 |
Raiders QB
Rich Gannon
|
This is supposed to be the year of the running back in the NFL, but through 10 weeks,
Cincinnati was the only team in the league with more rushing yardage than passing yardage.
For most teams, it wasn’t even close. Passing is still the main weapon in the NFL.
Coaches, being essentially conservative men, often prefer to run the ball, and there
are certain times when it’s essential. When you’re inside an opponent’s
10-yard line, where there is little room to run pass routes, it’s important to be
able to run the ball. When a team has a lead in the fourth quarter, running the ball is
the best way to run time off the clock.
That practice, in fact, has caused many to misread statistics. You often hear that
winning teams are the ones who run the ball most effectively, but that’s turning
statistics on their head. In fact, winning teams get high rushing totals because
they’re winning and running the ball more frequently late in the game than losing
teams, who have to throw the ball in an attempt to catch up.
But it’s almost impossible to win championships in the NFL without an effective
passing attack.
Passing isn’t enough in itself, as Dan Marino could tell you. Marino virtually
rewrote the NFL record book during his career, but the Dolphins couldn’t get back to
the Super Bowl after his second season.
I saw another example of that in the Week 10 Oakland-Kansas City game. The Chiefs have
gone over to a lopsided offense, virtually ignoring their traditional tough running game
in favor of passing. This game was an extreme. The Chiefs ran the ball only nine times and
called 57 pass plays. Elvis Grbac threw for an astounding 504 yards.
But the Chiefs never had a realistic chance of winning the game. With an offense almost
perfectly balanced between running and passing, the Raiders scored the first three times
they had the ball and had a 25-point lead in the second half. The Chiefs never got closer
than 11 points and eventually lost by a 49-31 margin.
Still, if you have to choose either a great quarterback or a great running back, you
should always go with the former. Jim Brown is the best running back I’ve ever seen,
but the Browns won only one NFL championship during his career because they seldom had the
quarterback a championship team needs.
Meanwhile, John Elway took Denver to three AFC championships virtually by himself when
the Broncos lacked both a strong running attack and a strong defense. When Elway had
Terrell Davis in the backfield, the Broncos won two Super Bowls, and some were foolish
enough to call Davis the key. No way. As good as Davis was in those years, he
wouldn’t have been good enough to get the Broncos to the Super Bowl if you’d
taken Elway out of the equation.
So, it all starts with the quarterback, but NFL teams have a very difficult time
evaluating quarterbacks. The number of high first-round picks who have failed in recent
years is astounding. Ryan Leaf is the latest — and probably the worst. Trent Dilfer,
Rick Mirer and Heath Shuler are all busts.
Why? Perhaps because NFL scouts overrate throwing ability and underrate leadership. In
high school and college, the quarterback is often the best athlete on the team, put at the
position so he can make plays. Michael Vick is probably the best collegiate example of
this kind of quarterback. Some pro scouts with whom I’ve talked have doubts about
Vick’s throwing accuracy, but he is a superb athlete who makes spectacular plays.
The prototype NFL quarterback is Jeff George, who has the requisite size and the
ability to throw any kind of pass. For sheer passing ability, I would put George in a
category with Marino and Joe Namath. Injuries limited Namath to a very short period when
he was at his best, but he was the best I’ve seen in that short period. Not just
physically, but as a leader.
George is strictly a passer. He can’t lead a team anywhere because in a very short
time, he antagonizes his teammates with self-centeredness that leaves you breathless.
Rich Gannon, George’s successor as the Raiders’ quarterback, is at the other
end of the QB scale. Gannon was also in Kansas City at the same time as Grbac, and the
Chiefs made a decision to sign Grbac to a lucrative contract and let Gannon become a free
agent, giving the Raiders a chance to sign him.
If you saw Grbac and Gannon warming up on the sideline, you’d make the same
decision. Grbac has the look of a classic quarterback with great size (6-foot-5, 237
pounds) and a strong, accurate arm. Gannon seldom looks good throwing the ball because
he’ll throw sidearm, three-quarters, underhanded, off-balance. He almost never sets
and throws a smooth, overhanded pass.
But Gannon wins, and his teammates would follow him over the edge of a cliff.
The two games the Chiefs and Raiders have played this season were perfect examples of
the difference between the two quarterbacks. Grbac had great numbers in both games, but
Gannon kept the Raiders’ offense going by making good decisions, finding open
receivers, often when he was going down, and scrambling for yardage when he spotted a
running lane. The Raiders won both games, and Gannon was named AFC Offensive Player of the
Week after the second.
It’s quite possible that the AFC title game will match up the Raiders and Colts
because they both have quarterbacks who, though quite different in other ways, are great
leaders. Forget all the nonsense about the year of the running back. In the NFL, you have
to have the right quarterback to win.
Glenn Dickey is a columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle and has been covering pro
football for 33 years. E-mail him at Gdickey@sfchronicle.com |
