Sticking With a QB Too Long

[ReturnoftheBuffaloBeast23]

Could I say Drew Brees for $600 Alex?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

If one is to restrict oneself to facts, I'm finding your list of QB "kicked to the curb" by previous teams a bit curious. Ironic might be the word?

 

Staubach? Drafted in '64 by the Cowboys, joined in '69 after completing his military committment. No previous team involved.

Fouts likewise spent his entire career with San Diego. No previous team involved.

Farve qualifies only if one classifies "traded for a 1st round draft pick before starting a game" as "kicked to the curb", pretty high-falutin' kickin' for guy who was originally a 2nd round pick that the coach publically declared he did not want to draft. To me it seems more analogous to the Rivers/E Manning trade.

Rodgers was drafted by the Packers and is still with them. No previous team "curb kicking" applies.

Stabler was traded to the Oilers after 9 years as a starter subsequent to a contract hold-out. He left Oakland holding most of their QB records and with playoff appearances, having been 2x AFC player of the year and passing champion. No curb-kicking involved when you trade a successful long-term vet you can't sign.

Theisman likewise was a contract sitution - couldn't agree to terms with the Dolphins, chose to go to the CFL for 3 years. Kind of a Jim Kelly situation, which can't be correctly described as the Bills "kicking Kelly to the curb" because he chose to sign with the USFL. Theisman did ride the bench 4 years for the Redskins after they acquired him, but that isn't "kicking to the curb".

Brees was very much a Stabler-like situation - a starter and a playoff winner for the Chargers, franchised by them, then signed as a FA (with serious shoulder injury) with NO after spurning a 5 year, $50 million contract from SD - can't see that as a "kick to the curb" by any stretch.

Plunkett was traded for 4 draft picks (3 1st rounders) and another player after a successful 5 year career with the Pats. Some curb kick. I suppose you could say the '9ers kicked him to the curb by releasing him only to see him find success when Oakland picked him up? But that's more "second lease on life"?

I'm not familiar with a QB named "Peyton" unless you mean "Manning". It would be astounding to describe a QB who had 12 stellar years with a team then screwed them by signing a huge costly contract only to immediately miss a season due to potentially career-ending injury, as being "kicked to the curb" by that team. Not hardly.

 

Dawson, Morall, and Unitas are the only QB on your list who could be realistically and factually said to be "kicked to the curb" by a previous team, by a reasonably common definition of "kicked to the curb".

[Solomon Grundy]

Buffalo and JP Losman!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

Help me out here with your use of the term "modern era" and"4th season"

 

I would say Steve Young is the poster child for a QB who spent >5 years in the league before achieving success. He even got beaten out by another backup on the '9ers at one point!

 

I think we've agreed that "great" is in the eye of the beholder, though, and often defined retrospectively.

 

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.

 

I think this is a case where that will be decided by hindsight.

 

Dalton has great rappore with a fantastic WR. I think the same could have been said of Joe Flacco and Eli Manning -and there they are, wearing Superbowl rings. It would not shock me to see Dalton likewise clad in a couple of years, especially if they keep him with Green and their D stays stout.

[Solomon Grundy]

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

 

Aikman is the "prime example" of a game managing QB. Aikman was a product of a GREAT running game, a GREAT defense and a PLAYMAKER(Michael Irvin). I see similarities in that Cowboys team and the current Bills team. Continue building the defense, run game is there and get a "playmaker" at the receiver spot.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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).

 

Old Timer, part of the underlying assumptions here is whether the day of the successful champion team, led by a "good but not great" QB who is more of a game manager who can pass enough to keep the Defense honest, is done.

 

The recent teams that have had persistent success are led by great QB: Peyton Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Brady.

Thus the idea, one can not have a successful playoff run (let along a championship) unless one has a great QB, and that great QB show they are great immediately - well, maybe by their 2nd year of play at worst.

 

I don't know if I agree with the premise. Bandwagons always look like the only way to roll - until someone moves in with a new wrinkle in wagons.

 

Aikman is the "prime example" of a game managing QB. Aikman was a product of a GREAT running game, a GREAT defense and a PLAYMAKER(Michael Irvin). I see similarities in that Cowboys team and the current Bills team. Continue building the defense, run game is there and get a "playmaker" at the receiver spot.

 

I like the rappore EJ showed with Woods. Another similar quality (or better) WR would be a big help to EJ's development. Dalton would not look nearly as good without Green.

 

I don't think SJ has (whatever it is that's required) to play well in the slot.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Hopeful

[OldTimer1960]

Aikman is the "prime example" of a game managing QB. Aikman was a product of a GREAT running game, a GREAT defense and a PLAYMAKER(Michael Irvin). I see similarities in that Cowboys team and the current Bills team. Continue building the defense, run game is there and get a "playmaker" at the receiver spot.

 

I won't disagree there, but as you say, you can win multiple Super Bowls with a game manager and great defense, as long as you give the game manager some outstanding weapons.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I won't disagree there, but as you say, you can win multiple Super Bowls with a game manager and great defense, as long as you give the game manager some outstanding weapons.

 

But see, that's the whole premise on this group: that the day of wining multiple Super Bowls with a solid game manager QB (with weapons) and great defense is Done. Hence the bit about how Dalton is only good enough to fail, etc.

[OldTimer1960]

Old Timer, part of the underlying assumptions here is whether the day of the successful champion team, led by a "good but not great" QB who is more of a game manager who can pass enough to keep the Defense honest, is done.

 

The recent teams that have had persistent success are led by great QB: Peyton Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Brady.

Thus the idea, one can not have a successful playoff run (let along a championship) unless one has a great QB, and that great QB show they are great immediately - well, maybe by their 2nd year of play at worst.

 

I don't know if I agree with the premise. Bandwagons always look like the only way to roll - until someone moves in with a new wrinkle in wagons.

 

I am not seeing the trend for these new great QBs winning SBs, the last 10 SB winning QBs were:

Joe Flacco - good, not great IMHO

Eli Manning - good, not great

Aaron Rodgers - great

Drew Brees - great

Ben Roethlisberger - good

Peyton Manning - "great" (yet he has won only 1 SB)

 

Ben Roethlisberger - good

Tom Brady - great

Tom Brady - great

Brad Johnson - journeyman

 

If you agree with my classifications, then 5 of the last 10 SBs were won by "great" QBs. The remainder were no doubt good, but not great in my opinion (except for Brad Johnson).

 

BTW, I appreciate your well-written, well-thought out posts. I very much appreciate that the general tone of your posts is polite also.

Edited December 31, 2013 by OldTimer1960

[Sisyphean Bills]

Yes, there is such a thing.

 

It's unclear that even Pittsburgh, which is one of the few islands of stability in a sea frothy from churn, would give a QB 6 years these days to show he could play the position.

 

The truth is that there are good QBs coming out of college that have thrown thousands of reps and studied nuances of the passing game before they get to the NFL. They can be and are successful immediately.

 

On the other hand, a coach has to keep his eye on the ball -- it's all about winning. How many really care these days if you could maybe have molded a lump of clay into a serviceable QB with huge amounts of pain and patience? How many people would've been on board with Gailey tinkering with Fitzpatrick this past season and maybe a couple more as well? Even Buddy Nix saw that wasn't going to be the path.

[hondo in seattle]

You hang on to a QB until you find a better one.

 

If your QB isn't clearly a franchise QB, you continually look. You kick the tires on FAs. You're not afraid to use later round draft picks on QBs even if you have a "starter." You keep your old QB until you find someone better.

 

You hang onto young QBs as long as you believe in their potential. But that doesn't mean they start. They can learn on the bench like Rodgers and Brady did. You start the QB who gives you the best chance of winning.

[OldTimer1960]

Yes, there is such a thing.

 

It's unclear that even Pittsburgh, which is one of the few islands of stability in a sea frothy from churn, would give a QB 6 years these days to show he could play the position.

 

The truth is that there are good QBs coming out of college that have thrown thousands of reps and studied nuances of the passing game before they get to the NFL. They can be and are successful immediately.

 

On the other hand, a coach has to keep his eye on the ball -- it's all about winning. How many really care these days if you could maybe have molded a lump of clay into a serviceable QB with huge amounts of pain and patience? How many people would've been on board with Gailey tinkering with Fitzpatrick this past season and maybe a couple more as well? Even Buddy Nix saw that wasn't going to be the path.

 

OK, I'll give you Colin Kaepernick (who by the way needed a year in SF before playing much) and Russell Wilson - neither of whom were slam-dunks to have the success that they have. Who besides them, should the Bills have drafted (that was available at their pick) over the last 7 years? Maybe Nick Foles or Andy Dalton, but I don't recall them passing many great QBs by...

 

You hang on to a QB until you find a better one.

 

If your QB isn't clearly a franchise QB, you continually look. You kick the tires on FAs. You're not afraid to use later round draft picks on QBs even if you have a "starter." You keep your old QB until you find someone better.

 

You hang onto young QBs as long as you believe in their potential. But that doesn't mean they start. They can learn on the bench like Rodgers and Brady did. You start the QB who gives you the best chance of winning.

 

This is a sensible approach. I'd also add that you don't run the guy you have out of town instantaneously just because he isn't lighting the world on fire after year 1.

[OldTimer1960]

Yes, there is such a thing.

 

It's unclear that even Pittsburgh, which is one of the few islands of stability in a sea frothy from churn, would give a QB 6 years these days to show he could play the position.

 

The truth is that there are good QBs coming out of college that have thrown thousands of reps and studied nuances of the passing game before they get to the NFL. They can be and are successful immediately.

 

On the other hand, a coach has to keep his eye on the ball -- it's all about winning. How many really care these days if you could maybe have molded a lump of clay into a serviceable QB with huge amounts of pain and patience? How many people would've been on board with Gailey tinkering with Fitzpatrick this past season and maybe a couple more as well? Even Buddy Nix saw that wasn't going to be the path.

 

I don't see any of these "immediately successful" QBs on the list of SB winners above.

 

I don't debate that there are young QBs having very good success including Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton and I'll include Robert Griffin 3. However, that does not mean that there no longer are QBs who aren't immediately very good in the NFL but will get there with some experience.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I don't see any of these "immediately successful" QBs on the list of SB winners above.

 

I don't debate that there are young QBs having very good success including Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton and I'll include Robert Griffin 3. However, that does not mean that there no longer are QBs who aren't immediately very good in the NFL but will get there with some experience.

 

I wasn't saying that Manuel was a failure at this point. I agree that it is too early to know that for certain. By the same token, I am not sold that Manuel is the answer. He might improve, sure, but his improvement over this season was not what I'd like to have seen. (In the PC, Whaley talked about how he was expecting big improvement from his 1st to 2nd year; implicit to that is that Manuel may not have truly and firmly established himself as the long-term solution. Add Russ Brandon: "expecting marked improvement.")

 

But my response was really more to how long a "regime" has. Manuel is a potential survival decision for the Marrone middle management group. If they get it wrong, they stand very long odds against surviving to fix that mistake. Buddy and Chan didn't survive their lack of urgency at the QB position, and I doubt Doug Marrone is teflon in that regards. Can he stick with anyone for 6 years of losing seasons? I'd say, no.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

 

 

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?

 

Would Kelly have started his rookie year? Wasn't he comming off of a bum knee? Not sure who our QB was (am at an airport) but I am guessing he wasn't very good. While Kelly was impressive in Houston, I didn't watch him from the start and there is the question of similar talent around him. Certainly slinging the ball around like he did in Houston helped him develop and did wonders for his confidence. I have often wondered if he would have the same starting 2-12 in Buffalo. Especially when he didn't want to be here. We will never know, but glad it worked out like it did.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by SRQ_BillsFan

[OldTimer1960]

I wasn't saying that Manuel was a failure at this point. I agree that it is too early to know that for certain. By the same token, I am not sold that Manuel is the answer. He might improve, sure, but his improvement over this season was not what I'd like to have seen. (In the PC, Whaley talked about how he was expecting big improvement from his 1st to 2nd year; implicit to that is that Manuel may not have truly and firmly established himself as the long-term solution. Add Russ Brandon: "expecting marked improvement.")

 

But my response was really more to how long a "regime" has. Manuel is a potential survival decision for the Marrone middle management group. If they get it wrong, they stand very long odds against surviving to fix that mistake. Buddy and Chan didn't survive their lack of urgency at the QB position, and I doubt Doug Marrone is teflon in that regards. Can he stick with anyone for 6 years of losing seasons? I'd say, no.

 

I agree, coaches today don't have the luxury of losing for even 3 years, unless there is obvious progress being made. I am not completely sure that I agree with this approach, but it is what is happening. That said, I don't think you can run through more than a couple of young QBs in 3 years and have much idea what you have. I think 2 years for a young QB isn't always enough, yet if in year 3 the QB hasn't really righted the ship (or there isn't enough talent around him for him to do so), then the coach likely won't survive to see year 4.

 

At any rate, I can see the merit if the Bills want to hedge their bet on Manuel by taking a QB that they think has a chance to be good in the 2nd-4th round area. However, I think they still need to give Manuel another full year to show good progress. Heck, I don't think he was bad this year. He wasn't immediately great, but he wasn't awful except against Pittsburgh and Tampa.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

Buffalo and JP Losman!

 

 

Fitz was the starter for too long. We simply wanted him to prove everyone wrong.

[BobChalmers]

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

 

Actually, I'd go with Vick in Atlanta - they improved almost immediately after his departure.

[mattsox]

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.

 

I usually go for 3 years as a rule of thumb. But if he gets hurt as much as he did this season next, Time to find another QB ASAP!

[Sisyphean Bills]

I agree, coaches today don't have the luxury of losing for even 3 years, unless there is obvious progress being made. I am not completely sure that I agree with this approach, but it is what is happening. That said, I don't think you can run through more than a couple of young QBs in 3 years and have much idea what you have. I think 2 years for a young QB isn't always enough, yet if in year 3 the QB hasn't really righted the ship (or there isn't enough talent around him for him to do so), then the coach likely won't survive to see year 4.

 

At any rate, I can see the merit if the Bills want to hedge their bet on Manuel by taking a QB that they think has a chance to be good in the 2nd-4th round area. However, I think they still need to give Manuel another full year to show good progress. Heck, I don't think he was bad this year. He wasn't immediately great, but he wasn't awful except against Pittsburgh and Tampa.

 

Russ likes to talk tough, but he said he is expecting playoffs next year. And, improvement. He said he wasn't happy with the 6-10 result.

 

A backslide could cost Marrone his job even before 3 years are up. Continued 6-10 flat-lining would put him in the hot-seat for sure. 7-9 and 8-8 and another miss of the playoffs could make his seat very warm.

 

It's in their best interests to do more to increase competition at the position.

 

Critically, their moves this past season weren't all that great. If their plan was to keep a veteran and develop a rookie, then that was executed poorly in releasing Fitzpatrick and scraping the rime off the bottom of the FA barrel. It backfired badly. Manuel's own struggles both on the field and in staying healthy have put them in another bind: it's entirely unclear if he is the guy at this point. (The fact that some liked the talent of Tuel better in pre-season and Lewis better in the regular season is not a comforting thing.)