Run Or Not To Run

TO RUN OR NOT TO RUN

Why sacrificing a mobile QB for a pocket passer doesn't necessarily ensure success

The subject of my investigative article will center around the debate on what kind of quarterback is best for an NFL team: the quarterback that has more mobility, but less accuracy and pocket passing ability, or a pocket passer, who has less mobility, but can throw from the pocket accurately and find his receivers. I plan to make the argument that having a pocket passer doesn't always mean success or that it's better to have a pocket passer than a quarterback that can move and make plays with his feet or happens to make more plays with his feet than his arm. Critics of quarterback such as Michael Vick are quick to point out that he doesn't throw the ball well or has much of a passing game. But in this article, I plan to point out that unlike many of the pocket passing quarterbacks in the NFL today, mobile quarterbacks like Vick make plays and win games and get their teams to the playoffs and even beyond, and that if they are doing that, then their can be no complaining about the fact that they don't throw for 300 yards and 3 touchdowns in the game. Most teams in the league would bench their current quarterbacks to start Michael Vick if they had him. I feel that quarterbacks such as Vick are unfairly judged because of traditional and "old-school" thinking amongst the media team and league scouts, and other team and league personnel, as well as the stereotypical description of what a quarterback's characteristics should be. If Vick is winning games, how can you fault his play? Many football fans (including myself) whose teams have little success every season would love to have a quarterback that led their teams to the playoffs every year or almost every year, despite their inability to light up the fantasy stat sheets.

I feel