Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A Case Study in How to Get Lucky... with finding QBs you naughty little boy


TSO

Recommended Posts

Okay... so I made this post in LKB's excellent "Why Mike McCarthy is the worst coach in the NFL..." thread and thought it deserved its own thread. Yeah, I'm that guy. Don't care, this **** took me hours researching, lol.  

 

We were discussing the "luck" involved, or lack thereof, in terms of finding a QB. Is it all just luck? Is there something the franchises with elite QBs are doing better than the others? 

 

When he made the post you'll see below here, I was going to just respond to it quickly and go through what I felt some of those franchises did/didn't do and how it might correlate in terms of "getting lucky" with finding their guy.

 

It quickly turned into quite the endeavor, and what I thought would be a quick response ended up needing some deep research. I think there's definitely something to this, though. I'm still trying to piece all the conclusions one might be able to arrive to with this.    

 

I wanted to make this its own thread, as well, so that maybe some of you can add criteria you think I missed... or debate how I applied it and to whom. Let's generate some more classic ES discussion. :)

 

Couple things to note: 

 

1- Keep in mind, the over-arching theme to this whole thing (and the conversation I was having with LKB to this point) is that NOTHING MATTERS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL TALENT THE QB POSSESSES HIMSELF, the two most significant ones being pocket presence/elusiveness within the pocket and accuracy. So there is absolutely quite a bit of luck involved, because sometimes QBs get better at those things the more comfortable they get, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they regress. And it's incredibly difficult to gauge which way they're going to go.   

 

2- This case study is solely focused on who LKB considered "elite" QBs. This isn't about finding an average guy, or even a franchise guy like Eli Manning, Rivers, etc... it's about finding the best of the best.   

 

So, here we go: 

 

On 10/2/2015 at 0:13 PM, Lombardi said:

Look around the league and tell me what you think.

 

Parcells didn't want to play romoSUCKS. To be honest, I can't be bothered to see if Parcells was the one who even picked him.

Brady is the luckiest pick in the history of sports possibly.

Roethlisberger was taken after two admittedly pretty good QBs. And he was nearly passed over for a tackle because Tommy Maddox was in the middle of a long contract.

Rodgers was passed over by everyone.

No one wanted Brees in free agency expect Miami and he nearly went there.

Manning and Luck were obvious overall #1s....and people debated on Manning.

No one on earth saw Wilson being this.

 

And that's pretty much it, right?

 

There's like 8 guys you would want, which gives you a 1 in 4 shot and even then everyone screws it up.

 

Okay, finally got some time to dig into this here... I'm really enjoying this, btw.  :)

 

When I first read this list of yours, it got me thinking how my criteria here would apply to it:

 

 

On 10/2/2015 at 0:02 PM, thesubmittedone said:

I'd say, yes. The FO being sound and, therefore, the process being sound; the amount of resources willingly spent on the position; the system of development; the patience to stick with them and the wisdom to know when to move on. All of this increases your "luck" in finding one.

 

Dividing that into clearer categories: 

 

  • A) Sound FO (I believe this is the most significant factor to the rest of the criteria below being implemented properly)
  • B ) Resources Willingly* Spent 
  • C) Stable System of Development
  • D) Patience (with the right guy once he starts)
  • E) Wisdom to know when to move on (from the wrong guy)

* "Willingly" here is meant to imply that they brought in QBs without necessarily having an immediate need or due to injury, as well as the willingness to spend valuable resources on the position, not just an undrafted FA here and there or something, or even a cheap veteran Free Agent backup. 

 

So, I want to go through your list and apply this criteria to it for gits and shiggles. Honestly, this is for me more than it's a response for you, I feel like I'm learning something, lol.  

 

Quote

1) Tony romoSUCKS and the Cowboys.

 

I'd say C and E only apply here.

 

A definitely doesn't apply, as their FO under Jerry has been just as bad as ours (up until recently, I guess), except Jerry is way better at evaluating talent than Dan.   

 

He was undrafted in 2003, and the only draft pick they spent on a QB within a wide range there was in 2001 (2nd rounder on Quincy Carter) so B definitely doesn't apply. Bringing in Drew Bledsoe might be an argument for Bbut I'd like to think more than that is necessary. Even after Tony romoSUCKS established himself as the starter, the only QB they drafted was Stephen McGee in the 4th round of the 2009 draft. 

 

C applies because romoSUCKS was under Parcells his entire development before starting. 

 

D doesn't apply in my mind, because as much as he was known for choking, especially at the start, it's not like the Cowboys had a better option and he was playing well enough overall. Not much adversity there for them to be patient about, really.  

 

E applies because, even if only reluctantly so, Parcells still benched Beldsoe and played romoSUCKS. Have to give them that.  

 

This one was pretty much luck, though. 

 

 

Quote

2) Tom Brady and the Pats.

 

ABC and E all apply here. 

 

A goes without saying, though it gets iffy considering Belichick has final say, which is a negative usually. Still, they've always got solid football people in the GM role and an extensive scouting department. Kraft has been one of the most respected owners in the league.

 

B is quite the intriguing evidence here... wow, just look at the consistency with which they were taking QBs in the draft before AND after Brady: 

 

Year   Rnd                
2014     2    Jimmy Garoppolo
2011     3    Ryan Mallett
2010     7    Zac Robinson
2008     3    Kevin OConnell
2005     7     Matt Cassel
2003     6    Kliff Kingsbury
2002     4     Rohan Davey
2000     6     Tom Brady
1999     7     Michael Bishop
 
And, remember, they drafted both Bishop and Brady while Bledsoe was running the show there.  
 
 C also goes without saying, Brady developed under Belichick the entire time before he started and is still under the same coach 13 years later.
 
D doesn't apply, though it's arguable. Too easy for it to be considered "patience" with a guy like Brady who had that initial success, even if he started out more as a game manager.  
 
applies and, just like with the Cowboys, they moved on from Bledsoe. It took some guts, too, because Bledsoe was an established vet playing well but got hurt. Brady was playing well, but the decision to stick with Brady over Bledsoe wasn't exactly easy. Definitely a plus on their end.

 

 
 
Quote
3) Roethlisberger and the Steelers.
 
AB and C apply here. 
 
A, again, goes without saying. Sound FO, obviously... like you mentioned, Cowher was able to lose the process here and they took Ben with a first rounder instead of a tackle. The Rooney's... enough said.   
 
Let's take a look at why B applies here (though it's arguably the weakest out of the 3 that apply, imo):                                                    
Year   Rnd                   
2013     4       Landry Jones
2008     5       Dennis Dixon
2006     5       Omar Jacobs
2004     1      Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall)
2003     5      Brian St. Pierre
2000     5      Tee Martin
 
Seems like they woke up a bit after 99, taking QBs in 3 out of the 5 drafts between 2000 and 2004, culminating with the Roethlisberger pick in the 1st round at 11th overall.  
 
C is obvious, he developed under Cowher who emphasized a run-heavy offense and had an elite Defense. Ben didn't have to carry the team even though he started close to right away (I believe he replaced Maddox a few games into the 2004 season). He had huge games where his total yardage was very low and only scored a couple TDs... but that was more than enough. 
 
D was a hard one for me to judge. On one hand, it applies because he wasn't necessarily playing out of his mind to start with... they slowly brought him along as a game manager. On the other hand, he showed he could play that role extremely well. He did lose badly in the AFC championship game his rookie season, when he cost the team with three INTs. He was a first rounder, though, so by default they were going to give him time. I say no to D here taking all that into consideration.      

 

doesn't apply in my mind. The reason Ben went in was due to injuries to both Batch and Maddox. Ben started the year as the 3rd stringer. Batch got hurt so, by default, he became Maddox's backup. When Maddox got hurt after an ineffective game against the Ravens, Ben went in and the Steelers never looked back. So that was more circumstance than anything on their end in terms of knowing it was time to move on from Maddox.    

 

 

 

Quote

4) Rodgers and the Packers.

 

ABC and all apply. 

 

 Once again, A goes without saying. Solid organizational structure from the top to bottom. They have a huge Football Operations/Scouting department you can see here

 

B clearly applies, lol: 

            

Year   Rnd                
2015     5     Brett Hundley
2012     7     B.J. Coleman
2008     2     Brian Brohm
2008     7     Matt Flynn
2006     5     Ingle Martin
2005     1     Aaron Rodgers
2002     5     Craig Nall
1999     4     Aaron Brooks
1998     6     Matt Hasselbeck
1997     7     Ron McAda
1996     7     Kyle Wachholtz
1995     5     Jay Barker
1993     5     Mark Brunell
1992     9     Ty Detmer
 
They are definitely QB crazy and spend a ton on the position... let's not forget they traded for Favre in 92 as well. It's amazing to look at this list knowing they've got Favre and Rodgers starting for them the entire time throughout.
 
C definitely applies here, no question. Though Rodgers was under Sherman his rookie year, Mike McCarthy was hired largely because he ran the same style of West Coast offense. Rodgers then developed under that same system the rest of his entire career, after getting to sit for another two years before starting.   
 
Development you just don't see anymore, really. McCarthy was said to have been extensively working with and developing Rodgers, we've heard of his "QB school" and what it entailed (working on his hand-eye coordination, finger dexterity, release point - moving it from right beside the ear hole of his helmet to further below it, to give him a smoother release - and even instructing Rodgers to lower his body fat ratio from 15 percent to 12 percent)
 
So, yeah, perhaps the greatest application of C here in the last decade or so. 
 
 
D doesn't apply. Rodgers played really well from the start, so they didn't really need to show patience with him as a starter. 
 

Finally, I think E applies, though it's debatable since the whole Brett Favre retiring/not retiring thing dragged on forever and it was a bit of a mess at the end there. But the fact remains that they chose to part ways with him, in the end, which was gutsy. He clearly still had solid play in him as we saw with the Vikings and Jets afterwards. But they went with Rodgers and did so before his rookie contract was up (had they stuck with Favre a year or two more, who knows what would've happened once Rodgers was a FA), so have to give them E in my mind. 

 

 

Quote

5) Brees and the Saints.

 

Only B and C apply here, imho. This one's probably the luckiest of them all.

 

A... I don't think I need to explain why we wouldn't consider the Saints a "sound FO", at least at that point when they had brought in Brees. 

 

B just barely applies. They hardly spent any major draft resources on QB. Speaks to the issue with A, doesn't it? But I give them B because Sean Payton made it his personal mission to bring in Drew, even with the shoulder injury and the questions about his ability. It was a big enough risk for me to say they spent valuable resources, willingly there. Yes, it was only one case, but it was a big one and it was correct.   

 

C applies, I think. Sean Payton went all out building an offense for Drew. And Drew went all out improving his QBing skill set to justify it. Though one caveat is that it happened so quickly, you wonder what "system of development" really was involved.   

 

D and E were simply not factors here. New coach came in and got his new QB. Brees played excellent from the start. No patience was necessary and no wisdom to move on from anyone was needed.

 

 

 

Quote

6) Manning/Luck and the Colts.

 

ABC and E apply here. 

 

A is a bit of a toss up... you can argue their FO isn't exactly sound with that weirdo owner and a GM for most of that time (Polian) who did little outside of having a HOF QB. But at least they're structurally sound. And they seem to put everything on the QB, it's simply their strategy and they stick to it. They do prioritize providing their QB with weapons at WR and TE as well. 

 

B is a tough one to judge, but I think it applies. They hardly spent any resources on the QB position except, wait a second, they spent the first overall pick of the draft on one twice (the most valuable asset any franchise can have). And that's all they needed. It's an amazing stroke of luck that they had the number one pick the year Andrew came out. Or it was a stroke of evil genius if you believe they purposely tanked (which is hard for me considering everyone got fired, but hey, I don't blame anyone for seeing it that way).     

 

C applies in both cases. Manning had Jim Mora, Dungy and Caldwell as his Head Coaches with the Colts, but he always had Tom Moore as a fixture at offensive coordinator the entire time. That's what you call a system of development. Luck got his college coach, Pep Hamilton, to be the offensive coordinator. Consistency.  

 

D doesn't apply here, imo. There was nothing to be patient with, lol. Manning's early INTs and inability to win big games? Meh. He was awesome, otherwise. Luck's had INT issues as well and he's going through it right now, so we'll see... but, like Manning, he has a ton of amazing plays as well as clutch wins. Hard to be impatient there, so they don't get from me.

 

applies since they decided to move on from Manning, arguably the greatest QB of all time, and go after Luck. Gutsy and wise.

 

 

 

Quote

7) Wilson and the Seahawks.

 

ABCD and E all apply. 

 

A is a bit murky... I believe Carrol has final say in personnel (though, when he was hired, Seahawks CEO Tod Leiweke had suggested that Carroll and the GM will have a "collaborative relationship" over control of the team) which is usually not a good thing, structurally. That being said, they have a GM and scouting department that is top notch and it seems like he doesn't go against them much, if at all. Ownership is excellent, and they built the best home field advantage for their team in the NFL. So they get Aand pretty easily, in my mind. 

 

is a clear yes, just from those first three years they hired Carrol alone (mainly the third year, though). Not much in terms of draft resources in general through the last decade or so... but we know they had a declining Matt Hasselbeck to start with. They traded for Charlie Whitehurst (sending a third rounder and swapping their 2nd rounder with the Chargers) that first year to compete with him. The next year they signed Tarvaris Jackson to a 2 year contract and he ended up starting. We all know what they did in 2012, signing Matt Flynn to a lucrative deal and the drafting Russel Wilson in the third round. Valuable resources were definitely spent.                   

 

C definitely applies... though quite a bit of luck was involved here. They first started Russel Wilson off in a standard West Coast offense, but when our very own Kyle Shanahan and RG3 took the league by storm with the pistol/RO, they incorporated it heavily into their offense and Russel took off. That's development, I guess. Have to give them credit for applying it, though, even if they likely would've never had done so if it wasn't for the Skins offense in 2012.

 

certainly applies, as Russel has had some ups and downs. He's even had two different points in his career where questions of him being benched were legitimately pondered. They stuck with him, though, and he rewarded them for it.

 

E applies as well, because they had the guts and wisdom to move on from Matt Hasselbeck, Tarvaris Jackson and then Matt Flynn. You could also say they never fooled themselves into thinking Whitehurst was anything more than a third-stringer, even though they had given up valuable picks for him.     

 

 

....................................................................................................................

 

 

So there you have it. In summary:

 

1) romoSUCKS and the Cowboys = C, E

2) Brady and the Pats = ABC, E

3) Ben and the Steelers = ABC

4) Rodgers and the Pack = ABC, E

5) Brees and the Saints = BC

6) Manning/Luck and the Colts = ABC, E

7)  Wilson and the Seahawks = ABC, D, E

 

Tallying them up, we get: 

 

C's (Stable system of development)

B's (Resources spent)

A's (Sound FO

5 E's (Wisdom to move on)

D   (Patience with the starter

 

 

So it seems to me that there's a consistency with all of these guys with regards to the criteria I laid out. Outside of the franchise really being patient with the starter (these QBs pretty much all played well once they started), it looks like all are significant and consistently applicable. 

 

Only the Cowboys with romoSUCKS and the Saints with Brees seem to be the exceptions. 

 

The most common combination is AB and C with 5 total. Next is ABC and E with 4 total. That indicates how important stability at the ownership and FO levels are and the consistent approach that stability brings to the franchise, allowing for a system of development to take root.     

 

Of course, as previously stated, I don't believe any are more significant than the talent level of the QB himself. Look at all those names there. They all have impeccable pocket presence and are incredibly accurate with the ball. Some of them are more elusive than others, some have stronger arms, some are harder to tackle, some read defense's better... but I think every one of them are excellent in the pocket and accurate with the ball. It starts there, for me.

 

But I do think this speaks to a process that exists to increase your chance of finding that talent. I suspect that the more you go down to the franchises with the worst QB situations, the more you'll find that these criteria aren't applicable. 

 

So let's give that observation a test, shall we? What better franchise than ours, right? 

 

Quote

Let's look at how the criteria is applied to us (excluding this past 2015 offseason, pre Scot hire):

Washington Redskins

A absolutely doesn't apply. Snyder has been a terrible owner, unfortunately. Poor structure, with him being involved too much too often. No legit GM his entire tenure. Vinny Cerrato, a yes man at the top for a long time who had bad history with personnel in the first place. Head Coaches who also doubled as head of personnel. A scouting department with little to no accountability, often ignored. The best among them consistently would depart to find great success elsewhere. Constant undermining of titles/roles and an atmosphere of individualism instead of teamwork/collaboration.             

 

I won't continue for all of our sanity. 

 

B definitely applies. Even ignoring just how much we gave up to get Robert, we've consistently drafted guys as well: 

 

Year   Rnd               
2012     4   Kirk Cousins
2012     1 Robert Griffin
2008     6   Colt Brennan
2007     6  Jordan Palmer
2005     1 Jason Campbell
2003     7  Gibran Hamdan
2002     1 Patrick Ramsey
2001     4 Sage Rosenfels

2000     6     Todd Husak  

 

Not to mention signing guys like Jeff George, Rex Grossman and Tony Banks; and trading for guys like Mark Brunell and Donovan McNabb. 

 

Huge amount of resources, really. 

 

C definitely does NOT apply. What a complete disaster. Turnover at Head Coach early on was a killer, going from Norv to Shotty to Spurrier to Gibbs within a span of 5 years.

 

Even when we've had the same Head Coach for more than a couple years, we changed offensive schemes or coordinators. Joe Gibbs went from his scheme to Al Saunders', though they were related it was still a big change. Then it was Zorn's West Coast offense, in which he was completely sabotaged the second year and forced to have someone else who wasn't even in the building suddenly call plays. And, finally, the infamous Shanahan's traditional ZBS WCO, to the 2012 Pistol/RO with Robert, back to their more traditional offense again.   

 

Just... anarchy. 

 

 

D sometimes applies and sometimes doesn't. I'm excluding Trent Green here, think it's unfair to include him (though, technically, that's also an example of the importance of the ownership level/sound FO). Brad Johnson was a complete fail with regards to this. Should've definitely stuck with him and been more patient.

 

Tony Banks and Jeff George, lol, they didn't deserve patience and weren't given any. Ramsey wasn't given much time, either, though it's arguable if he deserved it or not.

 

Maybe Mark Brunell is the only example where sticking with a struggling starter worked out for a small period of time, at least... though it's hard to give them credit for that, since Ramsey was named starter going into the 2005 season. Campbell was given a ton of patience.

 

McNabb, Grossman and Beck were given little patience (didn't deserve it, as well). Robert was given patience his second year (first doesn't count, there was no adversity to be patient about, he was awesome) and going into his third. Injuries are a factor here so it's arguable whether he deserved it or not, but little patience was shown after his return from his ankle injury. Kirk has gotten little patience whenever he's started as well. (Remember, not including this offseason/season)

 

Overall, I'd say a no, but it's close. 

 

 

E doesn't really apply, either. Shocker, right?

 

Hard to give them credit for "moving on" from guys like Banks, George, Shane Matthews, Grossman and Beck... not like they came with amazing pedigrees or anything. Ramsey is between D and E. Maybe not enough patience shown, maybe they moved on from him wisely. I'd lean towards E here. Brunell they took too long to move on from. Campbell, the same. McNabb is a plus, they moved on quickly and correctly.

 

But, overall, no on E.

 

 

So, we literally get one, B. That's it. Maybe D, which I think is proving itself to be the least significant factor.

 

But, really, just B. Pathetic. 

 

 

 

So we might be able to deduce from this that if everything else is an issue, it doesn't matter how much you spend on the position... you'll fail. 

 

That also tells me if, moving forward, we can improve at AC, D and E... or even just two more of those (A being the most significant) we might actually "get lucky" and find ourselves an elite QB (he might be on the team, though it's unlikely). I think A right now is the best it has been under Snyder with the structure we have. So there's potential. C will likely also work out so long as A works out. 

       

 

I feel like I'm onto something, lol... my God this took forever. I am disgusted with myself right now. One of you punks better enjoy it.  :lol:        

 

*Edit* I tried to color code everything to make it easier to follow, and every time I submit my edit it just stays the same except here and there. Grrrrrr. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow you put a lot of thought into this. All I can really say is that a "sound FO" is probably a good way to say good GM and good coaching. But not the same guy doing both. The NFL is like capitalism. It needs ditch diggers. The Redskins have been the ditch diggers now for 23 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For today, i'm firmly entrenched in the belief that the best way to have a functioning NFL QB is to build a team that can be successful without the QB needing to better than middling.

Then...you throw resources at young QBs who will compete for the position until you find a guy who can play comfortably within your system, won't lose the ball, or the game, & will just do his job professionally.

Those guys will get comfortable, & confident as wins pile up, & then they'll even make the odd play or 2 to win you a game.

SBs have been won this way, & it's infinitely more practical than playing QB Craps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the result of your entire OP, is it's all luck baby.

 

What you sort of glossed over is the Manning/Colts history.  Or maybe you don't think you did, but you kinda did.  The Colts were a disaster of a franchise, considered to be run by loons, probably one of the least likely to succeed candidates in the NFL.  They lucked into Manning.  You can't really give P Manning anything from your scale.  Not ABCD or E.  Manning came in and destroyed it all things considered outside of his rookie year.  He is either an outlier with regards to your discussion, or proof that it's all luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell of a post Sub.  Every team/QB had a "Stable system of development".  Every team except the 'Boys had a "resources spent".  We are going to have to draft some flyers on the QB position...take chances. The stability part is up in the air honestly.  We will have to see what happens with Gruden.  I hope he evolves as a coach.  We shall see.  Maybe we can pull a rabbit out of a hat along the way, as there also seems to be a lot of wild ass Luck (pun intended) in the whole process. Good stuff. Hail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow you put a lot of thought into this. All I can really say is that a "sound FO" is probably a good way to say good GM and good coaching. But not the same guy doing both. The NFL is like capitalism. It needs ditch diggers. The Redskins have been the ditch diggers now for 23 years.

Not necessarily. I guess I should've made it clearer, but I assumed everyone would understand that a sound FO, by my definition, was at ownership/executive level including GM/scouting.

It doesn't include coaching at all. If you've ever read any of my thoughts on this at any time (I don't blame you if you haven't, that'd mean you're normal :P ), you'd know that I consider a sound FO more vital to the success of an organization than any one coach or player, because they can consistently replace any one coach or player with a proper, and stabilized, process.

The organization won't always be bumbling about, changing its ways at its very core. It would have a steady strategy with regards to acquiring player personnel and it would know what kind of coach to bring in for that, giving him an environment with the highest likelihood of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna be 100% honest TSO. I'm in school and I'm sick of reading so I didn't read it all but this are my thoughts on QB development:

You want to find a Rodgers, Manning, or Luck. These guys are so talented that they would excel probably anywhere. Unfortunately, that is like winning the lottery

More realistically, you can find a Flacco, Ryan, Ben, Eli type. A guy that has great tools but can only reach his full potential in an environment that fosters growth and stability.

Besides that, you're stuck going from Campbell to broken down McNabb to Beck to Kirks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna be 100% honest TSO. I'm in school and I'm sick of reading so I didn't read it all but this are my thoughts on QB development:

 

Ahole. 

 

:P

 

Honestly though, you should take the time and read it carefully when you get a chance (says the guy who wrote it). I agree with the point you are making here... but this is about increasing the likelihood of hitting on that lottery ticket. I think this shows there is a way, as difficult as it is, and that while luck is a major factor, it's not the only one.

 

But, yeah, I think if we expanded this study (I was hoping someone else would, maybe I will eventually) and applied the criteria to the franchises with guys like Eli, Rivers and Flacco, we'd probably find that they do consistently apply but at a lesser rate. And the more you go down the list of franchises and the more you get to the ones who have terrible situations at QB (like us), the less they apply.

 

If you go towards the end you see I did one on us to test that theory. Only one that applied to us was B (resources spent). So that observation held true, at least with us. Don't know if it will all the time. Should be interesting. :)     

 

 

I think the result of your entire OP, is it's all luck baby.

 

What you sort of glossed over is the Manning/Colts history.  Or maybe you don't think you did, but you kinda did.  The Colts were a disaster of a franchise, considered to be run by loons, probably one of the least likely to succeed candidates in the NFL.  They lucked into Manning.  You can't really give P Manning anything from your scale.  Not ABCD or E.  Manning came in and destroyed it all things considered outside of his rookie year.  He is either an outlier with regards to your discussion, or proof that it's all luck.

 
Maybe you're right... but the reason it seems like I glossed over it is this:
 

 

Along with the disappointing season, the principal owner and man who moved the team to Indianapolis, Robert Irsay, died in January 1997 after years of declining health.[31] Jim Irsay, Robert Irsay's son, entered the role of principal owner following his father's death and quickly began to change the organization. Irsay replaced general manager Tobin with Bill Polian in 1997 as the team decided to build through their number one overall pick in the 1998 draft.[32]

 

Jim Irsay began to shape the Colts one year after assuming control from his father by firing head coach Lindy Infante and hiring Bill Polian as the general manager of the organization. Polian in turn hired Jim Mora to become the next head coach of the team and drafted Tennessee Volunteer quarterback Peyton Manning, the son of New Orleans Saints legend Archie Manning, with the first overall pick in the 1998 draft.[33]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_Colts#1998.E2.80.932011:_the_Peyton_Manning_era

 

So, it's not just that they randomly drafted Manning, got lucky they hit, and went off. It happened to be at the same time Irsay took over, and even this quote here is implying that he and Polian intended to build around that first pick from the get go.

 

The point of the case study was to see if there was any pattern, or any way to increase your chances, at finding an elite QB. I think Irsay, as owner, hired Polian and they immediately prioritized getting a QB as soon as he did.   

 

Fast forward 13 years later, and the same thing happened with Andrew Luck. It's interesting, no? I think it's legit to assume there's a pattern there and that the criteria applies. 

 

So, Manning came in about the same time Jim Irsay took over as owner and hired Bill Polian. They built the entire team around him, that was their strategy. Offensive players were clearly prioritized as well. I think the criteria definitely applies.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the only one that *might* apply to Peyton is a B.  They had essentially 2 4 year QB's before him, a franchise considered to be a mess.

 

I have also posted on here before, I believe Bill Parcells is the greatest head coach ever in this league.  He turned around the Patriots, Jets, Cowboys, and Giants.  While he didn't draft Brady, his imprint is all over that franchise.  Cowboys as well.  Wait Giants too.  The Jets, well that was near the end.  But there might not be a Brady in NE if it weren't for Parcells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the only one that *might* apply to Peyton is a B.  They had essentially 2 4 year QB's before him, a franchise considered to be a mess.

 

 

But Jim Irsay and Bill Polian weren't around for that, so it doesn't apply. I tried to keep the FOs who were involved in acquiring said QBs as part of the case study to maintain a constant variable.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Jim Irsay and Bill Polian weren't around for that, so it doesn't apply. I tried to keep the FOs who were involved in acquiring said QBs as part of the case study to maintain a constant variable.     

 

Well Robert Irsay died, but Jim Irsay was around when Robert was on his death bed.  Bill Polian came in.  But you are making my point.  It was total luck.  Bob Irsay dies, a new GM hired, and Manning in year 2 went 13-3.  That's luck OR franchise QB's are as rare as Pikachu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well Robert Irsay died, but Jim Irsay was around when Robert was on his death bed.  Bill Polian came in.  But you are making my point.  It was total luck.  Bob Irsay dies, a new GM hired, and Manning in year 2 went 13-3.  That's luck OR franchise QB's are as rare as Pikachu.

 

 

Definitely luck there that the guy coming out when they had the first pick in the draft was Manning. Same when Luck came out.

 

But you have to give them the credit for using that first pick both times on the position (as common sense as it is), right? You have to say they prioritized QB... they could've picked another player at another position, instead.

 

You don't see any pattern at all with Irsay and his FOs prioritizing the QB position and supplying them with weapons, at least?

 

I mean, I see what you're saying. It could easily be that they got lucky on Manning and then just went along for the ride. But then the fact that they were willing to move on from him when they did (at least Irsay) and go after Luck suggests there's a philosophy there being applied.

 

Or maybe not... but hey, that's why I made the thread. :)     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you submitted, but at the end of day the Browns QB history would turn this thread upside down.  I mean they prioritized it right?  The Rams were betting on Trent Green and fell into Kurt Warner due to injury.

 

It's a crap shoot.  If you luck into one, good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you submitted, but at the end of day the Browns QB history would turn this thread upside down. I mean they prioritized it right? The Rams were betting on Trent Green and fell into Kurt Warner due to injury.

It's a crap shoot. If you luck into one, good for you.

Nice, I think I'm going to do a Browns one when I have some time. Should be a great case to study and apply that criteria to, thanks for bringing it up.

Just off the top of my head, I don't think either A (sound FO) or C (stable system of development) would apply to the Browns. Which would continue to support what I'm concluding here. That's it's not all luck and that there is a way to increase your chances, legitimately.

We'll see though, I might go about looking into it within the hour. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the result of your entire OP, is it's all luck baby.

 

What you sort of glossed over is the Manning/Colts history.  Or maybe you don't think you did, but you kinda did.  The Colts were a disaster of a franchise, considered to be run by loons, probably one of the least likely to succeed candidates in the NFL.  They lucked into Manning.  You can't really give P Manning anything from your scale.  Not ABCD or E.  Manning came in and destroyed it all things considered outside of his rookie year.  He is either an outlier with regards to your discussion, or proof that it's all luck.

 

Not sure whether this could fit anywhere on the OP's scale, but Peyton had the same system for pretty much his whole career.

 

PS: :lol: @ "rare as Pikachu."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely fascinating. I have always thought that the most important thing is to have a good FO. This seems to support this.

I think it would then branch out to prove that, the FO being the most important criteria, all personnel/coaches that have legitimate sustained success can give the credit to their FO.

I think the biggest proof of this is the Packers and Patriots organizations. As stated in the OP, the Packers have a great scouting department and stable GM. They have been willing to advocate resources to the positions (and all positions of need ie WR) and willing to cut losses/ties for the betterment of the organization. The Patriots to a slightly lesser extent do much the same.

I believe that if Snyder is willing to allow Mccloughan time to build and be patient with both his successes and failures then we will see the FO become quite stable and sustained success follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay... so the Cleveland Browns. I think this will be a great case study.  It's made easier, too, because they were an expansion team so their history technically starts in 1999.
 
Just a reminder of the entire point of this.
 
1) To see what, if any, pattern there is to be identified with organizations that have an elite QB, and...
 
2) To see how that can be applied to increase an organization's chances in finding one.
 
Again, here's the criteria used for the above:

  •  
  • A) Sound FO (I believe this is the most significant factor to the rest of the criteria below being implemented properly)
  • B ) Resources Willingly* Spent 
  • C) Stable System of Development
  • D) Patience (with the right guy once he starts)
  • E) Wisdom to know when to move on (from the wrong guy)
  •  
  • * "Willingly" here is meant to imply that they brought in QBs without necessarily having an immediate need or due to injury, as well as the willingness to spend valuable resources on the position, not just an undrafted FA here and there or something, or even a cheap veteran Free Agent backup. 

 
So let's get on with it. 
 
 

Cleveland Browns and their QBs
 
definitely does not apply. Art Modell was the owner for the longest time (from 1961-1995), and Cleveland fans despise him, of course, mainly for moving the team to Baltimore (which was pretty damn treacherous). He's the guy who fired Paul Brown, won a championship with most of Brown's players, and then proceeded to never win one again. Still, he had an overall winning record (.519) during his tenure and 17 playoff appearances. He was also instrumental in making the league as wildly wealthy as it is now.   
 
After the move (and 4 years without a franchise there), they've had little stability at ownership since being re-introduced in 1999. First it was Al Lerner (who died in 2002) and then it was his son, Randy Lerner (2002-2012). Now it's Haslam, who's even had some major legal issues.
 
Under all of these guys (in just the last 15 years), they've went through a ton of Team Presidents and GMs. At President/CEO they've had Carmen Policy, John Collins, Michael Keenan (the role of team "President and CEO" was vacated until 2008, with owner Randy Lerner filling in as de facto CEO until Michael Keenan was hired), Mike Holmgren, Joe Banner and currently Alec Scheiner.
 
At GM, they've went through Dwight Clark, Butch Davis, Phil Savage, George Kokinis, Tom Heckert, Michael Lombardi and currently Ray Farmer.
 
Literally, the only positive here is that they seem to have the proper structure in place, at least. But even that is flimsy. See Kokinis/Mangini below for more on that. Also, Holmgren was Team President but acted more as a GM, even though he hired Heckert to be GM. Holmgren clearly was making all personnel decisions. Some undermining occurred, as well, when Butch Davis managed to get Dwight Clark fired from his GM position and he took it over. Oh, and "...prior to the Browns' final game of the 2005 season, ESPN reported that team president John Colins was going to fire Savage. However, the resulting uproar from fans and local media was strong, and on January 3, 2006, Collins resigned instead." :lol: 
    
 
But, wow... that might be the worst hiring process in the league. Absolutely no stability and just failure after failure after failure. Kokinis didn't even get a full year (after only eight regular-season games, and a 1–7 record; with his duties essentially being assumed by Mangini). Lombardi only got a year, lol. 
 
 
B certainly does apply. Let's start with their drafts: 
 
Year   Rnd Pick               
2014     1   22     Johnny Manziel
2012     1   22     Brandon Weeden
2010     3   85     Colt McCoy
2007     1   22     Brady Quinn
2005     3   67     Charlie Frye
2004     4  106    Luke McCown
2000     6  183    Spergon Wynn
 
1999     1    1      Tim Couch
 
So they definitely spent some valuable draft picks on QBs, and did so pretty consistently. Four 1st rounders. Two 3rd rounders, a 4th and a 6th.
 
While they were spending draft picks on QB, they also acquired guys like Jeff Garcia and Trent Dilfer, who were solid at the time of their acquisition. Well, at least Garcia was, lol.     
 
But, yeah, B certainly applies, just on the draft picks alone.  
 
 
definitely doesn't apply. 
 
You can pretty much gather, based on A above, that there was no real stabilized system of development for any QB. How could there be? All of those GMs alone, most lasting no more than three years, would make it difficult. Then add in the coaching instability due to that with:   
 
Chris Palmer
Butch Davis (was also GM)
Terry Robiskie (interim after Butch resigned)
Romeo Crennel
Eric Mangini
Pat Shurmur
Rob Chudzinski
Mike Pettine (current)
 
The guys who served the longest tenures here were Butch Davis (4 seasons, 2001-2004) and Romeo Crennel (4 seasons, 2005-2008). Unsurprisingly, they were the only tenures that had some level of consistency for their QBs. Only one resulted in any success. 
 
Butch Davis was tied to Tim Couch, who busted. But I guess you can call that a stable system of development (Bruce Arians was O Coordinator most of the time). Crennel had Derek Anderson (the last three years), who had some success. Under Crennel, they drafted Charlie Frye in the third round and brought in Dilfer to mentor him. That failed miserably though, as Dilfer was at odds with then offensive coordinator Maurice Carthon supposedly from the start and ended up leaving after only one year. Carthon didn't last, either, fired during the second year. So not very stable for Frye.   
 
For fun, just look at the list of offensive coordinators they've had in this time as well. It's ridiculous:
 
Tony Sparano (1999, offensive quality control, they didn't even have a coordinator, lol)
Pete Carmichael Sr. (2000)
Bruce Arians (2001-2003)
Robiskie (2004)
Maurice Carthon (2005, fired after six games through 2006)
Jeff Davidson (2006, replaced Carthon)
Rob Chudzinski (2007-2009, when Derek Anderson enjoyed most of his success)
Brian Daboll (2009-2010, Mangini's guy his entire tenure, so some stability there for two years, lol)
Pat Shurmur (2011)
Brad Childress (2012)
Norv Turner (2013)
Kyle Shanahan (2014)
 
 Only two coaches there got three seasons. One got two seasons. The other 9 got one and a half or less. Sickening.
 
Anymore need to be said about C not being applicable? 
 
I almost feel like I should just stop here. This is a train wreck, it hurts to research.
 
 
is another one that isn't applicable, except here and there
 
Tim Couch is a tough one to assess. You could definitely say patience was shown, but injuries hurt him. He had three different offensive coordinators his first three years. He immediately started, and it seems like they had every intention of playing him those first three years, but injuries and poor play behind a terrible Oline created a ton of tension. Holcomb beat him out for the job, but then he started again. Here's what Couch himself thinks, currently:
 
 

"They don't know how to lead and organize and set a culture for doing what you have to do to play winning NFL football," Kosar told WTAM 1100. "... It makes me want to throw up. That's the results you get when you do that stuff."

"It's been a long 15 years of watching the same thing repeat itself over and over," he said, via ESPN.com. "The biggest thing that frustrates me is the lack of commitment and loyalty to let a coach see it out and a quarterback play it out."

"You're never great every week," Couch said. "This is just repeating the same process of the last 15 years, like Bernie said. Whether it was me, Kelly (Holcomb) or on and on and on, the finger keeps being pointed at the quarterback. It's the team. Build a team and then worry about the quarterback. ...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24897945/tim-couch-browns-lack-of-commitment-loyalty-is-frustrating


At the same time, they gave him 5 years and he played a ton of games. Tough to say they weren't patient there.

You can definitely say that they weren't patient with Holcomb or the guy they brought in to replace him in Garcia, though. Brought him in 2004 and after an injury-plagued season, let him go. We saw how well he played at times for the Eagles and Bucs later on in his career. Bad move.

Dilfer lasted a year and, as mentioned above, couldn't get along with the coaches.

Frye was given some development time as well as some patience in 2006 while he was starter. Only injuries sidelined him and allowed Derek Anderson to show up well. The next offseason, when it seemed like he won the QB competition, he struggled the opening game of the year and Derek replaced him for good. So you could say little patience was shown to him, as well, though he probably deserved it as Derek completely outplayed him.

After that special 2007 season, it was all downhill for Derek, and the team didn't give him much time. They wanted to see more of their second year QB in Quinn. They flip flopped that season between the two. Both struggled. In 2009, they did the same with the two, both playing about half the games each.

Next up was McCoy, same story. 2 years and then done. Brandon Weeden got even less time. Jason Campbell even less than that. Then Hoyer last year, who they quickly moved on from, as well.

Very little patience. Though, one thing you can definitively say, is that everyone of these QBs had average to below average skill sets outside of Tim Couch. That obviously plays a major role.

But, yeah, D doesn't apply. Way too much turnover, overall.


And finally, we come to E. I'm going to go ahead and say that this applies, if only because almost every one of the QBs they moved on from went elsewhere and did nothing. Garcia might be the only exception to this, but it's not like he really was amazing or anything. Outside of him, they moved on pretty quickly from guys who haven't been able to get it done anywhere else. Depending on how you look at Couch, there may be an argument that they should've moved on from him earlier, so that does take away from E, but only a little in my mind.

So, in summary, the Cleveland Browns get B and E. That's it.

 

Conclusions: 

 

For me, this adds evidence to the observation that you can increase your chances at finding an elite guy. The more of the above criteria applicable to your organization, the more likely you will. Especially A, B and when combined.

 

It looks like B (spending valuable resources willingly) means little without A and C. Some of this might sound like common sense, and it is... but I think it's pretty neat to see how consistently this is occurring. It's rare to see exceptions here, which speaks to the point that it's not as tied to luck as we think. 

 

So out of the two organizations that don't have elite QBs that I've done (Redskins and Browns), both have with the Browns also having E. That's it. The organizations that do have elite guys almost all have A, B and C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a ton of work.  Wow.

 

A couple quibbles:

 

1. Trent Green.  The entire organization (from what I remember) wanted to keep him around, but he was a FA when the team had no owner, it was owned by the JKC trust, and was being sold.  So they couldn't offer him a contract.  Which is why they had to trade a #1 (I believe, I didn't look that up) for Brad Johnson.  Who had a hell of a good 1999, and would have continued to be solid in Norv Turner's system, as noodle armed as he was.  If he wasn't run out of town.

 

2. The F/O assessment for Romo.  There are 2 stints in the Jerry Jones era when they had a hell of a good front office: When Jimmy Johnson was running it, and when Parcells was running it.  I know Parcells didn't have complete and total control(See TO), but he brought a stability to the team, the player  acquisition side, and all things football.  Now, when he left, the whole thing fell apart for a while, until Jones Jr. sortof took over.  Now, I think they have a much more stable organization.  Skelator is really just a blabbermouth. The real football stuff is handled by others.

 

I think there's a large component of luck involved.  You try and put yourself in the right position, but you never know.  And you might get yourself in the right position, and the right guy isn't there. See: Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a ton of work. Wow.

A couple quibbles:

1. Trent Green. The entire organization (from what I remember) wanted to keep him around, but he was a FA when the team had no owner, it was owned by the JKC trust, and was being sold. So they couldn't offer him a contract. Which is why they had to trade a #1 (I believe, I didn't look that up) for Brad Johnson. Who had a hell of a good 1999, and would have continued to be solid in Norv Turner's system, as noodle armed as he was. If he wasn't run out of town.

2. The F/O assessment for romoSUCKS. There are 2 stints in the Jerry Jones era when they had a hell of a good front office: When Jimmy Johnson was running it, and when Parcells was running it. I know Parcells didn't have complete and total control(See TO), but he brought a stability to the team, the player acquisition side, and all things football. Now, when he left, the whole thing fell apart for a while, until Jones Jr. sortof took over. Now, I think they have a much more stable organization. Skelator is really just a blabbermouth. The real football stuff is handled by others.

I think there's a large component of luck involved. You try and put yourself in the right position, but you never know. And you might get yourself in the right position, and the right guy isn't there. See: Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf

1) But doesn't that speak to "A" (sound FO)? Remember, that includes ownership. So, by definition, an unstable FO cost us Green.

2) Agreed, but I pretty much made it to where a HC who has final say in personnel means the FO isn't "sound". I know that might be too general to apply, so you're right.

That'd only mean romoSUCKS, however, is more proof of the observations here. It'd make his situation with the Cowboys include A, C and E. :)

 

'D' and 'E' are one in the same really, kind of a ' front half of horse and back half of horse'.

The 'it' factor for and against the very same topic. At least that's the way I look at it.

Regardless, still nice post even if it took me 2 Dr.Peppers to read it all. :P

They are very similar, but I wanted a way to give credit to an organization for moving on from an established vet on the decline or a guy they spent a lot on at the right time.

It's the difference between giving too much time versus too little time. They can do one without the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) But doesn't that speak to "A" (sound FO)? Remember, that includes ownership. So, by definition, an unstable FO cost us Green.

 

Yeah, but I think when death, taxes and estates are concerned, you can't really hold anybody accountable.  It's more bad luck than anything there. 

 

But I get your point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I think when death, taxes and estates are concerned, you can't really hold anybody accountable.  It's more bad luck than anything there. 

 

But I get your point.  

 

Oh, yeah, totally... I'm not blaming anyone except the circumstance itself, you know? But it's a part of it, unfortunately, so I have to include it. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...