Another Look At QBs: Round Drafted, Pro Bowls, and Superbowls

[burmafrd]

More pressure on them as well. How many might have been good QB's if they were given a chance like Palmer to sit back for a year or even two and look and absorb before being put into the game. Landry used to say that he wanted a young QB to spend 2 years holding the clipboard, then another year getting exhibition and garbage time, the next year more time, then the 5th year he would be ready. NOW, with the game much more complicated, they expect results right away and start them as rookies. DUMB.

 

[gbrittain]

More pressure on them as well. How many might have been good QB's if they were given a chance like Palmer to sit back for a year or even two and look and absorb before being put into the game. Landry used to say that he wanted a young QB to spend 2 years holding the clipboard, then another year getting exhibition and garbage time, the next year more time, then the 5th year he would be ready. NOW, with the game much more complicated, they expect results right away and start them as rookies. DUMB.

I agree with you for the most part. Except that I think it is unrealistic in todays NFL to sit a guy for more than a year if you have invested a high pick and big $$$.

 

[bobtheflob]

More pressure on them as well. How many might have been good QB's if they were given a chance like Palmer to sit back for a year or even two and look and absorb before being put into the game. Landry used to say that he wanted a young QB to spend 2 years holding the clipboard, then another year getting exhibition and garbage time, the next year more time, then the 5th year he would be ready. NOW, with the game much more complicated, they expect results right away and start them as rookies. DUMB.

The salary cap probably has something to do with that. With the amount of money invested in a first round pick teams can't really afford to let them sit that long.

 

[Seven]

I think alot has to do with the situation the QB goes into. Maybe if Carr was in an organization that had a clue, he would be a pro-bowler by now. If Roethlisberger had went to Oakland, or NY, would he be as well known, or anywhere near as well regarded? I doubt it.

Could not, even if you gave me 100 bucks to say so.........agree with you more. If Ben went to Oakland, he'd be a bust. Dilfer, with a great Ravens defense, was perfect. Johnson with Tampa.......like peanut butter and jelly.
etcetra, etcetra.

 

[gbrittain]

Could not, even if you gave me 100 bucks to say so.........agree with you more. If Ben went to Oakland, he'd be a bust. Dilfer, with a great Ravens defense, was perfect. Johnson with Tampa.......like peanut butter and jelly.
etcetra, etcetra.

That sounds good in theory, but not entirely correct IMO. Sure if Big Ben went to Oakland instead of Pittsburgh he would not have been as successful as he has been with Pittsburgh.

I understand the team dynamics. The better the team surrounding the QB the better the QB will look.

The fact of the matter is some QBs are better than other QBs. I do not buy for one second that QBs are just plug and play parts for a team. If that were true I would suspect that a QB injury would not be the most feared injury in football. How many teams can afford to lose a QB due to injury and never look back.

It is pretty much widely accepted that if a team loses their established QB for any substantial period of time that the team will suffer greatly.

Subtract Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Bledsoe, Jake Delhomme, Carson Palmer, Ben R, or McNabb just to name a few from their respective teams for the next year and see if expectations change drastically for the upcoming NFL season?

The fact of the matter is that QBs are not plug and play. If I were to accept the theory in question when a star QB goes down it should not be that big of a deal since said team is so good the back up should come in and the team will never miss a beat.

So yes, part of what you say is true. QBs "look" much better or worse depending on the situation they are put in. I would just say that the team may make a QB look better or worse than they are and we as fans probably over value or under value them based on this depending on the situation, but the team does not make a good QB a good QB and a bad QB a bad QB.

 

[Seven]

That sounds good in theory, but not entirely correct IMO. Sure if Big Ben went to Oakland instead of Pittsburgh he would not have been as successful as he has been with Pittsburgh.

Yep.

I understand the team dynamics. The better the team surrounding the QB the better the QB will look.

Correct sir. Goes without saying. However, in any given situation the offense is tailored to a QB's ability. No matter how dynamic or anemic that offense is. I don't think Ben looked good at all. I thought he did what was needed to win.

The fact of the matter is some QBs are better than other QBs. I do not buy for one second that QBs are just plug and play parts for a team. If that were true I would suspect that a QB injury would not be the most feared injury in football. How many teams can afford to lose a QB due to injury and never look back.

There are always gonna be better one's. At every position, in every facet of life. I agree they are not plug and play but.....when looking to acquire a QB one wouldn't draft a Roethlesberger for a Indy type offense.
A QB going down with injury makes us all cringe, your right. Not many teams could trudge forward and be successful. But the situation would change for the offense based on what the replacement can and cannot do.

It is pretty much widely accepted that if a team loses their established QB for any substantial period of time that the team will suffer greatly.

In 99% if the instances, you bet. It's because the situation changes offensively.

Subtract Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Bledsoe, Jake Delhomme, Carson Palmer, Ben R, or McNabb just to name a few from their respective teams for the next year and see if expectations change drastically for the upcoming NFL season?

The fact of the matter is that QBs are not plug and play. If I were to accept the theory in question when a star QB goes down it should not be that big of a deal since said team is so good the back up should come in and the team will never miss a beat.

My theory was represented as to drafting and or acquiring a new/different QB. Not if one suddenly goes down with injury.

So yes, part of what you say is true. QBs "look" much better or worse depending on the situation they are put in. I would just say that the team may make a QB look better or worse than they are and we as fans probably over value or under value them based on this depending on the situation, but the team does not make a good QB a good QB and a bad QB a bad QB.

Absolutely they do. A good QB could become a great QB (Young)depending on the team around him. And with that being said, a good QB could become a horrible (Aikman his last years) QB depending with what's around him.
Again, my synopsis is based on a draft or an acquired QB not necessarily a backup.

 

[gbrittain]

Absolutely they do. A good QB could become a great QB (Young)depending on the team around him. And with that being said, a good QB could become a horrible (Aikman his last years) QB depending with what's around him.
Again, my synopsis is based on a draft or an acquired QB not necessarily a backup.

I for one would discount Aikman's last years since he was through physically IMO.

As for Young, are you saying that he had not talent when he played for Tampa Bay and then aqcuired talent upon being shipped to the 49ers?

Or is more likely that Young was good all along and the 49ers enabled him to put his talent to use? Sure our perspective of him changed but did he change? In some sense I know he changed because he was no longer a second year player...

 

[Seven]

I for one would discount Aikman's last years since he was through physically IMO.

As for Young, are you saying that he had not talent when he played for Tampa Bay and then aqcuired talent upon being shipped to the 49ers?

Or is more likely that Young was good all along and the 49ers enabled him to put his talent to use? Sure our perspective of him changed but did he change? In some sense I know he changed because he was no longer a second year player...

Ya gb. I guess you could discount Troy with injury but, the lack of talent was just as prevalent. I think he still had a little gas left.

As for Young....I always thought he was good.(it pains me to say even that) The rest of the football world promoted greatness. Hell the guy could eat the whole cake cause he walked right into the cake factory, if you know what I mean.
He had to improve in order to align with what was surrounding him. Some subtle changes to match the nuances in his game. He was good enough to do that with.

I'm thinking we're navigating a fine line here but in agreement overall.
Kinda like my Dad always says "I know that guy. We went to different high schools together."

 

[gbrittain]

Ya gb. I guess you could discount Troy with injury but, the lack of talent was just as prevalent. I think he still had a little gas left.

As for Young....I always thought he was good.(it pains me to say even that) The rest of the football world promoted greatness. Hell the guy could eat the whole cake cause he walked right into the cake factory, if you know what I mean.
He had to improve in order to align with what was surrounding him. Some subtle changes to match the nuances in his game. He was good enough to do that with.

I'm thinking we're navigating a fine line here but in agreement overall.
Kinda like my Dad always says "I know that guy. We went to different high schools together."

I'm thinking we're navigating a fine line here but in agreement overall.

Very good point and BTW :toast2: I love good intellectual debate. That is why I come to this forum on a daily basis. Lots of knowledge on this board and for the most part that "knowledge" is presented and debated in a very professional manner.

 

[Seven]

Very good point and BTW :toast2: I love good intellectual debate. That is why I come to this forum on a daily basis. Lots of knowledge on this board and for the most part that "knowledge" is presented and debated in a very professional manner.

Thanks gb. I enjoyed it as well. It is folks like yourself that are responsible for a quality board ya know.

We'll talk with you soon,
7.............................................

 

[PacoReloaded]

Good read. I just don't think there is a hurry for us to get a QB. We have Drew Bledsoe.

Yeah, that's why you groom one to take over for once he's gone.. if not, it's the same garbage we got ourselves into by not having someone ready to take over for when Aikman retired.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The fact of the matter is some QBs are better than other QBs.

and that's the biggest thing, or you could say mistake, with drafting a QB, you take all the measurables and you feel that that player is the best option for you to draft to play QB for you, but alas, it doesn't always turn out that way, I love the salary cap and free agency, but it's hurting the Qb position

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Now I do not agree that draft status is not all that important. All things being equal (Quality coaching, quality players, quality organization) the advantage will go to the QB being drafted highest IMO.

this is where me and you differ then, I place draft status as the 4th most, singly important reason for a rookie QB becoming a franchise one, after coaching, responding to coaching, and surrounding team-talent, with the QB's individual talent coming in at 5th, actually individual talent and draft status could be qualified as being the same, as possessing talent is what gets you drafted high