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

[justice98]

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.

Hats off to anybody that read the OP in its entirety. lol

Seriously though, I think if you're a first round QB, you were generally thought highly enough that somebody thought you had very good, if not, elite potential. And it doesn't matter what the general consensus is on a guy or what questions they have coming out, it only takes one team to believe in them.

[TSO]

Thought I'd revisit this as mentioned in the Cousins thread. 

 

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. 

 

 

Here's how the previous case study went when it came to the Redskins (as you can see, I excluded this past offseason):

 

Let's look at how the criteria is applied to us (excluding this past offseason):

 

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 A, C, 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 think it's time where we can now include this past offseason, wouldn't you?

 

Kirk is close to becoming a "franchise guy" for us and I think it's interesting to see if the criteria above had any role in this. So let's begin: 

 

I'd say we finally have a sound FO for the first time under Mr. Snyder. Though I personally have fears about Scot's personal issues ruining this set up, I remain optimistic about it and acknowledge that we, at least, have this "set up" in the first place.

 

So we can now give the Redskins criterion A (how exthiting!!)

 

 

B already applied. It was the only one that applied when excluding this past offseason, unfortunately.

 

C is getting close, but I think it's a yes now. Gruden doesn't look like he's going anywhere and I think it's clear that the stability of his system has helped Kirk immensely. I would say three years at minimum would make this 100% yes, so it's not right now... but it likely will be. So let's just give it to us.    

 

D, which seems to have proven to be the least significant factor in terms of finding an "elite" guy, seems to apply now. Kirk has definitely been shown patience, throughout his struggles. Some may point to his benching last year as proof otherwise, and there is some legitimacy to that, but it can also be argued that it helped him. Either way, the team stuck with him one way or another and allowed him to win the job, even if it wasn't publicly a competition. Furthermore, the team didn't bench him even when there were calls to do so after some of the early losses.   

 

E I think also applies here. The team moved on from RG3, a tough deal considering the amount that was given up to acquire him, as well as the intense support he had with the owner of the team and throughout the fanbase.

 

So, in summary, we've got A, B, C, D and E going for us right now. 

 

 

In conclusion, right now I'm pretty damn excited looking at this... we're beginning to fall into the same type of category (where most of the criteria apply) to the teams who've found themselves a truly elite guy. Whereas, in the past we'd only legitimately fall under one, B.

 

Doesn't mean Kirk will be that guy himself (could be we find another one instead), but the case study, as mentioned previously, has shown to me that the more the criteria applies (specifically the ABC combo), the more likely you'll find an elite guy. 

 

So we're in good company right now. Very cool.