Escapability vs pocket movement.

[Kiwibrown]

Which quality would you rather have in drafting a QB. Which is more congruent with success.? 

[Xmad]

In this day and age where pass rushers more often than not can blow past the OT, you'd want your QB to be able to have both. But I'd rather my QB be able to run for a first down like rodgers rather than have Brady/Manning/Brees pocket abilities. 

[JAF-N72EX]

It depends on a few things really(system, OL, skill position casts,etc) - starting with the type of system. For example, If you play in a system that is relied more heavily on shotgun formations &/or 3-step drops with quick timing routes from the WR's, then having that 'escapability' only becomes a nice bonus feature but not necessarily needed. This of course is relying more on the QB's capability of pre-snaps reads and your receivers, and much less dependent on your OL.   

Conversely, if you have a QB playing in a more diverse system that likes to mix things up throughout the game with different attacks all over the field, then having that escapability can be a game changer because now you're relying more on each other position at a much higher rate. And if just one of them fail(OL breaks down or WR can't get open) then you need your QB to be able to make something happen with his feet.

Overall, in any position and not just QB, I'm taking the player that gives me the most options without sacrificing the key components of that specific position. In this case it's the QB. And if he can play the pocket well and deliver the ball with accuracy, then that's good. But if he can do all that PLUS have that "escapability" then I'm taking him every time.

[Iamcanadian]

If you mean by escapability, that you want a QB who can run with the ball like a RB, then I wouldn't want my QB trying it too often, because they would tend to get banged up way too much. Otherwise escapability and pocket movement are pretty much the same thing. Avoiding the pass rush by moving around in the pocket.

 

Football is a tough game where by regular season's end, every starter and especially QB's are banged up and not at full strength. I want a QB who has solid pocket movement, but I want a QB who is healthy enough at season's end to win a SB and QB with escapability, who take off running an awful lot during the season, will not likely be in shape to win a lot of SB's.

[Hunter2_1]

This comes back to the Interior vs Outside OL discussion. If your interior is strong, there is nothing more dangerous than a QB with an laser-guided bomb (Brady and Manning) stepping UP into the pocket, with a clear view and time. As the pass rushers are washed around the back.

Having said that, when you face a QB who escapes, you tend to try to pinch and contain rather than pin your ears back and go. You're holding something back. 

I vote both

[Kip Smithers]

7 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

If you mean by escapability, that you want a QB who can run with the ball like a RB, then I wouldn't want my QB trying it too often, because they would tend to get banged up way too much. Otherwise escapability and pocket movement are pretty much the same thing. Avoiding the pass rush by moving around in the pocket.

 

Football is a tough game where by regular season's end, every starter and especially QB's are banged up and not at full strength. I want a QB who has solid pocket movement, but I want a QB who is healthy enough at season's end to win a SB and QB with escapability, who take off running an awful lot during the season, will not likely be in shape to win a lot of SB's.

Pocket movement and escapability aren't the same thing. Same concept but different things. Escapability tends to limit your options with regard to pass. Pocket movement allows you better maximise your options. 

If I had to choose then id say pocket movement because it is more conducive to long term success and is more sustainable. But Rodgers' escapability is a special case so that's a more difficult choice 

[RaidersAreOne]

Pocket movement.

[tom cody]

I went with pocket movement as well.

[Malik]

I'm assuming you are using those two as contrasting examples and styles because very, very few QBs have the pocket movement on Brady's level. I'm taking escapability if that's the case. Just this week old (but good) QBs like Palmer and Eli faltered when they faced pressure because they have stone feet. Having some athleticism also great helps the run game because you can actually run play-action passes and it gives you more options during screens and more time for long developing plays (look at Alex Smith against the Patriots).

[RandyMossIsBoss]

I'm easily taking the pocket movement. Guys like Brady and Peyton are/were so in sync with their OL and have/had that 6th sense to know when to get rid of the ball. Escapability makes for great highlights and not as heavy reliance on the OL, but you need to rely on and trust your OL to an extent if you want success. I would say being able to navigate the pocket is crucial to QB success, you won't ever be anything more than solid otherwise. Escapability is just a plus, albeit it can be a major one.

Ideally you want both. Rodgers can do that. Of course he doesn't move in the pocket nearly as well as Brady or Peyton, but he still does it at a more than sufficient level and his escapability is as good as it gets for somebody of his size and athleticism.

[ET80]

I like QBs who intelligently keep plays alive by moving around. There is always a concern, but when they connect on big plays, it makes up for it.

[Pats#1]

Pocket movement if I had to chose one and they were specifically exclusive of one another.

 

Pocket QBs tend to last longer, stay more consistently healthy.