I am just wondering, if you have a great runner, is there a reason to have him at QB instead of RB? I mean a "great runner," not a QB who has some mobility.
For example, I have heard the explanation that if the QB is a threat to run then you essentially have an extra blocker. Is that all there is to it?
I also understand that a QB who can run can exploit the D. Can he exploit it better at this position than at RB?
If we'd handed off to Sams the same number of times Saturday as he ran from the QB position, is it likely he would have had fewer yards, and if so why? (Using this as an example and not saying he should be RB.)
The "extra blocker" point is a big part of it. Even though Sams is still a work in progress throwing the ball, defenses still have to play a legitimate coverage in their secondary against him, which opens up running lanes. If you move him to running back and insert Waters for example, it takes that away. Granted, I think teams respect Waters' throwing ability a little more, but with Waters' being less of a threat to run, it still changes how you defend K-State.
Plus I think the mentality is different. I don't think Sams makes K-State a better team by playing running back, unless there is a much better option at quarterback. IMHO the best option for this offense is Sams at quarterback both short term and long term.
