Is There Really A Lack of Quality QBs? (1 Viewer)

[skyking162]

One hot topic in the mainstream media is that there's a lack of quality QBs in the league. The requisite stat is that 60 different quarterbacks started a game this season.

Are there really fewer quality QBs in the NFL versus other points in history? If so, any explanations why? Is it a talent issue or a scheming issue?

 

[azgroover]

This has been said every generation in the same manner that people say that music was better in their day. As long as there are Quarterbacks, there will be good ones and bad ones.

 

[Jon_Moore]

There are more bad ones. People are more wishful in their thinking with manners of fixing the qb problem.

Mike Vick going to jail? We got Joey Harrington--we'll bring in Leftwich...one of them will fianlly be a legit starter.

JP Losman at the end of the 1st?! We'll be set for years!

This Frye kid's still there in the 3rd round, and he can be the answer.

Daunte Culpepper sucks after losing one of the best receivers ever? Tore all the ligaments in his knee? So what?!

GM's really take alot more shots at fixing the qb problem, just hoping one pans out--and most of them do not.

 

[FUBAR]

The only difference is the schemes are more complex, so learning the position is harder.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

The only difference is the schemes are more complex, so learning the position is harder.

And guys aren't given the necessary time to fully develop with the $$ they're being paid.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I was thinking about this today. I think that the shortage of quality QBs is explainable and it comes down to coaching.

You have three types of coaches:

1) The "we're good enough to win now" coach that doesn't want to waste a draft pick and/or time on developing a young QB.

2) The "on the hot seat" coach that CAN'T waste a draft pick and/or time on developing a young QB.

3) The "new hire" coach that's reluctant to pin his future on a quarterback.

So, in summary, the QB position is under coached.

And drafting a QB is a tricky proposition too. Any other position, even if the guy doesn't live up to expectations, can at least give you playing times or possibly contribute on special teams. With the QB, the guy either works out or he doesn't, so wasting a pick on a QB that doesn't hurts.

 

[Truman]

No. Too much WCO which will make a decent QB look horrible without good protection.

 

[Phurfur]

The only difference is the schemes are more complex, so learning the position is harder.

And how many Tony Romo types are out there. He is lucky he got a chance I am sure many didn't. I think NFL scouts suck at judging QB talent.

 

[redman]

The only difference is the schemes are more complex, so learning the position is harder.

And guys aren't given the necessary time to fully develop with the $$ they're being paid.

Guys like Todd Collins and Rich Gannon help demonstrate how long it can take to master what is undoubtedly one of the most challenging positions to play in all of team sports. For another example that seems to get forgotten, go check out how bad Dan Fouts' first four years or so in the league were. He was awful, and he ended up in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Interseptopus]

QBs in the NFL are talented... there's no doubt about it. Look at all the ver talented college QBs who have failed in the pros (the list is longer than anyone can even comprehend).

There is not a question of talented QBs- all QBs can throw the ball, otherwise they wouldn't play that possition. The question lies in intangibles; things you cannot really measure:

- How can a QB adjust from the speed of college to the speed of the pros? It's a bigger increase than any of us can begin to understand

- How well can a QB lead a group of older, perhaps more talented players

- How well can the QB digest the vast NFL playbook?

- How well can a QB read the defenses, faster DBs, ridiculous schemes, etc?

- Then there's the pure mechanics part that just can't change- some things work in college ball because of the speed of the game, talent of players around them or the lack of talent against them, the scheme they are in, etc... meanwhile those same mecahanics don't work in the NFL because of an increase in all of those factors.

So the issue isn't a lack of talented QBs in the NFL... rather than a lack of QBs who can take that next step. The road stops for everyone at some point- some just can't make it at that next level for whatever reason... some just can't take that step, some stop due to age...

 

[Interseptopus]

The only difference is the schemes are more complex, so learning the position is harder.

And guys aren't given the necessary time to fully develop with the $$ they're being paid.

Guys like Todd Collins and Rich Gannon help demonstrate how long it can take to master what is undoubtedly one of the most challenging positions to play in all of team sports. For another example that seems to get forgotten, go check out how bad Dan Fouts' first four years or so in the league were. He was awful, and he ended up in the Hall of Fame.

Good posting about guys aren't given the time to fully develop... many teams want them to take that leap right away, sacrificing development.Add Tony Romo to that list. I believe he's in his 4th or 5th season.Gets me excited to see Aaron Rodgers in 2009... Rumor has it Favre is coming back next season... would make the transition to Rodgers pretty easy if he stepped in after what, 4 years behind Favre? He's under contract through 2009. Everyone was down on him, and even if he was poised to be a bust had he been starting right away for SF (selected 1st), he's had 3 years now to learn the game. Not to mention he's just turned 25... he'll take over the reins of the offense at 26! Plenty of time to fine tune his game and prove skeptics wrong

 

[FUBAR]

The only difference is the schemes are more complex, so learning the position is harder.

And guys aren't given the necessary time to fully develop with the $ they're being paid.

Guys like Todd Collins and Rich Gannon help demonstrate how long it can take to master what is undoubtedly one of the most challenging positions to play in all of team sports. For another example that seems to get forgotten, go check out how bad Dan Fouts' first four years or so in the league were. He was awful, and he ended up in the Hall of Fame.

How about:1985 24 TAM qb 5 5 72 138 52.2 935 3 2.2 8 5.8 59 6.8 4.4 13.0 187.0 56.9 21 158 4.9 2.8 13.2

1986 25 TAM QB 14 14 195 363 53.7 2282 8 2.2 13 3.6 46 6.3 4.9 11.7 163.0 65.5 47 326 4.8 3.5 11.5

1987 26 SFO 8 3 37 69 53.6 570 10 14.5 0 0.0 50 8.3 9.7 15.4 71.3 120.8 3 25 7.6 9.0 4.2

1988 27 SFO 11 3 54 101 53.5 680 3 3.0 3 3.0 73 6.7 5.7 12.6 61.8 72.2 13 75 5.3 4.4 11.4

1989 28 SFO 10 3 64 92 69.6 1001 8 8.7 3 3.3 50 10.9 10.3 15.6 100.1 120.8 12 84 8.8 8.3 11.5

1990 29 SFO 6 1 38 62 61.3 427 2 3.2 0 0.0 34 6.9 7.2 11.2 71.2 92.6 8 41 5.5 5.8 11.4

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Also, do you guys think that the constant change of coaching staffs has something to do with the lack of good, young passers? I say this because of the time it takes to develop most young QBs. Guys like Drew Stanton and John Beck will be on their second system in two years. Alex Smith will be on his third offensive coordinator in three years.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Right now, two of the best QBs ever are in their prime (Brady and Manning), a probable top 5 QB of all-time is still playing at a very high level (Favre), there are several other top-notch QBs (Roethlisberger, Romo, Hasselbeck, etc.), and quite a few promising up-and-comers. Sure, there are some bad ones, but that can be said for any time period in NFL history.

I think the biggest problem right now is that most front offices want almost immediate results from coaches and players, so coaches(especially ones who need to win "now" in order to save their jobs in that particular year) aren't as likely to let a rookie QB sit and learn the game, as opposed to just throwing out there when he still clueless, to which they might have a horrific start to their career that they are unable to ever really recover from. There are exceptions, of course.

 

[Tick]

Also, do you guys think that the constant change of coaching staffs has something to do with the lack of good, young passers? I say this because of the time it takes to develop most young QBs. Guys like Drew Stanton and John Beck will be on their second system in two years. Alex Smith will be on his third offensive coordinator in three years.

That's a good point. Some teams just get into a terrible cycle of coordinator and scheme changes. I wonder how many O-coordinators Rex Grossman has had going back to college. I'll bet it's a new one just about every season.

 

[redman]

Also, do you guys think that the constant change of coaching staffs has something to do with the lack of good, young passers? I say this because of the time it takes to develop most young QBs. Guys like Drew Stanton and John Beck will be on their second system in two years. Alex Smith will be on his third offensive coordinator in three years.

Definitely. People have ridiculed the Redskins for paying their assistants so highly, but doing so has helped to maintain Williams - generally considered a good head coaching candidate - there for four years and Saunders for two . . . and counting. Before that it had been a carousel. Stability, in and of itself, is a virtue in this sport IMHO.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Right now, two of the best QBs ever are in their prime (Brady and Manning), a probable top 5 QB of all-time is still playing at a very high level (Favre), there are several other top-notch QBs (Roethlisberger, Romo, Hasselbeck, etc.), and quite a few promising up-and-comers. Sure, there are some bad ones, but that can be said for any time period in NFL history.

I agree with this and I think a lot of it is just how you look at it. What constitutes a good QB is relative, and you could argue that the problem is that the top tier QBs are so good, they make the performance of an average QB look unacceptable to the average fan.

 

[J Andersson]

Right now, two of the best QBs ever are in their prime (Brady and Manning), a probable top 5 QB of all-time is still playing at a very high level (Favre), there are several other top-notch QBs (Roethlisberger, Romo, Hasselbeck, etc.), and quite a few promising up-and-comers. Sure, there are some bad ones, but that can be said for any time period in NFL history.I think the biggest problem right now is that most front offices want almost immediate results from coaches and players, so coaches(especially ones who need to win "now" in order to save their jobs in that particular year) aren't as likely to let a rookie QB sit and learn the game, as opposed to just throwing out there when he still clueless, to which they might have a horrific start to their career that they are unable to ever really recover from. There are exceptions, of course.

I completely agree and the fact that the teams that are rich when it comes to talent (like New England and Indianapolis) have top notch passers does make other not so rich front offices chase that success instantly. While I may be reading to much into this I think the parity that was supposed to be created by the salary cap haven't shown as a result of some very poor management in certain places such as perennial losers Detroit, Arizona. Also management in former powerhouses like Oakland and San Francisco are disturbingly dysfunctional at this day and age (although I like that the Raiders sat Russell for most of this season).Isn't this an ownership issue? Which coaches have been succesful lately? Belichick, Dungy and Cowher are the obvious ones but one could also mention Mike Holmgren, Andy Reid and to some extent Mike Sherman and Mike Shanahan. All have been working in the same place for quite a while and installed their set of ideas firmly in these organizations. In this day and age everyone is also seems to be praising the success of young coaches. I for one question what kind of success that can be shown attributed to younger coaches - apart from one succesful season by Mangini in New York (followed by a 4-12 season)? I sure don't see it!I for one consider it a blatant disregard from front offices and ultimately the owners for what gives you success in the long run. Like it would unbearable to suffer a losing season or two before things get steadier?

 

[radiohead417]

I don't get why people are always saying there's a lack of good QBs in the league. I think we're in a great time for NFL QBs. Take a look at this list, and think about the quality of play from all these guys, not to mention their potential for things like the Hall of Fame.

Tom Brady

Carson Palmer

Derek Anderson

Ben Roethlisberger

Peyton Manning

David Garrard

Jay Cutler

Philip Rivers

Eli Manning

Tony Romo

Donovan McNabb

Brett Favre

Drew Brees

Jeff Garcia

Marc Bulger

Matt Hasselbeck

I'm not saying all these guys are Joe Montana, but too many people complain about bad QB play in the NFL when I think it's pretty darn good. For every Cleo Lemon of this era, there's a lot more awful QBs of the 80s (shoot, just look at the Bucs/Packers of the 80s). I think the current generation of sports-talk hacks are all about 40-50 years old, and think back to Elway and Montana and forget about guys like Steve Pelluer.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

It used to be rare that QBs topped 4,000 yards - and this year SEVEN QBs did it.

It also used to be rare for a QB to throw for 30 or more TDs - and FOUR QBs did it.

(And six more broke 25).

The QB play at the top is stellar in the league right now - it's the quality 2-3 notches below that's in question.

I agree that QBs need more time to develop. Most of the QBs at the top took time to get where they are today.

 

[kflo]

There is a HUGE lack of quailty QB's in the league and it wont get better....might even get worse in the future. We are long gone past the days when there weer AKimans, Steve YOungs and Elways all in the league at once. Once Farve leaves we will be looking at Brady and Peyton that's it. With Palmer and Romo bringing up the rear.

McNabb is on the decline I cant think of any other good ones to be honest.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

There is a HUGE lack of quailty QB's in the league and it wont get better....might even get worse in the future. We are long gone past the days when there weer AKimans, Steve YOungs and Elways all in the league at once. Once Farve leaves we will be looking at Brady and Peyton that's it. With Palmer and Romo bringing up the rear.McNabb is on the decline I cant think of any other good ones to be honest.

????HasslebeckBig BenBreesBulgerthe position across the NFL seems very young right now

 

[redman]

It used to be rare that QBs topped 4,000 yards - and this year SEVEN QBs did it.It also used to be rare for a QB to throw for 30 or more TDs - and FOUR QBs did it.(And six more broke 25).The QB play at the top is stellar in the league right now - it's the quality 2-3 notches below that's in question.I agree that QBs need more time to develop. Most of the QBs at the top took time to get where they are today.

Couldn't those numbers more easily be attributed to a trend toward passing in lieu of running instead of "stellar QB play"? There are a lot of guys putting up numbers bigger than they are IMHO. It's not unique to this era - Jay Schroeder put up over 4000 passing yards in 1986 - but it's far more common give how pass-happy it is. Go pull up Aaron Brooks stats and tell me you aren't surprised at how good they are.

 

[fantasyplayer]

There is a HUGE lack of quailty QB's in the league and it wont get better....might even get worse in the future. We are long gone past the days when there weer AKimans, Steve YOungs and Elways all in the league at once. Once Farve leaves we will be looking at Brady and Peyton that's it. With Palmer and Romo bringing up the rear.McNabb is on the decline I cant think of any other good ones to be honest.

Favre, Manning and Brady (all future HOFers) have been in the leauge together for several years. And Romo and Roethlisberger may one day be considered great.