Great QBs should be able to succeed no matter what the rest of the team is like. A good QBs can develop into great QBs in the right situation. A bad QB will either fade away on the bench of a good team, or flame out as the too-soon starter on a bad team. You can never know for certain why a promising prospect goes one way or another (although it’s a lot of fun to speculate, ain’t it?).
On another note, any quick reference on what type of defense each team plays?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that the QB’s talent is the sole determination in whether they succeed or fail in the NFL. Development of that talent is, to me, vitally important. And a major part of the development is the players around them.
From your examples, I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what a bad team is.
Was drafted onto a team with a new head coach, a new owner, and, after going 1-15 his first year, good draft picks. His O Line included Pro Bowlers Kevin Gogan, Mark Tuinei, and Nate Newton, and they added Pro Bowlers Mark Stepnowski when Aikman came in. They had Michael Irvin to throw to, and got Emmitt Smith the year afterward. They had many of the pieces available, and a good coach, for Aikman to be succesful. Not exactly what I would call a bad team.
He’s Peyton fucking Manning.
The Rams had seriously upgraded their offensive line before drafting Bradford. They had drafted Jason Smith #2 the year before, had traded for and got Jacob Bell, and drafted Rodger Saffold with Bradford. They had Stephen Jackson in the backfield. They Rams are actually a good example, because they were rebuilding their team for a couple years before grabbing Bradford, so they got a high priced free agent to block in Bell, drafted a OT high the year before (instead of drafting a QB like Sanchez immediately and then building around him) and again in the second round where they got Saffold, and they had a solid running game. They were missing good WR’s to be sure, but Sam Bradford came into a good situation, in part because the Rams didn’t chase a QB the years before.
Again the Lions had spent their first picks the prior two years on positions that help a QB, at OT and Megatron at WR. And, if anything, Stafford is an example of what happens if you don’t have the O Line to protect a guy or a running game to take pressure off, because he’s been injured more than not. Had the Lions spent more time finding guys to protect him, he’d actually have started more games than he’s watched.
Was pretty bad his first three years in the league, and while certainly a very good quarterback, was on a team that had him throwing the ball like crazy. He is, however, one example that I would agree with you that developed into what he was without huge help from the rest of his team. And that was after 3 seasons of poor completion percentages, more ints than td’s, and sub 75 passer ratings.
I think this will end up being another one of our disagreements about football. The lucky thing for you is that any QB who succeeds, you can simply say they were more talented, and any QB who doesn’t, you can say they weren’t talented.
:dubious:
Is this really what you mean? If you don’t think most players’ development and performance varies greatly depending on the context of their team, coaches, etc., you’re at odds with just about every knowlegeable person I’ve ever read.
I think Omni raises a valid point but goes too far with it. But often people will say “Joey Harrington/Tim Couch/David Carr/etc. could’ve been good but were ruined by their situations”. How do we know that? What if they, like thousands of other draft picks with high expectations, simply sucked and wouldn’t have succeeded in a better situation anyway?
There are examples of players who were drafted into garbage and yet carried their team to greatness, and examples of where high expectation players went to good teams and still failed. Situation is generally overrated and individual talent is generally underrated.
But he goes too far with it, I think. Peyton Manning was going to succeed regardless, but perhaps a Tim Couch could’ve had a decent career starting for a decent team. But he was never going to be a Peyton Manning regardless, or he would’ve.
And how do we know Mark Sanchez, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Sam Bradford wouldn’t have sucked if they got drafted by the Browns, Texans, or Bears. Well, they all would’ve sucked if it was the Bears, the Bears couldn’t draft a good QB if their franchise depended on it.
And examples where talented QB’s were unsuccessful or where marginally talented QB’s have succeeded because of the talent around them.
I think the development of players is underrated and sheer athleticism is overrated. Some teams continue to be mired in mediocrity not only because of poor scouting, but also because they don’t do a good job of developing talent. I think there are a great number of extremely talented athletes who sucked rocks in the NFL because they either lacked the drive, were poorly coached, or weren’t developed enough to succeed.
In the end, it’s like most things, a bit of both. You’re not going to be a Pro Bowler without talent that is special, but that, in and of itself, isn’t going to get you there. But I still maintain that, this year especially, teams that are rebuilding should look after their surrounding talent and wait until next year to draft their franchise QB.
Especially if they think Cam Newton is their franchise QB.
With garbage still around them? :dubious: Cite?
Looking over the list of QBs above, the best example I see of guys succeeding despite coming into bad situations are Carson Palmer and Matt Ryan. The only first-rounders I see failing despite a good situation are Vince Young and Leftwich. And all of those cases seem pretty borderline.
Fun indeed. However I stand by my rationalization. If there are good QBs out there who were misused and badly developed on bad teams with bad supporting casts then there must be at least a couple passing examples of a QB getting traded or claimed off waivers and going on to success with a well run team.
Every one of these flame-out top QB picks got another shot, not a single one showed anything in the new teams camp to indicate that they had yet untapped ability. Unless you contend that these guys on bad teams are somehow irreparably damaged psychologically at least a couple of those guys would blossom under quality tutelage.
Tim Couch got a second shot and he still sucked. Brady Quinn got a second shot, not looking good. Ryan Leaf got a second chance and a third. Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Rick Mirer, Joey Harrington, the list goes on and on. If it was just that they were drafted too early into a system that didn’t have the proper support they’s have eventually showed something.
You mean what the NFL teams play? ESPN and NFL.com have each team’s base defense scheme shown on their depth chart.
I won’t go so far as to say SOLE, but it’s probably 80% or more. What is development? Coaching mechanics? Teaching in the class room? Customizing an offense to tend to his strengths? Teaching him to handle the media? Keeping him out of off-field trouble? Strength training regimen? It’s all of them and even more, but it’s fundamentally up to the player to help himself.
I cited players who were drafted onto barren rosters. Teams that were 0, 1, 2 and 3 win teams the year before and had been and would be drafting at the top of the draft for years to come. These are BAD teams and teams that drafted and started a QB when there was virtually no support around them. They become good later, with players added after they drafted the QB which is in direct conflict with your theory.
They were a terrible team. 3-13 and 1-15 in back to back years. Gogan was an 8th round pick who hadn’t shown anything and wasn’t even on the Cowboys when he made the Pro Bowl. He wasn’t even a starter when Aikman was drafted. Newton was an unknown USFL product and Tuinei was a undrafted FA who wasn’t made a starter until '87 and didn’t see a Pro Bowl until 94. Turner was on the Rams and wasn’t even a glimmer in Johnson’s eye yet. When Aikman was drafted they were as proven as the Panthers are now. You’re giving them retroactive credit for what happened later. If the Panthers draft Newton and they end up having a half dozen guy on their team now who become Pro-Bowlers in 2016 will you say they weren’t a bad team?
Maybe Newton will be Cam Fucking Newton.
Jason Smith only started 5 games in St Louis and was considered a potential bust when he couldn’t handle the LT spot. They had Incognito who they waived before the draft. They drafted Saffold AFTER drafting Bradford and couldn’t be sure he’d be available to them. Their picks from the previous years had been a string of busts that was comical. All they had was Jackson. The Panthers and Bills have solid running backs and could sign a FA OL and draft one in round 2 or 3. Would you say they are prepared to take a QB early? The Rams won 3 games or less in the 3 years prior to Bradford. They were TERRIBLE and hadn’t started effectively rebuilding anything.
They were 0-16. Enough said.
Maybe. But Bradford is an excellent example. If you draft an asset you can find a way to protect it and cultivate it in short order. The NFL allows quick turnarounds. If you get an opportunity to draft a stud you do it, regardless of how bad your line or WRs are. Deal with that later, because the one position you can’t address in FA or late in the draft with any degree of confidence is QB.
You want teams to wait on a QB. Teams to be conservative, draft lineman and defense and don’t bust on a 1st round QB. You want to play it safe. You’re basically the GM for the Bears.
I think it’s wildly overstated. Bradford had a bunch of nobodies as his WRs and an awful defense. They had a pair of OTs with a grand total of 5 starts between them. He had a head coach who’s a defensive guru and an OC who basically carried Andy Reid’s Ho-Hos for a decade and had iffy credentials. If anyone was ever set up to fail, it’s him. Prior to the draft many people thought they ought to take the safe pick in Suh and pick up a veteran FA QB in McNabb or someone.
Most smart NFL people tend to emphasize that you need to have good players, period. Pundits and newspaper writers looking to fill space and churn out angles. They talk about chemistry and pregame speeches. Local beat writers and bloggers trash the coaches and talk wistfully about the upside of 7th round picks. Everyone wants the backup QB to start when the starter falters. The guys that really know what they are talking about tend to talk about players as they are. Blue chips, red chips, the tape. Very few players in the league actually “develop” over time. They are rookies and they make mistakes but get better quickly, sometimes they wear down from the length of the season and need to adjust to the speed. By year 2 most are where they are going to be. The good ones tend to be good right away and the average ones sometimes grow into good ones when they get stronger and learn the system. As they say, tape don’t lie.
Hamlet, in 2009, the Lions were 21st in sacks allowed. In 2010, they were 26th. The problem isn’t necessarily the offensive line. The hit that knocked Stafford out in 2009, was him scrambling outside of the pocket. That’s not on the offensive line. The one in 2010 was a clean sack; the only one that game given up. They’re more freak occurrences/Stafford being injury-prone. I’m not completely sold on the offensive line prospects in this draft. It seems like the top 4 prospects are pretty much on par, and that the Lions would be better served taking a linebacker or a cornerback with their first round pick.
Steve Young was horrible with the Buccaneers and went on to amazing success with the 49ers.
Getting better. And QB’s get better the more they play, the more they are coached, the more they learn, and the more they work. Same with almost every position. The reasons it takes most players a couple years to become Pro Bowlers is because they develop.
That unpossible, because players with talent don’t develop. Gogan, Newton and Tuinei had the talent to be great, and that’s all it took.
They had been rebuilding for a couple years, just as I said. It’s not like they magically got stunningly better when they drafted Bradford, they had been rebuilding along the lines and had a running game when he got there. And it was because they waited to grab Bradford and didn’t reach for a QB in the two prior drafts that they’re now successful.
You’re still not getting it. As Senor Beef and garygnu stated, stud QB’s can succeed without all the tools around them (its a lot harder though). But true stud QB’s are quite rare, and Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert are not, in my estimation, stud QB’s. So the teams that are looking to draft them in the top 10 this year should wait until next year and build the rest of their team first.
And you can rarely deal with it early in the first either with any degree of confidence. I would, however, much rather trade for a good backup on a good team, like Matt Schaub, Matt Flynn, Kevin Kolb, or Brett Favre, than spend the #1 pick on Cam Newton.
Omni, do attitude and work ethic fall under “talent?” Cause most players and coaches I know of say that work ethic is a huge part of success in the NFL (example). And NFL players would be unique psychological specimens indeed if the attitudes and work ethic of players and coaches around them had so little influence on them. Indeed, many players talk about the difference in the environments and habits of winning and losing teams, so I don’t buy the idea that this is only “Pundits and newspaper writers.”
I think you’re right here – but I think it speaks more to Hamlet’s idea of guys getting ruined early on than it does to the idea that players can’t develop, because there are plenty of quality guys who weren’t drafted high by anyone – meaning *nobody *thought they had top-level skills. Looking at the 31 guys who qualified for starting status last year, I see 16 who were not first-round picks. If we limit it to the top 5-10 picks it gets even smaller.
Indeed, looking at the above-average (top 16 by rating) starters last year, I see only three who were top-of-the-first round picks for their team (Rivers, P. Manning and Ryan). I see three guys picked lower down in the first (Rodgers, Roethlisberger and Freeman), meaning several teams needing QBs passed on them, and I see six guys who were clearly developmental projects that were passed up by everyone (Brady, Cassell, Schaub, Garrard, Orton, Kitna) as not having enough talent. I also count seven acquired through free-agency or trade.
So … they develop?
I do appreciate the attempt to be concrete, but I don’t think focusing on Sam Bradford (or other guys in their first year or two) is useful.
As an aside, do you still have the ESPN Insider Omni? Anyone else? There was an article that was referenced in this blog post that I wanted to get a look at. It breaks down the Packers O Line and I was wondering how detailed and whether it was any good. Anybody read it?
Here’s the Packers’ portion:
The Packers’ offensive line was obviously good enough to help Green Bay win the Lombardi trophy, but it isn’t an elite group – and there could be some changes for next season.
Daryn Colledge is a free agent and very well could move on. He is probably the only subtraction from last year’s line. The Packers will probably consider drafting an offensive tackle to eventually replace Chad Clifton or Mark Tauscher. But Clifton and Tauscher should be back, and Bryan Bulaga was drafted to be the eventual replacement at one of the tackle spots. He is best suited for the right side, and although he took his share of lumps as a rookie, Bulaga improved as the season went along. He needs to improve a great deal to justify such a move, but he could eventually move to the left side. For now, Clifton is still more than serviceable.
The strongest portion of this line is at center and right guard. Scott Wells is a vastly underrated center, and Josh Sitton might just be the best guard in the league. Sitton is far and away the best offensive lineman in the NFC North.
T.J. Lang is a versatile, young lineman who could fill in at any of three positions in a pinch, but isn’t ideally suited to start at any of the above spots. But if Colledge leaves, he is probably the one next in line for the starting left guard spot. Bulaga could take that position if Tauscher were back and healthy or if Green Bay drafted another starting-caliber tackle. But Tauscher’s production fell off more than Clifton’s last season, and trusting both Clifton and Tauscher to stay healthy might be wishful thinking.
Only four offenses averaged fewer yards per carry than Green Bay during the regular season, but the running back position obviously had something to do with that after Ryan Grant was injured. Overall, the Packers’ pass protection was much improved from 2009. Aaron Rodgers is very athletic and now has a fantastic understanding of defenses, making him more difficult to sack than earlier in his career, when he had a penchant for holding the ball while trying to make a big play.
I left him out because of the time spent in the USFL. He was pretty successful there in a weird situation.
Well, you hated the Cutler deal. I suspect Kolb will get probably 80% of that with less of a resume. Which is it? Spend a ton for a marginally proven backup or spend 1 draft pick for a rookie who might be the next Peyton Manning…or Ryan Leaf. There are plenty of examples of teams trading for backups that failed too. We’ve covered Cassel, and I’m not believing in him leading that team anywhere, the Bears rolled the dice with Mirer, the Lions thought they were getting something in Scott Mitchell. Jeff Hoestetler didn’t really work out, nor did Chris Chandler.
The cheapest way to get a QB is to draft one. There’s no such thing as a “safe” strategy.
It absolutely falls under “talent”. Work ethic and character are inherent. I think that just about everyone in the NFL in any leadership position has an exceptional work ethic, Steve Spurrier excepted. Players rightly talk about good habits and work making the difference, but that isn’t instilled by the coaches or captains. It’s something players bring themselves. There’s bunch of players out there with crappy work ethics on the same rosters with some of the most professional players in the league under some of the hardest working coaches. It’s not like Jeff Fisher and Mike Shanahan run a loose ship allowing Haynesworth to act the fool.
I just think this angle over simplifies a complex situation. NFL teams are comprised of 20+ coaches and staff and 60+ players. No team has a “good work ethic” or “bad habits”. They all have individuals who run the gamut. If a rookie joins a club and chooses to show up in the weight room at 7 AM he’ll find a handful of players there who will influence him on any team. If the player shows up at the club at 2 AM he’ll find a half dozen players to split bottle service with on any team.
I think of it like going to college. There are freshman who’ll go to Harvard who’ll spend too much time sleeping in and drinking and flame out, there are kids at Arizona State who’ll crack the books and become Rhodes Scholars. There are schools with higher proportions of each, but that’s defined by the kids they accept. NFL teams are the same, teams have higher percentages of workers because they specifically draft team not because their “culture” sculpts them.
See above. I don’t think kids can be “ruined” on a team short of being injured. I think they make choices, and those choices are largely independent of the team they are on. Unless you’re going to stipulate that a team discouraged them from working hard or didn’t provide them with coaches or facilities, and on the Raiders that might be the case, that kid can make the most of any situation.
I’m not going to go too deep into it, but your analysis of the proportions of QBs ignores the fact that there are only 5 top 5 picks in any class, there are 230 or so picks elsewhere.
If half the starting QB were first round picks but only 15% of the QBs drafted overall are first rounders, that’s pretty strong incentive to draft one in the first round.
I’ve lost may train of thought here but I’m pretty sure I never meant to say that players don’t develop, I’m saying that they aren’t molded. They become what they become because of what’s inherent in themselves.
What’s the alternative?
That’s not true. As a Packer fan, I liked it alot. Still do. The Bears should could’ve used those 2 first round picks, a third rounder, and a starting QB who has done statistically as well as, if not better, than Cutler.
Matt Cassell had a higher QB rating, more touchdowns and less than half of Cutler’s interception total last year. And he made the Pro Bowl and Cutler didn’t. And he cost less than half of Cutler.
I know we’re not talking about Cassel v. Cutler. But it made me smile.
I’m going to put on my Mel gel and McShay tighty whiteys and power through a Mock Draft of my own over the course of the next couple days. I invite criticism. We’ll see how far into the draft I get.
I suspect that Rivera, a defensive minded guy that comes from the Buddy Ryan school and hiring McDermott who comes out of the Jim Johnson school, will be running a blitz heavy attacking system. He’ll probably run some sort of a hybrid system that favors the 4-3 slightly but will want DEs who can stand up and LBs who can come forward. They’ll go all out to resign Charles Johnson and lock up the DE position, or at least they need to draft as if DE isn’t a primary need. That leaves DT. Rivera drafted Tommie Harris and built a defense around the attacking 3-technique. I think they go that direction here. Dareus is the perfect fit, he can step in right away and he’s versatile enough to play both as a 3-technique, a 5-technique and even a 1-technique in a pinch. If Rivera wants to play a evolutionary 46 defense, having an attacking DT who can play all over the field against the run and pass while drawing attention away from a Pro Bowl DE is pure gold, moreso than a starting QB. Plus the Panthers might be bad enough next year to get Andrew Luck.
Marcell Dareus, DT, Alabama
The Broncos are switching to a 4-3 and their front 7 actually fits that scheme a bit better than the 3-4 they were using last season. Dumervil and Ayers were basically DEs in college and seemed to struggle at the OLB position, the Broncos need to assume they’ll be revitalized playing with a hand in the dirt. DJ Williams if he’s back, will be able to get back to the Will where he played well as a rookie. Von Miller might be the best defensive player in the draft but he’s a pass rusher and ideally a 3-4 OLB. Not a fit or a need for the Broncos unless they want him to convert to a DE give up on the other two guys. The Broncos, like the Panthers, are in bad shape at DT but can they gamble with Fairley here? Will Fox and Elway take a chance with a one hit wonder? Fairley, if he’s the guy we saw in the BCS title game, is a perfect fit here in Denver.
The Broncos resigned Champ Bailey and still need help in the secondary. The other option for the Broncos is Patrick Peterson, the top player on my board, and might look great opposite Bailey. The CB position is pretty shaky in this draft and there are going to be options at DT later in the draft. Because of that I think the Broncos should and will recognize the value in Peterson here. Pass rush and coverage go hand in hand and having a pair of first rate CBs could make those young DEs look pretty good. The caveat is that Fox will run a lot more zone coverage in his scheme than they did before which will benefit an aging Bailey but might make Peterson a bit of a luxury. Still, Fox’s CBs need to tackle and Peterson’s size is a value that I can’t see him passing up.
Patrick Peterson, CB, LSU
The one bit of good fortune for the Bills is that Von Miller has slid to them. Some people’s top prospect just happens to be a perfect fit on the outside of their 3-4 and could remind Buffalonians of Bruce Smith. That’d sell me tickets more than an entitled bitchy QB diva in Newton. This team made a big mistake 2 years ago drafting Maybin but he was a conversion project that just didn’t work out, Miller is a natural fit. The only question left is what will the Bills do, go with the sizzle in Newton or the steak in Miller. I confess to thinking Miller is a bit overrated and he seems undersized and underpowered for the NFL but he’s a perfect fit here. All in all, I think the Bills find some sanity and take Miller. They are in a great position to grab a Locker or Ponder in the 2nd round or with a trade up and I think both guys would be good fits learning behind Fitzpatrick or they could wait a year and hope for Luck.
Von Miller, OLB, Texas A&M
I haven’t heard one single stitch of a hint of a rumor that Dareus will be the guy in Charlotte. That doesn’t mean anything, of course, since I’m not in Marty Hurney’s rolodex, but all the local sports writers are saying Newton is the pick for sure. I would MUCH prefer they go with Peterson. They have enough needs that they should go with the best player if they can’t trade down.
The elephant in the room for this club is the Carson Palmer situation and it’s where the organization will make it’s first big mistake. I understand being a hardliner when negotiating, especially when you’re a small market team in a undesirable location for UFAs, but in this specific case the Bengals really need to listen to Palmer. Virtually no one thinks he’s bluffing except Mike Brown and in this game of chicken Bengals fans are going to end up being the ones crunched. With Palmer asking out the Bengals probably should be looking at a QB to replace him which means Gabbert or Newton. Can Mike Brown draft a QB AND stick to his guns about not trading Palmer, I tend to think not.
The best player left on my board just happens to be a decent fit for the Bengals in A.J. Green. The Bengals WRs were actually pretty good last season and even though they will probably be without both TO and Ochocinco the group they have with Simpson, Shipley, Caldwell and Gresham are not awful. They lack a attention getting stud and will regress with opponents schemes shifting to them in TOcho’s absence but they could wait on the position if they choose, plus Ocho might be back. All that said, A.J. Green would really elevate this group and allow Lewis and Brown to officially turn the page on the previous chapter at the position. If they honestly think Palmer will be back it’s tough to argue against this pick.
So, in our little internal debate we need to try and guess what manner of craziness will win out. Brown’s stubbornness in thinking Palmer will be back as the franchise QB for the balance of his contract, or that Cam Newton has the potential to be an elite QB in Cincy. I contend that the smart pick for the Bengals is to take Gabbert and to plan on trading Palmer while adding a Hankerson in round 2. The next best option is taking Green and picking up a Ponder or Dalton in round 2. If Palmer’s contract was up and the Bengals knew he was leaving I’m 100% sure they’d take Newton and all the baggage. With Palmer in the picture do they ignore QB or not?
Cam Newton, QB, Auburn
Everything I’ve heard indicates an extremely high likelyhood of Cam Newton going to Carolina, and if that doesn’t happen, a nearly 100% chance that he goes to Buffalo.
More thoughts:
First, Kudos to Omni for the font of the teams being their team colors. Fantastic touch.
Second, I would be really surprised if the Newton to Carolina was a smokescreen. Since they can’t negotiate with him, there won’t be the usual “they’ve reached a contract” news story, but I have no reason to doubt they’ll go with Newton.
Third, what is a smokescreen is the Colts and Pats being interested in grabbing future QB’s in the first round to back up and develop behind their studs. Those rumors are, to my mind, nothing more than to up the price they get for trading down with desperate teams.
Fourth, I think Ryan Mallet will go in the mid first round, even though I don’t think he’s worth it.
Fifth, I am getting excited to see how the Packers work this draft. This is a pretty deep draft, I think, and with talent at Dline and OLine being deep, their needs fit the draft.
Sixth, I’m finalizing my list of my guys/your guys. There’s a few guys who show up on both lists.