Comments on: The Spread Comes With Major Risks To QBs

By: jfwells

jfwells — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:09:46 +0000

Weather a QB is running or in the pocket when he gets hurt in the spread offense is irrelevant. One of the hallmarks of the spread is the 3 or 4 WR sets and running backs releasing out into the flat where they have no ability to pick up a blitzing LB. With no TE, QBs are going to get hit more often if they are not able to quickly make the correct reads and get rid of the ball.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:26:16 +0000

Krame and others,

I dont think the field has anything to do with the players tearing their ACLs. Its pretty equal to the players getting hurt on grass and on turf.

When we start talking about turf I do have questions on why we always seem to be slipping. When I played high school ball on our turf field we never had issues of slipping or bad traction.

Matt Prehm
Ducks Attack

By: krame

krame — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:15:46 +0000

I don’t think its fair to say 9 injured qb’s, because DD was injured in the ASU game. He was never even hit in the Arizona game. Brady Leaf was injured in the Arizona game “Sprained Ankle”, he and Dixon were tough enough to try to play injured then went out of the following games because of pre-existing injuries. Costa had a badly injured knee before he was ever in a Ducks uniform.

Your point is well taken that running the spread can be a qb hazard, but I think you are stretching your evidence a little. To help your point about the spread being a dangerous offense for all offensive players, check out the 5 torn acl’s the Gators have already suffered this season. OR MAYBE ITS NOT THE SPREAD AS MUCH AS THE FIELD TERF!

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:54:00 +0000

I think the Ducks need to look at their shoes and their connection to the turf. The Ducks seem to have great footing, but that can be a minus when your foot sticks to the turf and your knee goes another direction. It isn’t just quarterbacks getting acl injuries at Oregon, it is the skill players of all types. I hope they have solved the problem this year and the Costa’s injury is just a holdover from last year (and not very serious).

By: Kenny

Kenny — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:51:12 +0000

I think it is a good point. Just because the injuries didn’t take place on spread option plays where the QB is running, it doesn’t mean that the spread wasn’t the cause. QBs bodies are not meant to get hit as much as they have been in the spread option. Tebow was only able to get hit as much as he was because he is built as solid as he is. And this may sound stupid but hear me out: defenders hit QBs harder then they hit RBs or WRs. When a defender sees a WR or RB, in his mind its “wrap him up, don’t let him break the tackle.” When a defender sees a QB, its “how hard can I hit this guy and make it on ESPN.” That has its effect.

By: Randy

Randy — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:26:45 +0000

Fran tarkinton ran the spread,,,he ran every defense he went up against in to a spread defense…Im sure he got hurt somehwere but he made it to 4 superbowls running all over the place….and he weight what? 160 lbs with pads?..
this is a joke…this guy dont like the spread cuase it put the wupin on his team most likely…
Are you a oklahoma fan????hmmmmm

By: A. Leeman

A. Leeman — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:34:50 +0000

The spread definitely increases injury risk — the question is how much. Because the quarterback runs more in the spread, the quarterback will be hit more by the opposing defense, which raises the risk of injury. It’s also worth noting that Oregon plays seven, sometimes eight, games a year on artificial turf. Dixon’s injury against ASU last year was a prime example of how an artificial surface can also make matters more dangerous for quarterbacks.

By: quackinAK

quackinAK — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:25:56 +0000

Bill Musgrave, Danny O’neil, Tony Graziani, AJ Feeley all suffered injuries that caused them to miss games if not the rest of the season. Before the advent of the spread offense at Oregon. The quarterback is a dangerous position simply for the fact that they have the ball every play. I could see an argument for the types of injuries normally associated with running backs (ACL, knees, ankles etc.) but like jtlight said correlation does not imply causation is the first thing you learn in any statistics class.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:31:31 +0000

Yes and no.
The spread reduces the potential for injury along the offensive line, but leaves skill position players a bit more exposed.

By: jtlight

jtlight — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:14:01 +0000

Matt,

I think that the spread offense does increase chances of injury, but not to the degree that is implied in the article.

UCLA has had to deal lately with as many QB injuries as Oregon, yet they don’t run a spread.

The number of injuries on a team is rarely related to the systems run, and is a very poor statistic to rely upon. For the most part, injuries are just dumb luck.

While your chances of injury increase in some systems, it is not to the degree that would see the amount of injuries at Oregon in the past few years.

jtlight