Gunther Cunningham: Read-Option QBs are going to get hurt

[swiper]

Lions’ Cunningham: Read-option QBs are going to get hurt

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 29, 2013, 10:18 AM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gunthercunninghamvsjets.jpg?w=250 AP

Lions defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham says it’s not defensive coaches who need to be worried about the read-option that’s spreading across the NFL. Instead, Cunningham says the quarterbacks who run the ball in the read-option need to be worried that they won’t hold up for 16 games against NFL defenses.

“The problem is for those quarterbacks, one of these days one of them is not going to walk off (http://www.detroitlions.com/news/lions-insider/article-1/Gunther-Cunningham-not-too-worried-about-defending-the-read-option/781bcc9d-912e-4c18-9b13-eded20e15914),” Cunningham told the Lions’ website. “It’s a lot of pressure on him to physically do that.”

Cunningham has been a defensive assistant in the NFL for 30 years, but he also coached in college football in the 1970s and spent a season as a Canadian Football League assistant, and he says he knows about stopping running quarterbacks and wide-open offenses.

“I think we all understand what the issues are and how to play it,” Cunningham said. “I reflect back on my college days and it wasn’t that hard to remember all that stuff because it put a lot of pressure on me in those days and it does in this league too.”

That’s not to say Cunningham thinks the read-option is just some gimmick that’s easy to figure out. Cunningham said that when the Dolphins ran the Wildcat in 2008, they were running a fundamentally sound offense, and other teams have learned from what the Dolphins said. But the Dolphins were snapping the ball directly to running backs, and Cunningham doesn’t believe any running back can throw the ball well enough to threaten an NFL defense.

“The key is you need extra people to stop the run because they spread you out,” Cunningham said. “So, you end up playing some man-to-man or shorten your safeties down and if the quarterback can really throw the ball, that’s where we get into trouble. Miami couldn’t do that with Ricky [Williams] and the other kid that was running the option [Ronnie Brown (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3155/ronnie-brown)]. But their design was as good as I’ve ever seen in my life and then it got away from them for whatever reason. Bill Belichick can tell you they killed them in the first game.”

But snapping the ball to a running back in the Wildcat is different from having the quarterback run the read-option. And Cunningham believes that in the long run, in a read-option offense, it’s the quarterback who’s going to get killed.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/29/lions-cunningham-read-option-qbs-are-going-to-get-hurt/

[Meathead]

http://imageshack.us/a/img689/184/sherlockholmes2no2.jpg

[Luisito23]

Only in America...

[NOT THE DUDE...]

ive been saying that for a year. just let the olb/de crush the qb on the read option. the ref cant throw the flag because the defender can just say he thought he had the ball...

- - - Updated - - -

in a read option context- the qb can no longer be protected because now he is a potential runner... not sure why someone didn't pop rg3 or keep last year

[TigerJ]

I agree, but the risk is tied to the frequency that a read option QB opts to run. Russell Wilson and RG 3 both run the read option, but RG3 is far more likely to end up running. He's already been hurt. I don't think Russell Wilson's risk of injury is a whole lot higher than that of the average QB. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Manuel runs some read option as a pro, but I've read stuff about his college background that suggests his running tendencies are going to resemble Russell Wilson's more than RG3's

[Mike]

The part that I question most is why do we assume that QBs are more inherently fragile?

Brett Favre almost went his entire career without major injury -until the Bills game. In a way, I think it might be safer for a QB to run 10yards and get tackled in a normal fashion than for him to be sitting in the pocket and getting poped from behind -like Favre.

Overall, I don't think a durable QB is anymore fragile than a durable WR or RB and eventhough RBs have a smaller shelf life than QBs -for a number of reasons (they rely on speed & agility more which are first to go with age) - a QB will still run the ball far less frequently than a RB and at a certain age that QB can become more of a pocket passer (like McNab)

[NOT THE DUDE...]

There is a safe way to do it in spots, and should only be 10% of the playbook, if that. you can just as easily just roll an athletic qb out. but the game is won from the pocket most of the time. got to keep your qb throwing, and when he runs the chances of him getting hurt skyrocket.

[Goobylal]

Wilson took 33 sacks and a ton of other hits. At 5'11" AND 206#, he won't be able to absorb many seasons of that.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

The part that I question most is why do we assume that QBs are more inherently fragile?

Provided that the QB is large enough (like Manuel) I don't think it's a question of them being more fragile, it's a question of whether they can continue to do their jobs. When CJ had that horrible looking shoulder sprain against Cleveland, he was able to take pain shots and play through it. A QB wouldn't - that would have been his throwing shoulder. And of course the downside of losing your QB is much worse than losing your halfback.

[Mike]

Provided that the QB is large enough (like Manuel) I don't think it's a question of them being more fragile, it's a question of whether they can continue to do their jobs. When CJ had that horrible looking shoulder sprain against Cleveland, he was able to take pain shots and play through it. A QB wouldn't - that would have been his throwing shoulder. And of course the downside of losing your QB is much worse than losing your halfback.

I think that's the only really valid argument. I don't think a Cam or EJ -assuming they are durable- is at risk for a major injury anymore than another player but instead that overall it might not be worth the long term risk and the downside that accompanies it.

[Meathead]

still dont understand why the jets hardly never let tebow play that role. he can run well, hes tough to tackle, hes a legit threat to pass, and you dont care as much if he gets hurt (hes not the starter). seemed like the perfect guy for that

but yeah i sure hope the bills dont make manuel run very often. running qbs are simply a ticking time bomb, if you design plays for them to run it you better have a great backup ready to go

[Johnny Bugmenot]

The part that I question most is why do we assume that QBs are more inherently fragile?
I think it has to do more with the fact that QBs are expected to have much longer careers. Most RBs have some of the shortest careers in the NFL. By 30, most have lost enough of a step to no longer be competitive. The fear could very easily be that by putting a QB into a RB's role, that would shorten the careers of QBs (which can last well into their mid-30s).

[TigerJ]

Wilson took 33 sacks and a ton of other hits. At 5'11" AND 206#, he won't be able to absorb many seasons of that.33 sacks is somewhat higher than average, and an indication his line isn't protecting the QB as well as they might - or he holds on to the ball too often. The more hits he takes, the higher the risk of injury. If he takes that many sacks AND runs a lot too, that only compounds the injury risk.

[gebobs]

Cunningham doesn’t believe any running back can throw the ball well enough to threaten an NFL defense.
AHA!

He didn't say anything about former mid-level D-1 quarterbacks that were converted to wide receiver and then specialized on kick returns!

GOTCHA!!!

[gebobs]

The part that I question most is why do we assume that QBs are more inherently fragile?
They aren't used to getting hit as much. They wear less protective equipment. They are longer and lankier than just about any other position aside from punter. Injuries to them are intolerable. While a running back can sit a few games, losing your QB for a quarter of a season is critical.

Also, teams invest most heavily in QBs. They take a while to develop and once groomed need to lead the team for a few years to have any reasonable chance for success.


Brett Favre almost went his entire career without major injury -until the Bills game.
He was a freak. No way around it.

[gebobs]

still dont understand why the jets hardly never let tebow play that role. he can run well, hes tough to tackle, hes a legit threat to pass, and you dont care as much if he gets hurt (hes not the starter). seemed like the perfect guy for that
I have no idea why they traded for him at all. Though it's curious, as you say, that they never gave him a chance, Tebow is something of a turnover machine. He averages one every 15 times he touches the ball so far in his career. Laughably, Sanchez was right there with him at 14.8 last year.

Some selected results...

Rodgers 46.6
Brady 42.3
Schaub 35.3
Rapethisburger 33.9
Stafford 33.1
Wilson 30.4
RGIII 30.2

...

well down the list...
Fitz 23.0

[Goobylal]

33 sacks is somewhat higher than average, and an indication his line isn't protecting the QB as well as they might - or he holds on to the ball too often. The more hits he takes, the higher the risk of injury. If he takes that many sacks AND runs a lot too, that only compounds the injury risk.
I was surprised when I read he took that many sacks. And he ran 94 times and probably got tacked on at least a quarter of those. Not to mention 4 of the 5 positions on his OL played the entire season.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

Wilson took 33 sacks and a ton of other hits. At 5'11" AND 206#, he won't be able to absorb many seasons of that.

33 sacks is the norm. its the type of hits that matter...

[IlluminatusUIUC]

33 sacks is the norm. its the type of hits that matter...

Not for <400 pass attempts, like Wilson had. He had one of the highest sack rates in the league. It's something he needs to work on.

[gebobs]

Not for <400 pass attempts, like Wilson had. He had one of the highest sack rates in the league. It's something he needs to work on.

Yeah, he's higher than average. But don't you have to factor in runs attempts too for running QBs? If he's running and gets stopped for a loss, it counts as a sack. If you do that, he's still highish, but in the second quartile at 6.8 sacks per 100 [runs+pass attempts]. Cam Newton and RGIII are a bit lower at 6.0%.

Overall, Rodgers and Rivers are on the high end at about 8.5%. On the other end, you have Eli, Peyton, Brees, and Brady at about 3.5-4.0%.

You know who really sucks? Kolb. 15%. LOL

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Yeah, he's higher than average. But don't you have to factor in runs attempts too for running QBs? If he's running and gets stopped for a loss, it counts as a sack. If you do that, he's still highish, but in the second quartile at 6.8 sacks per 100 [runs+pass attempts]. Cam Newton and RGIII are a bit lower at 6.0%.

Overall, Rodgers and Rivers are on the high end at about 8.5%. On the other end, you have Eli, Peyton, Brees, and Brady at about 3.5-4.0%.

You know who really sucks? Kolb. 15%. LOL

No it doesn't. Plays are only counted as sacks if the QB was attempting to pass, even if they later scramble away. If it's clearly a designed run from the start, it's listed as a TFL.
http://www.nflgsis.com/gsis/documentation/stadiumguides/guide_for_statisticians.pdf