The overall lack of QB talent is killing the NFL

[PromoTheRobot]

Sow in today's play now NFL how does a team " make time?"

Answer: You still make time. Tell the fans and media to put a sock in it and develop your QBs. That Hot Pocket still needs to time to heat up. Edited March 15, 2016 by PromoTheRobot

[Santana]

I think the lack of great QB's in the NFL is primarily due to the fact that players are leaving a lot earlier on average more than they used to. It's the same with basketball. QB's coming out after 2-3 years, that extra year really helps with their development and understanding of the game.

[boater]

The problem is that success in college = wildcat offense.

Wildcat offense does not = success in the NFL. The speed and athleticism of NFL lineman (OL and DL) defeats wildcat offense.

As many posters have suggested: you need developmental QBs. That would bridge the gap from college/wildcat to NFL.

Or, another league. Jim Kelly developed in the USFL.

Kurt Warner developed in the arena league and NFL Europe.

A place is needed where QB's can grow after college.

Edited March 14, 2016 by boater

[Mr. WEO]

The problem is that success in college = wildcat offense.

Wildcat offense does not = success in the NFL. The speed and athleticism of NFL lineman (OL and DL) defeats wildcat offense.

As many posters have suggested: you need developmental QBs. That would bridge the gap from college/wildcat to NFL.

Or, another league. Jim Kelly developed in the USFL.

Kurt Warner developed in the arena league and NFL Europe.

A place is needed where QB's can grow after college.

 

 

Wait....what?

[3rdand12]

This. Teams used to have their drafted QB's sit behind veteran for a few years before giving them the reigns to the offense. Everyone expects most QB's to be great right away out of college. I think that if teams actually allowed a QB to develop, there would be more starting caliber QB's in the league today.

If Teams could even retain Coaches for more than 3 years !

Answer: You still make time. Tell the fans and media to put a sock in it and develop your QBs. That Hot Pockets still needs to time to heat up.

screw botulism!

I am hungry NOW

Microwave mentality

[BuffaloBill]

Lack of good young QBs?

 

Jameis - polished passing prospect, would be the #1 pick in almost any non-Luck draft, the only real concern are some character flags, though a lot of it can be brushed off as immaturity and hearsay.

 

Mariota - Aces the character concerns of Jameis, but some questions about the scheme he played in during college. Still showed so flashes on a very bad team.

 

Bortles - Really started to come around at the end of the year, again was put into a situation without a lot of talent but there's plenty of reasons for optimism.

 

Derrick Carr - Might sound ridiculous to say, but I think he likely would have gotten drafted higher had his brother not been a flameout as a #1 pick. Oakland is certainly optimistic about his future.

 

Bridgewater - A pretty polished prospect in his own right, there were some concerns with his arm strength coming out, but he's put Minnesota into the playoffs and won their division last year.

 

Russell Wilson - Concerns about his size caused him to drop down the board, but he's certainly put those aside.

 

Luck - Is Luck.

 

That's 7 franchises that feel they've found their QB of the present and future in the last 3 drafts. It also doesn't count guys like Cousins, who was also in Luck's class. Even in the vaunted 1983 draft, half the QBs in the first round were complete busts. There were 3 HOF QBs and everyone talks about that draft like each team got a Pro Bowl QB out of it. Teams really like Wentz and Goff, that's why the knocks on them are things like "Played at a small school" and "has small hands", no one wants to come out and say "we really like this kid" over a month before the draft, especially when the 1st pick is readily available.

Of that list only Russell and Luck are proven. Granted it is still early but it is a leap outside of these two guys to suggest that as QB's they have arrived. Look at the data from 10 drafts showing the first five QB's selected in that year. I arbitrarily have left the last two drafts out as it is very early days for those players:

 

+++ indicates probable HOF player

++ likely to be consensus pick for excellent talent but not HOF level

+ Starter in NFL but not universally considered excellent

(?+) tweener could go up or down

 

 

2004

Eli Manning ++(?+)

Phillip Rivers +(?+)

Ben Roethlesberger +++

JP Losman

Matt Schaub

 

2005

Alex Smith

Aaron Rogers +++

Jason Campbell

Charlie Frye

David Greene

 

2006

Vince Young

Matt Leinart (?+)

Jay Cutler

Kellen Clemens

TavarisJackson

 

2007

Jamarcus Russell

Brady Quinn

Kevin Kolb

John Beck

Drew Stanton

 

2008

Matt Ryan + (?+)

Joe Flacco + (?+)

Brian Brohm

John David Booty

Dennis Dixon

 

2009

Matthew Stafford+

Mark Sanchez

Josh Freeman

Pat White

Stephen McGee

 

2010

Sam Bradford

Tim Tebow

Jimmy Clausen

Colt McCoy

Mike Kafka

 

2011

Cam Newton ++

Jake Locker

Blaine Gabbert

Christian Ponder

Andy Dalton+(?+)

 

2012

Andrew Luck+(?+)

RG III

Ryan Tannehill (?+)

Russell Wilson ++(?+)

Nick Foles

 

2013

EJ Manuel

Mike Glennon

Matt Barkley

Ryan Nassib

 

So if you buy these ratings you go all the way back to 2005 before you get a for sure HOF QB. I do think barring injury Wilson, Luck and Newton will make it. More importantly, over that period you only have on average one guy per year that makes a solid unquestioned starter. Also, half of those years, 5 of them, did not produce an unquestioned excellent starter.

 

The point being no wonder if you are a team like the Bills on the outside looking in for a QB it is really hard to find one.

[keepthefaith]

Coaching talent may be a larger contributing factor to lack of quality QBs.

[Marty McFly]

This. Teams used to have their drafted QB's sit behind veteran for a few years before giving them the reigns to the offense. Everyone expects most QB's to be great right away out of college. I think that if teams actually allowed a QB to develop, there would be more starting caliber QB's in the league today.

Agree if Manuel got to sit on the bench for 4years before starting he would not have choked in London like that.

[3rdand12]

Coaching talent may be a larger contributing factor to lack of quality QBs.

Between that and the transition i think you might be right.

[Marty McFly]

Lack of good young QBs?

 

Jameis - polished passing prospect, would be the #1 pick in almost any non-Luck draft, the only real concern are some character flags, though a lot of it can be brushed off as immaturity and hearsay.

 

Mariota - Aces the character concerns of Jameis, but some questions about the scheme he played in during college. Still showed so flashes on a very bad team.

 

Bortles - Really started to come around at the end of the year, again was put into a situation without a lot of talent but there's plenty of reasons for optimism.

 

Derrick Carr - Might sound ridiculous to say, but I think he likely would have gotten drafted higher had his brother not been a flameout as a #1 pick. Oakland is certainly optimistic about his future.

 

Bridgewater - A pretty polished prospect in his own right, there were some concerns with his arm strength coming out, but he's put Minnesota into the playoffs and won their division last year.

 

Russell Wilson - Concerns about his size caused him to drop down the board, but he's certainly put those aside.

 

Luck - Is Luck.

 

That's 7 franchises that feel they've found their QB of the present and future in the last 3 drafts. It also doesn't count guys like Cousins, who was also in Luck's class. Even in the vaunted 1983 draft, half the QBs in the first round were complete busts. There were 3 HOF QBs and everyone talks about that draft like each team got a Pro Bowl QB out of it. Teams really like Wentz and Goff, that's why the knocks on them are things like "Played at a small school" and "has small hands", no one wants to come out and say "we really like this kid" over a month before the draft, especially when the 1st pick is readily available.

Speaking of WIlson mark my words....someone is gonna get lucky signing Vernon Adams jr in the 5th round

[Reed83HOF]

The game has changed to favor passing offenses; accordingly the play of the QB is more important in winning games (success), more so than it ever has been before...

[metzelaars_lives]

This is simply not true. Who's an average QB in the NFL? Like around the 15th best QB? Matt Stafford? You think the 15th best QB in 1986 was better than Matt Stafford? The 15th best QB in 1986 was lucky to throw for 3,000 yards and have more TD's than INT's. I realize the numbers are inflated now but this simply isn't true. In fact, the opposite is probably true. Jim Kelly hovered around the 5th-10th best QB in the league for much of his career. Do you have any idea how many flaws he had in his game? Half of Buffalo wanted Frank Reich to start at any given time. As time passes, we tend to glorify the careers and forget about the flaws of players from bygone eras. The QB play is better than ever- whether or not it is due to rule changes, that is another conversation. But it certainly isn't killing anything. I watched an hour's worth of red zone channel from week 1 of the past season on the NFL Network last night before I even realized I was watching it. The NFL is doing just fine.

Edited March 14, 2016 by metzelaars_lives

[BADOLBILZ]

If you combined the less physical nature of the position today with the decreased mental workload of the 1970's and 1980's there would be an abundance of QB talent because there has never been more size, arm strength and athleticism at the position than there is now

[metzelaars_lives]

Of that list only Russell and Luck are proven. Granted it is still early but it is a leap outside of these two guys to suggest that as QB's they have arrived. Look at the data from 10 drafts showing the first five QB's selected in that year. I arbitrarily have left the last two drafts out as it is very early days for those players:

 

+++ indicates probable HOF player

++ likely to be consensus pick for excellent talent but not HOF level

+ Starter in NFL but not universally considered excellent

(?+) tweener could go up or down

 

 

2004

Eli Manning ++(?+)

Phillip Rivers +(?+)

Ben Roethlesberger +++

JP Losman

Matt Schaub

 

2005

Alex Smith

Aaron Rogers +++

Jason Campbell

Charlie Frye

David Greene

 

2006

Vince Young

Matt Leinart (?+)

Jay Cutler

Kellen Clemens

TavarisJackson

 

2007

Jamarcus Russell

Brady Quinn

Kevin Kolb

John Beck

Drew Stanton

 

2008

Matt Ryan + (?+)

Joe Flacco + (?+)

Brian Brohm

John David Booty

Dennis Dixon

 

2009

Matthew Stafford+

Mark Sanchez

Josh Freeman

Pat White

Stephen McGee

 

2010

Sam Bradford

Tim Tebow

Jimmy Clausen

Colt McCoy

Mike Kafka

 

2011

Cam Newton ++

Jake Locker

Blaine Gabbert

Christian Ponder

Andy Dalton+(?+)

 

2012

Andrew Luck+(?+)

RG III

Ryan Tannehill (?+)

Russell Wilson ++(?+)

Nick Foles

 

2013

EJ Manuel

Mike Glennon

Matt Barkley

Ryan Nassib

 

So if you buy these ratings you go all the way back to 2005 before you get a for sure HOF QB. I do think barring injury Wilson, Luck and Newton will make it. More importantly, over that period you only have on average one guy per year that makes a solid unquestioned starter. Also, half of those years, 5 of them, did not produce an unquestioned excellent starter.

 

The point being no wonder if you are a team like the Bills on the outside looking in for a QB it is really hard to find one.

Matt Leinart? Say what?

Edited March 14, 2016 by metzelaars_lives

[GunnerBill]

Matt Leinart? Say what?

 

I imagine that was meant for Cutler.

[metzelaars_lives]

 

I imagine that was meant for Cutler.

OK that's what I was thinking. I think that list/rating scale is a bit harsh though. Cutler, like him or not, is not a "tweener." He is firmly established as an NFL starter. Sam Bradford may be more of a tweener and there is nothing next to his name. Also, Rivers is a two-star guy.

[OldTimer1960]

Of that list only Russell and Luck are proven. Granted it is still early but it is a leap outside of these two guys to suggest that as QB's they have arrived. Look at the data from 10 drafts showing the first five QB's selected in that year. I arbitrarily have left the last two drafts out as it is very early days for those players:

+++ indicates probable HOF player

++ likely to be consensus pick for excellent talent but not HOF level

+ Starter in NFL but not universally considered excellent

(?+) tweener could go up or down

2004

Eli Manning ++(?+)

Phillip Rivers +(?+)

Ben Roethlesberger +++

JP Losman

Matt Schaub

2005

Alex Smith

Aaron Rogers +++

Jason Campbell

Charlie Frye

David Greene

2006

Vince Young

Matt Leinart (?+)

Jay Cutler

Kellen Clemens

TavarisJackson

2007

Jamarcus Russell

Brady Quinn

Kevin Kolb

John Beck

Drew Stanton

2008

Matt Ryan + (?+)

Joe Flacco + (?+)

Brian Brohm

John David Booty

Dennis Dixon

2009

Matthew Stafford+

Mark Sanchez

Josh Freeman

Pat White

Stephen McGee

2010

Sam Bradford

Tim Tebow

Jimmy Clausen

Colt McCoy

Mike Kafka

2011

Cam Newton ++

Jake Locker

Blaine Gabbert

Christian Ponder

Andy Dalton+(?+)

2012

Andrew Luck+(?+)

RG III

Ryan Tannehill (?+)

Russell Wilson ++(?+)

Nick Foles

2013

EJ Manuel

Mike Glennon

Matt Barkley

Ryan Nassib

So if you buy these ratings you go all the way back to 2005 before you get a for sure HOF QB. I do think barring injury Wilson, Luck and Newton will make it. More importantly, over that period you only have on average one guy per year that makes a solid unquestioned starter. Also, half of those years, 5 of them, did not produce an unquestioned excellent starter.

The point being no wonder if you are a team like the Bills on the outside looking in for a QB it is really hard to find one.

Well done and this is what I and others have been trying to say. There is a very limited number of people on the planet that have the ability to be good or better NFL QBs. If it were as simple as "draft someone and develop them for 3-4 years, then every team would have a great QB. If it was as simple as "draft one and let him take his lumps as a starter while getting better for 3-4 years - then every team would have one.

 

It isn't as simple as the NFL has a win-now culture and won't wait for guys to develop. It isn't as simple as blaming the college schemes - today's spread offenses in college are BETTER for QB development than the triple option run by many colleges in years past.

 

The premise that there are fewer good NFL QBs today than in years past is flat false

[26CornerBlitz]

Well done and this is what I and others have been trying to say. There is a very limited number of people on the planet that have the ability to be good or better NFL QBs. If it were as simple as "draft someone and develop them for 3-4 years, then every team would have a great QB. If it was as simple as "draft one and let him take his lumps as a starter while getting better for 3-4 years - then every team would have one.

 

It isn't as simple as the NFL has a win-now culture and won't wait for guys to develop. It isn't as simple as blaming the college schemes - today's spread offenses in college are BETTER for QB development than the triple option run by many colleges in years past.

 

The premise that there are fewer good NFL QBs today than in years past is flat false

 

Disagree. With so many college offenses having QBs who don't drop back, read the entire field, or call audibles there are many come into the NFL ill prepared to do what will be asked of them at the NFL level.

[Punching Bag]

Sow in today's play now NFL how does a team " make time?"

How can they give reps given NFLPA's restrictions?

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

Allow defenses to hit receivers u til ball is in the air, start calling offense holding and quit protecting the kitty QBs and you solve the issues

[KollegeStudnet]

There was a topic on this years ago and I remember someone asking the age old question of how do you get an elite QB?

 

Everyone bashed the poster with their own opinions, because he was in for trading for Jay Cutler.

 

One poster proved his point with a simple answer, of which always stuck with me, "You start by finding one that wants to win and never lose."

 

Tom Brady is Tom Brady because he invests his time in planning, executing, learning how to evolve his game to be one step ahead of the rest.

Edited March 14, 2016 by KollegeStudnet

[nucci]

Allow defenses to hit receivers u til ball is in the air, start calling offense holding and quit protecting the kitty QBs and you solve the issues

what?

There was a topic on this years ago and I remember someone asking the age old question of how do you get an elite QB?

 

Everyone bashed the poster with their own opinions, because he was in for trading for Jay Cutler.

 

One poster proved his point with a simple answer, of which always stuck with me, "You start by finding one that wants to win and never lose."

 

Tom Brady is Tom Brady because he invests his time in planning, executing, learning how to evolve his game to be one step ahead of the rest.

Some will say he did this by illegal means

[OldTimer1960]

 

Disagree. With so many college offenses having QBs who don't drop back, read the entire field, or call audibles there are many come into the NFL ill prepared to do what will be asked of them at the NFL level.

And I disagree here, too. How many QBs that used to run the triple option in college had any significant experience dropping back to pass from center?

 

To me, the major competences required to be a great NFL QB are:

1. The ability to see the field and make good quick decisions on where to go with the ball

2. The accuracy required to deliver the ball to a spot where the receiver can catch it without getting killed and with the opportunity to gain yards after the catch. This is very closely tied to "throwing to a spot", "throwing a guy open" and "giving the receiver an opportunity to make a play".

3. Adequate arm strength and athletic ability

 

Not many of the above can be readily developed. 1 & 2 are very difficult to judge in college QBs, as the ones that are on good teams have the best receivers and are generally under not much pressure because they have great OLs. There are a TON of QBs who looked great in college waiting 5 minutes behind an impenetrable OL and selecting among 3 or more receivers that are wide-open - but lots of those guys failed in the NFL.

 

Thing is, it is hard/nearly impossible to tell which of those QBs will be able to make quicker decisions and have the accuracy under pressure to succeed in the NFL.

Edited March 14, 2016 by OldTimer1960

[26CornerBlitz]

And I disagree here, too. How many QBs that used to run the triple option in college had any significant experience dropping back to pass from center?

 

To me, the major competences required to be a great NFL QB are:

1. The ability to see the field and make good quick decisions on where to go with the ball

2. The accuracy required to deliver the ball to a spot where the receiver can catch it without getting killed and with the opportunity to gain yards after the catch. This is very closely tied to "throwing to a spot", "throwing a guy open" and "giving the receiver an opportunity to make a play".

3. Adequate arm strength and athletic ability

 

Not many of the above can be readily developed. 1 & 2 are very difficult to judge in college QBs, as the ones that are on good teams have the best receivers and are generally under not much pressure because they have great OLs. There are a TON of QBs who looked great in college waiting 5 minutes behind an impenetrable OL and selecting among 3 or more receivers that are wide-open - but lots of those guys failed in the NFL.

 

Thing is, it is hard/nearly impossible to tell which of those QBs will be able to make quicker decisions and have the accuracy under pressure to succeed in the NFL.

 

Triple option QBs in College offenses had nothing to do with the many who used to run pro style offenses that allowed for the demonstration of many of the required skill sets (including the subset that you listed) at the NFL level. Furthermore, those QBs did not always come from the best programs and were not always surrounded by the best talent. With more and more money involved at the Collegiate level, the pressure to win often supersedes getting QBs ready to play at the NFL level which is exactly why those coaches will implement whatever offense will bring them sustained success with the most expedience.

[OldTimer1960]

 

Triple option QBs in College offenses had nothing to do with the many who used to run pro style offenses that allowed for the demonstration of many of the required skill sets (including the subset that you listed) at the NFL level. Furthermore, those QBs did not always come from the best programs and were not always surrounded by the best talent. With more and more money involved at the Collegiate level, the pressure to win often supersedes getting QBs ready to play at the NFL level which is exactly why those coaches will implement whatever offense will bring them sustained success with the most expedience.

Well, I guess that we'll disagree on this. My recollection is that the option offense was the dominant college offense of the 70s. Colleges run gimmick offenses like the option and spread because there is a lack of pro-style QBs. If there were enough pro-style QBs to go around, then I think more college programs would run pro-style offenses.

[26CornerBlitz]

Well, I guess that we'll disagree on this. My recollection is that the option offense was the dominant college offense of the 70s. Colleges run gimmick offenses like the option and spread because there is a lack of pro-style QBs. If there were enough pro-style QBs to go around, then I think more college programs would run pro-style offenses.

 

I don't disagree with your recollection at all. What I'm saying is that most of the NFL QBs didn't come from those offenses irrespective of the level (1A, 1AA, Division II, Division III, or NAIA). My point with regard to NCAA offenses these days is that it's easier to implement a shotgun/spread scheme in the interest of winning in order for coaches to keep themselves and their staffs employed. You lose these days with so much money on the line and you are out quickly.

[Big Turk]

Part of the reason is the college game has gone away from the pro style systems in many cases and the QBs lack basic fundamentals they need to succeed at the pro level. So in effect they are starting from scratch, and in some cases I. a hole because of all the things they have to "unlearn"...

 

Colleges are killing the NFL QB supply but what are teams going to do? They can't control colleges that can exploit inherent weaknesses at that level that don't exist at the NFL level...

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

To me this is the big one. QB's aren't able to mentally process things fast enough due to the speed of the game.

 

On the other hand to your point of 10 good/ 10 middle and 10 bottom; maybe it's just simple math. Back in the days of Joe Willy, Sonny Jurgenson, Starr, Unitas, etc there were less teams. In the early 70's I think there were about 26 teams which is about 20% less. Plus seemed back then the bad teams with bad QB's were terrible all around and without FA stayed that way. In 1970, if you were a fan of say Philly, Pitt, Atlanta, NE, Cleveland, who cares about the QB as the rest of the team was pretty bad too. More of the good QB's came from the AFL side of things too if that has any underlying meaning??

 

i'm going the other way

 

 

#1- the defenses are so much better.

 

#2- you cant have 32 All-Pro's at any postion, even QB.

 

#3- no matter the skill level, there will always be a Franchise Top 10, an acceptable middle 10 and a we need better bottom 10.

[Steve Billieve]

Arguably, Andrew Luck was the last QB to come out of college as a consensus "NFL ready" QB. This overall dearth of talent is hurting the league. Should the NFL do anything different to try to address this situation?

I think the answer is yes. I have two ideas to do so. The first one is insane and not likely to be considered. The second is realistic.

Option one - have a special draft that I'd for QB's only. Every team has to select one. this action is then combined with the second option.

Option two - Every team should be required to carry a developmental QB in a designated additional roster spot that is paid at a fixed salary. Teams would be free in the offseason to treat all of these individuals as eligible Free Agents unless they are moved to the active roster by the team that has their rights and they are signed to a contract beyond the minimum.

The above would give more players at the position time to develop. Colleges are not preparing players at this position for the NFL.

The talent available at qb is the same as for everything. I think you're mad at the bell curve distribution.

[Boatdrinks]

Well, I guess that we'll disagree on this. My recollection is that the option offense was the dominant college offense of the 70s. Colleges run gimmick offenses like the option and spread because there is a lack of pro-style QBs. If there were enough pro-style QBs to go around, then I think more college programs would run pro-style offenses.

There are other factors as well. Colleges also run these offenses because there is a lack of NFL caliber talent on opposing defenses . That's why those offenses don't work in the NFL , high talent level and fairly even distribution of talent among the 32 teams. That's not true in college so it's easy to win games with a " gimmick" offense that most defenses will not have the elite speed / quickness to deal with. You don't need to run a pro style offense, so why do it? Even if there were more pro caliber QBs , I still think you would see these offenses remain popular at the college level. And most colleges cannot identify pro caliber QBs that soon anyway. NFL scouts have a hard enough time. The overall game is different, and the uneven talent distribution among teams makes the college style offense popular because they are effective at that level regardless of whether you have an eventual pro at QB.

[Big Turk]

Well, I guess that we'll disagree on this. My recollection is that the option offense was the dominant college offense of the 70s. Colleges run gimmick offenses like the option and spread because there is a lack of pro-style QBs. If there were enough pro-style QBs to go around, then I think more college programs would run pro-style offenses.

I think if you went back and looked up the stats in the 70s and early 80s you'd see a far different landscape than today...teams ran far more often and passed far less.

 

Even looking back at the super bowl Bill's K-Gun teams...his numbers would be middle of the NFL these days.

 

The game has evolved into a passing league as more and more rules are implemented giving the passing game big advantages over the defense...

There are other factors as well. Colleges also run these offenses because there is a lack of NFL caliber talent on opposing defenses . That's why those offenses don't work in the NFL , high talent level and fairly even distribution of talent among the 32 teams. That's not true in college so it's easy to win games with a " gimmick" offense that most defenses will not have the elite speed / quickness to deal with. You don't need to run a pro style offense, so why do it? Even if there were more pro caliber QBs , I still think you would see these offenses remain popular at the college level. And most colleges cannot identify pro caliber QBs that soon anyway. NFL scouts have a hard enough time. The overall game is different, and the uneven talent distribution among teams makes the college style offense popular because they are effective at that level regardless of whether you have an eventual pro at QB.

Exactly...even at the best college programs, you will only have a handful of NFL players...

[BuffaloBill]

The talent available at qb is the same as for everything. I think you're mad at the bell curve distribution.

Who declared that I am mad? Besides, there is hardly a bell curve at play here. My point is that the NFL can make its product better by working to expand the pool of available talent at its most critical position.

[billsfan89]

QB development could be much better. Top picks are being rushed into action because owners and coaches are impatient and trying to get results or save their jobs. Any QB should sit their rookie year and learn NFL defenses, offenses, polish up mechanics, and learn to prepare as a pro. To be honest most QB's should sit 2 years before taking the field. But QB's always get rushed into action.

[apuszczalowski]

Whats killing the game, like many other things in this world, is the internet, and fantasy Football.

 

Back in the Kelly days, I would bet there were just as many good/great QBs as there are in the league today, the difference is no one paid so much attention to stats and film outside of the NFL office then the fans do today because they are too busy playing armchair GM/Scout with whatever footage and info thrown out there on the web today while trying to fill their fantasy team.

 

and yes, back then teams took their time bringing up players, partly because they didn't have a huge chunk of their salary cap tied up in first rounders forcing them to have to start and make an impact right away, and also back then organisations gave coaches and GMs time to build and work with their rosters. Now your lucky as a coach or GM to get 2 years to turn a team around before being shown the door and the new guy with a whole new system comes in. (not that it isn't always terrible to cut your losses and ralise a mistake is a mistake early *cough* Rex Ryan *cough*)

[PlayoffsPlease]

Nothing is killing the game. It's been a passing game for years. P Manning proved the rare instance where crappy QB play doesn't prevent a SB winning season.

 

First round QBs are drafted to start as rookies--this has been true for decades--why pretend otherwise? Some have done well, some have busted out--this has always been the way.

 

Newton, Wilson came right out of college ready to go. MAriota looked pretty good on an awful team. Even Wisnton looked OK by season's end.

 

The game is fine..

yep

This. Teams used to have their drafted QB's sit behind veteran for a few years before giving them the reigns to the offense. Everyone expects most QB's to be great right away out of college. I think that if teams actually allowed a QB to develop, there would be more starting caliber QB's in the league today.

Myth. The vast majority of QBs that eventually made the playoffs started by year 2 in the last 25 years. Aaron Rodgers being the rare exception because he was on a team with a HOF QB.

Who declared that I am mad? Besides, there is hardly a bell curve at play here. My point is that the NFL can make its product better by working to expand the pool of available talent at its most critical position.

Team has the exact incentives to put a QB on the practice squad, as Idea # in the OP, with the exception they need have player they think is worthy.

[justnzane]

Part of the problem of talent development (not just at the QB position) is that the NFL relies on a separate unaffiliated league to develop the talent for them. The other professional sports leagues rely on either:

 

• signing kids as youths and developing their skills in a system to be eventually ready for the main squad where the parent club is not too worried about youth team's results as long as they are developing the talent the way they want them. If the players are ready for professional level action, but not at the level of team, they lend them out to lower level teams to get experience. Such sports to use a youth/reserve squad and loans set-up as such: soccer, motor racing (minus the loans) and hockey/basketball overseas
• or drafting kids post college to put them in a farm league set up, with similar goals as above. The pro teams subsidize the farm team by making sure it is financially not crumbling and provide for the salaries of the majority of the players on the team. Such sports to use this model: baseball, basketball, and hockey, all predominantly in North America.

This point is relevant as NFL Europe despite losing money was important for talent development and marketing the sport as a whole overseas. This was a win/win that has been replaced with few players making it through canada or arena league instead and our top teams having to play in Wembley or in a few years the new Tottenham stadium.

[YattaOkasan]

The talent available at qb is the same as for everything. I think you're mad at the bell curve distribution.

 

 

Who declared that I am mad? Besides, there is hardly a bell curve at play here. My point is that the NFL can make its product better by working to expand the pool of available talent at its most critical position.

Agreed its not a Gaussian distribution at all. I would think its closer to exponential decay.

[PromoTheRobot]

This is simply not true. Who's an average QB in the NFL? Like around the 15th best QB? Matt Stafford? You think the 15th best QB in 1986 was better than Matt Stafford? The 15th best QB in 1986 was lucky to throw for 3,000 yards and have more TD's than INT's. I realize the numbers are inflated now but this simply isn't true. In fact, the opposite is probably true. Jim Kelly hovered around the 5th-10th best QB in the league for much of his career. Do you have any idea how many flaws he had in his game? Half of Buffalo wanted Frank Reich to start at any given time. As time passes, we tend to glorify the careers and forget about the flaws of players from bygone eras. The QB play is better than ever- whether or not it is due to rule changes, that is another conversation. But it certainly isn't killing anything. I watched an hour's worth of red zone channel from week 1 of the past season on the NFL Network last night before I even realized I was watching it. The NFL is doing just fine.

I'll take that a step further. Madden football has given fans unreasonable expectations of what QB play should be. If you aren't throwing 80 yard bombs every play, you suck.

[Nitro]

I heard an old football coach in the 90s say the NFL will have problems with QBs in the future because the evolving and complex offenses. Keep it simple and tailor the offense to the talents of the QB. Too many coaches go the "square peg, round hole" route. Elite QBs are just that and there is only a few each generation. The pendulum has swung to a pass happy league but it might return to a balance with teams looking back at the running game to help the QB. Only time will tell. Good debate thus far.

[Dragonborn10]

Honestly the same can be said of almost every position except perhaps WR and CB. There aren't 32 quality starting LT's, MLB's, TE's, FS, or centers. You could probably name 30 or 40 WR/DB that are at least competent to start.