Top End QB Busts, Causation?

[Verdict]

I have been watching some NFL Network today, and some of the highly regarded top flight QB prospects that have "busted" in the NFL. There have been several QBs that seemed like can't miss prospects that really didn't do much, while other lesser regarded prospects have flourished.

Personally, I think some of the very early "busts" are attributable to drafting a top flight guy and giving him zero protection, and/or very few weapons to work with. A guy like Sam Bradford comes to mind. He was a very hard working, intelligent player with great character. He was a very cerebral QB in college and was really one of the better minds drafted in the past several years.

Andrew Luck is another player that comes to mind. His protection has sucked, especially last year, and he has reallly fallen apart at the seams to some degree.

Even Romo's effectiveness has skyrocketed when he has had appropriate protection. It really isn't surprising that arguably his best year was 2014, when he had a solid line and a good running back to keep the pressure off of him.

This isn't a draft Elliott thread, but I think if you subscribe to this theory drafting a top flight back (one of the top 3 or 4 in this draft) might yield more dividends than anything else we could do in the short run.

 

[Alexander]

Coaching matters. Bad QB coaches, coaching changes, bad OLs, poor scheme fits, you name it.

But a good chunk of it is on the player and the misevaluation of his mental makeup by the team that selected him.

A lot of the time these QBs bust out and bust hard when they do. Crashing and burning is usually the case.

They do not often resurface somewhere and remake themselves in better surroundings.

It is just the most difficult position to evaluate in sports and a lot of times people swing for the fences. The player themselves then have to deal with the expectations and pressure. It is not a good mix.

 

[KJJ]

You didn't see as many top college QB busts 30+ years as you do today because the NFL has become a passing league and teams depend on their QBs to win games. The running game isn't utilized as much as it was years ago therefore you don't see as many RBs drafted in the first round anymore. QBs have to do so much in todays game that a lot of these young highly touted QBs fold under the pressure. Most go to bad teams and are being asked to win games by throwing the ball 40 times each week and once they lose their confidence they're done.

 

[DFWJC]

Romo has always been rated in the top 5-10, regardless of the RB or line. But no denying that a great Oline and RB helps greatly.

I like Elliot just fine, the argument to not take him at 4 is nothing at all against the player as much as the return on investment at 4.
There is no doubt...none...that an average starting (not scrub) NFL back can get 1200-1300 yards behind this line. If Zeke get 1500-1600--which he could--then what is marginal return. I know it's not just the yards, its more than that, but still..

And because of how the NFL pounding wears on these backs, I have hard time believing Dallas would ever give a super heavy work load to a big investment...knowing that they just reduced the guy's career. The NFL trend is just not bell-cow like it once was.

btw,I can't imagine anyone calling Andrew Luck a bust

 

[KJJ]

I like Elliot just fine, the argument to not take him at 4 is nothing at all against the player as much as the return on investment at 4.
There is no doubt...none...that an average starting (not scrub) NFL back can get 1200-1300 yards behind this line. If Zeke get 1500-1600--which he could--then what is marginal return. I know it's not just the yards, its more than that, but still..

We had average backs last season and our lead back didn't produce 1200-1300 yards and he only scored 3 TDs despite a career high in carries. Although McFadden ranked 5th in rushing last season all the backs ranked ahead of him and several backs ranked behind him scored more TD's. Ronnie Hillman only rushed for 917 yards for Denver but scored 7 TD's. Our entire rushing game only produced 8 TD's last season which was half as many scores that Murray produced in 2014. If your lead runner isn't scoring that puts it on your QB and place kicker to put points on the board which is why the Cowboys averaged under 18 points a game last season which was the second lowest in the league.

 

[InDakWeTrust]

As much as I hate the guy, Big Ben got drafted into a perfect situation. Great defense and running game to lean on gave him time to grow instead of rushing into starting and failing. Having Haley and Arians didn't hurt either.

 

[DFWJC]

We had average backs last season and our lead back didn't produce 1200-1300 yards and he only scored 3 TDs despite a career high in carries. Although McFadden ranked 5th in rushing last season all the backs ranked ahead of him and several backs ranked behind him scored more TD's. Ronnie Hillman only rushed for 917 yards for Denver but scored 7 TD's. Our entire rushing game only produced 8 TD's last season which was half as many scores that Murray produced in 2014. If your lead runner isn't scoring that puts it on your QB and place kicker to put points on the board which is why the Cowboys averaged under 18 points a game last season which was the second lowest in the league.

Lead back was the main guy maybe 11 games and had nearly 1100 yards.
4th in the league

 

[DFWJC]

As much as I hate the guy, Big Ben got drafted into a perfect situation. Great defense and running game to lean on gave him time to grow instead of rushing into starting and failing. Having Haley and Arians didn't hurt either.

So did Russell Wilson

 

[conner01]

Lots of reasons why qb's don't make it. Bab teams, bad systems for their skill set, some over drafted out of desperation. But I think two factors are the biggest.As KJJ said its a passing league and teams depend more on the QB while guys get less work on reading defenses in college. Two, I think too many are rushed to play. So many learn very little about reading defenses in college and the learning curve is so high. If more teams gave those guys more time to be prepared before they threw them out there I think more would succeed

 

[noshame]

In 2013 Linehan installed his offense nobody knew what to expect , the running game and the passing game flourished. towards the end of the season people began to read the keys, moved people up and attacked the short passes and runs.

Last year everybody knew the offense they dared us to throw deep and we'd refuse to do it. Goal line in short-yardage plays we'd motion a guy, parking right behind the hole and try to outmuscle defences. Sadly defenses would immediately step towards the hole and stop the play in its tracks. The point is, judging the passing game or the running game off Linehans offense is a joke.

How many times did We Begin a game rushing the ball well and Lenahan would inexplicably begin passing and fail, Ugg I get frustrated just discussing it.

 

[tyke1doe]

You didn't see as many top college QB busts 30+ years as you do today because the NFL has become a passing league and teams depend on their QBs to win games. The running game isn't utilized as much as it was years ago therefore you don't see as many RBs drafted in the first round anymore. QBs have to do so much in todays game that a lot of these young highly touted QBs fold under the pressure. Most go to bad teams and are being asked to win games by throwing the ball 40 times each week and once they lose their confidence they're done.

Also, they're thrown to the wolves too soon. Quarterbacks in the 70s weren't rushed to start their rookie year, giving them a chance to learn on the sidelines.

 

[conner01]

Lead back was the main guy maybe 11 games and had nearly 1100 yards.
4th in the league

I think the poor QB play had an effect on rushing defense td's too. If they know your QB can't beat them they can load up on the run. As bad as our QB play was its amazing we ran as well as we did

 

[yimyammer]

btw,I can't imagine anyone calling Andrew Luck a bust

Lucky for you, you don't have to imagine, there's the internet!

 

[TheDude]

Coaching matters. Bad QB coaches, coaching changes, bad OLs, poor scheme fits, you name it.

I always wondered which QBs may have been successful ina different environment. Had Parcells let Jerry get his way with Henson, Romo may not even be in the league.

Or Could Tom Brady be successful in Cleveland if he started in 2000.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Confidence might be the biggest factor.

Everyone's said it, but these guys usually go to crap teams, and are expected to do a lot with little support, at least early on.

 

[KJJ]

Also, they're thrown to the wolves too soon. Quarterbacks in the 70s weren't rushed to start their rookie year, giving them a chance to learn on the sidelines.

A lot of the young QBs that are having success today started as rookies like Matt Ryan, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck until his OL caught up with him, Andy Dalton, Dereck Carr and Teddy Bridgwater. Mariota and Winston had good rookie years. A top 10 drafted QB should be able to come in immediately and out play the QB you had or you made a mistake drafting them. I don't think throwing young QBs out there soon is the problem because many have had success in recent years it only becomes a problem if you have a poor team around them and you're asking them to win games. They're not going to learn much standing on the sidelines I've never been one to believe that, they learn by being on the field and performing but if you have a crap team like the Cowboys had in 89 you could destroy a young QBs confidence.

It's amazing that Troy Aikman maintained his confidence during his first 2 rough seasons to become a HOF QB. Back in the 70s you could take time developing a young highly touted QB because of a number of reasons. You didn't have free agency or a salary cap so you didn't fear them after a few years. Teams could be more patient with QBs back then and they were. Teams weren't as QB dependent in the 70s a lot of games were won with the running game and a great defense. Teams could get by with a QB like a Joe Theismann if they had a strong running game and defense. QBs weren't throwing the ball nearly as much in the 70s as we see today and they weren't making as much money.

With the money these young top drafted QBs are making if teams start losing games they have to throw the young QB in. Coaches and QBs don't have much time with all the money today it's become a win NOW business. No more of this it takes 5 years to build a team and develop a young QB like back in the 70s. QBs have to start performing at a high level soon and teams have to start winning soon or the QB and their head coach are going to be gone. Another thing that determines a young QBs success is the college program they came from and the competition they faced.

 

[Plankton]

The majority of times that a QB is drafted near the top of the draft, it's being done by a team with far many more holes than just the QB position. If the team didn't trade up for the pick, then they "earned" the selection by being awful on the field. Take Sam Bradford. He was taken by the Rams, who never surrounded him with a good enough supporting cast, between the offensive line and his receivers. He was injured, and is now regarded as a bust.

Today, there are other variables involved as well - the advent of spread offenses that don't huddle, use shotgun or pistol snaps almost exclusively, and give the QB no ability to check out of plays. These QBs enter the league deficient in a number of skills necessary to succeed in the NFL. If they are thrown to the wolves out of the gate, they are instantly set up to fail.

Also, not to be minimized, the QB can be selected by a coaching staff that may have their jobs on the line, and if things don't go well (and they very well may not, because the team that selected the QB is not very good), the staff can change, and the learning process has to begin again in some form (new offense, adapting to a new coach and new demands). Stability does have a big impact on a young, developing player.

It can ultimately be hard to immediately quantify the reasons for failure, but some of what is listed above is on the list. The position is the most difficult to assess, because taking a guy who succeeded in one offense or environment, and projecting their success in a completely different offense or environment is not that simple.

For me, here's what I would view as critical to selecting the right guy as a QB (and, this is being bereft of a lot of info in regards to intangibles):

• Leadership - The QB must be able to command a group of players, and get them to follow his lead. There are very few QBs who can succeed without being a true leader. Some don't have the personality to do it. I don't think Romo's personality naturally lends itself to being a leader, and he had to work to develop these skills (he's a good leader now). Aikman and Staubach were exemplary leaders.
  
• Production - Projecting players is difficult. If they don't have production to back their rating, then the rating is not based off of tangibles. Production shows that a player is capable of executing a specific task or discipline. In Goff vs. Wentz, Goff's numbers are a bit inflated due to playing in a run/shoot type of spread offense, as opposed to Wentz playing in a multiple, pro-style type of offense. But, and this is important, Goff started 37 games at Cal - Wentz started only 23 at NDSU. That extra season of live reps against defenses is huge in terms of development. Another top 10 QB bust, Mark Sanchez, only started 16 games at USC. This was a factor in his failure.
  
• Accuracy - Moreso than arm strength, a QB needs to be able to consistently put the ball where he wants to, and give his receiver a chance to make a play. A QB who lacks accuracy cannot succeed in the NFL of today.
  
• Work Ethic - Two types of leadership - external/overt leadership and by example. The QB must have excellent study skills in reviewing tape, and must be able to galvanize his teammates by demanding more work from them. The phrase, "first one in the building, last one to leave" applies here.
  
• Intelligence - The QB must be the smartest guy in the huddle. He has to make split second assessments at the line of scrimmage, and know when to check into the correct play.
• Mental Toughness - This is hard to measure, but, due in large part to a rookie QB selected in the first round likely going to a team that is not very good, he needs to be mentally tough. He needs to be able to withstand taking a physical beating, being overwhelmed by the speed and athleticism of NFL defenses, learning verbiage and different sets in his offense and dealing with a media that in many cases will not be his champion. Easier said than done.

If you notice, I don't include height/weight/speed/hand size in this list. If a guy is going to succeed, it isn't because of those values. You may have a preference, but the QB's size isn't going to be the key to turning out as either Tom Brady or JaMarcus Russell.

 

[Alexander]

Confidence might be the biggest factor.

Everyone's said it, but these guys usually go to crap teams, and are expected to do a lot with little support, at least early on.

Crap teams also usually have crap coaches.

 

[plasticman]

Teams do a much better job of evaluation in part because many college teams use pro offenses. I would say it is a challenge to project the performance of a college quarterback that played in an offense less conventional.

Remember the University of Houston Run and Gun? It produced David Klingler as well as Heisman winner Andre Ware. They were both top six draftees, both busts. The game was different when you sidnt have 5 wide rwceivers.

There is also perception....

Doea drafting higher increase the probability of getting a better player than lower rounds oe does it simply increase the probability of finding an NFL caliber player, period.

Is a high 1st round pick a "bust" because he can't earn a place on a team or because he can't earn a place on a Pro Bowl Team?

65% of quarterbacks drafted 6 overall or higher started in 96 or more games, equal to 6 full seasons.

60% of them made at least 1 Pro Bowl. 30% made at least 3.

Of the last 10 quarterbacks inducted in the Hall of fame, 6 were 1st round picks. Four of them were #1 overall. Two of them were 3r round picks. One was undrafted.

 

[thisiscowboyscountry]

Romo has always been rated in the top 5-10, regardless of the RB or line. But no denying that a great Oline and RB helps greatly.

I like Elliot just fine, the argument to not take him at 4 is nothing at all against the player as much as the return on investment at 4.
There is no doubt...none...that an average starting (not scrub) NFL back can get 1200-1300 yards behind this line. If Zeke get 1500-1600--which he could--then what is marginal return. I know it's not just the yards, its more than that, but still..

And because of how the NFL pounding wears on these backs, I have hard time believing Dallas would ever give a super heavy work load to a big investment...knowing that they just reduced the guy's career. The NFL trend is just not bell-cow like it once was.

btw,I can't imagine anyone calling Andrew Luck a bust

Very much in this camp as well. Youre right I dont know how much more production we get from Elliot vs Mcfadden and Morris. Frankly Elliot would come on this team splitting carries with those two players anyway. He may be the bell cow in 2017, but there are so many rbs in this draft that could do that as well.