Sticking With a QB Too Long

[Mr. WEO]

Losman....easy

[PolishDave]

Surely the other 52 players on the roster and coaching have SOMETHING to do with whether a team makes the playoffs. It isn't COMPLETELY about the QB solely taking a team to the playoffs.

 

If that is the impression you got from my post then I should have been clearer. Of course I know it takes a team. But this thread is about quarterbacks specifically isn't it? I thought I was clear in my stance on "quarterbacks".

 

My point was making sure you have a talented enough quarterback relative to other quarterbacks. That is all. I would be sure to have a quarterback that would not hinder the teams playoff run but rather be helpful towards it or at least neutral. If you start the season knowing that your best quarterback is a below average quality quarterback, then you are guilty of what I am talking about.

 

I would consider a quarterback that is capable of taking a team to the playoffs to be "about an average quarterback" or better. Yes of course you need to have a playoff caliber team around him as well or else your average qb will not get you there.

 

Hope that makes it clear.

Edited December 29, 2013 by PolishDave

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Kordell is probably the worst example. He was an enigma. The guy was in the toilet, and then in 2001 made the pro-bowl and the Steelers went 13-3.

 

He was a tease, and I could see how that was able to drag out with them.

[MDH]

What's your point? I also talk about sex generally with girls I want to have sex with without talking about sex with them specifically. It's okay to have tangential abstract discussions.

 

Are you hoping to score with some posters?

[Rob's House]

Kordell is probably the worst example. He was an enigma. The guy was in the toilet, and then in 2001 made the pro-bowl and the Steelers went 13-3.

 

He was a tease, and I could see how that was able to drag out with them.

 

Stewart's the best example. You're right that he was a tease - great arm & world class athleticism, but the guy sucked. After 5 yrs they extended him despite consistent poor play b/c they kept hoping the light would come on. His pro-bowl was a bad joke. That team was stacked from top to bottom that used him as a game manager. The next year he got benched for a journeyman.

 

But it was you who 1st referred to the Bills QBs. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Huffing glue is never a good idea.

[pimp 2]

That's really what I was asking. The Steelers actually kept Stewart for 8 years, but started him for the last 6 (5 1/2 really, he was benched in his 6th year as starter.)

 

You act as if finding a franchise QB are available each year or in every draft class. Using your example of K. Steward could you please offer the choices that were available to the Steelers at that time, that were franchise worthy?

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

 

 

Stewart's the best example. You're right that he was a tease - great arm & world class athleticism, but the guy sucked. After 5 yrs they extended him despite consistent poor play b/c they kept hoping the light would come on. His pro-bowl was a bad joke. That team was stacked from top to bottom that used him as a game manager. The next year he got benched for a journeyman.

 

tough to drop a guy that makes a pro bowl and you are winning a lot of games with. you start thinking "we can win with this guy" and that's how kordell has a 8-yr career.

 

It's actually what made the niners move last year going with kap so unbelievable. They were winning and still benched smith (albeit the injury opened the door).

 

[ny33]

If the Rams end up with the #1 pick, and decide to stick with Bradford over giving Bridgewater a shot, they will be making a huge mistake.

 

Gabbert had too much time in Jacksonville. It was clear after a year that he doesn't have it in him to be a winner in the NFL.

[Rob's House]

tough to drop a guy that makes a pro bowl and you are winning a lot of games with. you start thinking "we can win with this guy" and that's how kordell has a 8-yr career.

 

It's actually what made the niners move last year going with kap so unbelievable. They were winning and still benched smith (albeit the injury opened the door).

 

Had he had his "pro bowl" year before he got extended I might agree, but it was the very next year after that when he got benched - for TOMMY MADDUX . His first year starting was promising and probably built false hope, but after sporting QB ratings below 65 the following 2 seasons they would have done well to move on IMO. And to give a little perspective on that season (for which he hilariously received some MVP consideration), he threw for 3109 yds and 14 TDs on a team that had Hines Ward and Plaxico Burress both in their primes AND a stacked O-line. What's funny is while the sports media was stumbling over itself to announce he had arrived the team was giving up on him.

 

You act as if finding a franchise QB are available each year or in every draft class. Using your example of K. Steward could you please offer the choices that were available to the Steelers at that time, that were franchise worthy?

 

To follow that logic we should still be trotting out JP Losman.

[BuffaloBill]

There was a time when it was thought a QB had to ride the bench for three years and then take another two or three to develop. I wonder how many of the historical greats would have survived in the show me now NFL.

 

The dynamics of free agency really play into the current situation. The rest of your roster can go to hell in a minute without a good QB. Some players move for money but others will leave or stay because of the opportunity to play on a good team.

 

I said in another thread some time ago that the NFL needs to do more to develop young QB's. A starting point would be to force every team to carry one on their practice squad.

[Rob's House]

If the Rams end up with the #1 pick, and decide to stick with Bradford over giving Bridgewater a shot, they will be making a huge mistake.

 

Gabbert had too much time in Jacksonville. It was clear after a year that he doesn't have it in him to be a winner in the NFL.

 

I agree with reservations. Statistically Bradford looked pretty good before getting hurt, but given the talent on that roster, the value of the QB position, and the likelihood of having a pick that high again anytime soon, I'd pull the trigger on a potential franchise QB as an insurance policy if nothing else.

[pimp 2]

Had he had his "pro bowl" year before he got extended I might agree, but it was the very next year after that when he got benched - for TOMMY MADDUX . His first year starting was promising and probably built false hope, but after sporting QB ratings below 65 the following 2 seasons they would have done well to move on IMO. And to give a little perspective on that season (for which he hilariously received some MVP consideration), he threw for 3109 yds and 14 TDs on a team that had Hines Ward and Plaxico Burress both in their primes AND a stacked O-line. What's funny is while the sports media was stumbling over itself to announce he had arrived the team was giving up on him.

 

 

 

To follow that logic we should still be trotting out JP Losman.

 

That's what you got from my question? Its easy to question after the fact of the matter & you have the history at your disposal. But who was a franchise QB that the Steelers had a shot at replace him?

 

BTW - I haven't a clue to your comprehensive skills but in NO WAY does my comment reference standing pat. IMO, I believe in the Parcell Rule for QB's coming out of the draft. And even if we had a franchise QB, I'd draft one (mid-late rds) at least every other draft year because the position is way too vital.

 

There was a time when it was thought a QB had to ride the bench for three years and then take another two or three to develop. I wonder how many of the historical greats would have survived in the show me now NFL.

 

The dynamics of free agency really play into the current situation. The rest of your roster can go to hell in a minute without a good QB. Some players move for money but others will leave or stay because of the opportunity to play on a good team.

 

I said in another thread some time ago that the NFL needs to do more to develop young QB's. A starting point would be to force every team to carry one on their practice squad.

 

+1

Edited December 29, 2013 by pimp 2

[Hapless Bills Fan]

All this talk about whether we should cut bait on EJ, or give him another year, or another 2-3 years, etc. got me thinking about teams that have hung on too long hoping in vein that their guy could be the guy. I'm curious who you guys think should have gotten the hook earlier. I'm also curious how many will try to turn this into yet another EJ thread.

 

 

I'll go with Kordell Stewart and I don't think it's close. The Steelers wasted 6 years (after letting him sit for his first 2) on this underachieving bum before finally allowing some competition (at which time he was beaten out by Tommy Maddux of all people). Those were mostly competetive teams despite lacking adequate QB play. One can only imagine what those years might have been to that franchise had they had the good sense to cut bait early and bring in a real QB.

 

Being from St Louis, I would have to give the nod to Sam Bradford. 4 years after he was the #1 pick overall and expected to turn the franchise around, the Rams are still finishing 4th in the division. 3 of those 4 years, they've had a D that was flirting with 12-14th and a solid >1000 yd rusher in Steven Jackson. They invested top draft picks in their OL and in WR - all the stuff a team is supposed to do to build a winner. And yet their O has perennially been in the bottom 3rd.

 

Bradford, in his 4th year, still "looks like you want your QB to look" at 6'4" and 236 lbs, yet his play hasn't quite followed suit. It's not that he was a bad QB when he played this year-in fact, he was OK. A different OC every year surely hasn't done him any favors. At times, he throws these absolute lasers. But he's yet to break a 61% completion or come near to 7 YPA. His sack percentage is consistently higher than his TD %. He just hasn't shown enough signs of becoming "the Man" as one expects of a #1 overall pick.

[Mr. WEO]

There was a time when it was thought a QB had to ride the bench for three years and then take another two or three to develop. I wonder how many of the historical greats would have survived in the show me now NFL.

 

The dynamics of free agency really play into the current situation. The rest of your roster can go to hell in a minute without a good QB. Some players move for money but others will leave or stay because of the opportunity to play on a good team.

 

I said in another thread some time ago that the NFL needs to do more to develop young QB's. A starting point would be to force every team to carry one on their practice squad.

 

Elway, Marino, Kelly, Favre, Manning wouldn't understand the concept of sitting for 2 or 3 years--and then taking "another 2 to 3 years" to develop". Which historical greats were you referring to that had that luxury?

 

And what would be the point of a mandatory scrub QB "developing" on the PS?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Ok I'll play. This is harder than I thought but I'll say Vick in Philly.

 

Interesting choice, but I'm not sure the Iggles qualify. They have invested several reasonably high draft picks in QB who haven't worked out (Kolb in 2007, Kafka in 2010, Foles in 2012, Barkley in 2013). So I think you could argue they never intended to stick with Vick, he just beat out Kolb and stayed ahead of their other prospects until this year.

 

The Iggles QB that they stuck with too long was probably Donovan McNabb. They should arguably have used a reasonably high pick on a developmental QB no later than 2005 or 6 but they stuck with an aging McNabb 5 more years.

 

I agree with reservations. Statistically Bradford looked pretty good before getting hurt, but given the talent on that roster, the value of the QB position, and the likelihood of having a pick that high again anytime soon, I'd pull the trigger on a potential franchise QB as an insurance policy if nothing else.

 

He looked OK, and better than he'd looked in the previous 2 years, I grant that. But when a team drafts a guy #1 overall, they don't want him looking "OK" in his 4th year.

 

Sam Bradford, Christian Ponder , Blaine Gabbert , Vick.

 

Stafford and Cutler might be on deck to join this list

 

Can't argue at all on the 1st 3. Vick, not sure he falls in that category - see other point.

Stafford is a point. Like Bradford, a #1 overall pick who was to be the "savior of the team". And he's looked intriguing at times, with a very good year in 2011. Since then...meh. With 4 full seasons, he's had time to season and step up as "the Man", and he hasn't.

[San-O]

I personally don't think you can give a guy more then 2 years in today's NFL but most teams will give longer simply bc they don't want to admit failure

 

The Bills simply do not evaluate talent well at THE most important position in pro football, the QB.

 

Is has been like this for about 20 years now, and until they field a QB who can actually play, it will continue.

[Rob's House]

Interesting choice, but I'm not sure the Iggles qualify. They have invested several reasonably high draft picks in QB who haven't worked out (Kolb in 2007, Kafka in 2010, Foles in 2012, Barkley in 2013). So I think you could argue they never intended to stick with Vick, he just beat out Kolb and stayed ahead of their other prospects until this year.

 

The Iggles QB that they stuck with too long was probably Donovan McNabb. They should arguably have used a reasonably high pick on a developmental QB no later than 2005 or 6 but they stuck with an aging McNabb 5 more years.

 

 

 

He looked OK, and better than he'd looked in the previous 2 years, I grant that. But when a team drafts a guy #1 overall, they don't want him looking "OK" in his 4th year.

 

I was going to respond just to the bottom part, but I agree with your first post too. McNabb was one of those guys who seemed to perform too well to move on from, but had he been a little better they might have rings. I think he was exposed for his mediocrity many times over his career. First, when guys like AJ Feeley and Jeff Garcia came in and produced as well in that offense, then when Vick showed him up, then again in DC, and yet again in MN where he just flat out sucked.

 

Bradford I think is in a similar situation - good enough that it's hard to give up on him, but bad enough that it's hard to stick with him - only without the team success the Eagles had. Apparently the coaching staff is high on him, but I'm not sure I'd put all my eggs in the Bradford basket if I had a shot at a franchise QB. Hell, even if they're high on Bradford they could still draft a QB and let him sit for a year and give Bradford one last chance to prove it. Worst case scenario they'd have some valuable trade bait.

[CSBill]

Easy: Donovan McNabb!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Philly - Mike Vick

Chicago - Rex Grossman

Cinci - Carson Palmer

KC - Trent Green

Sea-Attle - Matt Hasselbeck

Denver - Jay Cutler

Houston - Mat Schaub

Washington - Jason Campbell

 

the list could go on and on... it's pretty long.

 

Interesting that while Cincy gave up on Carson Palmer (or did he give up on them?) he's looked pretty durn giid for Zona this year, hasn't he?

To Matt Schaub: I think it's inarguable that the Texans should have taken some action (high draft pick, trade) to acquire a QB in waiting sooner than they did. But until this year, Schaub has been a very good QB for them, with all of the metrics people usually tout as indicating a QB is elite (YPA, completion percentage, low INTs etc) except playoff wins.

[thewildrabbit]

Matt Schaub first comes to mind, and then Phillip Rivers.Then Andy Reid committed to Mike Vick for so long.

 

But then look what happened when a QB like Rivers who was in a stale, predictable system. Then in a new system with better coaching at HC & OC he has done a 180.

 

 

Gotta have good coaching all around or its a waste of time.