading up to the draft. To the amazement of some, Manziel began being hyped as a first round pick and perhaps even a No 1 overall pick. Many even declared him the best quarterback of this year’s class. Would he or would he not succeed in the NFL? Would his “style” of play work? And who would take him? These were the questions that were tossed back and forth for months on NFL Network and ESPN.

Well after months of speculation, Manziel was indeed drafted in the first round by the Cleveland Browns. While it’s nice to have all the pointless speculation of where he will go and who should draft him out of the way, Manziel still presents an interesting conversation that I think it is worthwhile to explore, and that is the prospect of success in the NFL for so called “running quarterbacks” such as Manziel.

Manziel does not fit the typical picture of what a successful NFL Quarterback looks like. Conventional Wisdom says that an NFL Quarterback is tall, well built, has a strong arm, and sits in the pocket reading coverage, going through progressions if necessary, to find the open receiver, before delivering the ball with accuracy, timing, and rhythm.

Johnny Manziel is not tall or big. He barely measured six feet at the combine, and he weighs 210 pounds. He is a huge threat to make plays running the ball with his legs, almost moreso than he is throwing the ball. Generally, what is thought of first when someone mentions Manziel is his running ability. He will often leave the pocket, bypassing open receivers, primary reads, or checkdowns to either run around in the backfield before throwing or to run for positive yardage. He generally hasn’t been a guy to sit back in the pocket like a Tom Brady and dissect the defense with precision. He plays more of an improvisational game. It certainly worked in college with A&M’s spread offense, as Manziel’s accolades are well documented.

The bigger question is how this type of Quarterback fits into today’s NFL. There has been a growing belief cultivated by the talking heads that the NFL game is changing, that it’s becoming more like the college game, that the so called mobile quarterbacks are “revolutionizing” the position and that traditional “pocket passers” are becoming a thing of the past.

I believe that like most narratives cultivated by the mainstream media, this is an incredibly simplified and misguided notion. I don’t watch a ton of college football, but I’ve seen my fair share, and all one has to do is sit down and watch a college game featuring spread and option based offenses to see that it is still not remotely close to what happens in the NFL. Are there any NFL offenses that feature the quarterback running options or running the ball on almost every play like Ohio State does with Braxton Miller? Teams use the option, but nowhere is it a base offense, is it the offense in its entirety. Are there any NFL offenses that get in the shotgun and pass it on every single down? That work exclusively out of the spread? That run bubble screens on every other play? That run hurry up for an entire game? It may seem like this is the case with some offenses, but watch closely. Teams certainly may employ these elements in their offense. But nowhere will you see a non pro style college offense identical to an NFL offense. The NFL game certainly isn’t what it was in the 1900s. There is definitely more use of the shotgun and more quicker throws. But even so, to act as if the NFL is more than remotely similar to college is ridiculous. The complexity, speed, and athleticism of NFL defenses will ensure that this is never the case, or at least that it isn’t anytime soon. Even a west coast offense like that of the Packers, a spread offense like the Patriots used to run, or a primarily shotgun offense like that of Denver/Peyton-Led Indy (all of which employ no huddle elements) is incredibly different and more complex than the hurry up/spread offenses in college.

What do people even mean when they try to draw a distinction between “mobile quarterbacks” and “pocket quarterbacks”, when they say that mobile quarterbacks have changed the way the game is played? Obviously some quarterbacks are faster than others; no one is denying that. Speed is an attribute, as is size and arm strength. And obviously some quarterbacks run more than others; no one is denying this either. And it’s clear that quarterbacks who can run add an extra dimension to the offense that defenses must account for. But so what? What’s the point? How does this in any way suggest that that the quarterback position has changed, that pocket quarterbacks can no longer be successful, that quarterbacks need to be able to run, or even that “mobile quarterbacks” present an entirely new way to play the position and as such deserve a label? When people make this distinction between “mobile quarterbacks” and “pocket quarterbacks” are they suggesting that quarterbacks who can run don’t need pocket skills? Do they not need to be able to read coverage, move in the pocket, or throw with accuracy, timing, and rhythm just because they can run? Can they just run around for a while and hope a receiver pops open, or just take off when they’re unsure? To me, this notion is just stupid. The NFL isn’t a madden game. As Greg Cosell of NFL Films would say “Quarterbacking is a highly disciplined craft”. Regardless of how fast they run, quarterbacks need to be able to have pocket skills. Is it just a coincidence that Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning, three of the most highly skilled pocket passers in the league are considered by most to be three of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, despite being three of the slowest? Aaron Rodgers, another quarterback considered to be one of the best, if not the best quarterback in the league, can run, but he is almost always a passer first.

The idea of the “mobile quarterback” has definitely been fueled by the success of Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick, both who have been deep into the postseason for both years of their careers. Both quarterbacks have made outstanding plays with their legs and kept their relative teams in games doing so. Both quarterbacks have also had plays where they missed open receivers or created turnovers or negative plays for the offense because of their hastiness to run and/or lack of pocket skills/experience reading defenses. Often, the talent that these two quarterbacks are surrounded by has masked their struggles and lack of pocket skills. But no one wants to admit that. And most importantly, both quarterbacks have, albeit inconsistently, displayed crucial pocket skills to help their teams win games. (If you’re more interested in the specific skills required to play quarterback in the NFL, look into the work of NFL Films’ Greg Cosell, one of my favorite people to follow and a man I believe to be one of, if not the, smartest minds in football). Truthfully, I could write a whole article on Colin Kaepernick or Russell Wilson and the reasons they have been successful, but I’m not going to focus on them here.

I think the best evidence that the position is not changing is the career of Michael Vick. Michael Vick is a great madden player, but has he really even lived close to his No 1 overall draft status or even to all the hype that he gets? In an 11 year career, he has one season where he’s played all sixteen games, two seasons where he’s passed for more than 3000 yards (his highest yardage total is 3303), and one season where he’s completed more than 60 percent of his passes. He hasn’t made a lot of noise in the playoffs nor has he brought many of his teams that much success. After what some considered to be an MVP worthy 2010 season, he got a nice fat paycheck from the Eagles. The Eagles were 8-8 in 2011, 4-12 in 2012, and he lost his job to Nick Foles last year. Even though everyone was saying that Chip Kelly’s offense required a mobile quarterback, the guy with the pocket skills ended up doing a better job running it. Yet, people still remain baffled by Vick’s running ability, and for that reason he is still in the league.

Besides, it’s not like quarterbacks who have legs coming into the league is suddenly a new thing. There are plenty of old guys who ran the ball a lot, Randall Cunningham, Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young, and Donovan McNabb to name a few. The media just likes to dramatize and sensationalize things.

And yet, regardless of where it came from, the idea of the mobile quarterback had to hold some validity for the Cleveland Browns, because they chose to draft Manziel in the first round. So now comes the million dollar question: Can Manziel succeed in the NFL? No one knows–no one ever knows when it comes to prospects, especially quarterbacks–but we can speculate. As I’ve mentioned earlier, the idea that you could take an option/spread offense from college and duplicate it in the NFL and have it succeed is, in my opinion, quite dumb. Even Chip Kelly didn’t replicate his Oregon offense entirely. As Cosell has explained, Kelly uses NFL passing concepts in his offense; he is just more creative than most teams when it comes to formations and motions. Kelly also utilizes a base running game with McCoy. I could go more into why college offenses, like the one Manziel ran at A&M, wouldn’t work in the NFL, but I won’t, A, because I’ve already touched on it briefly, but B, because based on what I’ve read, the Browns aren’t planning on running a college offense.

The Browns new OC is Kyle Shanahan, and we all know that the Shanahans love to pair the zone running game with the play action boot pass. The Texans were outstanding with this: When Kyle Shanahan was their OC during the 08 and 09 seasons, Matt Schaub had two of his better career years. The Browns now have Ben Tate and Terrance West, and probably feel like they can run Shanahan’s system pretty effectively. So far the media reaction towards the pairing of Shanahan and Manziel has been pretty positive. Why not get the athletic quarterback on the edge running the boot? What a great idea! Manziel will thrive in this system! Then there’s the fact that Kyle Shanahan was the Redskins OC during RGIII’s rookie year. To help RGIII with the NFL transition, Shanahan mixed option principles, the zone running game with Alfred Morris, simple play action reads, quarterback draws, and quick hitches and screens. He ran double or triple options often out of the pistol formation, and defenses were lost. Outside of what the Broncos did the previous year with Tebow, Shanahan was using formations and principles not really seen before in the NFL. The 49ers and Seahawks eventually started using their own versions of the pistol and option (Carolina had already been doing so) with their respective mobile quarterbacks (Seattle didn’t use the pistol that much but they did run the option out of the shotgun often). Outside of the injuries–more on that later–the results were excellent for RGIII. He averaged 8.1 Y/A, completed 65.6% of his passes, threw 20 TD to just 5 INT, and finished the season with a 102.4 Passer Rating.

So if Shanahan has such a successful track record AND he crafted a system that suited RGIII’s skills so well, then why wouldn’t Manziel succeed with Shanahan at the controls? Well, a few reasons. First, I’m skeptical about saying that Manziel will succeed just because Shanahan is employing rollout principles in his offense. It’s always easy to say that mobile quarterbacks are best suited for a system that allows them to get on the move. I heard the same thing said about Jake Locker and Colt McCoy. But let’s remember that this is the NFL. And NFL defenses are smart, albeit often penalized. Rarely are there easy answers. The rollout scheme can be effective, but it has its limits as well. All it takes is one back side defender spying the quarterback and the play is dead. PA naked boots don’t usually work against good defenses. And what if the routes are covered? Once the quarterback finishes rolling out, he has nowhere to go. I don’t think the rollout scheme can make up the entirety of a passing game. What if the run game stops working? What if its 3rd and 9? This was Houston’s downfall in the last few years, among other things. Stop the boot, and they really didn’t have an effective drop back passing game.

Putting aside my concerns with Shanahan’s offensive philosophy, what makes you think that a mobile quarterback would thrive in this system? So Johnny Manziel can get to the edge quicker than most. So what? That doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be more effective running the system. All it means is that … well, that he will get to the edge quicker than most. And I guess that if no one’s coming at him that he can run for positive yardage. I guess the thinking is maybe that Manziel throws better on the run, and this system will allow him to do that. I guess that makes sense. Yet, Matt Schaub definitely doesn’t have the most limber of legs, and he ran the rollout effectively for years. If we put Manziel in a rollout scheme, does that mean he doesn’t have to master the pocket skills required to play quarterback? Once again, I find most of the rhetoric spewed by the media about mobile quarterbacks and tailored offenses to be oversimplified at best and incoherent at worst. (Note: I recognize that there is almost definitely much more to Shanahan’s offense than just running rollouts. But since that is what is being discussed by the media and that will probably be a key element to his offense, I chose to focus on it.)

Another comparison I think it would be worthwhile to focus on to help figure out whether or not Manziel can succeed in the NFL is that of Manziel and RGIII. As I mentioned earlier, Shanahan was the mastermind behind the offense that helped RGIII transition to the NFL, put up some excellent numbers, and lead his team to the playoffs. Additionally, Shanahan stated recently that “Johnny and Robert are very similar”. If Shanahan made use of option principles to get the best out of his former running quarterback, couldn’t he do the same for Manziel? I’m skeptical. (If you haven’t already noticed.) First of all, RGIII’s excellent rookie season did have an encore called 2013.  When the option isn’t working for whatever reason–maybe defenses have wised up, maybe your defense isn’t keeping you in the game to the point where you can keep running the ball, maybe your run game isn’t working, etc–you need to be able to throw the ball in a more traditional, drop back way. RGIII was by no means horrible nor was he the entire problem for the Redskins, but he was not very good when it came to pocket skills, ie footwork, reading the defense and delivering the ball on time to the right receiver, etc. Shanahan continued to run the option/pistol offense and did so with less success than 2012, and in a way he became the scapegoat. Why not let RGIII run a more traditional offense, like the one Kirk Cousins ran when he played, they said? Thank god Shanahan is gone; now Jay Gruden can put RGIII in a more traditional offense and he can finally have a chance to succeed! See the contradiction here? This used to happen with Vick all the time. People cry for a tailored offense, one that is built around the mobile quarterback’s ability to run the ball. But when it doesn’t work, as they often don’t in the NFL, the coordinators are then blamed for the quarterback’s lack of success, even though the tailored offense is being employed purely because the quarterback isn’t skilled enough to run a dropback passing game effectively. This is one reason I struggle with people who think that mobile quarterbacks can make a living in the NFL solely off of their legs. Put them in a tailored offense? It won’t work. NFL defenses are too good and too smart. Put them in a traditional offense? It won’t work, because that isn’t playing to their strength. You got the quarterback, whether it be RGIII, Vick, or Manziel, because their primary skill is running the ball. They’re not going to succeed just running the ball, yet how can you expect them to succeed throwing it consistently when that isn’t their strength? It’s what I believe to be a serious problem with the whole idea of the new “breed” of quarterback, the mobile quarterback, and it’s a reason that I was skeptical when people discussed Manziel as such a good prospect, and am skill skeptical that he will succeed. Being able to throw from the pocket is the only way to have consistent, long term success in the NFL. Find me a mobile quarterback that has truly over a reasonable period of time carried his team to success with mostly or entirely his running ability in the same way that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have with their throwing ability, a quarterback that is not carried by other parts of his team such as the run game or defense, and you will have proved me wrong.

Let’s continue the Manziel/RGIII discussion. Shanahan was very succesful running the option with RGIII, so why might he not do so with Manziel as well? Well, when it comes to the option offense, even if you have the run game and defense to be able to execute it, it still might not work. Yes, Tebow and RGIII have had some season-long success with it, and you’ll still see a great option play on the highlight reel occasionally, but defenses were far more effective defending the read option last year than they were in 2012. No one really talked about this because it doesn’t support the idea of the mobile quarterback transcending the game. But defenses are smart. They learn.

Then there’s the injury bug. Quarterbacks who run a lot and are not well built are prone to injury. Tebow and Cam can take the punishment, although we’ll see how long that lasts with Cam. Vick and RGIII could not. We’ve already talked about Vick. RGIII missed three games in 2012 and his bum leg cost the Redskins a shot at a playoff victory. He was clearly not the same player after he was injured. RGIII is 218 pounds. Manziel is 210 pounds. Russell Wilson has stayed healthy because he gets down and out of bounds. Vick did not do this, RGIII does not do this, and Manziel is not known for doing this. And unless I’m mistaken, Manziel has had his problems with injury. And NFL defenders are bigger, faster, and hit harder.

I’m not a draft expert, but I’m pretty sure RGIII was a better prospect than Manziel. He is taller, has a better arm (Manziel has a good arm, but it’s not as strong as people make it out to be), and it’s hard to imagine anyone considering Manziel over Andrew Luck, like some did with RGIII. So RGIII was a similar prospect to Manziel and perhaps a better one, yet where is he after two NFL seasons? A spectacular talent who is injury prone and still has to master playing from the pocket if he wants to succeed in the NFL. Of course, he has plenty of time to do this and he missed the last offseason with injury rehab, so no one is saying he can’t do this or even that his prospects are grim. But if he wants to succeed that’s what he’ll have to do. Success is not going to come from running a tailored offense or from revolutionizing the position. Let’s not forget that RGIII is also probably more disciplined than Manziel, and this gives him a better shot at success. 

So what is my point? I’m not entirely sure, but I’ll try to leave you with some closing thoughts. Hype is rampant in the NFL, and sometimes we have to ignore it. Playing quarterback successfully in the NFL is one of the hardest things to do, and despite quarterbacks that get hyped like Manziel every year, that enter the NFL with tons of promise, I could probably count the quarterbacks from recent drafts that have developed into sure thing long term starters with one hand. I’m not rooting against Johnny Manziel. I would love to see him succeed. That’s not the issue. It’s just that based on what I’ve heard, I’m not convinced. If Johnny Football took the NFL by storm, that would be awesome. But I’m going to keep my expectations low, and I would advise you to do the same.