QB who were Great from the Start - Does it Take 3 Years?

[johnwalter]

 

Can't disagree with the Luck love.

"Changed almost nothing" with the exception of new HC, OC, DC, changed center and Rt side of OL, changed WR, added a TE and running back, changed defensive scheme and a bunch of linemen and LB....I don't follow them closely enough to comment on their talent level relative to NE or GB (I think Wilson has a more talented team esp on D) except that their D does seem to have improved quite a lot, and to say they "changed almost nothing" is IMO highly misleading.

 

I admit my error. When I said "changed nothing," what I should have said was "upgraded nothing" - the exceptions being T.Y. Hilton and, to some extent, Coby Fleener (T.Y. might be able to sneak into the discussion as a top-10 WR / Fleener is knocking on the door of being a top-10 TE, but certainly is not yet). I suppose Arians was an upgrade at OC, but I don't think that the rest of the coaching an upgrade. RB and OL were and are some of the worst in the league. Their defense is lousy, don't let the stats fool you, I watch ~half of colts games and the numbers are very misleading. I think it's a situation like the Cowboys defense where the quality of the offense covered a lot of defensive deficiencies simply by keeping them off the field and allowing them to play with a lead. Playing against the Titans and Jags twice a year each doesn't hurt either.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

No matter how complex defenses have become the rules have been deliberately changed to help aid the offense. To help them score more. To protect the QB. You can't deny that. And the proof is in how many records are being broken and how much longer QBs are playing for.

 

That's true that there have been rule changes to protect the QB and the WR, W**3 but what I'm asking is how you interpret the impact of the change on early QB success? Positive or negative?

 

Because which way it goes isn't clear to me....the bar is higher now...a QB needs to complete more passes, throw more TDs, pass more often to be considered a success. And defenses have compensated for the rule changes that prevent them from wrapping up the wideouts and body-slamming the QB with more complexity, requiring more ability to read the D.

 

Trivia point: between 1994 and today, any idea how the rule changes have increased the league average ppg? Answer: 2.3 pts per game. Less than a FG, on average. Interesting, eh?

[OldTimer1960]

No matter how complex defenses have become the rules have been deliberately changed to help aid the offense. To help them score more. To protect the QB. You can't deny that. And the proof is in how many records are being broken and how much longer QBs are playing for.

But the standards for what good QB play have also changed (at least in terms of statistics). It used to be > 50% completion rate and 200 yards per game were very good, now that gets you benched. So, while it is true that rules have changed in favor of the offense, the definition of what a good QB is is relative to the current crop of QBs and they are all playing under the same rules - QBs of the past also all played under the same rules (at their time).

 

If you are arguing that the current rules make it easier for young QBs to succeed relative to their more veteran peers, then I wonder why there is such a dearth of good young QBs.

Edited March 3, 2015 by OldTimer1960

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

I admit my error. When I said "changed nothing," what I should have said was "upgraded nothing" - the exceptions being T.Y. Hilton and, to some extent, Coby Fleener (T.Y. might be able to sneak into the discussion as a top-10 WR / Fleener is knocking on the door of being a top-10 TE, but certainly is not yet). I suppose Arians was an upgrade at OC, but I don't think that the rest of the coaching an upgrade. RB and OL were and are some of the worst in the league. Their defense is lousy, don't let the stats fool you, I watch ~half of colts games and the numbers are very misleading. I think it's a situation like the Cowboys defense where the quality of the offense covered a lot of defensive deficiencies simply by keeping them off the field and allowing them to play with a lead. Playing against the Titans and Jags twice a year each doesn't hurt either.

 

Fair enough point on "improved defense by offense", since you can improve the offense by defense turn-about is fair play

 

I didn't think they had such a bad OL. I'll admit I don't watch them much; I saw their D in the playoffs and thought "whoa, they actually have some defense now" but maybe they were especially amped.

But the standards for what good QB play have also changed (at least in terms of statistics). It used to be > 50% completion rate and 200 yards per game were very good, now that gets you benched. So, while it is true that rules have changed in favor of the offense, it the definition of what a good QB is is relative to the current crop of QBs.

 

Yes, exactly the point I was trying to make but you said it better, thanks!

[CardinalScotts]

It depends on what you have around your QB...Marino a gifted passer to say the least but as a rookie he broke 250 yds twice but they had the #1 ranked defense and played to it. Very very few qb's came in and consistently carried their team the successful ones always had a kick butt defense an/or a running game.

 

Where im at with EJ I almost throw last season out based on not trusting the prior coaching staff. It's go time bring a capable vet as a safety net and let EJ play his way in or out of Buffalo this camp. The highest ceiling is EJ arrives as a qb but yest its almost the deepest basement.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

cam newton and russell Wilson had great rookie years.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

cam newton and russell Wilson had great rookie years.

 

I agree, my thinking was they're young QB, a bit soon to be judging on the "great" vs "good" but they're certainly both on a strong track.

 

I haven't done the homework but I'm wondering if this might be one of those cyclical things, where a couple of strong draft classes yield QB who walk right in and play.

Then it becomes an expectation and a handful of classes have multiple QB crash and burn because they aren't ready

[Thrivefourfive]

 

Interesting category I hadn't thought of - "One and Dones"

 

I was more thinking of great QB who were good from the start, and I'm not quite sure I'd call Flacco and Roeth "greats", but they're definitely good, as is Matt Ryan for that matter, and yeah, they were good out of the gate.

 

I'll leave the homework assignment for someone else. I can tell you that at the top of the 1st round of the draft, the overall success rate for a QB is about 60-70%, dropping to 50% at the bottom of the 1st, and 30% in the 2nd round or later, with success being defined as "competent NFL QB" not nebulous "Franchise Guy". So it would be statistically complicated to tease out how starting the 1st year as opposed to sitting impacts the chances of long-term success.

 

Before Peyton Manning? Nah, Marino started as a rook, Elway did, Aikman, Warren Moon. I suppose it comes in fads, Class of 83 had a bunch so it became fashionable for a while.

 

Jeff George, oy, talk about a guy with a million dollar arm and a 10 cent head

 

Yep, good catch. Ryan, Roethlisberger, Flacco.

 

Great point on the draft and Marino, Elway, Aikman, Moon. Big misconception is that you'll get a franchise guy after mid 1st round. That's unlikely. Brady and Wilson are exceptions, obviously.

 

I'm 37 and the first SB I remember is XX. Not even thinking one and dones. Just one and whatever. The list can't be that long, right? How about the guys from the 70s? Bradshaw sat for a while I think.

 

I'd love to see this list and the success rate on first year starters. I have a gut feeling that more failed than succeeded, or maybe it was close to 50/50, Manning/Leaf type deal. When I have time, I'll work on it. Promise, students.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

That's true that there have been rule changes to protect the QB and the WR, W**3 but what I'm asking is how you interpret the impact of the change on early QB success? Positive or negative?

 

Because which way it goes isn't clear to me....the bar is higher now...a QB needs to complete more passes, throw more TDs, pass more often to be considered a success. And defenses have compensated for the rule changes that prevent them from wrapping up the wideouts and body-slamming the QB with more complexity, requiring more ability to read the D.

 

Trivia point: between 1994 and today, any idea how the rule changes have increased the league average ppg? Answer: 2.3 pts per game. Less than a FG, on average. Interesting, eh?

 

I think the perception by fans, maybe by teams as well, is that with all the rule changes QB's should succeed faster. I'm not sure if that is true or not, without doing some research. I do believe there are more "good" QB's in the NFL now as opposed to 20-25 years ago. Look at the top 15 QBs in terms of passing from 20 years ago, 1995.

 

1. Brett Favre*+ GNB

2. Scott Mitchell DET

3. Warren Moon* MIN

4. Jeff George ATL

5. Jim Everett NOR

6. John Elway DEN

7. Erik Kramer CHI

8. Jeff Blake* CIN

9. Dan Marino* MIA

10. Dave Krieg ARI

11. Drew Bledsoe NWE

12. Stan Humphries SDG

13. Troy Aikman* DAL

14. Steve Young* SFO

15. Jim Kelly BUF

The best from that group are obviously: Favre, Moon, Elway, Marino, Bledsoe, Aikman, Young and Kelly (even though he was on the backside of his career). I suppose you could make an argument for George. There's 4 SB winning QB's in that bunch plus Kelly and Marino both played in a SB. Now look at the top 15 from this past year:

1. Drew Brees* NOR

2. Ben Roethlisberger* PIT

3. Andrew Luck* IND

4. Peyton Manning* DEN

5. Matt Ryan* ATL

6 Eli Manning NYG

7. Aaron Rodgers*+ GNB

8. Philip Rivers SDG

9. Matthew Stafford* DET

10. Tom Brady* NWE

11. Ryan Tannehill MIA

12. Joe Flacco BAL

13. Jay Cutler CHI

14. Tony Romo* DAL

15. Russell Wilson SEA

 

I'd say just about everyone of them are good except maybe Cutler, Tannehill and maybe Stafford. Still an argument could be made for them because for both Cutler and Stafford. There are 8 Super Bowl winning QB's in that bunch.

[GunnerBill]

 

Now look at the top 15 from this past year:

1. Drew Brees* NOR

2. Ben Roethlisberger* PIT

3. Andrew Luck* IND

4. Peyton Manning* DEN

5. Matt Ryan* ATL

6 Eli Manning NYG

7. Aaron Rodgers*+ GNB

8. Philip Rivers SDG

9. Matthew Stafford* DET

10. Tom Brady* NWE

11. Ryan Tannehill MIA

12. Joe Flacco BAL

13. Jay Cutler CHI

14. Tony Romo* DAL

15. Russell Wilson SEA

 

I'd say just about everyone of them are good except maybe Cutler, Tannehill and maybe Stafford. Still an argument could be made for them because for both Cutler and Stafford. There are 8 Super Bowl winning QB's in that bunch.

 

 

There are but there is also some age. 9 of that list came into the league 2006 or earlier and 2 of the 6 that didn't are in your "jury still out" category.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

There are but there is also some age. 9 of that list came into the league 2006 or earlier and 2 of the 6 that didn't are in your "jury still out" category.

 

 

That's true, but look at the list from 95. Marino, Kelly, Moon, Young, Elway and Aikman, who are the best of that bunch, had already been in the league by 95 for 10 years.