** This thread discusses the Content article: The Curious Case of the NFL QB **

you forgot VY

Vince Young hasn't seen the field yet this season. So he wouldn't count in as an NFL starter in 09 OR a NFL backup that's seen time in 09.

I didn't count every QB on every roster, just the ones that have played and/or are expected to start this week.

It gets even more impressive if you break it down into teams.

SEC: All 7 of the guys mentioned are from different schools; Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
PAC: 3 from USC, 2 from Cal, 1 each from Oregon state and Stanford
Big East: 2 from BC, 1 each WVU and Syracuse
Big 10: 2 from Purdue, 2 from Michigan, 1 from PSU
ACC: 1 each from UVA, Maryland, NC ST.
Big XII: 1 from Iowa State

The bigger surprise for me. If we use Brett Favre as the oldest starter and use his time frame starting with his last year in college, 1990.
Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, USC and Michigan have played for and won a national title in that time frame, not necessarily while the QB from there was there. So 7 of the 39 went to a true BIG TIME program where they had a shot at the title. Which means 32 came from a non BCS school, or from a average BCS school.

Of course there are some updates from the last 2 weeks. most notably being the Titans throwing in the towel and running Mr. Young out there Sunday night.

But what I wanted to say today was concerning Colin Cowherd's show this morning.

He was making the point that every (almost every?) NFL team has implemented some wildcat at this point because the coaches don't want to be called out for not trying it... even though it's overall not been nearly as effective as we're led to believe.

It's also hardly new, for people who follow football outside of the uncreative NFL, anyways. But that's also another topic.

But the wildcat movement, at the least, shows that when one person looked outside the normal "pro-set" offense, they were not run out of the league. Probably because they were successful. but that success, then, shows that there are other ways to move the ball than 32 teams running the same offense.

Which sort of ties in with my questioning why someone can't better utilize the pool of eligible QBs to come up with a successful NFL offensive system, to yield a more consistent winner.

New questions I pose to you:

1. If the wildcat gets utilized more and more (and how many times do we hear 'wildcat QB' in NFL draft talk?), how will this effect the NFL's rules and player salary guidelines that tie in with a player's position? Can teams get around the emergency QB rules that have to do with the 3rd string guy? If a guy is listed as an RB but is more valuable than his fellow RB because he's also the 'wildcat QB', how can he negotiate his salary differently? Could you just take Ricky Dobbs (Navy) and list him as a WR, but run 10-15 option plays a game, and not need to worry about the QB rules?

2. by extension from the previous question, could you stash a bunch of spread-option QBs on your roster and counteract the supposed increased injury risk associated with running option plays in the NFL? And if we're seeing Urban Meyer, Gus Malzhan, and Dan Mullen run these (formerly described as) 'gimmicky' offenses in teh SEC - the NFL Lite - how far are we really from getting this kind of innovation in the NFL? And yes I've been terrified of Urban-to-the-Cowboys for over a year now.

Boston College has not been a member of the Big East conference for some time now.

They are actually quite in the ACC, and how they did it wasn't cool.

So you may want to adjust your list a tad and move Matt Ryan, Hasselbeck stays because he came out before that whole fiasco anyway.

Thanks for the feedback Jeff.

If you notice in the column, I do mention the weird case of Matt Ryan...

QUOTE:
Note Hasselbeck and Ryan are from BC, and Ryan finished his career in the ACC. You could add Ryan to the ACC column and it wouldn’t drastically change these numbers.

I decided to leave Ryan in the Big East column, since he started his career in the Big East. You could certainly make an argument that I should put him in either column: that a QB becomes an NFL QB due to the conference he plays in, or that said QB was always destined to become an NFL starter based on his athletic talents (which would impact his recruitment and ultimate college decision). I sort of leaned toward the latter with this blog, as I don't think anyone would argue all those guys from "other" conferences (Tony Romo, Brett Favre, etc.) became NFL QBs because of the competition they faced in their college days.

Had Ryan actually transferred (Joe Flacco, Colt Brennan, etc.) to a different conference, I'd be inclined to move him. It's not as if Matt Ryan himself decided he needed a different sort of competition and made the school jump. But like I said, I could see both sides of the argument- I'm just inclined to think it fits better with the overall themes of the column to leave him under Big East.

Note how little moving the one QB would change the overall stack-up of the numbers, so I just left him in the Big East. It's not meant as a slight to the ACC or to push them one slot down on the list. At the time these numbers were compiled, the SEC was far enough out in front (as a single conference for producing NFL starting QBs) that moving Ryan one way or the other just changes the finish of the 4th through 6th place groups, and doesn't really impact the overall analysis.