Quote
zn
Quote
moklerman
I was going to suggest a guy like Ferguson as a solid but not spectacular QB who the Rams would have won more with during the '70's, not knowing that he was actually available for them to draft. Fouts wouldn't have been Fouts with the Rams and maybe Jaworski suffered from the '70's equivalent of Jeff Fisher ball considering how poorly he was supported and how hamstrung a QB probably was with the Rams run first philosophy?
Jaworksi started 3 games for the Rams.
His best year as a pro was with the Eagles in 1980, when he was 2nd in the league in qb rating and 6th in TDs. I mention this because the 1980 Eagles ran more than they passed (they passed 46% of the time). So no, a run first philosophy never hampered him.
Coincidentally, Joe Ferguson's best year as a pro (playing a full season) was 1981,. He was just 14th in the league in qb rating but 6th in TDs. That year Buffalo ran just over 50% of the time. So it didn't hamper him either.
And for the record I am not a "run first on offense" kind of guy. I am a "run whatever offense suits your personnel and which you can execute as a strength" kind of guy. I don't dismiss either run-first or pass-first offense or balanced offenses for that matter. I think if you have the players and can execute you can win with any offensive approach. Last year for example the Rams were 9th in rushing attempts and 24th in passing attempts. They passed 54% of the time, which in this era means they were more of a balanced offense than a pass-first offense. Pittsburgh for example threw 58% of the time which makes them more passing first. Similarly the Patz threw 59% of the time. A run heavy team like Jax threw 51% of the time. Their best year on offense, 2012 (the only year not coincidentally they played a starting caliber veteran qb all 16 games), the Fisher Rams threw 59% of the time.
I appreciate you digging up stats but I think one has to be careful about year-end ratios. They don't necessarily suggest whether a team is run-first or pass first. Situations dictate what you have to do but that doesn't necessarily coincide with what you are and what you're trying to do. While a 50%+ ratio may suggest a team is more pass than run, I think those numbers can easily be misleading.
But, that's just verbal shorthand anyway. Run-first, run-heavy, run-mentality...whatever one wants to call it, I think it's safe to say that the '70's Rams were more about the run than the pass and their QB's were often asked to throw in predictable pass situations which put them behind the 8-ball.
Which was basically how most teams did things at that time so it wasn't just a Rams thing. But the carousel at QB didn't help those Rams teams overall IMO. Having a steady, solid guy in there every week I think would have and is why I suggested Ferguson as a random example of a guy who was in the lineup every week for most of his career and was capable enough. Why they never gave Jaworski much of a chance is puzzling to me. As you say, he showed he could be competent, if not productive, even with a run-heavy team.
Going after "maypop" QB's(far beyond retreads in many cases) seemed to be what they liked to do. Hadl, Namath, Jones, Bartkowski, etc. That goes into the '80's but the pattern with the Rams is there. They drafted plenty of capable guys but always seemed to prefer the worn out vet when it actually came to starting. They drafted Jaworski but went with FA acquisitions Namath and Harris instead. Drafted Ferragamo but were usually looking for someone "better". Haden, Jones, Bartkowski. Ultimately, getting rid of Gabriel haunted the team for a while. While Hadl had the one great year he hit the wall and the Rams were left pretty directionless at QB for a long time.
It's part of what makes a QB so valuable in the NFL. Without one to hang your hat on, most franchises don't regularly sustain success. For whatever reason, that leader is needed to, well..."lead" the way. I guess because a team needs a defined identity and direction to wrap everything together. Many have tried to just plug and play the QB position but it rarely works or sustains success.
