Football Perspective:You know if a QB can become great after just 2 yr

[YoloinOhio]

How Long Does It Take Great Quarterbacks To Break out?

 

http://www.footballp...s-to-break-out/

 

If a quarterback has a chance to be a star, chances are it will become apparent within two seasons. Chase Stuart of Football Perspective looked at how long it took star quarterbacks to become great, examining the top 42 quarterbacks since the merger and compared how each quarterback performed (measured by adjusted net yards per attempt) relative to the league average during their career.

Edited August 12, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[BigBuff423]

I suppose, reluctantly, that supports the notion that EJ should be given the entire year of the 2014 NFL season to demonstrate his true potential...and I'll certainly admit the last game was much improved over the HOF game...but my issue has been, this team is at the near critical mass stage of making the playoffs and I would hate to see them miss the playoffs yet again due to poor QB play...all that said, if EJ gets the rest of this NFL season to show what he is or is not, I can't really complain (well, I will but it will just be the 2 year old in me stomping my feet) but hope beyond hope, that IF EJ doesn't show marked improvement and be that "above average" QB, then DW will pull out all the stops and locate the true Franchise QB for the BILLS - whatever his name might be or what college he is currently attending or went to or where he maybe on a depth chart currently elsewhere...b/c this damn QB carousel needs to come to a grinding friggen halt!!

[Security]

To much to think about. The eye test and winning are what matters.

[l< j]

Interesting read, although my interest broke down when I tried to figure out how adjusted net yards per attempt was calculated. (English major, don't you know. ) A couple of things jump out, however.

• Kelly doesn't look good in that analysis. (Read the comments if you want to see some people express a poor opinion of him as a QB.)
  
• Joe Theisman returned punts in 1974!
  
• Only Rich Gannon and Drew Brees seem to truly defy Yolo's headline summary
  
• Others will ask and argue about EJ's ceiling and attempt to extrapolate his performance to date to a career. My question is, what is an acceptable ceiling for EJ? What do we need him to be in order for the QB moving forward? In order for Whaley's plan to stay on track and not be considered derailed?
  

kj

[K-9]

Brady, Favre, Kelly: solid but not spectacular? This analysis lacks credibility based on that conclusion alone.

 

The author could have saved himself a ton of trouble by sticking to the 1,000 attempt barometer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Fingon]

Kelly shouldn't even be brought up in discussions like these. He had previous professional experience before coming to the NFL.

[BigBuff423]

Brady, Favre, Kelly: solid but not spectacular? This analysis lacks credibility based on that conclusion alone.

 

The author could have saved himself a ton of trouble by sticking to the 1,000 attempt barometer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

To be fair, you have to put that statement in context: the author indicated such assessment according to their first 32 starts and later said that Kelly already had three years in the USFL...so strictly speaking, he was accurate with his indications of "statistics", not necessarily their effect on the team or ability to win, just how they fared in passing statistics....I think I understand your over-arching point, but we have to look at the author's statements in context of what he / she is saying...JMO

[CountryCletus]

To much to think about. The eye test and winning are what matters.

 

Winning most importantly!!!

 

I would like to see a QB that can get it done... Peyton is one of the best QB's this league has ever seen, he only has one Super Bowl victory.... The same number Trent Dilfer has...

 

I would love to have this current team with a player like Peyton under center!!!

 

Each QB is different and these statistics are just a history of what has happened, but it does give a little insight on when to expect to see growth... It's very hard to assume that after 4-5 years of poor play that a player will just "get it"...

 

Let's all hope that EJ can take the steps this team needs to get us to relevancy

[K-9]

To be fair, you have to put that statement in context: the author indicated such assessment according to their first 32 starts and later said that Kelly already had three years in the USFL...so strictly speaking, he was accurate with his indications of "statistics", not necessarily their effect on the team or ability to win, just how they fared in passing statistics....I think I understand your over-arching point, but we have to look at the author's statements in context of what he / she is saying...JMO

 

I understand what you're saying and I agree to a large extent. But the author seems to suggest you'll know if a QB will become great or not after their first two seasons. Based on his own analysis, he wouldn't have predicted greatness for Brady, Favre, and Kelly based on that two-year sample. Needless to say, that's a ridiculous scenario. The better and more reliable measure over time is the 1,000 attempt sample size. I also think one needs to have an appreciation for the difference between being a quarterback and being a passer. There are just some aspects of the position that will never be quantifiable statically.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

Brady, Favre, Kelly: solid but not spectacular? This analysis lacks credibility based on that conclusion alone.

 

The author could have saved himself a ton of trouble by sticking to the 1,000 attempt barometer.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> Brady, Favre, Kelly: solid but not spectacular? This analysis lacks credibility based on that conclusion alone.

 

You might want to reread the relevant parts of the article.

 

*********

Brady finished as slightly above-average in RANY/A in each of his first three seasons as a starter. . . . It wasn’t until 2004 that he had his first great statistical season

********

 

*********

[Favre] played well his first three years, but he wasn’t Brett Favre good.

*********

 

According to his method of ranking quarterbacks' careers, Tom Brady is the second-best QB ever, and Brett Favre is the 16th best quarterback ever. His ranking method isn't the one I would use, and his conclusions aren't identical to those I'd reach. But it's not like anything he's written is so oddball that his credibility can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

[BigBuff423]

 

 

I understand what you're saying and I agree to a large extent. But the author seems to suggest you'll know if a QB will become great or not after their first two seasons. Based on his own analysis, he wouldn't have predicted greatness for Brady, Favre, and Kelly based on that two-year sample. Needless to say, that's a ridiculous scenario. The better and more reliable measure over time is the 1,000 attempt sample size. I also think one needs to have an appreciation for the difference between being a quarterback and being a passer. There are just some aspects of the position that will never be quantifiable statically.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

All fair points, and none that I can truly disagree with...I suppose I see the author's article as a tool to use as one additional aspect of evaluating the QB position, in this case EJ, but not the end-all be-all determination of how or if EJ will or will not succeed for the BILLS...but, can't disagree with your statements at whatsoever..

[CountryCletus]

 

 

I understand what you're saying and I agree to a large extent. But the author seems to suggest you'll know if a QB will become great or not after their first two seasons. Based on his own analysis, he wouldn't have predicted greatness for Brady, Favre, and Kelly based on that two-year sample. Needless to say, that's a ridiculous scenario. The better and more reliable measure over time is the 1,000 attempt sample size. I also think one needs to have an appreciation for the difference between being a quarterback and being a passer. There are just some aspects of the position that will never be quantifiable statically.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

The one thing I love about his board is that there are people that can say the same exact thing that I was thinking or was trying to say, but can just communicate it much more effectively!!!

 

Well said!

[K-9]

> Brady, Favre, Kelly: solid but not spectacular? This analysis lacks credibility based on that conclusion alone.

 

You might want to reread the relevant parts of the article.

 

*********

Brady finished as slightly above-average in RANY/A in each of his first three seasons as a starter. . . . It wasn’t until 2004 that he had his first great statistical season

********

 

*********

[Favre] played well his first three years, but he wasn’t Brett Favre good.

*********

 

According to his method of ranking quarterbacks' careers, Tom Brady is the second-best QB ever, and Brett Favre is the 16th best quarterback ever. His ranking method isn't the one I would use, and his conclusions aren't identical to those I'd reach. But it's not like anything he's written is so oddball that his credibility can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

 

I dismissed it with two snaps and a circle.

 

And if Brady is the 2nd best QB ever, it would seem to fly in the face of the author's assertion that a QB's first two years predict future greatness.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

I dismissed it with two snaps and a circle.

 

And if Brady is the 2nd best QB ever, it would seem to fly in the face of the author's assertion that a QB's first two years predict future greatness.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> I dismissed it with two snaps and a circle.

 

You are entitled to your perspective.

 

> And if Brady is the 2nd best QB ever, it would seem to fly in the face of the author's assertion that a QB's first two years predict future greatness.

 

The author's exact words were as follows:

 

***************

I looked at the best 42 quarterbacks to enter the league since 1970. Then I divided each quarterback’s career into sets of 16 starts. Just four of those quarterbacks produced below-average passing numbers in each of their first two sets of 16 starts: three former first overall picks (Bradshaw, Aikman, Testaverde), and Brees. If a quarterback is below-average through two years worth of starts — say, Ryan Tannehill — then it seems highly unlikely that such a player will turn into a franchise quarterback absent extenuating circumstances. In the case of Bradshaw/Aikman/Testaverde, the extenuating circumstances were landing with terrible teams; for Brees, well, he also landed with the worst team in the league: the Chargers went 1-15 the year before he arrived, and Brees was the first pick in the second round.

***************

 

The author isn't saying that for a QB to have a great career, he has to be great at some point in his first two years. He's saying that if a QB fails to be above average in either his first or second set of 16 starts, it's very unlikely he'll go on to have a great career.

[thewildrabbit]

How Long Does It Take Great Quarterbacks To Break out?

 

http://www.footballp...s-to-break-out/

 

If a quarterback has a chance to be a star, chances are it will become apparent within two seasons. Chase Stuart of Football Perspective looked at how long it took star quarterbacks to become great, examining the top 42 quarterbacks since the merger and compared how each quarterback performed (measured by adjusted net yards per attempt) relative to the league average during their career.

I don't think you can use statistics or graphs to chart how quickly a QB develops, and its not entirely just about the player.

 

Dan Marino developed very quickly. But then his first season as starter he got together with his two new WR's (Marks Bro's), and spent the entire summer throwing passes to them in preparing for the up coming season. It also helped that his HC was Don Schula who recognized the talent he had in Marino, and went from a run first offense to a total passing offense.

 

My take is how quickly a QB develops, and ultimately how good he becomes is almost entirely dependent on his coaching staff, and his surrounding team. Clearly he needs to have all the physical tools to compete, and the desire to be great.

Over the years I've witnessed so many good QB's with great potential thrown into bad situations and have watched them to never fully develop at all.

 

Archie Manning who went to an inferior NO Saints team, and himself knowing that his sons deserved better then to be drafted by a bad team and then be forced to face an entire career under constant duress, which will never allow a QB to develop properly. I'm entirely convinced that Archie talked Eli into forcing the Chargers to trade him to the NY Giants.

 

 

Jim Plunkett comes to mind as the only beaten down QB that was eventually resurrected, and he went on to achieve success in winning two super bowls. In fact the only NFL QB who started and won two super bowls, and isn't in the HoF.

Before the 71 draft Plunkett was refereed to as the best pro QB prospect ever seen. He won the Heisman trophy in 1970 for Stanford. The Boston Patriots drafted Plunkett #1 overall, and he went to a team that was 2-12 the year before. in 71 Plunkett won UPI AFC rookie of the year.

Needless to say behind a very weak O line Plunkett was pounded on game after game, year after year going (3-11 in 72) (5-9 in 1973) (7-7 in 1974). Along the way the Patriots started building an O line, drafting John Hannah in 73, along with RB Sam "BAM" Cunningham. Then In 1975 the Patriots drafted Steve Grogan. Prior to the 1976 draft the Patriots traded Plunkett to the 49ers where he was able to take serious another beat down behind a bad line.

 

In 1978 Al Davis acquired Plunkett and sat him on the bench for two years while allowing him to recover from all those years of beatings on bad team. He then went on to win two super bowls for the Raiders.

 

Steve Young went to a terribad Tampa bay team in 1985, and sucked for two years on a bad teams. Then went to San Francisco, and sat behind HoF QB Joe Montana for fours years. The rest is super bowls, and HoF under one of the very brightest offensive minds in HC Bill Walsh.

[todd]

Deeply flawed study. No consideration is given to the benefit of sitting for a few years behind a starter (Brady, Rogers), whether or not the QB has previous professional experience (Kelly, Theismann, Moon). Those are two HUGE differences between quarterbacks, and barely mentioning those things in a study like this renders it unusable and irrelevant.

 

Of course, confirmation bias for some people is a strong thing.

[K-9]

> I dismissed it with two snaps and a circle.

 

You are entitled to your perspective.

 

> And if Brady is the 2nd best QB ever, it would seem to fly in the face of the author's assertion that a QB's first two years predict future greatness.

 

The author's exact words were as follows:

 

***************

I looked at the best 42 quarterbacks to enter the league since 1970. Then I divided each quarterback’s career into sets of 16 starts. Just four of those quarterbacks produced below-average passing numbers in each of their first two sets of 16 starts: three former first overall picks (Bradshaw, Aikman, Testaverde), and Brees. If a quarterback is below-average through two years worth of starts — say, Ryan Tannehill — then it seems highly unlikely that such a player will turn into a franchise quarterback absent extenuating circumstances. In the case of Bradshaw/Aikman/Testaverde, the extenuating circumstances were landing with terrible teams; for Brees, well, he also landed with the worst team in the league: the Chargers went 1-15 the year before he arrived, and Brees was the first pick in the second round.

***************

 

The author isn't saying that for a QB to have a great career, he has to be great at some point in his first two years. He's saying that if a QB fails to be above average in either his first or second set of 16 starts, it's very unlikely he'll go on to have a great career.

 

These are also the author's exact words, two paragraphs down from the one you quoted from his conclusion:

 

On the other hand, if we set our baseline north of league average, a number of star quarterbacks failed to average at least +1.0 RANY/A through two years worth of starts. Some of those quarterbacks were solid but not spectacular (Brady, Favre, Krieg, Kelly), others had unexpected bursts of late career success (Theismann, Gannon), while some were stuck in rough situations (McNabb, Cunningham, Elway, Moon). If a quarterback has been mediocre after two years worth of starts, the quarterbacks you want to point to are Aikman/Testaverde/Bradshaw/Brees/McNabb/Cunningham/Elway/Moon.² But the odds are much more likely, I suspect, that they just turn into the next Mark Sanchez.

 

So, based on their first two years of play, Brady, Favre, and Kelly were much more likely to be Mark Sanchez.

 

I'll save future author's the trouble of going through all the statistical machinations: it is much more likely ALL quarterback prospects will end up like Mark Sanchez or worse.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Well you could argue that by looking for a new franchise QB after only two seasons, makes the carousel keep spinning. How exactly do you pull out all stops to find that guy? Likely there are 32 GM's waiting on your answer as they don't know how themselves, other than to rub a rabbits foot and hope you get lucky. (See Tom Brady) Yes there are the Andrew Lucks who come along, but for every Luck there are around three Ryan Leafs out there. That's the problem, there are 32 teams and about a dozen top shelf QB's! With a great team built around him, you can probably get away with someone between #13 and maybe 22. (see Russell Wilson) And two years may or may not be enough to determine if this guy can be another Wilson, depends alot on the team around him. So rather than give up to quickly you'll want to give him every benefit of the doubt first before starting over again.

 

I suppose, reluctantly, that supports the notion that EJ should be given the entire year of the 2014 NFL season to demonstrate his true potential...and I'll certainly admit the last game was much improved over the HOF game...but my issue has been, this team is at the near critical mass stage of making the playoffs and I would hate to see them miss the playoffs yet again due to poor QB play...all that said, if EJ gets the rest of this NFL season to show what he is or is not, I can't really complain (well, I will but it will just be the 2 year old in me stomping my feet) but hope beyond hope, that IF EJ doesn't show marked improvement and be that "above average" QB, then DW will pull out all the stops and locate the true Franchise QB for the BILLS - whatever his name might be or what college he is currently attending or went to or where he maybe on a depth chart currently elsewhere...b/c this damn QB carousel needs to come to a grinding friggen halt!!

[K-9]

Well you could argue that by looking for a new franchise QB after only two seasons, makes the carousel keep spinning. How exactly do you pull out all stops to find that guy? Likely there are 32 GM's waiting on your answer as they don't know how themselves, other than to rub a rabbits foot and hope you get lucky. (See Tom Brady) Yes there are the Andrew Lucks who come along, but for every Luck there are around three Ryan Leafs out there. That's the problem, there are 32 teams and about a dozen top shelf QB's! With a great team built around him, you can probably get away with someone between #13 and maybe 22. (see Russell Wilson) And two years may or may not be enough to determine if this guy can be another Wilson, depends alot on the team around him. So rather than give up to quickly you'll want to give him every benefit of the doubt first before starting over again.

 

^ All of this.

 

Although I think you're being generous when you say there are perhaps a dozen top shelf QBs in the league. IMHO, there are a handful and only four that I consider elite: Manning, Brady, Rogers, Brees.

 

Most important position in all team sports and by far the hardest to fill with elite talent.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

These are also the author's exact words, two paragraphs down from the one you quoted from his conclusion:

 

 

 

So, based on their first two years of play, Brady, Favre, and Kelly were much more likely to be Mark Sanchez.

 

I'll save future author's the trouble of going through all the statistical machinations: it is much more likely ALL quarterback prospects will end up like Mark Sanchez or worse.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> So, based on their first two years of play, Brady, Favre, and Kelly were much more likely to be Mark Sanchez.

 

The text you quoted referred to whether a QB's play was one full standard deviation above the NFL average. It's possible for a QB to be above average, while being less than one full standard deviation above average.

 

The author's contention is as follows: if a QB is destined to be great, one of the following will almost certainly be true:

• He will be statistically above-average in either his first or second set of 16 starts. Not necessarily one full standard deviation above average, but above average.
  
• There will be extenuating circumstances (a terrible football team).

 

The above represents the only predictive conclusion the author makes in the article. Arguments about any predictive conclusions other than that one are straw man arguments.