So you think this team can do just as much with Howell as Prescott? That can’t be what you’re saying.
Sure, why not? I think Howell has more than enough arm talent to be effective working within a very good offense. As long as hes not the 20+ turnover player he was in Washington we would probably be fine....obviously that's a big IF though, and a big reason why he had to settle for a backup gig last year. 21 INTs on a bad team in your age 23 season though isn't a complete kiss of death. To me there are only a few QBs around the league that are truly elite level where the quality of play drops off so much you just cant compete without them, or your scheme is totally dependent upon this super human athlete like a Baltimore. For Dallas I kind of view them currently as a 9-11 win type of team this year. I wouldn't downgrade that win total much at all with Howell taking over.....maybe a game?
Stafford was always viewed in a positive light, but really wasnt in that elite category until he got a loaded team in LA. Mayfield was struggling to stay on a team until he got to throw to Mike Evans and Chris Godwin. Goff was though of as a placeholder when traded to Detroit....until they got weapons to make themselves one of the top offenses int he league.
I think we pay too much attention to the QB and not enough the rest of the rosters. I think there is a reason so many rookie contract QBs are making deep runs and many start to fall off after getting paid.
Every year since Romo/Prescott when they lost the starter early….24, 20, 15 off the top of my head, the season was essentially over. To a lesser degree when Romo missed significant time in 2008 and Brad Johnson could no longer throw a football.
And they key there is 40 year old Brad Johnson....were talking about a journeyman QB who was completely done by the time he got to Dallas. Not only could he not throw at that point in his career, but he couldnt move either as evidence of him getting sacked on nearly 10% of his dropbacks. The drop off from prime Romo to Johnson was extreme, and thats what you need to avoid is the extremes. If you have playmakers on offense you can get away with an average arm QB that avoids the negative plays.
I will give you the 2015 season as a really strong argument for what you're saying though. That's a team that obviously flopped without their QB, despite being pretty good overall. I'm sure there are other examples too so I don't want to completely dismiss what you're saying. Especially the further back you go I think the more relevant the QB position was.
With two exceptions that we all know too well, when a team loses its starting QB they aren’t making some deep playoff run.
I'm not sure what the data looks like long term, but I'm curious how many opportunities and realistic opportunities guys are getting to play long term backup and make runs...last year 20 QBs started at least 14 games for their teams....many of the others that didn't were benched more so for performance than injury. Burrow went down, Daniel Jones went down, but overall the QB health around the league seemed to be fairly OK. Not sure if the long term data would be in line with these numbers or not?
Given a relatively small number of long term QB injuries I do wonder if the Brock Purdy and Nick Foles type runs are really all that rare or not when viewed in relation to the number of opportunities? I'd be interested in what that answer would be, but that also feels like a ton of work lol.