Sticking With a QB Too Long

[Rob's House]

All this talk about whether we should cut bait on EJ, or give him another year, or another 2-3 years, etc. got me thinking about teams that have hung on too long hoping in vein that their guy could be the guy. I'm curious who you guys think should have gotten the hook earlier. I'm also curious how many will try to turn this into yet another EJ thread.

 

 

I'll go with Kordell Stewart and I don't think it's close. The Steelers wasted 6 years (after letting him sit for his first 2) on this underachieving bum before finally allowing some competition (at which time he was beaten out by Tommy Maddux of all people). Those were mostly competetive teams despite lacking adequate QB play. One can only imagine what those years might have been to that franchise had they had the good sense to cut bait early and bring in a real QB.

[chris heff]

Passive aggressive EJ thread?

[Rob's House]

Passive aggressive EJ thread?

 

I thought I addressed this in the opening paragraph but I guess I'll address it again. I thought it would be a nice break from repeatedly beating the dead horse that is EJ Manuel's status, but I fully expect the reading impaired to turn it into another EJ thread.

[PolishDave]

I don't necessarily think that keeping a QB 6 years is too long. Keeping a guy as your starter for that long would be a mistake unless he is taking you to the playoffs consistently.

 

I think the better question is how long do you keep starting a guy, not how long do you keep a quarterback.

 

I think you should only be starting a quarterback that you believe can take you to the playoffs. That should be your decision every year at the start of the season. Best guy starts period. And, if you do not have a guy that you are confident can take you to the playoffs, then you have done a really poor job of putting a talented team together.

 

At no point during the course of this year did the Bills have a "good enough to get to the team to the playoffs" quarterback on their roster. Well, maybe Matt Flynn (in a stretch), but he never got to play. And that lack of having a talented enough QB on the roster is the fault of the front office. This season was a throwaway from the get go unless you somehow got surprisingly good play out of that position somehow.

 

So how long do you keep a guy a starter is the better question I think.

 

Keeping a guy on your roster that you think will take you to the playoffs and possibly all the way is a good idea I think regardless of how many years it might take (without getting ridiculous) as long as you think he is making substantial progress year after year.

Edited December 29, 2013 by PolishDave

[chris heff]

Ok I'll play. This is harder than I thought but I'll say Vick in Philly.

[Rob's House]

I don't necessarily think that keeping a QB 6 years is too long. Keeping a guy as your starter for that long would be a mistake unless he is taking you to the playoffs consistently.

 

I think the better question is how long do you keep starting a guy, not how long do you keep a quarterback.

 

I think you should only be starting a quarterback that you believe can take you to the playoffs. That should be your decision every year at the start of the season. Best guy starts period. And, if you do not have a guy that you are confident can take you to the playoffs, then you have done a really poor job of putting a talented team together.

 

At no point during the course of this year did the Bills have a "good enough to get to the team to the playoffs" quarterback on their roster. Well, maybe Matt Flynn (in a stretch), but he never got to play. And that lack of having a talented enough QB on the roster is the fault of the front office. This season was a throwaway from the get go unless you somehow got surprisingly good play out of that position somehow.

 

So how long do you keep a guy a starter is the better question I think.

 

That's really what I was asking. The Steelers actually kept Stewart for 8 years, but started him for the last 6 (5 1/2 really, he was benched in his 6th year as starter.)

[chris heff]

I don't necessarily think that keeping a QB 6 years is too long. Keeping a guy as your starter for that long would be a mistake unless he is taking you to the playoffs consistently.

 

I think the better question is how long do you keep starting a guy, not how long do you keep a quarterback.

 

I think you should only be starting a quarterback that you believe can take you to the playoffs. That should be your decision every year at the start of the season. Best guy starts period. And, if you do not have a guy that you are confident can take you to the playoffs, then you have done a really poor job of putting a talented team together.

 

At no point during the course of this year did the Bills have a "good enough to get to the team to the playoffs" quarterback on their roster. Well, maybe Matt Flynn (in a stretch), but he never got to play. And that lack of having a talented enough QB on the roster is the fault of the front office. This season was a throwaway from the get go unless you somehow got surprisingly good play out of that position somehow.

 

So how long do you keep a guy a starter is the better question I think.

 

Keeping a guy on your roster that you think will take you to the playoffs and possibly all the way is a good idea I think regardless of how many years it might take (without getting ridiculous) as long as you think he is making substantial progress year after year.

Dear Rob's House,

 

Check paragraph four. See what I mean.

[PolishDave]

That's really what I was asking. The Steelers actually kept Stewart for 8 years, but started him for the last 6 (5 1/2 really, he was benched in his 6th year as starter.)

 

Well then my answer would be this:

 

First of all, I wouldn't start a season without a quarterback that I wasn't confident could take me to the playoffs that year.

 

Assuming I had at least one quarterback I was that confident in, I would play the one on my roster that I thought was the best.

 

I would keep playing him year after year under two conditions:

 

1) I haven't found a better quarterback

2) this guy keeps taking me to the playoffs.

 

If he missed the playoffs 2 years in a row and I felt it was due to his poor performance, I would try very hard to find someone better.

[Rob's House]

Dear Rob's House,

 

Check paragraph four. See what I mean.

 

Yeah, I knew it was coming. I was hoping we might talk about RJ, Trent Edwards, or non-Bills QBs like Tim Couch. Oh well.

[PolishDave]

Sorry. I thought I did a good job of avoiding the name while still keeping it relevant to a Buffalo Bills forum. Would you rather have me delete that paragraph?

[Maury Ballstein]

 

 

Sam Bradford, Christian Ponder , Blaine Gabbert , Vick.

 

Stafford and Cutler might be on deck to join this list

[Rob's House]

Sorry. I thought I did a good job of avoiding the name while still keeping it relevant to a Buffalo Bills forum. Would you rather have me delete that paragraph?

 

No, you're good.

[MDH]

Yeah, I knew it was coming. I was hoping we might talk about RJ, Trent Edwards, or non-Bills QBs like Tim Couch. Oh well.

 

You can state this sentiment over and over but it's hilarious to think that your thread isn't about EJ - of course it is. Why else even bring this topic up if the Bills weren't in a situation that it applies to? It's like asking, "has a player ever been projected by most to Guard been a successful Tackle?" then expecting people not to bring Cordy Glenn into the discussion.

 

The fact that you didn't ask the question: "Which teams didn't stick with a QB long enough?" let's us know which side of the debate you fall on.

 

So if you don't want people to bring EJ into a discussion perhaps you should start a thread that has nothing to do with EJ.

Edited December 29, 2013 by MDH

[BUNCH OF MULARKEY]

Insert polish joke here. ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

[Max997]

I personally don't think you can give a guy more then 2 years in today's NFL but most teams will give longer simply bc they don't want to admit failure

 

 

[Rob's House]

 

 

You can state this sentiment over and over but it's hilarious to think that your thread isn't about EJ - of course it is. Why else even bring this topic up if the Bills weren't in a situation that it applies to? It's like asking, "has a player ever been projected by most to Guard been a successful Tackle?" then expecting people not to bring Cordy Glenn into the discussion.

 

The fact that you didn't ask the question: "Which teams didn't stick with a QB long enough?" let's us know which side of the debate you fall on.

 

So if you don't want people to bring EJ into a discussion perhaps you should start a thread that has nothing to do with EJ.

 

What's your point? I also talk about sex generally with girls I want to have sex with without talking about sex with them specifically. It's okay to have tangential abstract discussions.

[1billsfan]

What's your point? I also talk about sex generally with girls I want to have sex with without talking about sex with them specifically. It's okay to have tangential abstract discussions.

 

This is officially an EJ thread with a big ol' 70s porn mustache on it.

[Rockinon]

Yeah, I knew it was coming. I was hoping we might talk about RJ, Trent Edwards, or non-Bills QBs like Tim Couch. Oh well.

But it was you who 1st referred to the Bills QBs. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[OldTimer1960]

Well then my answer would be this:

 

First of all, I wouldn't start a season without a quarterback that I wasn't confident could take me to the playoffs that year.

 

Assuming I had at least one quarterback I was that confident in, I would play the one on my roster that I thought was the best.

 

I would keep playing him year after year under two conditions:

 

1) I haven't found a better quarterback

2) this guy keeps taking me to the playoffs.

 

If he missed the playoffs 2 years in a row and I felt it was due to his poor performance, I would try very hard to find someone better.

 

Surely the other 52 players on the roster and coaching have SOMETHING to do with whether a team makes the playoffs. It isn't COMPLETELY about the QB solely taking a team to the playoffs.

 

By your stated algorithm, the following QBs would either be on the hot-seat next year or out:

Matt Ryan

Matt Stafford

RG3

Eli Manning

Ben Roethlisberger

Phillip Rivers

Sam Bradford

 

Possibly: Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Ryan Tannehill, Carson Palmer, Jay Cutler, Nick Foles

 

Young guys on a very short leash: Jake Locker (by your definition out already after 2 years), Geno Smith, Mike Glennon, EJ Manuel

 

BTW: Playoff QB Alex Smith would have been long out of the league by now - his first 3 years he threw 19 TDs and 31 INTs.

Brett Favre didn't lead his team to the playoffs in either of his first 2 years - and ATL gave up on him after 1 year. In Favre's 3rd year the threw 19TDs and 24 INTs - GB made the playoffs as a wild card in spite of him rather than because of him.

 

My point is that I think you have to have more patience with young QBs than you suggest. Also, I strongly believe that while QB is the most important position, it isn't the ONLY position that contributes to team success. Almost every QB needs a supporting cast to play well. I'll grant that Tom Brady is doing a great job elevating a weak supporting cast, but almost nobody else could have done that in his position.

 

I am pretty sure that the Falcons regret giving up on Brett Favre after 1 year...

[Nanker]

The Bills obviously wasted 2013 on EJ... right?

Can't afford to use up another?

 

Sorry.

 

Philly - Mike Vick

Chicago - Rex Grossman

Cinci - Carson Palmer

KC - Trent Green

Sea-Attle - Matt Hasselbeck

Denver - Jay Cutler

Houston - Mat Schaub

Washington - Jason Campbell

 

the list could go on and on... it's pretty long.