sc85sis wrote:Matt is not a good fit if we want a player with a similar skills profile to Russell. He's not going to be a guy who can run the read option fully because he doesn't have the running ability.
I've seen this argument a few times as it relates to finding a backup QB. I'm not sure I agree. Consider the Redskins. Carroll and Bevel admitted to borrowing extensively from Shanahan's playbook and how he deployed RG3, so clearly there is some respect for Shanahan's football acumen. But, interestingly, Shanahan was also the one who drafted Kirk Cousins to become RG3's backup even though he was not remotely the same type of player and obviously does not fit the read-option scheme. Why would the Skins draft a traditional drop back passer and why should the Hawks do the same?
1) The Read-Option may be a Fad
The read-option was tremendously effective last year and may continue to be in the short term but we have seen fad schemes like the run and shoot, the wildcat, Martz spread, have momentary success only to be eventually neutralized as defenses caught up. The Patriots broke numerous offensive records last year with a QB that has no running skills but whom can read defenses, make quick decisions and throw accurately. QB's that can operate out of the pro-set, like Brady, will always lead the most prolific scoring offenses. I'm not suggesting that Bradys and Mannings are falling off trees, just that it makes sense to continue to draft players from that template.
2) The read-option creates greater risk of injury
Does the read-option subject QBs to more hits vs a pocket passer? I have nothing empirically to confirm that but logic suggests it is so. RG3 could have just as easily been hurt throwing from the pocket as when he was scrambling and certainly pocket passers have been injured on blindside rushes etc. But, going forward, the #1 way that defenses are going to punish read option teams is by ignoring the option handoff and clobbering the QB. Over the course of a game and a season these will surely effect durability / create injuries. Wilson has been smart in how he has run but he is still at greater risk than traditional QBs. Getting another player like RW that will be similarly exposed just seems like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the chamber...
3) Scheme diversity
Despite the Redskins tailoring their offense to fit RG3's skillset, Cousins was able to come off the bench and still be highly effective. He threw for 4 TDs, completed 69% of his passes and had a 101 QB rating in relief. How is that possible when he is constrained by an offense designed for a different style player? Obviously, the two schemes can coexist. A playbook can accommodate several different play styles. A big upside to this scheme diversity is it keeps defenses off balance, it forces them to prepare for multiple attacks. In that sense it behooves us to draft something different than Russell 2.0.
With that said IF Barkley really did fall to us in Round 2 I would definitely take him. An argument could be made to even consider him at #25 and potentially trade him for multiple picks down the road although, admittedly, that would be risky. I am a big fan of Barkley and think that last year was an anomaly.
Either way I wouldn't dismiss pocket passers just because of the scheme we are running with Wilson.