Why the NFL gets the QB Wrong so often.... (ESPN 2-part Series)

[NewColtsFan]

 

ESPN's Senior NFL writer has done an exhaustive look at why NFL team so often get the QB spot so spectacurly wrong. 

 

The answers aren't as obvious and easy as you might think.

 

These two parts are likely the longest I've ever linked.    They're free.    No ESPN paywall.    But they're very long and detailed.     And even though the Colts don't need a QB this year,  the position is so fascinating that I thought some of you might really enjoy reading this.      Each part is long.    I'd guess it might take you 5-10 minutes to read each.    Maybe longer.

 

But it's the weekend and you've got some free time.     So, if the topic interests you....    just click and read....

 

OK.....    they've bundled the two parts together....    and Part Two is set-up to be read first.    Then Part one. 

 

If you want to read them in oder, (it's not necessary)   then just scroll down and read Part One first.     Then scroll back to the top to read part two.

 

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects#Part1

[Fat Clemenza]

Great article, thanks!

 

Projecting most QB's is a crapshoot- two of the best ever lasted until the third (Montana) and sixth rounds (Brady).  What I thought was interesting was how the draft is important but so is matching the right player to your system, adjusting your system to highlight the strengths of your great players, and having continuity in coaching philosophy. 

 

Montana and Brady have lots of rings, but without Walsh and Belichick, would they have gotten any? 

[crazycolt1]

A lot of QBs being good is the team and system they play in.

The Pats back up QBs have been very successful when Brady was out.

Steve Young took the place of Montana and the 49 ers didn't miss a beat.

Dan Marino was one of the greatest talents that ever played in the NFL but never won the ring because Miami's team wasn't good enough. But the undefeated Miami team won the majority of their games with an old Earl Morrall. Then won the super bowl with Bob Griese who really wasn't considered a great QB.

Those are just the examples I am using to make a point.

Dan Fouts had all the talent in the world but never got a ring.

P. Manning may have been the best QB in history but didn't earn the rings because most all his teams were not good enough to get those rings.

How many rings does Brady wear if the opposing team hadn't folded? How many rings does he have that Vinatieri didn't kick for the win?

The QBs get entirely way too much credit for being great but in reality it was the teams they played for.  A QB does nothing without the team around him no matter how much or how little talent they have.

[ColtsBlueFL]

8 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The QBs get entirely way too much credit for being great but in reality it was the teams they played for.  A QB does nothing without the team around him no matter how much or how little talent they have.

 

It's well known, yet often forgotten. The Head Coach and/or Quarterback gets too much credit for victories, and too much flak for losses.  But I have to add... most of the time. ;-)

[NewColtsFan]

17 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

A lot of QBs being good is the team and system they play in.

The Pats back up QBs have been very successful when Brady was out.

Steve Young took the place of Montana and the 49 ers didn't miss a beat.

Dan Marino was one of the greatest talents that ever played in the NFL but never won the ring because Miami's team wasn't good enough. But the undefeated Miami team won the majority of their games with an old Earl Morrall. Then won the super bowl with Bob Griese who really wasn't considered a great QB.

Those are just the examples I am using to make a point.

Dan Fouts had all the talent in the world but never got a ring.

P. Manning may have been the best QB in history but didn't earn the rings because most all his teams were not good enough to get those rings.

How many rings does Brady wear if the opposing team hadn't folded? How many rings does he have that Vinatieri didn't kick for the win?

The QBs get entirely way too much credit for being great but in reality it was the teams they played for.  A QB does nothing without the team around him no matter how much or how little talent they have.

 

Remember,  you're comparing QB's and teams from the 70's and 80's with teams in the 90's and more recently.

 

Completely different eras....     Today,  it's a quarterback driven league.     It wasn't back then.    You could win with a running game and defense.    Having a franchise QB wasn't necessary.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

41 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Remember,  you're comparing QB's and teams from the 70's and 80's with teams in the 90's and more recently.

 

Completely different eras....     Today,  it's a quarterback driven league.     It wasn't back then.    You could win with a running game and defense.    Having a franchise QB wasn't necessary.

 

 

Even a 'franchise' QB wins zero without a team around him. Era's have nothing to do with it. It may be a QB driven league now but no QB has every won any games without the support of a team around him. It's always been that way and it's never going to change. Peyton just won a super bowl in 2016 when he had his worst season of his career in Denver.

[NewColtsFan]

10 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Even a 'franchise' QB wins zero without a team around him. Era's have nothing to do with it. It may be a QB driven league now but no QB has every won any games without the support of a team around him. It's always been that way and it's never going to change. Peyton just won a super bowl in 2016 when he had his worst season of his career in Denver.

 

Era's have lots to do with it.

 

Teams won Super Bowls without franchise QBs because they had good running games and a defense.    It wasn't a QB driven league back then, and it is now.

 

Denver winning despite Manning is the exception to the rule in the current NFL.   Back in the 60's, 70's, 80's that was the norm.

 

I think we agree that you need a complete team...   or as close to a complete as you can build these days.   I'm just saying comparing QBs from different eras is counter productive because the game has dramatically changed...

 

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Era's have lots to do with it.

 

Teams won Super Bowls without franchise QBs because they had good running games and a defense.    It wasn't a QB driven league back then, and it is now.

 

Denver winning despite Manning is the exception to the rule in the current NFL.   Back in the 60's, 70's, 80's that was the norm.

 

I think we agree that you need a complete team...   or as close to a complete as you can build these days.   I'm just saying comparing QBs from different eras is counter productive because the game has dramatically changed...

 

In today's NFL it is geared for the QB to be great. They are protected and just about every rule on the field is geared for more offence.

I don't think comparing era's of QBs is counted productive at all. No matter what eras the NFL is played the QB's do not win games at all without teams playing well.

QB's get all the glory and media coverage but none of that would happen without team mates making plays.

It's always did you see that pass the QB A made?  He won the game . But how often is it mentioned the blocking that made the play happen? Or how the receiver made the catch? Great receivers can make QBs look great too.

How about some special teams play that put the offense in great position? Or a defense that got a turnover for the offense?

[LockeDown]

I have always thought it had more to do with the system, the coaches and also the culture, ala Pittsburgh.  Manning, Marino and Elway had skills that would make them great no matter what team they were on, but they all 3 played on teams that if they weren't there, their teams weren't very good.  its not my desire to knock a good system QB, but they shouldn't be called the GOAT either and that gets my goat.