Sticking With a QB Too Long

[yungmack]

The Bills simply do not evaluate talent well at THE most important position in pro football, the QB.

 

Is has been like this for about 20 years now, and until they field a QB who can actually play, it will continue.

I believe EJ is the first QB they ever took with the first overall pick in team history. So the absence of attention to that position goes back a lot longer than 20 years.

[BuffaloBill]

 

 

Elway, Marino, Kelly, Favre, Manning wouldn't understand the concept of sitting for 2 or 3 years--and then taking "another 2 to 3 years" to develop". Which historical greats were you referring to that had that luxury?

 

And what would be the point of a mandatory scrub QB "developing" on the PS?

 

So you resign yourself to the idea that only a few good QB's exist and development under fire is the only way to get it done.

 

Look at someone like Terry Bradshaw it took him several seasons to develop and early in his career he was terrible. The Steelers stuck with him. In today's NFL he would have been left for tash at the curb. A little closer to home, Kelly began to hone his skills in the USFL so he was hardly a rookie in his first NFL season.

 

As for the practice squad idea it is generally recognized that in any given year there are several young QB's who have the physical talent to play in the NFL. They lack the maturity and understanding needed to play the game. Look at it like pitchers in baseball. How many would have played well in the majors without benefit of the farm system?

 

 

[Fan in San Diego]

I think of Cutler when I see the title of this thread.

[OldTimer1960]

So you resign yourself to the idea that only a few good QB's exist and development under fire is the only way to get it done.

 

Look at someone like Terry Bradshaw it took him several seasons to develop and early in his career he was terrible. The Steelers stuck with him. In today's NFL he would have been left for tash at the curb. A little closer to home, Kelly began to hone his skills in the USFL so he was hardly a rookie in his first NFL season.

 

But, but, but I don't like that reality. Surely there are 5 or 6 Hall of Fame QBs in every draft - in particular ones that will be immediately great in the NFL, it must just be that the Bills decided not to take one. (That was sarcasm in case it didn't come through well).

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I was going to respond just to the bottom part, but I agree with your first post too. McNabb was one of those guys who seemed to perform too well to move on from, but had he been a little better they might have rings. I think he was exposed for his mediocrity many times over his career. First, when guys like AJ Feeley and Jeff Garcia came in and produced as well in that offense, then when Vick showed him up, then again in DC, and yet again in MN where he just flat out sucked.

 

Bradford I think is in a similar situation - good enough that it's hard to give up on him, but bad enough that it's hard to stick with him - only without the team success the Eagles had. Apparently the coaching staff is high on him, but I'm not sure I'd put all my eggs in the Bradford basket if I had a shot at a franchise QB. Hell, even if they're high on Bradford they could still draft a QB and let him sit for a year and give Bradford one last chance to prove it. Worst case scenario they'd have some valuable trade bait.

 

Rob's House, interesting analogy between McNabb and Bradford. Hadn't thought of it, but now that you mention it....

 

I think it is that in-between state that's so hard to give up on. "Good enough to lose for you" I think someone called it. The team hates to bail on the guy and have him pull a Steve Young in Frisco, but...but....but....

 

I'm with you - if the Rams have a shot at a good QB candidate I think they should pull the trigger. But I don't know if they will. I think every coach wants to be the sculptor that creates QB gold out of a "not quite all that" player

[Dibs]

Rob's House, interesting analogy between McNabb and Bradford. Hadn't thought of it, but now that you mention it....

 

I think it is that in-between state that's so hard to give up on. "Good enough to lose for you" I think someone called it. The team hates to bail on the guy and have him pull a Steve Young in Frisco, but...but....but....

 

I'm with you - if the Rams have a shot at a good QB candidate I think they should pull the trigger. But I don't know if they will. I think every coach wants to be the sculptor that creates QB gold out of a "not quite all that" player

 

IMO the worst situation a team can get into is having a QB that is pretty good....but not great.

 

I also think that in the modern era, if a QB hasn't shown himself to be a star by the end of his 4th season then he isn't going to miraculously develop into one. He might end up with a couple of great statistical season or develop into a pretty good QB.....but not the highly saught after star QB that was likely hoped for when he was drafted.

[Chandler#81]

 

 

Elway, Marino, Kelly, Favre, Manning wouldn't understand the concept of sitting for 2 or 3 years--and then taking "another 2 to 3 years" to develop". Which historical greats were you referring to that had that luxury?

 

And what would be the point of a mandatory scrub QB "developing" on the PS?

 

Staubach, Dawson, Fouts, Farve, Unitas, Morall, Rodgers, Stabler, Theisman, and Brees, Plunkett & Peyton were kicked to the curb by previous teams. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your rant.

 

To the OP; Shaub, Danny White, Bert Jones, Dan Pastorini -the list is very long. At least the Bills play 'Musical Chairs' trying to find their new great QB.

[Mr. WEO]

So you resign yourself to the idea that only a few good QB's exist and development under fire is the only way to get it done.

 

Look at someone like Terry Bradshaw it took him several seasons to develop and early in his career he was terrible. The Steelers stuck with him. In today's NFL he would have been left for tash at the curb. A little closer to home, Kelly began to hone his skills in the USFL so he was hardly a rookie in his first NFL season.

 

As for the practice squad idea it is generally recognized that in any given year there are several young QB's who have the physical talent to play in the NFL. They lack the maturity and understanding needed to play the game. Look at it like pitchers in baseball. How many would have played well in the majors without benefit of the farm system?

 

I was responding to the other poster's claim that the NFL history is loaded with QB greats who spent 3 to 6 years "developing". It's just not true. Even for Kelly--he wasn't a backup in the USFL. His skills were immediately apparent even in that league. He was ready right out of college.

 

That only a few really good NFL QBs exist should be self evident. What would be the purpose of putting a QB on the the PS at all times? To develop him into....what? He's going to replace the starter some day? He's going to replace, the first round draft pick?

 

No team is taking a first round QB to put on the PS to develop. That guy, no matter how long he spends at that level, is unlikely ever to develop into a long term starter. The baseball farm system exists because the college system in baseball is insignificant compared to that for football. Also, the college QBs coming out today have played much more of a pro style game while in college.

 

In short, the modern NFL has always had top QBs who excel right away or after a year. QBs don't develop on the practice squad. If you want to "develop" a prospect QB, draft him a few years before your current franchise QB's career is over and make him the backup. Green Bay did that and NE may be doing it.

 

The problem, of course, is that bad teams have no franchise QB--they are drafting one in the first round (typically). Where is that guy going to hang out and develop? The PS? While some journeyman slogs through another 4 or 6 win season? That's the Buffalo recipe for success.

 

Fans see guys like last year's trio of rookies do well (and Wilson is still excellent a year later, Luck looking better as this season goes on), they see Kaep come off the bench his second year and do well, same for Foles. It is reasonable for fans to look at these guys, as well as the greats I listed in my previous post, and expect a top draft pick QB to play early and play well.

[Mr. WEO]

Staubach, Dawson, Fouts, Farve, Unitas, Morall, Rodgers, Stabler, Theisman, and Brees, Plunkett & Peyton were kicked to the curb by previous teams. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your rant.

 

To the OP; Shaub, Danny White, Bert Jones, Dan Pastorini -the list is very long. At least the Bills play 'Musical Chairs' trying to find their new great QB.

 

Favre went to the Packers his second year. He did didn't sit on the bench to develop for 3 years. He started and threw for 330 yards and won 8 of 13 starts in the first year of a long successful career.

 

Fouts was not kicked to the curb by his team. played his whole career in SD. He dis not sit onthe bench and develop for 3 years. He started his first year. His career took off with the arrival of Coryell, who brought a whole new style of offensive football with him.

 

Peyton Manning was never kicked to the curb. He did not sit onthe bench for 3 years. He started immediately.

 

Staubach was never kicked to the curb by the Cowboys. He palyed his entire career there.

 

Unitas was never kicked to the curb by the Colts--unless you are reaching to call letting him go in his 17 th season kicking to the curb.

 

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Mione wasn't a rant, just correcting factual errors and disputing the poster's contention that all the greats took time on the bench to develop.

[ny33]

Favre went to the Packers his second year. He did didn't sit on the bench to develop for 3 years. He started and threw for 330 yards and won 8 of 13 starts in the first year of a long successful career.

 

Fouts was not kicked to the curb by his team. played his whole career in SD. He dis not sit onthe bench and develop for 3 years. He started his first year. His career took off with the arrival of Coryell, who brought a whole new style of offensive football with him.

 

Peyton Manning was never kicked to the curb. He did not sit onthe bench for 3 years. He started immediately.

 

Staubach was never kicked to the curb by the Cowboys. He palyed his entire career there.

 

Unitas was never kicked to the curb by the Colts--unless you are reaching to call letting him go in his 17 th season kicking to the curb.

 

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Mione wasn't a rant, just correcting factual errors and disputing the poster's contention that all the greats took time on the bench to develop.

 

Keep in mind that Peyton Manning, statistically, was not an excellent QB in his first season.

[boyst]

Has anyone mentioned Romo yet?

[Dibs]

Has anyone mentioned Romo yet?

 

In regards to sticking with a QB too long.....or learning on the bench for 3 years? He fits both discussion topics.

 

Romo is a great example IMO of sticking with a QB too long and I'm very happy that the Cowboys have locked themselves into him for years to come.

[Chandler#81]

 

 

Favre went to the Packers his second year. He did didn't sit on the bench to develop for 3 years. He started and threw for 330 yards and won 8 of 13 starts in the first year of a long successful career. ERGO, HE SAT ON THE PINE INTO HIS 2nd SEASON

 

Fouts was not kicked to the curb by his team. played his whole career in SD. He dis not sit onthe bench and develop for 3 years. He started his first year. His career took off with the arrival of Coryell, who brought a whole new style of offensive football with him. DIDN'T SAY FOUTS WAS KICKED TO THE CURB.

 

Peyton Manning was never kicked to the curb. He did not sit onthe bench for 3 years. He started immediately. PEYTON WAS CONSIDERED WASHED UP BY THE COLTS AND KICKED TO THE CURB.

 

Staubach was never kicked to the curb by the Cowboys. He palyed his entire career with the Cowboys. DIDN'T SAY STAUBACH WAS KICKED TO THE CURB, BUT I CAN SEE WHERE READING CORRECT ENGLISH IS A CHALLENGE AROUND HERE. HE RODE THE PINE IN DALLAS AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS CAREER

 

Unitas was never kicked to the curb by the Colts--unless you are reaching to call letting him go in his 17 th season kicking to the curb. UNITAS WAS KICKED TO THE CURB BY THE STEELERS

 

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Mione wasn't a rant, just correcting factual errors and disputing the poster's contention that all the greats took time on the bench to develop. YOU ARE ALWAYS RANTING. I GET THE PICTURE.

[ALF]

I want to see what a healthy and more prepared EJ can do next season. He needs better protection as a high priority and a top QB coach, not Hackett. With all the holes to fill, I would not draft another qb high.

[Mr. WEO]

 

"Staubach, Dawson, Fouts, Farve, Unitas, Morall, Rodgers, Stabler, Theisman, and Brees, Plunkett & Peyton were kicked to the curb by previous teams."

 

You included Unitas with Plunkett, Favre and Brees and Manning in the above sentence. Maybe if you broke it up into 2 sentences it would have helped.

 

Anyway, the topic being discussed is whether "the greats" sat the bench for "2 to 3 years" and then spent another 2 to 3 years developing. Why you are pointing out that Peyton Manning was released by the Colts after a long, HOF career (that began his rookie year in Indy) and signficant neck injury in this discussion is a mystery.

 

Unitas never played for the Steelers, never even took a snap in practice. Mentioning him in a discussion of QBs who sat the bench and then were brought slowly along after that is also mysterious.

 

Favre sat the bench in Atlanta because Glanville never wanted him drafted. The Packers jumped at the chance to trade a 1st rounder for him and he was their starter by week 4 and he made th Pro Bowl. The next year, he had them in the playoffs. So he, too, doesn;t belong in a discussion of "great" QBs who sat the bench for 2 to 3 years and then took another 2 to 3 years to develop.

 

Brees was the full season starter in his second year in SD. He was starter in 2004 and 2005 despite the first round pick of Rivers in 2004. In fact, they had franchised him in 2005. He suffered a serious injury to his shoulder in the last game of 2005. Even with the injury, since he was a free agent, they offered him a 50 million incentive laden contract. He wanted top 5 QB money, despite significant injury and off season surgey. NO made him a better offer. So, Brees not only doesn't belong in this discussion, he was not "kicked to the curb".

 

Factual issues...

 

Anyway, this is what a rant looks like:

 

"Getting kicked out of the Manning Camp <see 'Shield' choir boys> for 'conduct unbecoming' amid the myriad of current negative press is very likely going to have consequences going forward on many fronts. From the NCAA's alleged entitlement institution to League Top Cop Roger Goodell, the time has come for a headline grabbing Poster Boy to feel the heat and take the rap in dramatic, sweeping rule changes, up to and including lifetime ban for scholarships and invitation to the pros. The entitlement axium has far reaching tentacles, including local Law Enforcement. IMO, (ok, my hope is..) we've reached the breaking point of a failed concept and radical changes have to be instituted to ebb the flow. How many businesses hire convicts?

 

I can't think of a better icon for such drastic change than the 'Johnny Football Rule' "

Edited December 31, 2013 by Mr. WEO

[OldTimer1960]

Troy Aikman threw 31 TDs and 46 INTS in his first 3 years in Dallas. They clearly should have given up on him!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

IMO the worst situation a team can get into is having a QB that is pretty good....but not great.

 

I also think that in the modern era, if a QB hasn't shown himself to be a star by the end of his 4th season then he isn't going to miraculously develop into one. He might end up with a couple of great statistical season or develop into a pretty good QB.....but not the highly saught after star QB that was likely hoped for when he was drafted.

 

"Good is the Enemy of Great" as the quote goes.

 

Interesting view on QB and 4 seasons. I haven't done much recently, one reason I'm drawn to your posts is that I have that stats geek streak in my own makeup. Any ideas on what makes the modern era different than football history, where some QB such as Young, Gannon, Aikman etc took time to develop? I did an analysis a while back looking at time to success for successful QB who were drafted in the top of the 1st round vs. later-drafted QB (I defined success statistically, in terms of completion %, YPA, TD/INT ratio etc). And draft position clearly mattered, in that later-drafted QB who became successful often required 4 full seasons of play to get there, vs early-drafted QB who seemed to either succeed in their 2nd or 3rd year, or never.

 

I do think the rest of the team and the coaching has impact. In Bradford's defense, he's had quite the coaching carousel around him and at times a sieve-like OL (high OL draftees not quite panning out as planned), which doesn't help.

 

Of course a lot hinges on how one defines "good QB" vs "star". Are Eli Manning and Flacco stars (paid like it) or "good QB with a couple of good statistical seasons"? Was Schaub a good QB prior to this year? How about Brees in SD? "Star" seems often defined in hindsight, when looking back over a body of work

Edited December 31, 2013 by Hopeful

[Ramius]

IMO the worst situation a team can get into is having a QB that is pretty good....but not great.

 

I also think that in the modern era, if a QB hasn't shown himself to be a star by the end of his 4th season then he isn't going to miraculously develop into one. He might end up with a couple of great statistical season or develop into a pretty good QB.....but not the highly saught after star QB that was likely hoped for when he was drafted.

 

Andy Dalton is the shining beacon of this problem. He's simply not good enough to get Cincy over the hump. I doubt we'll ever see him in a Super Bowl. He doesn't have the abilities to go head to head with the greats.

[Dibs]

"Good is the Enemy of Great" as the quote goes.

 

Interesting view on QB and 4 seasons. I haven't done much recently, one reason I'm drawn to your posts is that I have that stats geek streak in my own makeup. Any ideas on what makes the modern era different than football history, where some QB such as Young, Gannon, Aikman etc took time to develop? I did an analysis a while back looking at time to success for successful QB who were drafted in the top of the 1st round vs. later-drafted QB (I defined success statistically, in terms of completion %, YPA, TD/INT ratio etc). And draft position clearly mattered, in that later-drafted QB who became successful often required 4 full seasons of play to get there, vs early-drafted QB who seemed to either succeed in their 2nd or 3rd year, or never.

 

I do think the rest of the team and the coaching has impact. In Bradford's defense, he's had quite the coaching carousel around him and at times a sieve-like OL (high OL draftees not quite panning out as planned), which doesn't help.

 

Of course a lot hinges on how one defines "good QB" vs "star". Are Eli Manning and Flacco stars (paid like it) or "good QB with a couple of good statistical seasons"? Was Schaub a good QB prior to this year? How about Brees in SD? "Star" seems often defined in hindsight, when looking back over a body of work

 

I tend to think that QB assessment is the bane of us stats geeks. I always fall back on Elway. Elway's stats for most of his career were very pedestrian.....and if one were to just look at the stats one wouldn't see anything special. Watching him play however, one simply knew he was a truly great QB.

 

Conversely, some QBs can be in a great situation for several years.......thus making them appear great when they perhaps are merely good.

 

I recently came to the view that some QBs can be "streaky great". Meaning that they can play for extended periods exhibiting truly great ability.....but not be able to maintain that level for entire seasons. Eli & Flacco I would place in this category.

 

Essentially I see no statistical way of determining if a QB is great or merely good.....it all comes back to the eye test....and usually takes many years before one can be certain. That being said, when you look at all of the great QBs(modern era) you will typically(always?) find that they have shown a high level of play by the end of their 4th season.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Dibs

[OldTimer1960]

Andy Dalton is the shining beacon of this problem. He's simply not good enough to get Cincy over the hump. I doubt we'll ever see him in a Super Bowl. He doesn't have the abilities to go head to head with the greats.

 

Pretty strong opinion on someone who is only in his 3rd year in the NFL. What do you base the opinion that he's not good enough to get Cinci over the hump on? Is it his arm strength?