Specialty Red Zone QB?

Out of the box thought: anyone think there is merit to a specialty red zone QB? Like in baseball a closer or relief pitcher

Fantasy stats would go all to heck.

Might be a ego issue with whomever your current QB is (i.e. Russell Wilson)

Still, would it be effective? And if Russell were all about winning and if this really were more effective ....

Some people have thought Russell's red zone activity might be due to his height seeing in a short field.

For a specialty red zone QB:

I assume if someone were to actually TRY this, they'd need a taller QB, short-pass accuracy (no long downfield passes needed), and maybe a run threat of a few yards at least with a QB sneak (like a bull rush forward). Could take some chances physically because they're not in the whole game (ala professional wrestling WWE's Shane McMahon going balls out on a PPV because he never wrestles except on PPV). Since they would not necessarily be in 100% of the game, so I'm almost picturing one of those crusty old vets that still have the nerve, guts, and some short pass accuracy and a bit of mobility.

Okay in reality: I would prefer Russell to increase his effectiveness in the redzone and some better plays for the redzone sure. I want my franchise QB to my franchise QB in all aspects

But can't say it's not an interesting thought.

What do you all think?

Well, they have one of the best Red Zone players in football, and seem to blatantly refuse to use him.
Why did they even trade for Graham if they can't figure out a way to throw it to him in the end zone?

SoulfishHawk":3ogff1ep said:

Well, they have one of the best Red Zone players in football, and seem to blatantly refuse to use him.
Why did they even trade for Graham if they can't figure out a way to throw it to him in the end zone?

Click to expand...

Maybe because of Russell's height? Sure he can probably see Graham, but he can't see the people who might be defending him and he doesn't feel comfortable throwing that 50/50 ball?

(I agree with you by the way.... I'd rather see that get fixed then bringing in a specialty redzone QB, again though very entertained by the viability of this)

A lot of the TD's between Brees and Graham were those back shoulder passes. Nobody can cover that pass, nobody.

Not very likely to work.

It's more about decision making in that short yardage/red zone offense. Generally if you are an accurate QB, you're going to be generally accurate everywhere in the short/intermediate range. The league isn't littered with guys like this.

Additionally, having that limited of experience, you're not going to have a QB who will be ideal in making quick/good decisions at a point of the field where mistakes kill you.

Just putting in a mobile QB who can get there with his legs isn't enough. If you aren't a good QB in other aspects, then teams are going to cheat to stop the run. Bad QBs are not what gets points in the red zone. They get turnovers instead.

Ultimately, it seems incredibly ill advised to swap out a QB for a specialist at the goal line. It's not like a QB can specialize in playing well in the condensed red zone, but is otherwise a buffoon in between the 20s.

Who best fits the characteristics you're laying out for a good red zone QB? Cam Newton comes to mind-- run threat, good speed on bullet passes, better short range than long range accuracy (though he still might not be accurate enough overall to be the ideal red zone passer).

Anyway, my point is that the next step of this thought experiment might be to figure out who meets the profile, then look at how they actually perform in the red zone relative to other QBs who don't have all the attributes.

How about a red zone o-coordinator? Even the two previous super bowl seasons the Hawks were middle of the pack in red zone scoring percentage. Dead last now, even below the amazingly terrible kaepernicker's. We have Beastmode, Graham, a duel-threat QB... mind boggling how it's even an issue.

Shane Falco":17ll353p said:

How about a red zone o-coordinator? Even the two previous super bowl seasons the Hawks were middle of the pack in red zone scoring percentage. Dead last now, even below the amazingly terrible kaepernicker's. We have Beastmode, Graham, a duel-threat QB... mind boggling how it's even an issue.

Click to expand...

:13:

And a redzone Oline.

:sarcasm_on: Tim Tebow?

You don't sign a huge deal to a QB and decide not to use him when it counts most.

Attyla the Hawk":2nzjdfd2 said:

Not very likely to work.

It's more about decision making in that short yardage/red zone offense. Generally if you are an accurate QB, you're going to be generally accurate everywhere in the short/intermediate range. The league isn't littered with guys like this.

Ultimately, it seems incredibly ill advised to swap out a QB for a specialist at the goal line. It's not like a QB can specialize in playing well in the condensed red zone, but is otherwise a buffoon in between the 20s.

Click to expand...

Part of the thought here: it's never been done before. How do we know there is not a QB out there that is exemplary in the redzone but sucks everywhere else? Chances are if he sucks everywhere else, he hasn't really played. Is it possible he is just a killer in the RZ and otherwise a buffoon elsewhere?

Can't think it's out of this world. In other sports you see a lot of this, and it just happens to be guys with the overall skillset just don't get to play often.

As an example: You mention that generally as an accurate QB, you will be accurate short/intermediate range. My take is that I bet you could find QBs that are great at short/intermediate range that suck as the range gets longer (isn't that everybody? In basketball I can make a lay in, can't make a 3 ptr).

I bet if we came up with a list of characteristics for red zone only, we might find a few candidates that would not be viable as your normal starting QB

enamel":2nzjdfd2 said:

Who best fits the characteristics you're laying out for a good red zone QB? Cam Newton comes to mind-- run threat, good speed on bullet passes, better short range than long range accuracy (though he still might not be accurate enough overall to be the ideal red zone passer).

Anyway, my point is that the next step of this thought experiment might be to figure out who meets the profile, then look at how they actually perform in the red zone relative to other QBs who don't have all the attributes.

Click to expand...

Good points here. Cam Newton does come to mind, chances are because he's a great starting QB too and so we know who he is.

If we come up with that list of characteristics, thinking about it now I'm guessing no names will come off the top of our heads (at least my head) and it will take some super fan who knows every QB inside and out to be able to pick a guy that is maybe riding the bench somewhere that fits exactly the skillset of a red zone QB only.

This basically came in my mind thinking about Russell and how he's a very very good QB with a unique skillset, however we have one of the worst (or is it *the* worst) RZ effectiveness.

So I started thinking the opposite, maybe there's a QB out there that makes him one a very very good RZ QB with a unique skillset, however he is overall one of the worst in overall QB effectiveness elsewhere on the field.

I like your point, find who fits the profile, see how he performs. But if he sucks elsewhere, we may not have any previous stats on how he performs in the RZ if he is not able to get off the bench because he can't perform between the 20s

Still an interesting thought in my mind, don't know if anyone would ever really go for it

ringless":2anpx9fl said:

:sarcasm_on: Tim Tebow?

Click to expand...

haha..have to admit his name came to mind. ...

Wilson is not the problem. The red zone offense wasn't as pathetic as it has been in 2014-15. In 2012-13 they were middle of the pack but that is still light years ahead of where they are now. Guess what, Russell Wilson was the QB then too plus there was no Graham and Matthews. They were still better. It's how the personnel is being used or not used in those situations that is the problem. Don't need a specialty QB, just need an offensive coordinator who can utilize his player's strengths better in the red zone.

marko358":3732j4pu said:

You don't sign a huge deal to a QB and decide not to use him when it counts most.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean

Then again you compete for the position right? What if it really helped the Seahawks win? And some QB competes with Russell in the RZ in practice and beats him every time?

By the way, using the logic you mention above, (and admittedly stretching it very very far), Russell would not have even gotten a look after signing Matt Flynn.

Again I'll admit, zany idea, but hey if anyone would ever try it, I bet it might be the Seahawks. It's a strange idea.

Then again, when I first started watching baseball, there were no closers. Just starters and then relievers. And even now the practice of using relievers is way different than when I first watched baseball.

And now look at it, some pitchers come in with unique skills, and their managers armed to the neck in stats have pitchers who will relieve and ptiches to just one righty batter, then the next guy comes in and pitches to a lefty batter. Would a RZ QB be that much different than a closer? Or using relievers like this?

Hmmm ...

Shane Falco":6z95suvu said:

How about a red zone o-coordinator? Even the two previous super bowl seasons the Hawks were middle of the pack in red zone scoring percentage. Dead last now, even below the amazingly terrible kaepernicker's. We have Beastmode, Graham, a duel-threat QB... mind boggling how it's even an issue.

Click to expand...

I had thought that maybe we could do with a different RZ playcaller

Love your idea about extrapolating that out to a red zone o-coordinator. That's a really really good idea.

byau":14sawd9b said:

marko358":14sawd9b said:

You don't sign a huge deal to a QB and decide not to use him when it counts most.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean

Then again you compete for the position right? What if it really helped the Seahawks win? And some QB competes with Russell in the RZ in practice and beats him every time?

By the way, using the logic you mention above, (and admittedly stretching it very very far), Russell would not have even gotten a look after signing Matt Flynn.

Again I'll admit, zany idea, but hey if anyone would ever try it, I bet it might be the Seahawks. It's a strange idea.

Then again, when I first started watching baseball, there were no closers. Just starters and then relievers.

And now look at it, some pitchers come in with managers armed to the neck in stats have pitchers with special skills. How else do you explain one guy who comes in and ptiches to just one righty batter, then the next guy comes in and pitches to a lefty batter. Would a RZ QB be that much different than a closer?

Hmmm ...

Click to expand...

The biggest issue is definitely resource management with coaching time here and unlike baseball there's not a whole lot of latitude in have such situational players, both in terms of roster size and salary cap. I think you could see this approach in college football (like with Ohio State although Barrett is the man now) where there those considerations are less important.

mrt144":2vxrtt7r said:

byau":2vxrtt7r said:

marko358":2vxrtt7r said:

You don't sign a huge deal to a QB and decide not to use him when it counts most.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean

Then again you compete for the position right? What if it really helped the Seahawks win? And some QB competes with Russell in the RZ in practice and beats him every time?

By the way, using the logic you mention above, (and admittedly stretching it very very far), Russell would not have even gotten a look after signing Matt Flynn.

Again I'll admit, zany idea, but hey if anyone would ever try it, I bet it might be the Seahawks. It's a strange idea.

Then again, when I first started watching baseball, there were no closers. Just starters and then relievers.

And now look at it, some pitchers come in with managers armed to the neck in stats have pitchers with special skills. How else do you explain one guy who comes in and ptiches to just one righty batter, then the next guy comes in and pitches to a lefty batter. Would a RZ QB be that much different than a closer?

Hmmm ...

Click to expand...

The biggest issue is definitely resource management with coaching time here and unlike baseball there's not a whole lot of latitude in have such situational players, both in terms of roster size and salary cap. I think you could see this approach in college football (like with Ohio State although Barrett is the man now) where there those considerations are less important.

Click to expand...

The Huskies did it with Hobert and Brunell in the Championship season if I remember right. At least situational to some extent. Not remembering if it included the red zone.

What would something like this do to the confidence of your QB that you just signed to a huge deal? A lack of trust and faith could deteriorate his confidence or we could see him take way too many risky shots downfield if he knew he was going to get subbed out in the red zone. Seems like an unnecessary gamble.

There's also this thing called rhythm that I think would be disrupted with a specialty QB such as this. Not gonna happen, but way to think out of the box.

Actually, I don't see anything to be freaking out about our ability to outscore the opposing teams going forward. It's very similar to last year, where it took a while for us to hit our stride and then away we went. We're about to make our playoff run.

We have a sound system, coaching staff and players in place to make a third straight Super Bowl appearance very reachable. The formula is to move the chains, take care of the ball (win the turnover battle), get points where we can and utiilize the defense that is bestowed with most of the team resources (salary cap numbers) to keep the score of the opponents at a minimum. It's how we do things.

The old saying if you have 2 Qb means you dont have one