By this point in Mesa’s existence, Mike and I have made it fairly clear that our M.O. is to question the established norms of how to look at sports. Every once in a while, though, I’m going to take this position to the extreme and write a post based on an argument that I don’t necessarily believe in 100%, just for the sake of conversation and contrarianism.
I know in advance these posts will motivate probably 85% of our readership to call me a complete idiot. But I’m okay with that - especially since I’m slapping this disclaimer on them.
I’m going to refer to this as the “Devil’s Advocate” series.
For the inaugural installment, I’d like to endorse the idea that Quinn and DA should alternate snaps.
In conversations I’ve had with friends, this seems to be a really controversial topic. The established football wisdom is that not running the same quarterback out for every play will “disrupt continuity” and prevent the offense from “getting into a rhythm.” This is supposed to be attributable to all kinds of things: a different snap count, a different way to run the huddle, different tendencies once the ball is snapped, whatever.
However, after listening to Jon Gruden ram the merits of the Wildcat formation down my throat for the entirety of the Dolphins-Colts game on Monday Night Football this week, I realized something: almost all of the reasons the Wildcat supposedly works are the same reasons that playing two different quarterbacks is NOT supposed to work.
If my memory serves me correctly, these are the main pro-Wildcat positions:
1) It forces the opposing team to spend valuable practice time preparing for this alternate formation leading up to any games against an opponent who uses it.
2) Despite the time spent preparing for it, the Wildcat creates havoc on the playing field because the defense has to instantaneously adjust to a completely different set of weapons and possibilities at a moment’s notice. This increases the likelihood of a breakdown that will allow for a big play.
On MNF, the Dolphins ran 84 offensive plays. They used the Wildcat for 12 of those 84, which calcs out to about 14.3% of their snaps. In other words, Miami’s established starter, Chad Pennington, was still under center for more than 85% of their time on offense.
Hypothetically, let’s say that your team had a starting QB whose specialty was supposed to be short, accurate passes - but that he’s currently struggling to move the ball in any fashion. Hypothetically, let’s also say your second string QB has a completely opposite skill set - say, throwing deep for big yardage.
Since your offense needs some kind of spark, isn’t there merit to the idea of inserting that second string QB into the game for, say, 15% of your snaps in order to expand your offensive capabilities and screw up the defense’s head in the same fashion as the Wildcat?
The reasoning I’ve heard for why the Wildcat doesn’t disrupt the offense is, “Well, the team actually spends time during the week running the Wildcat, so they’re familiar with it. This eliminates the negative effects.” So, um, couldn’t you just practice running some plays with this alternate QB set? In theory, it should work just as well as practicing the Wildcat, right? Especially when you define the Wildcat as what it really is: putting in someone other than your starter to play quarterback for select snaps.
Plus, there’s no danger to “disrupting the offense” in this scenario because - guess what - the offense has shown it’s incapable of getting into a rhythm if run traditionally.
The only other counter-argument I can think of is that, if your QBs really have these completely opposite skills, any time the second-stringer comes in to take the snap, it’s like telegraphing a deep throw.
But when you take into account that the second-string QB can hand off just as easily as the starter, it’s not a sure thing. (The reality of the Wildcat is that even if a running back like Ronnie Brown takes a direct snap, he’s just as likely to hand the ball off as run it himself or throw - which is exactly what the regular quarterback would’ve done in the same play.) And it’s ESPECIALLY not a sure thing if your “accurate” starter has been throwing very poorly, even on short-range passes. In that circumstance, the second-stringer doesn’t limit you any more than your starter. All he does is open up more possibilities.
Finally, if you’re only running this alternate set for a small fraction of plays, then there’s theoretically no danger to your starter’s status as “the guy.” The only thing that could threaten him is if the second-stringer is consistently more effective and explosive than he is. And in that case, well, wouldn’t you be better off just installing the second-stringer as your starter?
In other words, if we use the Wildcat as the guideline, there seems to be very little downside to trying this alternate formation - supposing there’s a team that, hypothetically, is in this exact circumstance (a sluggish offense, a questionable starter, and a back-up with complementary skills). But how likely is that to happen?
OK, you may begin calling me a jackass….now.
-T
