Shortage in elite QB's

[Blitzen]

I see so many media and people on this board that post how there are not enough competent starting QB’s in the league and I fully call BS. I think there is a shortage of elite QB’s in the league and always has been (and will be). I think there are only 1-3 QB’s in any year that are so good that they can make good squads great. There are levels of QB’s, but I think most QB’s belong in the second tier of QB’s (if they are on an NFL roster for more than 4 seasons).

I think most QB’s are on poor rosters and never get the chance to actually show they can competently start in this league. Washington has not been a good squad for decades, but they were not a Dak Prescott away from being a winning club. They have been a poorly (the most poorly) run franchise since the mid to late 90’s-that may change for the most part because of new ownership (front office)-not because of the QB just picked.

Maybe front offices/coaching staffs are charged with needing such high levels of success, that they force high picks on QB’s and cannot adequately surround them with enough talent in the time given to them. After 2-3 years the rebuilding process begins again with new coaches, QB, and sometimes FO. The old QB (though probably fewer than 5 years in the league) becomes a backup somewhere and might get another chance if the stars align correctly (hello Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield). Baker is a pretty good case study as he performed very well with Tampa Bay last season, but yet was terrible with Carolina the season prior. The point is that the overall team construction could be causing the fallacy of believing these teams really need a franchise QB-when in fact it could mean the team just sucks as a roster and needs to be rebuilt properly and likely patiently.

What say you? Franchise (but not elite) QB’s are super important to winning-or is it that teams just need much better construction and sometimes better patience on building the whole roster. Take SF-is their success more a result of their overall roster talent and coaching-or is a huge piece of it the greatness that is Mr. Irrelevant. I truly believe Brock Purdy would not have fared much (if any) better than Bryce Young in Carolina last season. The term franchise QB is just a media driven term to make people think about head to head battles as though the QB’s actually compete against one another and not the opposing team’s defense.

Take the early 2000’s Cowboys’ teams. Were they good teams just waiting for a Dak Prescott or Tony Romo to make them great? Or were those teams poorly constructed and coached? Yeah, again I am of the opinion that those teams were destined to finish towards the bottom of the league because of overall roster construction, draft capital (and strategy), coaching, and front office decision making.

 

[Coogiguy03]

Apparently you HAVE to have an elite qb, because what we have now, when he's let go, "who do you replace him with???" lol

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I think every team is a case by case study.

I don’t think Pat Mahomes could save that Panthers team. They were destined to be mad

Like with most positions in the NFL the media and fans just get lazy. Things are never just black and white.

As far as Purdy goes…yes he benefits off his team around him but he’s a good quarterback. He shouldn’t be penalized because his front office knows how to build a team around him.

And we also saw what Jimmy G and Lance looked with that same team and did not look as good. I think Purdy is the real deal.

 

[Coogiguy03]

I think every team is a case by case study.

I don’t think Pat Mahomes could save that Panthers team. They were destined to be mad

Like with most positions in the NFL the media and fans just get lazy. Things are never just black and white.

As far as Purdy goes…yes he benefits off his team around him but he’s a good quarterback. He shouldn’t be penalized because his front office knows how to build a team around him.

And we also saw what Jimmy G and Lance looked with that same team and did not look as good. I think Purdy is the real deal.

look what TB-12 did in Tampa, could he have done that here???? We've had weapons

 

[jazzcat22]

look what TB-12 did in Tampa, could he have done that here???? We've had weapons

TB had a far better defense than we had here. We seen what TB-12 could not do, when that defense was not the same.

 

[jazzcat22]

Apparently you HAVE to have an elite qb, because what we have now, when he's let go, "who do you replace him with???" lol

This is more true than some will admit. Who do you replace him with. Not saying he is elite. But he is one of the better QB's in the league.
I would like to see Trey Lance get that opportunity though.

 

[Coogiguy03]

TB had a far better defense than we had here. We seen what TB-12 could not do, when that defense was not the same.

very good point

 

[Coogiguy03]

This is more true than some will admit. Who do you replace him with. Not saying he is elite. But he is one of the better QB's in the league.
I would like to see Trey Lance get that opportunity though.

A lot of us would I think because of the trade, or maybe his draft status, or hell just the unknown! I'm anxious to see if he can add a dimension to the offense using his legs to gain yards and to make big plays

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

look what TB-12 did in Tampa, could he have done that here???? We've had weapons

Hard to say. That team was stacked on both sides of the football. That Cowboys team wasn’t as good but could Brady have won here? Who knows. He left the Pats because he realized he needed better talent around him to succeed. He went to a Buccs team that won 8 games with Winston throwing 30 interceptions.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I think there is a shortage of elite QB’s in the league and always has been (and will be).

100% true. It's always been that way. For decades. No reason to think it's ever going to change because it's not.

 

[Blitzen]

I think every team is a case by case study.

I don’t think Pat Mahomes could save that Panthers team. They were destined to be mad

Like with most positions in the NFL the media and fans just get lazy. Things are never just black and white.

As far as Purdy goes…yes he benefits off his team around him but he’s a good quarterback. He shouldn’t be penalized because his front office knows how to build a team around him.

And we also saw what Jimmy G and Lance looked with that same team and did not look as good. I think Purdy is the real deal.

I think Purdy is better than Jimmy G, but I do not think that is a high bar. SF went to-and came extremely close to winning a SB with Jimmy G. Even if Purdy posts better numbers-he will ultimately be judged on what happens in the postseason (since both clubs came close to winning but still losing to the Chiefs it will be seen as same-same if nothing else happens).

The argument can be made that Purdy>Jimmy G. What does that get you in the postseason? Same result? And Purdy gets McCaffrey which is a major improvement.

 

[Bobhaze]

I see so many media and people on this board that post how there are not enough competent starting QB’s in the league and I fully call BS. I think there is a shortage of elite QB’s in the league and always has been (and will be). I think there are only 1-3 QB’s in any year that are so good that they can make good squads great. There are levels of QB’s, but I think most QB’s belong in the second tier of QB’s (if they are on an NFL roster for more than 4 seasons).

I think most QB’s are on poor rosters and never get the chance to actually show they can competently start in this league. Washington has not been a good squad for decades, but they were not a Dak Prescott away from being a winning club. They have been a poorly (the most poorly) run franchise since the mid to late 90’s-that may change for the most part because of new ownership (front office)-not because of the QB just picked.

Maybe front offices/coaching staffs are charged with needing such high levels of success, that they force high picks on QB’s and cannot adequately surround them with enough talent in the time given to them. After 2-3 years the rebuilding process begins again with new coaches, QB, and sometimes FO. The old QB (though probably fewer than 5 years in the league) becomes a backup somewhere and might get another chance if the stars align correctly (hello Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield). Baker is a pretty good case study as he performed very well with Tampa Bay last season, but yet was terrible with Carolina the season prior. The point is that the overall team construction could be causing the fallacy of believing these teams really need a franchise QB-when in fact it could mean the team just sucks as a roster and needs to be rebuilt properly and likely patiently.

What say you? Franchise (but not elite) QB’s are super important to winning-or is it that teams just need much better construction and sometimes better patience on building the whole roster. Take SF-is their success more a result of their overall roster talent and coaching-or is a huge piece of it the greatness that is Mr. Irrelevant. I truly believe Brock Purdy would not have fared much (if any) better than Bryce Young in Carolina last season. The term franchise QB is just a media driven term to make people think about head to head battles as though the QB’s actually compete against one another and not the opposing team’s defense.

Take the early 2000’s Cowboys’ teams. Were they good teams just waiting for a Dak Prescott or Tony Romo to make them great? Or were those teams poorly constructed and coached? Yeah, again I am of the opinion that those teams were destined to finish towards the bottom of the league because of overall roster construction, draft capital (and strategy), coaching, and front office decision making.

Excellent analysis. Many fans judge QBs 100% on how much they are paid when in reality as you stated there are only a couple of QBs in this league that can completely carry a team. It’s the roster around the QB too that makes a great team.

 

[FanofJerry]

I see so many media and people on this board that post how there are not enough competent starting QB’s in the league and I fully call BS. I think there is a shortage of elite QB’s in the league and always has been (and will be). I think there are only 1-3 QB’s in any year that are so good that they can make good squads great. There are levels of QB’s, but I think most QB’s belong in the second tier of QB’s (if they are on an NFL roster for more than 4 seasons).

I think most QB’s are on poor rosters and never get the chance to actually show they can competently start in this league. Washington has not been a good squad for decades, but they were not a Dak Prescott away from being a winning club. They have been a poorly (the most poorly) run franchise since the mid to late 90’s-that may change for the most part because of new ownership (front office)-not because of the QB just picked.

Maybe front offices/coaching staffs are charged with needing such high levels of success, that they force high picks on QB’s and cannot adequately surround them with enough talent in the time given to them. After 2-3 years the rebuilding process begins again with new coaches, QB, and sometimes FO. The old QB (though probably fewer than 5 years in the league) becomes a backup somewhere and might get another chance if the stars align correctly (hello Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield). Baker is a pretty good case study as he performed very well with Tampa Bay last season, but yet was terrible with Carolina the season prior. The point is that the overall team construction could be causing the fallacy of believing these teams really need a franchise QB-when in fact it could mean the team just sucks as a roster and needs to be rebuilt properly and likely patiently.

What say you? Franchise (but not elite) QB’s are super important to winning-or is it that teams just need much better construction and sometimes better patience on building the whole roster. Take SF-is their success more a result of their overall roster talent and coaching-or is a huge piece of it the greatness that is Mr. Irrelevant. I truly believe Brock Purdy would not have fared much (if any) better than Bryce Young in Carolina last season. The term franchise QB is just a media driven term to make people think about head to head battles as though the QB’s actually compete against one another and not the opposing team’s defense.

Take the early 2000’s Cowboys’ teams. Were they good teams just waiting for a Dak Prescott or Tony Romo to make them great? Or were those teams poorly constructed and coached? Yeah, again I am of the opinion that those teams were destined to finish towards the bottom of the league because of overall roster construction, draft capital (and strategy), coaching, and front office decision making.

Cowboys have lacked Coaching the past 15 years. Odd that there is always a couple of teams like San Fran coaching wise around the league but we cant find those coaches.

Dallas is putting talent on the field. You can nitpick about roster construction, thats between the coaches preferences, Will McClay and Stephen willing to spend in FA...but Dallas is putting talent on the field.

Draft Capital/Strat...All I care about is Dallas isnt blowing FRP's on QB's. Analytics guys have to back that up too. FRP QB's is a crap shoot compared to drafting a stud WR or Defensive player. Dallas has it right on that strat, imo. And...I dont care about your stats that say the most successful QB's are FRP's. Most of them are busts compared to taking a stud defensive player or WR.

If Dallas cant get top end coaches because of meddling...thats a strike against front office decision making I guess.

What are Dallas' main areas of issues currently that doesnt involve talking about paying Dak and the cap?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I think Purdy is better than Jimmy G, but I do not think that is a high bar. SF went to-and came extremely close to winning a SB with Jimmy G. Even if Purdy posts better numbers-he will ultimately be judged on what happens in the postseason (since both clubs came close to winning but still losing to the Chiefs it will be seen as same-same if nothing else happens).

The argument can be made that Purdy>Jimmy G. What does that get you in the postseason? Same result? And Purdy gets McCaffrey which is a major improvement.

I compare to Jimmy to show how far apart they are. Purdy was a legit MVP candidate. Jimmy never has been and he reaped the same benefits as Jimmy did. The team success may be the same but the players are not. Every successful quarterback benefits from some sort of advantage. If they didn’t? They wouldn’t have any success

 

[gtb1943]

In the early to middle 90's there certainly were more than there is now
Kelly and Elway and Aikman and Favre and Marino and Young
It was just after Montana who had set the standard

 

[kskboys]

I see so many media and people on this board that post how there are not enough competent starting QB’s in the league and I fully call BS. I think there is a shortage of elite QB’s in the league and always has been (and will be). I think there are only 1-3 QB’s in any year that are so good that they can make good squads great. There are levels of QB’s, but I think most QB’s belong in the second tier of QB’s (if they are on an NFL roster for more than 4 seasons).

I think most QB’s are on poor rosters and never get the chance to actually show they can competently start in this league. Washington has not been a good squad for decades, but they were not a Dak Prescott away from being a winning club. They have been a poorly (the most poorly) run franchise since the mid to late 90’s-that may change for the most part because of new ownership (front office)-not because of the QB just picked.

Maybe front offices/coaching staffs are charged with needing such high levels of success, that they force high picks on QB’s and cannot adequately surround them with enough talent in the time given to them. After 2-3 years the rebuilding process begins again with new coaches, QB, and sometimes FO. The old QB (though probably fewer than 5 years in the league) becomes a backup somewhere and might get another chance if the stars align correctly (hello Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield). Baker is a pretty good case study as he performed very well with Tampa Bay last season, but yet was terrible with Carolina the season prior. The point is that the overall team construction could be causing the fallacy of believing these teams really need a franchise QB-when in fact it could mean the team just sucks as a roster and needs to be rebuilt properly and likely patiently.

What say you? Franchise (but not elite) QB’s are super important to winning-or is it that teams just need much better construction and sometimes better patience on building the whole roster. Take SF-is their success more a result of their overall roster talent and coaching-or is a huge piece of it the greatness that is Mr. Irrelevant. I truly believe Brock Purdy would not have fared much (if any) better than Bryce Young in Carolina last season. The term franchise QB is just a media driven term to make people think about head to head battles as though the QB’s actually compete against one another and not the opposing team’s defense.

Take the early 2000’s Cowboys’ teams. Were they good teams just waiting for a Dak Prescott or Tony Romo to make them great? Or were those teams poorly constructed and coached? Yeah, again I am of the opinion that those teams were destined to finish towards the bottom of the league because of overall roster construction, draft capital (and strategy), coaching, and front office decision making.

I think that you have just posted a most excellent post!!!!!!!!

As you say, at any given time there are 1-3(or so) elite QB's in the NFL. If you want to win a title w/o one, you must build a D that negates the elite QB's. Cincy did it for one year and made the super bowl, Giants won 2 super bowls w/ very average Eli. Since Mahomes can only be on one team, you absolutely must be able to control him. And you're not going to do it w/ CB's. Need a pressure DLine.

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

Apparently you HAVE to have an elite qb, because what we have now, when he's let go, "who do you replace him with???" lol

Meanwhile over in SF, they change QB's like they swap out AC filters.

 

[kskboys]

100% true. It's always been that way. For decades. No reason to think it's ever going to change because it's not.

It's the required skillset. Need a good arm and a brain that can process a thousand things in nanoseconds and can determine in that time where a player will be when the ball gets there, along w/ where every D player is at all times.

 

[Blitzen]

Cowboys have lacked Coaching the past 15 years. Odd that there is always a couple of teams like San Fran coaching wise around the league but we cant find those coaches.

Dallas is putting talent on the field. You can nitpick about roster construction, thats between the coaches preferences, Will McClay and Stephen willing to spend in FA...but Dallas is putting talent on the field.

Draft Capital/Strat...All I care about is Dallas isnt blowing FRP's on QB's. Analytics guys have to back that up too. FRP QB's is a crap shoot compared to drafting a stud WR or Defensive player. Dallas has it right on that strat, imo. And...I dont care about your stats that say the most successful QB's are FRP's. Most of them are busts compared to taking a stud defensive player or WR.

If Dallas cant get top end coaches because of meddling...thats a strike against front office decision making I guess.

What are Dallas' main areas of issues currently that doesnt involve talking about paying Dak and the cap?

My thought is that FRP QB’s are forced many times, and fail because they are forced AND because the roster they land on sucks (plus the coaching is poor). Lots of front offices do not get the time necessary to build a strong roster that can win consistently (regardless as to whom starts at QB).

You will hear the media speak about how a team must draft a QB. I think teams should approach the draft as a way to add talent-not to fill a roster void. That’s what free agency and trades are for. If a player fits what a team wants and it happens to be a QB-then go ahead and draft them even with an established starter.

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

My thought is that FRP QB’s are forced many times, and fail because they are forced AND because the roster they land on sucks (plus the coaching is poor). Lots of front offices do not get the time necessary to build a strong roster that can win consistently (regardless as to whom starts at QB).

You will hear the media speak about how a team must draft a QB. I think teams should approach the draft as a way to add talent-not to fill a roster void. That’s what free agency and trades are for. If a player fits what a team wants and it happens to be a QB-then go ahead and draft them even with an established starter.

I have said it for many years, if Brady had been drafted by the Browns he likely would be someone who had a decent career in football and no one would be lauding him as the GOAT. We likely wouldn't even hear about him once he left the game. I doubt he would have played into his 40's.