Best Running QB to use

[UTLUNIS]

Quote: Originally Posted by uofm1508

You do realize that being a running qb is not the same as racing correct? There is much more to it then just running the fastest, such as vision, cutting ability, decision making, ball carrying, etc... Not to mention speed on a track does not always equate to speed on a football field in pads Here lets try this, who was the best running back of all time?

I'm not saying being a running QB is all about speed. It's also about elusiveness etc, where again, I would give the edge to Denard. Speed is only one of many areas where he was the best.

As for running backs it's apples to oranges. To have a similar question you would have to ask who was the best passing running back of all time.

But to answer the question anyway, there is a logjam in the top 10 and even top 25 of running backs. Many people would say Jim Brown was the best running back ever college or pro, but at the same time he played in a bygone era and probably wouldn't be an elite runner in today's NFL.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by UTLUNIS

You mean V.Y who runs a 4.6 40??? LMAO... He has good ball carrier vision... but let's be serious for a minute. You guys must play a lot of video games instead of watching football. 40 Times: Denard 4.32 Vick 4.33 Tommie Frazier 4.50 V.Y. 4.58 Cam Newton 4.59 (Andrew Luck ran the same 40 time I guess I should put him on the list.) While everyone's homerism is cute... The only guy on the list with the speed to be mentioned in the same sentence as Denard is Mike Vick. Vick was a homerun hitter for sure. But, he wasn't on the same level as Denard and the stats show that. Everyone else is too slow to debate about. For the Tommie Frazier lovers though... Your argument is he wasn't as good a runner because he had to run more?? LOL Denard had twice as many carries in 2011 as Tommie Frazier did in 1995. Denard had six times as many carries in 2010 as as Tommie Frazier did in 1994. In 2011 Denard rushed for more yards than Tommie Frazier rushed for in 1994 & 1995 combined. I understand nostalgia, but Tommie Frazier was no Denard Robinson.

Is this a joke?

[UTLUNIS]

Quote: Originally Posted by blackball8

watch the video i put in my edited post above. Sometimes numbers just don't add up. You have to remember before Frazier was subbed in the national title game with florida state (frazier rallied them, but they missed a late fg).........the big 8 was getting owned by Miami and Florida state. Tom Osborne was the coach who could never win the big game and was destined to be remembered for going for 2 and losing to miami. Then he found Frazier on his bench and won back to back titles.

But again Frazier played on maybe the best team in history...

I know about Frazier's accolades I'm not saying he isn't top 5... but IMHO Denard is the better runner. Put Denard on 1995 Nebraska and every game they won by 30 they would probably win by 45.

Google Denard Robinson's first play from scrimmage... First snap

[uofm1508]

Quote: Originally Posted by UTLUNIS

I'm not saying being a running QB is all about speed. It's also about elusiveness etc, where again, I would give the edge to Denard. Speed is only one of many areas where he was the best. As for running backs it's apples to oranges. To have a similar question you would have to ask who was the best passing running back of all time. .

No its not apples to oranges. If the best running Qb is the fastest on a track, then the best running back is the fastest on a track

Lets accept reality, your argument about 40 times is stupid and useless

[blackball8]

Hey Denard is good, i will give you that. Right now thou, every guy being debated except Denard won or played for a national title. Let's see what Denard does this year before we put him with the other guys mentioned. Pointing out Frazier's offensive line while Denard plays for Michigan is laughable.............by that criteria, its either Vick or Cam Newton in a landslide

[UTLUNIS]

LMAO

No sir. 40 times are indicative of speed which is a tool of a great runner. Most great running backs historically were at least fast for their era. In other words they possessed a tool called speed.

A QB who is not even fast for his era cannot compete for best running QB all-time.

Edit: should have quoted poster on previous page

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by UTLUNIS

LMAO No sir. 40 times are indicative of speed which is a tool of a great runner. Most great running backs historically were at least fast for their era. In other words they possessed a tool called speed. A QB who is not even fast for his era cannot compete for best running QB all-time.

40 times mean nothing. Ask Jerry Rice. Hell most published 40 times are false anyway. And if it's hand timed? Forget it. 40 times do not always translate to football speed nor is it a requirement to be a track star to be an effective runner.

[uofm1508]

Quote: Originally Posted by UTLUNIS

LMAO No sir. 40 times are indicative of speed which is a tool of a great runner. Most great running backs historically were at least fast for their era. In other words they possessed a tool called speed. A QB who is not even fast for his era cannot compete for best running QB all-time. Edit: should have quoted poster on previous page

Dead wrong. Have you heard of Barry Sanders? He was not ever considered a speedster.... but he was one of the greatest runners ever

There is so much more to running then speed