The Rest of College Football

[Jeff Buchanan]

Then you have to factor in the likelihood of a hurricane wreaking havoc on the area that made an easy win get cancelled.

Still, no one dreamt in May that the Noles were in real danger of losing to the Wolfpack at home - back-up QB or no.

The point is that coaching staffs that want to feature a dual threat QB that's more of a runner than a passer are playing a high-risk/high-reward game. There's a reason the NFL tends toward a great passer who is also mobile. There's a reason why one of the best dual threat QBs that played for RR at M, almost a pure runner and well suited for the Rodriguez offense, was injured so badly in college, that his pro-career is probably over.

Francois had some pretty impressive stats in HS. He was a dual threat guy with solid passing stats but, as usual, when receivers aren't open, these guys typically take off. They take hits. That's the risk that teams who favor this kind of O take.

TBH, I think the two CFB coaches that do best with limiting risk to their dual threat guys are urban and The Nick. It's pretty obvious where I come from on type offenses so, you'd expect me to pick up on the Francois problem for FSU. I'm admittedly a bit biased to the Pro-Set.

Anyway, FSU/Jimbo are paying the price for going down the road they chose.

[AlabamAlum]

I'm not sure I buy that RPO QBs get hurt at a higher rate. There has been research on this and it doesn't bear fruit. The injury rates are very similar between running and pro-set QBs. In fact, Francois was injured on a passing play where he tried to move the pocket and was dragged down from behind.

But that's really an aside.

My point, Jeff, is that it wpuld have been unbelievable a few months back for FSU to still be winless a couple of days before October 1st - Francois or not.

FSU having a September bye-week, the cancelling of a guaranteed-win game due to a hurricane, and then losing at home to NC State (who were double-digit dogs even though FSU was playing a back-up QB) would have been an unexpected set of circumstances to expect or predict a few months back.

[AlabamAlum]

There are other articles out there that support this, but I like the graphs that (believe it or not) Slate did on it:

It turns out that the only gameplay variable that explains injuries with any statistical significance is sacks. On average, a 1 percent increase in sack share?the percentage of plays called for the QB that end in a sack?is associated with a 2.6 percent rise in starts missed due to injury (0.7 percent standard error). This link holds when we use the career-wise dataset and when we use sacks per start instead of sack share.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/02/quarterback_injuries_are_mobile_qbs_like_colin_kaepernick_more_injury_prone.html

[Jeff Buchanan]

There are other articles out there that support this .......

I've seen this article. On face, it looks like a decent statistical analysis but I'd have to see the entire analysis, methodology and conclusions before I'd sign on to it without reservations.

Here's another one that shows mobile QBs take more sacks. We also know from the Slate study that sacks are the greatest driver of injuries/missed games.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2014/classic-pocket-passers-versus-mobile-quarterbacks

That having been said, taking these two studies into account, I'd argue there's plenty of room for argument about which type of QB is likely to deliver wins in an entire 12 game season with injuries as an independent variable.

As you know, the end point of a particular study can change the perception of outcomes. In the case of the Slate study, the end point is number of injuries sustained by the two types of QBs. An independent variable is time lost to injury. The study shows there is no statistically significant relationship between QB types and time lost to injuries. OK, that's one way to look at it.

The football outsiders study demonstrates that mobile QBs become less efficient over the course of a season than RPO QBs because of higher sack rates. That's another way to look at the question of which QB, RPO or mobile, is likely to perform efficiently for 12 games.

Extending that finding and combining it with the Slate study data, we can conclude that the higher number of sacks mobile QBs take, make then more likely to become injured and therefore less efficient over the course of a season.

Frankly, I think it's an open question from a statistical standpoint and depends on what end points you are looking at. In either case, the eyeball test tells me, in FSU's case, they built an offense around Francois' dual threat capabilities; Francois' skill set is exceedingly hard to replace. Now, he's gone and so is FSU's offense and their season.

[AlabamAlum]

RPO QBs are mobile QBs. Pro-set are generally not that mobile. There are other articles that support this. And it's easy to check and verify.

But, again, none of this has anytime by to do with my incredulity that FSU will be winless two days before October.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Point taken.

[Detroit Dan]

Of course, running QBs are more vulnerable to injury. For one, how many running QBs do you see playing at the age of Brady, Favre, Manning, etc? The answer is none. For two, there's a reason QBs slide. Getting tackled risks injury. Running as a QB will shorten one's career, as proven by the situation in the NFL.

[WingsFan]

"Why the fuck is this guy yelling?

I gotta go, the Wife just got home. lol She just asked who was over last night as she was sleeping in another room during ND/MSU. - Me - Nobody-

Her - Well, who was yelling so loud>?

[AlabamAlum]

Of course, running QBs are more vulnerable to injury. For one, how many running QBs do you see playing at the age of Brady, Favre, Manning, etc? The answer is none. For two, there's a reason QBs slide. Getting tackled risks injury. Running as a QB will shorten one's career, as proven by the situation in the NFL.

1. To play at the age of Brady, you would need more than the two running QB teams that the NFL provides.

2. Because they (running QBs) seemingly don't play at older ages does NOT mean that they stopped because of injury. It is also possible, they lost a step as they got older.

3. You are combining an a priori argument with anecdotes and a heaping helping of personal opinion. It's really not needed. The data can be examined and an evidence-based conclusion reached.

[froot loops]

The NFL is a much different league as well. It's not like every mobile QB career ends because of injury, it doesn't, over the long haul the running QB is rendered ineffective.

[WingsFan]

Pac 12 after dark - SC goes down in Pullman 30-27

[JRB]

Washington State 30, USC 27. I've got to hand it to Mike Leach. I didn't think he'd stay in Pullman for long, and I didn't think he'd do as well there as he has. If this was an upset, it didn't look like much of one. It may have set up perfectly for Washington State-- at home, catching a USC team with depth problems after four straight tough games-- but the Cougars never looked overmatched.

As for USC, the question has been, what's wrong with Sam Darnold? I don't see that much is wrong with him-- he just has less experienced skill talent around him and an offensive line that is now down three starters. USC's injury issues caught up with them, and it's tough seeing this team not dropping at least one more. Darnold will give them a chance against anybody, and they'll play hard, but they're just beaten up right now.

[Cody_Russell]

Stanford was knocked out at Washington on a Friday night last season. Similar thing for USC to go down. USC does have A LOT of injuries they are dealing with...

Just sucks that the end time for this game was 2:13am Eastern. Certain nights, no problem watching to the end of that game. But again, 2:13am...

[The Oracle]

SC ravaged with some key OL injuries last night and it showed late. WSU is pretty legit.

[AlabamAlum]

Washington State is s team no one wants to play.