What matters: a QB’s talent or their situation?

[Sgt Schultz]

5 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

Both. Talent can only get a qb so far in this league. It takes a well built and coached team to maximize that talent.  

It is a tough question to answer because we don't know how many careers were snuffed out before they really started because the initial situation ruined the QB.

It is not always a horrible team, either.  I lived in the DC area when the Foreskins drafted Jason Campbell.  Joe Gibbs (second tenure) was the coach, which sounds like a great environment.  The problem is Gibbs preached to Campbell that whatever he contributed was fine but he could not turn the ball over.  Campbell became timid, unwilling to throw the ball downfield and would check down way too early.

Campbell had a decent career as a journeyman QB after that, but could he have been more?  Perhaps, we'll never know.  The knock on him after his time in DC, from what I remember, was he checked down too quickly.  I wonder where he learned that.

We know about the "busts" and can perhaps guess how many were ruined by their initial experiences, many far worse than Campbell's.  Like continual beatings behind terrible OLs.  And it is a problem with being an obvious high draft choice as a QB:  your first team may be one you have to simply survive.

It happened with Steve Young, who was classified as a bust after his first couple of years saddled with Tampa.  He overcame it by being picked up by a juggernaut and backing up a juggernaut on the juggernaut before he became the starter. 

Compare the situation Jones and Lance found themselves in compared to Lawrence, Wilson, and even Fields. 

[rayzor]

Year 1 for a new HC....build the OL.

Year 2 for the new HC....get your QB.

Year 3.... build around him.

For any other situation, before you vet a new QB, build up that OL. That's where you start. In all the spaces in between you build defense, but you start with OL and then QB and go out from there. You make sure that QBs got protection from the day he hits the field to give I'm room to grow.

[Tbe]

4 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

It is a tough question to answer because we don't know how many careers were snuffed out before they really started because the initial situation ruined the QB.

It is not always a horrible team, either.  I lived in the DC area when the Foreskins drafted Jason Campbell.  Joe Gibbs (second tenure) was the coach, which sounds like a great environment.  The problem is Gibbs preached to Campbell that whatever he contributed was fine but he could not turn the ball over.  Campbell became timid, unwilling to throw the ball downfield and would check down way too early.

Campbell had a decent career as a journeyman QB after that, but could he have been more?  Perhaps, we'll never know.  The knock on him after his time in DC, from what I remember, was he checked down too quickly.  I wonder where he learned that.

We know about the "busts" and can perhaps guess how many were ruined by their initial experiences, many far worse than Campbell's.  Like continual beatings behind terrible OLs.  And it is a problem with being an obvious high draft choice as a QB:  your first team may be one you have to simply survive.

It happened with Steve Young, who was classified as a bust after his first couple of years saddled with Tampa.  He overcame it by being picked up by a juggernaut and backing up a juggernaut on the juggernaut before he became the starter. 

Compare the situation Jones and Lance found themselves in compared to Lawrence, Wilson, and even Fields. 

There is a ton of survivorship bias in this discussion. It’s impossible to know who could have been amazing if they went to a different org. 
 

I know the panthers were just about to draft Russel Wilson to backup Cam but Seattle was just ahead of them in the draft.

What would have happened in that scenario? Wilson would have gotten zero playing time and there is no way Rivera would have ever considered promoting him ahead of Cam. Wilson would probably not have developed at all.

Impossible to know, but the data is clear. Rookies fail far less when they go to good teams.

[austin1227]

6 hours ago, Tbe said:

Great analysis from last year on how important a good team is to a QBs development.
 

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/nfl/2021/8/30/22647741/nfl-quarterbacks-nature-nurture-trevor-lawrence-zach-wilson-trey-lance-justin-fields

 

Summary:

“good” teams hit on quarterbacks almost two out of three times (64 percent), while “bad” teams hit on quarterbacks just one out of three times (32 percent).

2018: Josh Allen went to the Bills, who had made the playoffs the previous season.

2018: Lamar Jackson went to a Ravens team that had just gone 9-7.

2017: Patrick Mahomes went to a Chiefs team that had won 12 games with Alex Smith.

2017: Deshaun Watson went to the Texans, who had won their division two years in a row.

2016: Dak Prescott took over a Cowboys team with perhaps the league’s best roster (and definitelythe league’s best offensive line).

2012: Russell Wilson joined the Seahawks, who had one of the greatest defenses of all time.

2012: Andrew Luck landed on a Colts team that was awful in 2011 but made the playoffs with Manning in 2010.

The last quarterback who was the primary force in turning around a bad situation early in their career was Cam Newton, who did so with the Panthers in 2011. Aside from him, just about every quarterback who’s been widely considered a “good” pick from the past 10 years went to a team that was building on some kind of preexisting success.

There have been more than 50 quarterbacks drafted in the top 10 in the past 30 years. Only three have led their first teams to a Super Bowl win: Patrick Mahomes, and Peyton and Eli Manning. 

The last qb was joe burrow not cam newton

[Tbe]

Just now, austin1227 said:

The last qb was joe burrow not cam newton

True. That article was from last year.

[Jon Snow]

7 minutes ago, rayzor said:

Year 1 for a new HC....build the OL.

Year 2 for the new HC....get your QB.

Year 3.... build around him.

For any other situation, before you vet a new QB, build up that OL. That's where you start. In all the spaces in between you build defense, but you start with OL and then QB and go out from there. You make sure that QBs got protection from the day he hits the field to give I'm room to grow.

Unfortunately new coaches are rarely afforded that luxury.  They will most likely get to pick a new qb in the draft because the team he was hired to sucked.  But he better choose wisely or he will be looking for a job after year 2.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Jon Snow

[iamhubby1]

There is only 1 way to win a Super Bowl, and isn't that the ultimate goal? You need a good/great QB, behind a good/great team.

 

A good/great QB cannot lift a bad team. And a good/great team rarely lifts a bad QB.

 

You need both.

[austin1227]

2 minutes ago, Tbe said:

True. That article was from last year.

O

[Michael G]

2 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Edited just now by Jon Snow

This is a tough question to answer for some (OL v. QB). Its almost as tough a question as--"What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"

 

[rayzor]

12 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Unfortunately new coaches are rarely afforded that luxury.  They will most likely get to pick a new qb in the draft because the team he was hired to sucked.  But he better choose wisely or he will be looking for a job after year 2.

They make the situation for the placeholder QB already on the team as good as possible with the OL you're building in year 1 and you end up buying time and confidence from the owner.

[SCO96]

10 minutes ago, Tbe said:

There is a ton of survivorship bias in this discussion. It’s impossible to know who could have been amazing if they went to a different org. 
 

I know the panthers were just about to draft Russel Wilson to backup Cam but Seattle was just ahead of them in the draft.

What would have happened in that scenario? Wilson would have gotten zero playing time and there is no way Rivera would have ever considered promoting him ahead of Cam. Wilson would probably not have developed at all.

Impossible to know, but the data is clear. Rookies fail far less when they go to good teams.

Kurt Warner told a similar story. He was actually in the Packers training camp once as an undrafted free agent. He got cut, and even if he had made the team he would've never started because Brett Favre was entrenched as the QB in Green Bay. He ended up in Europe and the Arena League before getting another shot in the NFL. 

Warner won two MVP awards, played in 3 SB's (winning one, and losing the other 2 by less than 7 total points), and ended up in the Hall of Fame. He said had he somehow remained in GB behind Favre none of the above would have had a chance of happening. In fact Warner was never suppose to lead "The Greatest Show on Turf". He only got a chance when starter Trent Green went down with an injury early in the 1999 season.

Warner was able to have fate smile on him. It makes you wonder how many other people could have had success in the NFL but were never given an opportunity shine because of a lack of opportunity (bad team, no playing time, injury, team politics, etc)

[FugginPoo]

If Brady had been drafted by Detroit, how many rings does he have now?

[SCO96]

2 minutes ago, FugginPoo said:

If Brady had been drafted by Detroit, how many rings does he have now?

[Jon Snow]

Just now, rayzor said:

They make the situation for the placeholder QB already on the team as good as possible with the OL you're building in year 1 and you end up buying time and confidence from the owner.

A smart coach would do that. But building a great oline takes time. 

A solid team would be drafting oline in every draft to keep the oline deep and prevent having to shell out large contracts to aging vets.

A smart team would be taking a qb in every draft that is deep in qbs even with an established qb. Again, to hedge yourself against injuries or contract stalemates.

A smart team would not throw second contracts at non-productive players that are a dime a dozen.

I could go on and on about what could have and should have been done to change things. But I'm losing interest in helping Rhule figure this poo out.