Fox likes backup QBs, but change possible

[Skew]

The Ravens drafted Kyle Boller in the first round in 2003 only to have to do it all over again in 2008 with Flacco. They brought in a washed up old vet who was ALSO a former 1st round pick in between (McNair). And Flacco wasn't actually that good in the playoff games, he merely hit a few big plays. I don't say that to criticize him per se because I wouldn't expect too much of a rookie QB in a playoff atmosphere...but merely to point out that he wasn't the big thing that propelled them in that series.

Look at Jeff Fisher having to go to a bazillion year old vet even to get average efficient QB play while his first rounder languishes on the bench. Look at the teams where they have OFFENSIVE guys in charge like Minny for example. Chilly had to trade to Houston for their backup to have what he considered viable alternatives at the positions even though his own handpicked guy was there (Jackson). Gruden could never find a guy he liked since Gannon (NOT a first rounder by the way, but a pretty darned good QB in his day). Vermeil won bunches of games and even a SB with...yeah backup/late draftee types (Warner, Green). Mike Holmgren never drafted a QB in the first that I know of, he developed late rounder Hasselbeck into the type of QB he wanted, and quite well I think. And then there's Whisenhunt...going to the grizzly undrafted vet because HIS first rounder hasn't shown him anything. The list goes on and on.

The point to be emphasized from your post, IMO, is it isn't getting the QB in late rounds or via FA or trade that's the big issue...it is finding the right GUY...period. It's the single most difficult poisition to evaluate,IMO and many, many, many, teams have had multiple failures. I tend to think the ones who get a good one have a bit more "luck" to their choices than vice versa.

Good post FB

I agree.

[rayzor]

The Ravens drafted Kyle Boller in the first round in 2003 only to have to do it all over again in 2008 with Flacco. They brought in a washed up old vet who was ALSO a former 1st round pick in between (McNair). And Flacco wasn't actually that good in the playoff games, he merely hit a few big plays. I don't say that to criticize him per se because I wouldn't expect too much of a rookie QB in a playoff atmosphere...but merely to point out that he wasn't the big thing that propelled them in that series.

Look at Jeff Fisher having to go to a bazillion year old vet even to get average efficient QB play while his first rounder languishes on the bench. Look at the teams where they have OFFENSIVE guys in charge like Minny for example. Chilly had to trade to Houston for their backup to have what he considered viable alternatives at the positions even though his own handpicked guy was there (Jackson). Gruden could never find a guy he liked since Gannon (NOT a first rounder by the way, but a pretty darned good QB in his day). Vermeil won bunches of games and even a SB with...yeah backup/late draftee types (Warner, Green). Mike Holmgren never drafted a QB in the first that I know of, he developed late rounder Hasselbeck into the type of QB he wanted, and quite well I think. And then there's Whisenhunt...going to the grizzly undrafted vet because HIS first rounder hasn't shown him anything. The list goes on and on.

The point to be emphasized from your post, IMO, is it isn't getting the QB in late rounds or via FA or trade that's the big issue...it is finding the right GUY...period. It's the single most difficult poisition to evaluate,IMO and many, many, many, teams have had multiple failures. I tend to think the ones who get a good one have a bit more "luck" to their choices than vice versa.

excellent post.

[frash.exe]

Carolina emulates Pittsburgh.

Everybody considers Pittsburgh's style to be the be all, end all.

the Steelers themselves drafted a QB in the first round, and they seem to fare damn well enough with him.

A lot of people just give the credit right to the defense for being what got them there, but LeBeau and his disciple Tim Lewis, (when he was good), and also Jim Haslett (when he was good) always fielded top ten defense in the Cowher era. Yet Pittsburgh never got their one for the thumb, ...that is, until they got Roethlisberger.

Did some research, wanna know what Pittsburgh's total defense looked like 1995-2003?

2003-9

2002-7

2001-1

2000-7

1999-11

1998-12

1997-6

1996-2

How about rush offense?

2003-31

2002-9

2001-1

2000-4

1999-10

1998-7

1997-1

1996-2

So what was the difficulty? I mean, they had the defense, they had the running game, what was it?

How was QB rating those years?

1996-Mike Tomczak (Undrafted)-71.8

1997-Kordell Stewart (late 2nd rd)-75.2

1998-Kordell Stewart-62.9

1999-Mike Tomczak-75.8

2000-Kordell Stewart-73.6

Kent Graham (8th rd,1992)-63.4

2001-Kordell Stewart-81.7

2002-Tommy Maddox(11 year veteran sophomore first round draft pick who bounced from one team to the next and then "retired", years later played in the AFL and XFL and then was picked up by Pittsburgh as a low risk QB for them)-85.2

Kordell Stewart-82.8

2003-Tommy Maddox-75.3

Roethlisberger's career QB rating-89.4. His QB rating at 98.6 was better than any rating any Steelers starting QB before him could muster up those 8 years. For god sakes his ROOKIE QB rating was better than any of theirs as well. His rating this year, 80.1 was only passed 3 times in 2 years. Still, I would've taken Big Ben over any of those humps any of those years.

So what was the better plan, kids? Bolstering the Defense and Running Game, or in addition to that, getting a QB that can play QB instead of just complementing his team and shitting the bed if the running game ever halts?

[Raskle]

Very, very, very valid point there RB. Didn't occur to me to think of the stats there, just knew they were better when they picked up Ben.

[Fireball77]

So what was the better plan, kids? Bolstering the Defense and Running Game, or in addition to that, getting a QB that can play QB instead of just complementing his team and pooting the bed if the running game ever halts?

I have often held up the Steelers (and the Fins when they drafted Marino) as a team that was in a good position to gamble on a QB in the first round when they did precisely because they were pretty solid overall. Yes they were coming off a down year, but they weren't as bad as their record. Had they not been a solid team when they were forced to play BR as a rookie, I doubt very highly he would have had that much success as a rookie. And this past season, they didn't have a run game and he did struggle quite a bit. He led a few 4th qtr comebacks and had a good playoff run. Manning also struggled this past year for awhile when his run game wasn't on point (yes he had that knee issue but it was said that they couldn't run their stretch plays because of his knee not being able to take it).

Some QBs are better than others when called upon in those circumstances, there's no doubt (obviously Manning bounced back, for example)...but my point has always been that drafting a QB without a semi decent team around him isn't a wise gamble...that's all. If there was a good QB class this year AND they had a first rounder, this year wouldn't be a bad year at all for Carolina to do it either. But neither thing is true.

[rayzor]

Carolina emulates Pittsburgh.

Everybody considers Pittsburgh's style to be the be all, end all.

the Steelers themselves drafted a QB in the first round, and they seem to fare damn well enough with him.

.

.

.

.

Roethlisberger's career QB rating-89.4. His QB rating at 98.6 was better than any rating any Steelers starting QB before him could muster up those 8 years. For god sakes his ROOKIE QB rating was better than any of theirs as well. His rating this year, 80.1 was only passed 3 times in 2 years. Still, I would've taken Big Ben over any of those humps any of those years.

So what was the better plan, kids? Bolstering the Defense and Running Game, or in addition to that, getting a QB that can play QB instead of just complementing his team and pooting the bed if the running game ever halts?

All good points. Best argument yet for drafting one in the 1st. i still really don't care where we get one and i don't think that there is any sure way to find out. 1st rounds may be a great place to look but they are high risk high reward type situations and they come at just soooo high a price tag to find out if they are good or not. with the ability to pick good 1st rounders that we have had this decade, though...we might be able to pull it off, if there were good options available.

I don't see us being in any kind of position to get one in the first and it is pretty well known that there was interest in Ryan last year. It isn't out of the question in the future.

I just don't see any outstandingly good options this year for us. No good ones available which makes me glad we are in the cap situation we are in...we might be tempted to use it on an inferior option.

There are a couple interesting ones to me in this draft but none other than stafford that i would feel comfortable throwing in as a 1st year starter.

there are a good few more in the 2010 class that i would rather us wait for and concentrate on strengthening the other areas this year.