Sticking With a QB Too Long

[Mark Vader]

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

I agree with this.

 

Vick was an exciting player when he first came on the scene, but after several years it was as if the Falcons were starting him simply because he was the first overall pick in 2001.

 

Meanwhile they had Matt Schaub sitting on the bench.

[justnzane]

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

Ha, you are kidding right? They went 4-12 the year he was locked up. This was after years of being mediocre to good under Ron Mexico.

[Dibs]

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.

.....

 

Hehe....another good definition needed. To me modern era starts around the time that free agency started.....maybe a little earlier. With both FA and the passing game starting to dominate, the NFL was changed in many obvious and subtle ways.

 

Though you could slot Young into being an exception to the rule, I tend to think that sitting behind a future HOFer allows legitimate leeway to the rule. I have been assured by several posters who saw Young play at TB that he indeed showed elements of greatness when there(that it was the organization and team that were the major factors).

 

You mentioned Aikman and Gannon earlier. Neither fit IMO as Aikman made the pro bowl in his 3rd season.....and Gannon wasn't of the level of QB that we are talking about(he found himself in a great situation late in his career where he excelled.....but I don't think anyone can strongly argue that he was a great QB in the manner of the other QBs being discussed).

 

I think Brees is the only legitimate late blooming star QB in the modern era(coming good in his 4th year). Rogers sat for 3 years behind a future HOFer(Favre), so his situation is understandable. Rivers(is he great?) sat 2 years behind a future HOFer(Brees).

 

I could be wrong but I can see only Young who can be seen as an exception to the rule.....and there were exceptional circumstances in his case.

[Prickly Pete]

Joe Ferguson.

[Sisyphean Bills]

 

Hehe....another good definition needed. To me modern era starts around the time that free agency started.....maybe a little earlier. With both FA and the passing game starting to dominate, the NFL was changed in many obvious and subtle ways.

 

Though you could slot Young into being an exception to the rule, I tend to think that sitting behind a future HOFer allows legitimate leeway to the rule. I have been assured by several posters who saw Young play at TB that he indeed showed elements of greatness when there(that it was the organization and team that were the major factors).

 

You mentioned Aikman and Gannon earlier. Neither fit IMO as Aikman made the pro bowl in his 3rd season.....and Gannon wasn't of the level of QB that we are talking about(he found himself in a great situation late in his career where he excelled.....but I don't think anyone can strongly argue that he was a great QB in the manner of the other QBs being discussed).

 

I think Brees is the only legitimate late blooming star QB in the modern era(coming good in his 4th year). Rogers sat for 3 years behind a future HOFer(Favre), so his situation is understandable. Rivers(is he great?) sat 2 years behind a future HOFer(Brees).

 

I could be wrong but I can see only Young who can be seen as an exception to the rule.....and there were exceptional circumstances in his case.

 

Sometimes there really is a square peg and round hole situation. Brees' emergence in Sean Payton's system is obvious, but consider that Marty Schottenheimer and Cam Cameron ran a much different style of offense.

 

FWIW, fixing poor mechanics and accuracy problems isn't a snap. Josh Freeman being a recent example of a guy who has struggled.

[Charles Romes]

In this century the answer is David Carr. Going back a few decades the answer is Ken O'Brien. Always had a huge sack percentage which does not show up in the QB ratings, and so they let him start for 9 years. Had a good arm but pretty much had no ability to sense the pocket collapsing. Always felt the Bills had the advantage against the Jets because of O'Brien's limitations.

[RuntheDamnBall]

 

 

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?

Rodgers. Steve Young?

[cosmo]

Matt Schaub is a perfect example of how long you should stick with a QB. He looked decent with some potential then bam! 2013 comes around, he goes down in flames and now they have the #1 pick. Lets stick with EJ and if he really isn't good, eventually he'll blow up our season and we'll get the first pick haha.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Sometimes there really is a square peg and round hole situation. Brees' emergence in Sean Payton's system is obvious, but consider that Marty Schottenheimer and Cam Cameron ran a much different style of offense.

 

If you're speaking of Brees as "round peg in square hole" with SD, it should be remembered that after sitting 1 season behind Flutie, he was a pretty good QB the 1st year he played.

By his 4th season (3rd season of play) he was a Pro-bowler and wound up being franchised by the Chargers.

 

The Chargers let go of him because 1) there was a significant chance he had a career-ending injury 2) he turned down the 5 yr/$50 million deal they offered him (and they didn't want to up the offer given the injury)

[Mr. WEO]

 

Hehe....another good definition needed. To me modern era starts around the time that free agency started.....maybe a little earlier. With both FA and the passing game starting to dominate, the NFL was changed in many obvious and subtle ways.

 

Though you could slot Young into being an exception to the rule, I tend to think that sitting behind a future HOFer allows legitimate leeway to the rule. I have been assured by several posters who saw Young play at TB that he indeed showed elements of greatness when there(that it was the organization and team that were the major factors).

 

You mentioned Aikman and Gannon earlier. Neither fit IMO as Aikman made the pro bowl in his 3rd season.....and Gannon wasn't of the level of QB that we are talking about(he found himself in a great situation late in his career where he excelled.....but I don't think anyone can strongly argue that he was a great QB in the manner of the other QBs being discussed).

 

I think Brees is the only legitimate late blooming star QB in the modern era(coming good in his 4th year). Rogers sat for 3 years behind a future HOFer(Favre), so his situation is understandable. Rivers(is he great?) sat 2 years behind a future HOFer(Brees).

 

I could be wrong but I can see only Young who can be seen as an exception to the rule.....and there were exceptional circumstances in his case.

 

This was mentioned above. Brees was named starter at the beginning of his 2nd season. He was a Pro Bowler in his 3rd season (Rivers's rookie year) and his 4th season.

 

 

Rodgers. Steve Young?

 

Steve Young came out of college and played 2 seasons in the USFL. He then started 19 games over 2 seasons in Tampa. He really didn't "sit the bench" until his 5th year playing pro football--in SF. Even there, when he came off the bench, he played very well. He was clearly very good QB who was stuck behind a HOF QB.

 

There is no reason to believe that Young wouldn't have been successful immediately if Montana wasn't there. He was on such a bad team in Tampa. I don't think Young had to "develop" behind Montana, at all--he was ready.

[dave mcbride]

For me, Ken O'Brien stands out above the pack. He had a great second season and pretty good third season but was mediocre forever after. The Jets made the playoffs in years 2 and 3 of his career, but never afterward. And they were believers in him for a long time (he started all the way through 1991):

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/O/OBriKe00.htm

 

And as Charles Romes points out above, he had an extremely high sack rate.

Edited January 1, 2014 by dave mcbride

[Sisyphean Bills]

If you're speaking of Brees as "round peg in square hole" with SD, it should be remembered that after sitting 1 season behind Flutie, he was a pretty good QB the 1st year he played.

By his 4th season (3rd season of play) he was a Pro-bowler and wound up being franchised by the Chargers.

 

The Chargers let go of him because 1) there was a significant chance he had a career-ending injury 2) he turned down the 5 yr/$50 million deal they offered him (and they didn't want to up the offer given the injury)

 

Brees was always a good QB. As was Steve Young. Some people didn't and don't see that however. The Bucs problem when Young played under Leeman Bennett were not Steve Young. The guy "struggled" because he was in a system that didn't use his skill set well and he was surrounded by a really awful team. The Brees case is similar, but arguably to a lesser degree. It is well known that Martyball is about the running game. LaDainian Tomlinson was "the guy" then. I wasn't trying to imply that Drew Brees had no skills, but he wasn't destroying the record books in the Martyball offense. He gets with Sean Payton and he's lighting it up, annihilating record books, putting up league MVP numbers, winning Super Bowls... Not a different guy, but statistically on a different plane.

 

I've also heard Rich Gannon really praise Jon Gruden and how he helped him to become an MVP sort of player at the position. I think he fits what I am driving at above as well. He was a scrub under Jerry Burns, who was not a WCO coach. Denny Green installs the WCO and he has a pretty good season. He then moves on the the Richie Petitbon train wreck, then languished for a few years of Martyball. (He wasn't the QB with the howitzer arm that could throw it over the top consistently.) It wasn't until he finally ends up in Oakland and playing in the WCO under Gruden that he finally regains his standing as an excellent QB that has the short-range accuracy and cerebral talent to dissect defenses. If not for the Tuck Rule and the Gruden trade, he might have won a ring for the notorious kings of dysfunction.

[BillnutinHouston]

tough to drop a guy that makes a pro bowl and you are winning a lot of games with. you start thinking "we can win with this guy" and that's how kordell has a 8-yr career.

 

It's actually what made the niners move last year going with kap so unbelievable. They were winning and still benched smith (albeit the injury opened the door).

This is correct. Rarely is a starter SO consistently bad that the task of evaluation is easy.

 

I know of several Bills QBs that I thought played well in short stretches, and those stretches gave me hope that the future progression would continue. I have to look no further than the Fitz an Edwards jerseys in my closet to validate this.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

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.

 

Those players you mention in abstract are the exception, not the rule.

 

Since 2009, 13 quarterbacks have been drafted in the first round.

 

Of those 13 only Andrew Luck and Cam Newton look like true franchise quarterbacks. You can include RG3 and Matthew Stafford if you'd like.

 

One can increase the scope to include QBs taken in the first 3 rounds like Kaepernick, Russell Wilson, Andy Dalton, and Nick Foles but then you'd also have to add guys like Brock Osweiler, Ryan Mallett, Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy, and Pat White.

 

The inarguable fact is that the bust rate for highly-drafted QBs remains as it has always been: very high, a fact people around here don't acknowledge.

[Bronc24]

 

 

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.

 

If you look at your list, even the "good" QBs played "great" in the playoff run. The question is whether a QB is good enough to elevate his play for that playoff run in a playoff atmosphere. You need QB production in this league to win. The other 52 matter, but none as much as the QB.

[gobillsinytown]

I remember reading one of those NFL preview magazines in the early 90's that made the statement: "It generally takes a quarterback five years to understand an offense and (Jim) Kelly arrived right on schedule".

In the modern era, a quarterback gets maybe three years, depending on whether the staff that drafted him survives that long.

Obviously the quality of the team around the QB matters, but usually as the QB goes, so goes the team. This is why all of the teams that struggle have an unsettled situation at QB.

So for example, how long do the fish stick with Tannehill? He's been a decent game manager, but is he going be the guy that gets them over the top? And of course, the jury is definitely out on EJ.

[Bronc24]

I remember reading one of those NFL preview magazines in the early 90's that made the statement: "It generally takes a quarterback five years to understand an offense and (Jim) Kelly arrived right on schedule".

In the modern era, a quarterback gets maybe three years, depending on whether the staff that drafted him survives that long.

Obviously the quality of the team around the QB matters, but usually as the QB goes, so goes the team. This is why all of the teams that struggle have an unsettled situation at QB.

So for example, how long do the fish stick with Tannehill? He's been a decent game manager, but is he going be the guy that gets them over the top? And of course, the jury is definitely out on EJ.

 

I would say there are way more college offenses using pro systems now than in the 90s so QBs are more ready for the pro game. Your point on Tannehill shows it doesn't always translate to success vs. NFL defenses.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Those players you mention in abstract are the exception, not the rule.

 

Since 2009, 13 quarterbacks have been drafted in the first round.

 

Of those 13 only Andrew Luck and Cam Newton look like true franchise quarterbacks. You can include RG3 and Matthew Stafford if you'd like.

 

One can increase the scope to include QBs taken in the first 3 rounds like Kaepernick, Russell Wilson, Andy Dalton, and Nick Foles but then you'd also have to add guys like Brock Osweiler, Ryan Mallett, Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy, and Pat White.

 

The inarguable fact is that the bust rate for highly-drafted QBs remains as it has always been: very high, a fact people around here don't acknowledge.

 

I think you're shoving words in my mouth too fast here. I never said anything about "franchise QBs". I never made lists nor did I create artificial levels and cherry pick. I never said anything about it being a perfect science. Nor did I imply that there is 100% success rate.

 

What I said was exactly the opposite, in fact. Thanks for backing me up that it is far from 100% certain that EJ Manuel is going to be a franchise QB. Yes, it is NOT an exact science and there is no reason to assume that the Bills (or you) got it right with Manuel at this point. He looked stinky bad at times this season and has a very long way to go.

 

Let's be clear: Manuel is not a given. (I know you personally liked him and are invested in that sense.) I fully expect that the Bills coaches will be working with him to make him a better player this off-season. It's obvious that he needs the work. It's a no-brainer to say this is going to occur.

 

Still, Marrone's regime's fate rests entirely on results. He knows this, as he said it crystal clear in the year-end PC. Brandon even rammed it home multiple times in multiple ways that there is an urgency for improvement on the field and Doug and Doug were responsible to deliver that result. It's not that big of a stretch to connect the dots that Marrone's survival rests largely on how the QB situation for the team is addressed. The tone of that press conference was not one of the brain trust triplets taking a long view of hoping a project will pan out in 5 or 6 seasons. It was not another Buddy or Marv PC where the message was patience and pain. I don't take them for idiots; they surely know that the chances the team undergoes a change in ownership in the next 5 or 6 years are very high. At the present moment, Manuel may be their best option at the position, but they'd be fools to cavalierly pass up better options.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I think you're shoving words in my mouth too fast here. I never said anything about "franchise QBs". I never made lists nor did I create artificial levels and cherry pick. I never said anything about it being a perfect science. Nor did I imply that there is 100% success rate.

 

What I said was exactly the opposite, in fact. Thanks for backing me up that it is far from 100% certain that EJ Manuel is going to be a franchise QB. Yes, it is NOT an exact science and there is no reason to assume that the Bills (or you) got it right with Manuel at this point. He looked stinky bad at times this season and has a very long way to go.

 

Let's be clear: Manuel is not a given. (I know you personally liked him and are invested in that sense.) I fully expect that the Bills coaches will be working with him to make him a better player this off-season. It's obvious that he needs the work. It's a no-brainer to say this is going to occur.

 

Still, Marrone's regime's fate rests entirely on results. He knows this, as he said it crystal clear in the year-end PC. Brandon even rammed it home multiple times in multiple ways that there is an urgency for improvement on the field and Doug and Doug were responsible to deliver that result. It's not that big of a stretch to connect the dots that Marrone's survival rests largely on how the QB situation for the team is addressed. The tone of that press conference was not one of the brain trust triplets taking a long view of hoping a project will pan out in 5 or 6 seasons. It was not another Buddy or Marv PC where the message was patience and pain. I don't take them for idiots; they surely know that the chances the team undergoes a change in ownership in the next 5 or 6 years are very high. At the present moment, Manuel may be their best option at the position, but they'd be fools to cavalierly pass up better options.

 

You totally misconstrued my post and I put zero words in your mouth.

 

In counterpoint to you saying:

 

"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."

 

I replied that "Those players you mention in abstract are the exception, not the rule".

 

It's as simple as that your comment needed context.

 

On a separate point it goes without saying that Whaley and Marrone have hitched their wagon to Manuel.

 

While Chudzinski gets fired in one year while Jim Schwartz gets 5 years most people with historical perspective understand that most GM/Coach/QBs get 3 years. Perhaps the current crew will only get 2 years. Whatever.

 

As far as your last point about "being fools to cavalierly pass up better options," I again cite my advocacy of possibly drafting another quarterback in the first round:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/163868-greg-cosell-glennon-is-best-qb-in-rookie-class-and-it-is-not-eve/page__st__180#entry2988868

[Thunderstealer]

If a first round drafted QB doesn't have a variety show and a clothing line by week eight, it's obvious he just cant cut it.