Disclaimer: The subject was intended to be sensational to spark debate. I'm not sure I believe that it is, but consider this....
History tells us that you have to have a high draft pick QB to win the Superbowl.
But why is it that those same guys, old guys, win the Superbowl every year? What happens when these guys, who are all in their mid to late thirties, retire? Who is the next Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, or even the ones that are in that mold? The Eli Mannings, Joe Flaccos, or the Andrew Lucks? I don't see them out there in the league. I see system quarterbacks. High Schools and Colleges aren't producing these guys anymore as far as I can tell. When you have teams fighting to pay Kirk Cousins the most money of any player in history, the model is broken. Alex Smith just got 71 million guaranteed. Why does Cleveland even want Cousins when they have the first overall pick and another top 5 pick. They could have any of those QB's, but they want Cousins.
I think what the Eagles are doing is the future. It started with the Seahawks a couple of years ago. Good system and having the right guys to operate within that system. Carson Wentz looked like the real deal, until Nick Foles came right in without skipping a beat. Now the Eagles are going to trade Foles for a king's ransom, only problem is, it's wasn't Foles. It was the system.
Gettleman said in his introductory presser that you still win in this league by running the ball, controlling the LOS on both sides, and rushing the passer. It really may be that simple.
The league is evolving.
However, I will say, the Eagles aren't going to trade Nick Foles for a King's ransom. Simply because I highly doubt a team will offer that. I just can't see it.
In particular, Foles.
But Wentz is the real deal. He has a rocket arm, can make all the NFL throws, and until his injury was a threat to run and create throws on the run.
Calling Wentz a system QB is taking some credit away from him. I think he'd be good in the Gilbride offense, the Pederson offense, and any offense in between (sans McAdoo's).
Case Keenum made it to the NFC Championship game. Foles won the Superbowl.
That's where I see the league heading after the Brady's, Brees's, and Mannings retire.
But in that mix we have seen the Rypiens, Heberts, the Everetts, QBs like Humphries, Odonnel etc. Then came the Dilfer like QBs, Brad Johson, Gus Frerotte, and the flat out busts along the way that sit in the league every year..
Not saying you are wrong, but i do agree and think that there are less "holy mother of god he is great" QBs active now than there were but I think that cycle will come round again
Passing games used to be predicated on seven step drops, slow developing routes, and aggressive defense/hitting on WRs. Now the game is more short developing routes where the ball comes out quicker and receivers can't hardly be touched. Of course it is easier for today's average QBs to surpass the numbers of much better passers from years ago. It's easier for them.
Yesterday you were posting about how time of possession and running the ball was still the way to win in the NFL. That is no more true than what you said about the franchise QB model. There are many ways to win in the NFL. The key is that you have to match the system you install to the talent you have and stay true to it.
But in that mix we have seen the Rypiens, Heberts, the Everetts, QBs like Humphries, Odonnel etc. Then came the Dilfer like QBs, Brad Johson, Gus Frerotte, and the flat out busts along the way that sit in the league every year..
Not saying you are wrong, but i do agree and think that there are less "holy mother of god he is great" QBs active now than there were but I think that cycle will come round again
I would believe that, if the high school and college systems haven't evolved so much.
They are no longer teaching their QB's to read defenses, audible, or call their own plays.
The reality of the current high school and college landscape is you're seeing entire teams look to the sideline before lining up rather than having a QB call the play. You literally have kids that make it to the NFL level without EVER having taken a snap from under center.
The high school and college game have already evolved. We're beginning to see the result of that in the NFL.
That's where I see the league heading after the Brady's, Brees's, and Mannings retire.
It isn't that there are no more talented QBs in the world anymore, it's that so few of today's QBs are asked to do what Brady, Brees and Manning were. The world didn't forget how to develop QB talent.
Quote:
That's where I see the league heading after the Brady's, Brees's, and Mannings retire.
It isn't that there are no more talented QBs in the world anymore, it's that so few of today's QBs are asked to do what Brady, Brees and Manning were. The world didn't forget how to develop QB talent.
I think you underestimate the proliferation of the spread offense and what affect that has on QB development, which is what I was alluding to in the post above your last one.
Quote:
But Its cyclical. Its not every day you get a 2004 class, or a 1983 class that dumps a bunch of HOF caliber QBs into the mix for many years. Add in the once in a blue moon Bradys Favres, P Mannings and Montanas, then put the stand outs like Kelly, Moon etc in the mix and you literally have the last 30 some years worth of Franchise QBs (that stood out).
But in that mix we have seen the Rypiens, Heberts, the Everetts, QBs like Humphries, Odonnel etc. Then came the Dilfer like QBs, Brad Johson, Gus Frerotte, and the flat out busts along the way that sit in the league every year..
Not saying you are wrong, but i do agree and think that there are less "holy mother of god he is great" QBs active now than there were but I think that cycle will come round again
I would believe that, if the high school and college systems haven't evolved so much.
They are no longer teaching their QB's to read defenses, audible, or call their own plays.
The reality of the current high school and college landscape is you're seeing entire teams look to the sideline before lining up rather than having a QB call the play. You literally have kids that make it to the NFL level without EVER having taken a snap from under center.
The high school and college game have already evolved. We're beginning to see the result of that in the NFL.
That I agree 100 percent with, as HS goes pretty much all Spread Option, it really hurts the young QBs, and college is in love with it (for now).
The problem is a true SO doesn't work in the current NFL and I know its going that route, but I think college will revert back to a pocket passer one day too. there will be a Coach who retools around a system and next thing everybody is doing it, its a wash rinse repeat cycle.
But you can see why QBs like Rosen who in other years would be moderate ot ordinary is so highly touted as he isn't the modern offense equivalent of Benny Hill
These are the guys that get fed into the NFL game. There are a lot of similarities with the young QBs around the league, and honestly I don’t see a huge talent gap between any of them. None of them look like QBs who are capable of transcending the game like a Brady, Brees, Rodgers, etc. Is there a difference between Carr and Marriotta? Are either someone you should be afraid of?
The system probably is more important in today’s game. In addition to the examples the OP mentioned, look at Goff. 2 years ago everyone called him a bust. Now he’s the real deal or even “elite.” He didn’t just wake up one morning last summer and turn from trash to gold. But he did get the coach that gave Ryan the best year of his career.
If this is true, the sharp play is to do a 180 on conventional wisdom. Instead of picking the QB and building everything around him, pick the right scheme/cast and then get a QB that fits.
In particular, Foles.
But Wentz is the real deal. He has a rocket arm, can make all the NFL throws, and until his injury was a threat to run and create throws on the run.
Calling Wentz a system QB is taking some credit away from him. I think he'd be good in the Gilbride offense, the Pederson offense, and any offense in between (sans McAdoo's).
carson wentz would absolutely not anything more than an average qb in the Gilbride system. If you need Wentz to drop back and read progressions for 30 snaps a game he is not your guy. He is so good at the misdirection, people honestly do not know what they are watching. His redzone numbers were off the charts because of how potent a red zone offense that team is. Look at his numbers on first and second down, compared to third down. Wentz is a good qb, but I dont think he is anything I would go nuts to get. He certainly isnt a Rogers, Ben, Peyton, Brees QB-- a qb that can win you a game all by himself, not even close.
Aaron Rodgers: 34
Drew Brees: 38
Tom Brady: 40
When is the new blood going to start winning with any regularity? Who is the next Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady? All of these franchise QB's that you speak of are getting old/older. Where are the next ones out there in the league right now?
Quote:
that the system the Eagles run is helping their QBs.
In particular, Foles.
But Wentz is the real deal. He has a rocket arm, can make all the NFL throws, and until his injury was a threat to run and create throws on the run.
Calling Wentz a system QB is taking some credit away from him. I think he'd be good in the Gilbride offense, the Pederson offense, and any offense in between (sans McAdoo's).
carson wentz would absolutely not anything more than an average qb in the Gilbride system. If you need Wentz to drop back and read progressions for 30 snaps a game he is not your guy. He is so good at the misdirection, people honestly do not know what they are watching. His redzone numbers were off the charts because of how potent a red zone offense that team is. Look at his numbers on first and second down, compared to third down. Wentz is a good qb, but I dont think he is anything I would go nuts to get. He certainly isnt a Rogers, Ben, Peyton, Brees QB-- a qb that can win you a game all by himself, not even close.
Weren't they the top third down team in the league? Wentz was up there in nearly every category.
I think you're selling him short.
And BTW, I think Goff is pretty darn good too.
Two very good draft picks.
Quote:
The teams that have franchise QBs are in the running almost every single year. The teams that don't have to catch lightning in a bottle. Nothing has changed, I'll take Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Tom Brady, thank you very much.
Aaron Rodgers: 34
Drew Brees: 38
Tom Brady: 40
When is the new blood going to start winning with any regularity? Who is the next Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady? All of these franchise QB's that you speak of are getting old/older. Where are the next ones out there in the league right now?
I think Ryan is as close to winning consistently as anyone in the next generation. He has had two or three twelve win seasons, constantly makes the playoffs, been to a super bowl, etc.
But isn't a QBs play on third down indicative of how good he is? I mean, I think it is....it's like you drive for show and putt for dough. Third down is like putting.....it's where you win and make your bones.
And yes, the Eagles run it and when you run for 150+ yards a game, that makes it easier to play QB. We all argue over that right here with our own QB. Also, I'm in complete agreement their system is the hot item right now and allowed them to free up receivers quite easily for pitch and catch throws.
However, I'm not saying he's plug and play, I'm saying he's got the goods/talent to run any type of offense. He's got the arm, but also can make the touch throw. Also can do it on the run. Ball handling is excellent.
I mean, c'mon...the guy has talent.
Quote:
In comment 13836912 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
The teams that have franchise QBs are in the running almost every single year. The teams that don't have to catch lightning in a bottle. Nothing has changed, I'll take Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Tom Brady, thank you very much.
Aaron Rodgers: 34
Drew Brees: 38
Tom Brady: 40
When is the new blood going to start winning with any regularity? Who is the next Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady? All of these franchise QB's that you speak of are getting old/older. Where are the next ones out there in the league right now?
I think Ryan is as close to winning consistently as anyone in the next generation. He has had two or three twelve win seasons, constantly makes the playoffs, been to a super bowl, etc.
Ryan will be 33 this year.
Quote:
his numbers on first down and second down were not. I am not saying he isn't good or that he doesnt make some miraculous plays, but he is not a plug in qb, not from what I have seen. His redzone numbers were also fantastic, but so was Foles because as we saw in the playoffs, they have great play designs and the ability to run makes the red zone much easier. You put Wentz on say Tampa Bay or Arizona, I don't think they become a winning team all of a sudden. You put BRees, Brady, Rodgers, etc on those teams, they will be winning next week.
But isn't a QBs play on third down indicative of how good he is? I mean, I think it is....it's like you drive for show and putt for dough. Third down is like putting.....it's where you win and make your bones.
And yes, the Eagles run it and when you run for 150+ yards a game, that makes it easier to play QB. We all argue over that right here with our own QB. Also, I'm in complete agreement their system is the hot item right now and allowed them to free up receivers quite easily for pitch and catch throws.
However, I'm not saying he's plug and play, I'm saying he's got the goods/talent to run any type of offense. He's got the arm, but also can make the touch throw. Also can do it on the run. Ball handling is excellent.
I mean, c'mon...the guy has talent.
I never said he did not have talent or he was not good, what i said was that i am not sure he is a plug in player in any system and I dont view him talent wise in the way I view guys like Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Peyton, or even Luck when healthy. He is a good player, but he needs good players to win. There is nothing wrong with that, so does Eli and he is a very good qb. But when you discuss the ones that really make a difference without regard to system or talent, I am not going there with Wentz. I do not see it. If anyone, I think Goff has the shot to be that type of qb as he matures. His arm talent is off the charts
QBs under 30 that will be part of the "next group". This means these will be your top 10 QBs in the league who will have their team competing every year. You can probably pick your next "hall of fame" type QB out of this group in a few years.
Goff
Wentz
Watson
Newton
Stafford
Wilson
Carr
Garoppolo
Next year we can evaluate Mahomes too as he seems promising.
QBs over 30 but under 35:
Rodgers 34
Ryan 32
Flacco 32
Dalton 30 (questionable addition to this list for sure)
If you're looking for the next pocket passer, you will have a hard time finding that because that style of play isn't part of the trend. It's all about quick release, accuracy, RPO decision making and pre-snap reads.
Wentz had an amazing year. Foles wasn't just some scrub. He's produced in the past and he was also not amazingly good this year in half those games he played. Also, NE's defense sucked.
Wilson was a 3rd rounder, Carr and Garappolo were 2nd rounders. Everyone else was a 1st rounder.
You're still going to have the best chance to draft a QB in the 1st round.
Reality still will be the teams with the best QB play will have the most success.
Peyton
Brady
Rodgers
Ben
Ryan
Newton
Luck
Eli - whoever you want to put in this list
will be replaced by:
Goff
Wentz
Watson
Trubisky (who knows?)
Mahomes
Rosen
Darnold
Allen
etc.
and if that next great QB comes in the 4th round, he'll only be a 4th round QB until his contract is up and someone has to pay him, then he becomes a franchise QB.
The Seahawks were a juggernaught when Russell Wilson, a great QB was making $500k a year. They went to two Superbowls and should have won the 2nd. Then Wilson gets paid and suddenly their o-line deteriorates, he doesn't have enough weapons around him and their defense is top heavy with little depth.
I can give countless other examples. Spew all you want about market value, rising salary cap, etc. The Ravens were consistently a deep playoff team on Joe Flacco's rookie contract, and won a superbowl. He is as average as they come in my eyes. Now look at how much that team has struggled since he got paid.
It sucks that Garappolo can get $137M off of 7 starts, because teams are that desperate for great QB play. You are right, the Eagles system is great, but I also think Wentz, a top 2 pick is great. They are going to be a pain for a long time because of him. But once he gets paid a kings ransom, the Eagles can say bye to that great o-line and defense.
The Eagles proved the opposite. You can have a successful group of talent, and a system in place that renders the QB a less meaningful and still be successful.
Now the teams with QBs that are better, do have a better shot at repeating down the road. As you can see by the repeat Super Bowl winners. It will be interesting to see if Foles or some lesser QB can get a repeat Super Bowl victory.
These are the guys that get fed into the NFL game. There are a lot of similarities with the young QBs around the league, and honestly I don’t see a huge talent gap between any of them. None of them look like QBs who are capable of transcending the game like a Brady, Brees, Rodgers, etc. Is there a difference between Carr and Marriotta? Are either someone you should be afraid of?
The system probably is more important in today’s game. In addition to the examples the OP mentioned, look at Goff. 2 years ago everyone called him a bust. Now he’s the real deal or even “elite.” He didn’t just wake up one morning last summer and turn from trash to gold. But he did get the coach that gave Ryan the best year of his career.
If this is true, the sharp play is to do a 180 on conventional wisdom. Instead of picking the QB and building everything around him, pick the right scheme/cast and then get a QB that fits.
Exactly what I'm saying.
So, you draft a QB that may 1 day become a pocket passer and start him off in a familiar system. Then over a few years time, you give that QB more responsibilities. Avoid drafting QBs that are merely athletes and look for a kid that can recognize a defense. That's where your new group of HoF QBs will come from.
The Seahawks were a juggernaught when Russell Wilson, a great QB was making $500k a year. They went to two Superbowls and should have won the 2nd. Then Wilson gets paid and suddenly their o-line deteriorates, he doesn't have enough weapons around him and their defense is top heavy with little depth.
I can give countless other examples. Spew all you want about market value, rising salary cap, etc. The Ravens were consistently a deep playoff team on Joe Flacco's rookie contract, and won a superbowl. He is as average as they come in my eyes. Now look at how much that team has struggled since he got paid...
Good point about the QB and the cap. Right now a good QB will make about the same as 3 very good players would make, or 2 great players or 6 solid veteran players make.
One solution to this issue is limiting a QBs pay but that will never fly. Another option is to always have a cheap QB on a rookie contract in the wings at all times and be prepared to put the new guy in as the experienced QB gets near his big pay day.
If teams did this the law of supply and demand would indicate that veteran QBs salaries would eventually come down. We'll just have to wait and see.
I get what you are saying, but I just can't justify in my head taking a RB at 2. You can point to Gurley and Fournette, but the majority of great RBs in this league are mid round draft picks. I would rather take Michel or Chubb in the 3rd round. IMO Barkley would have to be Barry Sanders to justify the number 2 pick for the Giants right now, and he was a little too inconsistent in college for me.
I mean look at the great RBs the Giants have had in the past 20 years. Barber was a 2nd round pick, Jacobs was a 4th round pick and Bradshaw was a late 7th round pick. I want a QB at number 2, so maybe I am being biased, but if Gettleman and co. are convinced none of the QBs that will be available are franchise caliber, than I am all in favor of trading way down to the highest bidder, and building a more complete team.
Look at the contracts given out in the last couple of year to Garoppolo, Carr, ...even Glennon got paid. What is the expected salary of Kirk Cousins? The league votes with it's wallet. Right now, they are voting that they need franchise QBs.
The thought that 2nd tier QBs can win the Super Bowl because Nick Foles did, ignores that the vast majority of championships are won with franchise level guys - Brady, Brees, Manning, Eli, Rogers, Big Ben, etc. will always have an advantage due to their abilities. The exceptions are when a team has a dominant defense (2001 Ravens), or when a starting QB goes down late in the year, after home field has been established (1990 Giants, 2017 Phila).
2nd tier guys can win games, even a playoff game or two, but will almost always fall short when needed (see Bortles, 2017 AFC Championship game, & Keenum, 2017 NFC Championship game), unless their defense is strong enough to cover for them.
I disagree with this premise. History tells us most Super Bowl winners have elite QBs. Sometimes you can win with a solid but less-than-stellar QB (Dilfer) or a quality backup (Hostetler, Foles), but most Super Bowl winners have elite QBs.
Whether that QB is drafted early in the first round (Elway, Bradshaw, both Mannings, Roethlisberger) or later in the draft (Montana, Brady, Unitas, Williams) or even undrafted (Warner) doesn't matter.
Brees, Young, Plunkett, Dawson and Unitas weren't even drafted by the teams they won the Super Bowl with. All were acquired differently, some as free agents, some by trade.
Agreed. Completely fine with that.
This OP sounds a bit premature on this.
Didn't we just see Garopolo get paid as the highest paid player in the league? They were what, 5-0 with him, 1-10 without him? The Texans looked a lot better with Watson than without him. The QB desperate teams are reported to be lining up to pay K Cousins.
Two years ago QBs went 1 and 2. Last year a QB went #2. The Browns passed on QBs in both of those drafts, they've gone 1-31 since and sure sounds like they're dead set on correcting and will draft one @#1 in April.
If there are changes in play here, which there very well might be, I would suggest it is far too early to call that at this point. We should have more clues after the draft, but as we stand, there is ample evidence QBs remain very much in demand.
This offseason has spurred lots of debate. It seems to me there are many who have locked into a personal POV and interpreting most of what they see from that lens.
Look at the contracts given out in the last couple of year to Garoppolo, Carr, ...even Glennon got paid. What is the expected salary of Kirk Cousins? The league votes with it's wallet. Right now, they are voting that they need franchise QBs.
The thought that 2nd tier QBs can win the Super Bowl because Nick Foles did, ignores that the vast majority of championships are won with franchise level guys - Brady, Brees, Manning, Eli, Rogers, Big Ben, etc. will always have an advantage due to their abilities. The exceptions are when a team has a dominant defense (2001 Ravens), or when a starting QB goes down late in the year, after home field has been established (1990 Giants, 2017 Phila).
2nd tier guys can win games, even a playoff game or two, but will almost always fall short when needed (see Bortles, 2017 AFC Championship game, & Keenum, 2017 NFC Championship game), unless their defense is strong enough to cover for them.
You’re missing the point. The point is as it stands now all of the young QBs are “2nd tier guys.” There isn’t a single QB in the league under 30 anywhere near the level of Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc.
Obviously there’s a difference in talent in the bulk group of 2nd tier guys, but is it substantial enough to prioritize the position? Is it enough to be willing to give up multiple picks to move up in the draft to grab one?
Also, this past year is a bit of an outlier. Here are the starting QBs for teams in the conference championship games from 2011-2016.
2016: Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Rodgers
2015: Manning (he sucked at this point), Brady, Newton, Palmer
2014: Brady, Luck, Wilson, Rodgers
2013: Manning (good at this point), Brady, Kaepernick, Wilson
2012: Flacco (played great this run, but consider him only above average, not elite), Brady, Kaepernick, Ryan
2011: Brady, Flacco, Manning, Smith
I'd say most are elite. Some had great seasons, but weren't top five guys (Kaepernick was good for a couple years, but wouldn't call him elite). Wilson went from good to elite IMV during the years he was in this group. Flacco was only above-average to me but had a great run in 2012.
I still look at this and think having a franchise QB is vital for success. But maybe the 2017 is the start of a new trend.
I don't draft a QB unless I think he can be a top five guy, of course. QB-only blinders would be silly. But it seems likely the Giants are going to think highly of at least one or two guys this year.
You have to have a good team too.
The Giants have had a franchise QB since 2004 but only rarely have been in the running.
I don't think anyone is contesting that you need a good QB to compete. I think the important questions are:
1) What comprises a good QB today?
2) How easy (or difficult) is it to acquire one?
Question 1 informs what we should be looking for, and Question 2 informs how hard we should (or should not) try to keep one if we feel we have one.
My opinion is that college football is no longer producing what we would call a top shelf "traditional pocket passer" like Brady or Brees. Further, I think it may be more difficult to install an offense that maximizes their talents due to the CBA rules.
I think college is producing more mobile quarterbacks than ever before. "Mobile" can mean different things: both Sam Darnold and Lamar Jackson can rightly be considered mobile even though they are very different players.
I think it's easier than ever to find a guy that can run some variant of a spread option offense in the NFL, but finding the blue chip pocket passer may be more difficult than ever.
Also, this past year is a bit of an outlier. Here are the starting QBs for teams in the conference championship games from 2011-2016.
2016: Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Rodgers
2015: Manning (he sucked at this point), Brady, Newton, Palmer
2014: Brady, Luck, Wilson, Rodgers
2013: Manning (good at this point), Brady, Kaepernick, Wilson
2012: Flacco (played great this run, but consider him only above average, not elite), Brady, Kaepernick, Ryan
2011: Brady, Flacco, Manning, Smith
I'd say most are elite. Some had great seasons, but weren't top five guys (Kaepernick was good for a couple years, but wouldn't call him elite). Wilson went from good to elite IMV during the years he was in this group. Flacco was only above-average to me but had a great run in 2012.
I still look at this and think having a franchise QB is vital for success. But maybe the 2017 is the start of a new trend.
I don't draft a QB unless I think he can be a top five guy, of course. QB-only blinders would be silly. But it seems likely the Giants are going to think highly of at least one or two guys this year.
Yes this would be correct if it weren’t part of the agenda.