Rookie QBs in dynasty (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

How would you tier the rookie qbs for dynasty? For me , I think you have Luck in a tier, then Rg3 in his own tier, then Wilson in his own tier, and then Tannehill, then the fifth tier with all the rest. The breaks between the top 4 are pretty distinct.

When the preseason started in was

Luck/Rg3

Tannehill

Everyone else

Now it is

Luck

Rg3

Wilson

Tannehill

Everyone else.

Thoughts? Comment?

 

[Tool]

this is for dynasty? other than obviously bumping up Wilson and probably nick foles, i don't see how anything else changes.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Foles is one who I am watching closely. In a 12 team, 18 man dynasty it is hard to stash guys like that but I do not want to be late if Vick goes down.

Luck

RG3

Wilson

Tannehill

Foles

I have fallen head over heals with Wilson so my judgement could be slightly impaired putting him in the tier with RG3. I also think there is a higher chance than most of RG3 not living up to his hype though.

 

[Abraham]

Luck

RG3

Wilson

FOles

Tannehill

Osweiller

Weeden

Cousins

 

[BallparkFrank]

Naturally, the Browns have the one rookie QB starter that nobody even cares to include on their list. The football gods will one day shine again upon Cleveland...or will they?

 

[lbouchard]

I think Wilson and Tannehill should be on same tier. Definitely not that big a gap at the very least

 

[cr8f]

Foles is one who I am watching closely. In a 12 team, 18 man dynasty it is hard to stash guys like that but I do not want to be late if Vick goes down.LuckRG3WilsonTannehillFolesI have fallen head over heals with Wilson so my judgement could be slightly impaired putting him in the tier with RG3. I also think there is a higher chance than most of RG3 not living up to his hype though.

I'd move Wilson up one. In dynasty how may start rookies or even give them contracts? Wilson will be on my DTS for now. I want to see how he does once defenses target him specifically.

 

[Goat Herders]

Wilson has a shorter leash than a lot of guys on the list since he has a capable backup behind him. Not to say he won't e successful, but tannehill (example) is going to get a lot of rope.

I would not be shocked if oaweiler or foles were muh higher on this list in three years.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I have them ranked:

LUCK

'

'

RG III

WILSON

'

WEEDEN

'

'

'

Tannenhill

'

Foles

Luck is the gold standard.

Giffin isn't on the same plain as Luck and his supporting cast is lacking and the Skins are without high draft picks to provide the sort of help that would help propel his career.

Wilson is one of the most entriguing quarterback stories I have seen in awhile. Everyone will be following his progress but what I have seen so far I think he can and will succeed.

If Weeden were a few years younger he would have gone ahead of Tannenhill. He lacks the athleticism and mobility of those listed ahead of him but he has some young skill players developing around him and the best blind side protector in the game and he's starting so everything is aligned for him to succeed but it will take time. Next year at this time he should be ready to turn into a solid starter if he hadn't already moved to that status by the end of his rookie season.

I not ever been sold on Tannenhill and I think he might have the worst receiving corps that any rookie starting quarterback has ever had to work with. Also saw things about him that I simply did not like prior to the draft so I'm from Missouri on certain elements of his game. He could prove me wrong but this is how I rate him today.

I've seen Foles and I'm not overly impressed with the preseason stats against second and third stringers. I rate him with the others since Vick will more than likely go down and he is in-line to get a few starts at some point in the season and the Eagles have the best supporting cast of any of the rookie QBs listed. Add he is not scheduled to start from game-one so he still has time to acclimate. If/when he is called upon Andy Ried has a group of veteran skill players and has experience getting young QBs up-to-speed quickly so he should fair decently but I am just not sold on his overall skill set.

 

[moderated]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

 

[EBF]

LuckRG3WilsonFOlesTannehillOsweillerWeedenCousins

This is pretty close to how I see it.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

RG III has a negative that none of the other rookie QBs have and that is the lack of high draft picks to start to build a core of talented skill players around him.Wilson doesn't have the greatest skill players around him but Seattle has some nice players on their O-Line and a solid starting RB and the organization has all of their high draft picks in the immediate future to help surround him with players that can help him.This is how I see them at this time, nearly on the same plain with RG III slightly ahead due mostly to the lack of high draft picks to help him out early in his career but I think both will succeed.

 

[SSOG]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

RG III has a negative that none of the other rookie QBs have and that is the lack of high draft picks to start to build a core of talented skill players around him.Wilson doesn't have the greatest skill players around him but Seattle has some nice players on their O-Line and a solid starting RB and the organization has all of their high draft picks in the immediate future to help surround him with players that can help him.This is how I see them at this time, nearly on the same plain with RG III slightly ahead due mostly to the lack of high draft picks to help him out early in his career but I think both will succeed.

Griffin may lack high draft picks, but Wilson lacks Mike Shanahan. All of Elway's best years came under Shanahan. Steve Young's best season was the year he played for Shanahan. Brian Griese, Jake Plummer, and Jay Cutler all had their best years under Shanahan. He has a tremendous record for developing QBs. Picking talent, not so much... But developing QBs, yeah. I think anyone putting Wilson with one of the top two pre-draft QB prospects of the last decade based on preseason action and camp reports is guilty of grievous, grievous overreaction.

 

[Sabertooth]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

I don't think its insane. He has much better supporting players.

 

[SSOG]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

I don't think its insane. He has much better supporting players.

We're talking dynasty, right? Supporting players change in a hurry. It's not like Wilson has a Fitzgerald or a Calvin- a transformational, cornerstone, all-pro weapon who will still be providing a huge competitive advantage for years to come. Wilson's "better supporting cast" might help him this year, but most dynasty owners aren't relying on either for this year- anything that happens in year 1 is gravy, it's the stuff that happens in year 2-16 that really matters. And, again, coaching is part of "supporting cast", and Griffin is working with one of the most accomplished QB tutors of this generation. He's working with the guy that got Brian Griese and Jake Plummer to lead the league in TD:Int ratio. That's supporting cast, too. Besides, ranking Wilson as comparable to Griffin based on supporting cast is comparable to ranking Martin as comparable to Richardson because of the same. Only even more ludicrous, because Martin was still a first rounder. It's true that a lot of draft experts whiffed on Wilson, but is there anyone in the entire universe that thinks there is a single NFL franchise that would trade the #6 pick, two future firsts, and a very high second for Wilson? Or that, had a franchise been as addled and insane as to actually do it, regular NFL writers would be nodding sagely and saying "sure, it's an insane amount, but when the opportunity comes along to get a player the quality of Russell Wilson, you have to do whatever it takes"? Of course not. Russell Wilson is a great story, and a guy who could become a solid starting QB in the league. Robert Griffin is one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years, and an Olympic-caliber athlete with the potential to become a mutant hybrid between Randall Cunningham (the Eagles edition) and Randall Cunningham (the '98 Vikings edition). And people are going to rate them as roughly comparable because Wilson posted a solid QB rating in a couple of halves against the 2s and a couple of halves against first string defenses running vanilla preseason packages? That'd be like trading AJ Green for Denarius Moore last offseason because the Bengals were a mess, Green was playing with a rookie QB, and Moore was lighting it up in camp. Step back from the ledge, people. Maybe Wilson is the next Tom Brady and Griffin is the next Ryan Leaf, but based on the information we have available to us, it'd be insane to make that bet.

 

[DoubleG]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

I don't think its insane. He has much better supporting players.

We're talking dynasty, right? Supporting players change in a hurry. It's not like Wilson has a Fitzgerald or a Calvin- a transformational, cornerstone, all-pro weapon who will still be providing a huge competitive advantage for years to come. Wilson's "better supporting cast" might help him this year, but most dynasty owners aren't relying on either for this year- anything that happens in year 1 is gravy, it's the stuff that happens in year 2-16 that really matters. And, again, coaching is part of "supporting cast", and Griffin is working with one of the most accomplished QB tutors of this generation. He's working with the guy that got Brian Griese and Jake Plummer to lead the league in TD:Int ratio. That's supporting cast, too. Besides, ranking Wilson as comparable to Griffin based on supporting cast is comparable to ranking Martin as comparable to Richardson because of the same. Only even more ludicrous, because Martin was still a first rounder. It's true that a lot of draft experts whiffed on Wilson, but is there anyone in the entire universe that thinks there is a single NFL franchise that would trade the #6 pick, two future firsts, and a very high second for Wilson? Or that, had a franchise been as addled and insane as to actually do it, regular NFL writers would be nodding sagely and saying "sure, it's an insane amount, but when the opportunity comes along to get a player the quality of Russell Wilson, you have to do whatever it takes"? Of course not. Russell Wilson is a great story, and a guy who could become a solid starting QB in the league. Robert Griffin is one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years, and an Olympic-caliber athlete with the potential to become a mutant hybrid between Randall Cunningham (the Eagles edition) and Randall Cunningham (the '98 Vikings edition). And people are going to rate them as roughly comparable because Wilson posted a solid QB rating in a couple of halves against the 2s and a couple of halves against first string defenses running vanilla preseason packages? That'd be like trading AJ Green for Denarius Moore last offseason because the Bengals were a mess, Green was playing with a rookie QB, and Moore was lighting it up in camp.

Step back from the ledge, people. Maybe Wilson is the next Tom Brady and Griffin is the next Ryan Leaf, but based on the information we have available to us, it'd be insane to make that bet.

I agree with what you are saying almost 100%. But several "experts" (even before the last couple of weeks) were talking about the fact that Wilson's QB rating was higher than Luck's last year, and if he had been 2-3" taller, the three would have been in the discussion about who the top QBs should have been enterting the draft.The point being, many agree that he is extremely talented - the primary knock on him was his height (or lack thereof). I don't disagree that Lcuk and RG3 are likely better bets - even if only for the height factor. However, I think many feel that if there is an "out of nowhere" QB in this draft class that at least has the possibility of challenging the success of Luck or RG3, it's Wilson above anyone else.

 

[DexterDew]

Nice posting SSOG!

I think Wilson is a great story and may be an above average QB in the NFL, but RG3 can be elite.

 

[Ryan99]

Foles, baby.

He could be starting by next year and he's in a great offense. If Andy goes Vick goes, and Vick might go even if Andy doesn't. Vick is only guaranteed 3 million next season but his base salary is 12 million. I don't see any way the Eagles would pay that unless he gets them deep into the playoffs this year. The truth is he's just not that good of a quarterback. Foles won the backup job and the Eagles cut Kafka, so there's not much uncertainty there.

Foles would even be effective this year if Vick goes down. I can see Foles being playable in deeper leagues if he's starting. Foles might even have a higher ceiling (next year) than RG3 because the Skins are so bad. Even if RG3 turns into a good pro player, they gave up so much to get him that it will be hard to improve in other areas.

 

[cr8f]

Foles, baby.

He could be starting by next year and he's in a great offense. If Andy goes Vick goes, and Vick might go even if Andy doesn't. Vick is only guaranteed 3 million next season but his base salary is 12 million. I don't see any way the Eagles would pay that unless he gets them deep into the playoffs this year. The truth is he's just not that good of a quarterback. Foles won the backup job and the Eagles cut Kafka, so there's not much uncertainty there.

Foles would even be effective this year if Vick goes down. I can see Foles being playable in deeper leagues if he's starting. Foles might even have a higher ceiling (next year) than RG3 because the Skins are so bad. Even if RG3 turns into a good pro player, they gave up so much to get him that it will be hard to improve in other areas.

That's a lot of assumptions. Not sure Vick would leave even if Reid does and I think the team will be good this year. I like Foles but starting may take a few years. As a backup and spot player he could be good. In my dynasties he was drafted.

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

RG III has a negative that none of the other rookie QBs have and that is the lack of high draft picks to start to build a core of talented skill players around him.Wilson doesn't have the greatest skill players around him but Seattle has some nice players on their O-Line and a solid starting RB and the organization has all of their high draft picks in the immediate future to help surround him with players that can help him.

This is how I see them at this time, nearly on the same plain with RG III slightly ahead due mostly to the lack of high draft picks to help him out early in his career but I think both will succeed.

Griffin may lack high draft picks, but Wilson lacks Mike Shanahan. All of Elway's best years came under Shanahan. Steve Young's best season was the year he played for Shanahan. Brian Griese, Jake Plummer, and Jay Cutler all had their best years under Shanahan. He has a tremendous record for developing QBs. Picking talent, not so much... But developing QBs, yeah. I think anyone putting Wilson with one of the top two pre-draft QB prospects of the last decade based on preseason action and camp reports is guilty of grievous, grievous overreaction.

I'll have to save this for later in the year. RG3 may be great but doesn't look that good yet. Shanahan may be able to get a lot more out of him but we'll see.

Wilson gets more out of the players around him. I'm not saying he will be better but I like him better right now. Long term we'll see.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

RG III has a negative that none of the other rookie QBs have and that is the lack of high draft picks to start to build a core of talented skill players around him.Wilson doesn't have the greatest skill players around him but Seattle has some nice players on their O-Line and a solid starting RB and the organization has all of their high draft picks in the immediate future to help surround him with players that can help him.

This is how I see them at this time, nearly on the same plain with RG III slightly ahead due mostly to the lack of high draft picks to help him out early in his career but I think both will succeed.

Griffin may lack high draft picks, but Wilson lacks Mike Shanahan. All of Elway's best years came under Shanahan. Steve Young's best season was the year he played for Shanahan. Brian Griese, Jake Plummer, and Jay Cutler all had their best years under Shanahan. He has a tremendous record for developing QBs. Picking talent, not so much... But developing QBs, yeah. I think anyone putting Wilson with one of the top two pre-draft QB prospects of the last decade based on preseason action and camp reports is guilty of grievous, grievous overreaction.

Mike Shanahan did get the most out of his QBs but his QBs not only had the coaching of Mike Shanahan they also had other players helping them.Shanahan worked with these quarterbacks:

Steve Young

Steve Young had 11 Pro Bowlers on his offensive lines with the 49ers and he also got to throw to the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) wide receiver in Jerry Rice, Terrell Owens, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Ricky Watters, Garrison Hearst, Tom Rathman, etc et el.

I think its safe to say that Steve Young had a fantastic supporting cast AND Mike Shanahan. If he had a gun put to his head and had to choose between begining his career with his supporting cast of an elderly Mike Shanahan I think he would choose the sensational supporting cast of players he worked with.

John Elway

Had Mike Shanahan as his OC for a few years prior to him going to Oakland to be the head coach and returning to Denver. John not only had Mike Shanahan he also had, Shannon Sharpe, Rod Smith, Terrell Davis, along wtih some of the best offensive linemen of that era and the best overall teams that Shanahan assembled ILLEGALLY as he was busted by the Commish and forfeited draft selections. Its safe to say that John Elway had a lot more to work with than just Mike Shanahan.

Brian Greise, worked with pretty much the same supporting cast of Elway, wasn't very good but Mike got the most out of his skill set as he left Denver with the highest QB passer rating, yup even higher than Elroy's, but it should be pointed out that when Greise left and went to Tampa Bay that when he left Tampa Bay he also left with the highest QB passer rating in Tampa Bay history so it wasn't just Mike Shanahan's tutledge that got the most of Brian Griese.

Jake Plummer, still had Rod Smith and a great offensive line and numeroous thousand yard rushers yet he had so-so performance which lead Shanahan moving up in the draft to get the next QB he worked with in Denver.

Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, nice line, Clinton Portis. Nice supporting cast, hand picked talented QB but Jay had some issues with his type-1 diabetes and his production varied in Denver.

Um the guys that Shanahan has had in Washington were not good and I haven't followed them. They did not perform very well but the skill position players were lacking, older injured Cooley, older injured Portis, Fred Davis. I don't blame Shanahan but I don't give him loads of credit as those guys didn't do anything.

I'm not ripping Shanahan but the point is Mike had great success with great QBs but the great success came to those QBs with more than Mike Shanahan. Those great QBs had great supporting casts and that is something that RG III does not have in Washington and without high draft picks it will be be years before the team has a reasonable shot to land top skill players or top notch O-line help to him.

 

[SSOG]

Mike Shanahan did get the most out of his QBs but his QBs not only had the coaching of Mike Shanahan they also had other players helping them.

Shanahan worked with these quarterbacks:

Steve Young

Steve Young had 11 Pro Bowlers on his offensive lines with the 49ers and he also got to throw to the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) wide receiver in Jerry Rice, Terrell Owens, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Ricky Watters, Garrison Hearst, Tom Rathman, etc et el.

I think its safe to say that Steve Young had a fantastic supporting cast AND Mike Shanahan. If he had a gun put to his head and had to choose between begining his career with his supporting cast of an elderly Mike Shanahan I think he would choose the sensational supporting cast of players he worked with.

John Elway

Had Mike Shanahan as his OC for a few years prior to him going to Oakland to be the head coach and returning to Denver. John not only had Mike Shanahan he also had, Shannon Sharpe, Rod Smith, Terrell Davis, along wtih some of the best offensive linemen of that era and the best overall teams that Shanahan assembled ILLEGALLY as he was busted by the Commish and forfeited draft selections. Its safe to say that John Elway had a lot more to work with than just Mike Shanahan.

Brian Greise, worked with pretty much the same supporting cast of Elway, wasn't very good but Mike got the most out of his skill set as he left Denver with the highest QB passer rating, yup even higher than Elroy's, but it should be pointed out that when Greise left and went to Tampa Bay that when he left Tampa Bay he also left with the highest QB passer rating in Tampa Bay history so it wasn't just Mike Shanahan's tutledge that got the most of Brian Griese.

Jake Plummer, still had Rod Smith and a great offensive line and numeroous thousand yard rushers yet he had so-so performance which lead Shanahan moving up in the draft to get the next QB he worked with in Denver.

Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, nice line, Clinton Portis. Nice supporting cast, hand picked talented QB but Jay had some issues with his type-1 diabetes and his production varied in Denver.

Um the guys that Shanahan has had in Washington were not good and I haven't followed them. They did not perform very well but the skill position players were lacking, older injured Cooley, older injured Portis, Fred Davis. I don't blame Shanahan but I don't give him loads of credit as those guys didn't do anything.

I'm not ripping Shanahan but the point is Mike had great success with great QBs but the great success came to those QBs with more than Mike Shanahan. Those great QBs had great supporting casts and that is something that RG III does not have in Washington and without high draft picks it will be be years before the team has a reasonable shot to land top skill players or top notch O-line help to him.

Steve Young had all those players surrounding him before Shanahan arrived. He had all those players surrounding him after Shanahan left. Despite this, in his single season working with Shanahan, young set career highs in comp%, TD%, QB Rating, AYPA, and ANY/A. The completion percentage mark was the second best in NFL history, just 0.3% behind Anderson's 9-game strike-shortened 1982 campaign. The QB Rating mark was an NFL record that stood until Manning's 2004 campaign. Clearly Shanahan was able to get more out of him in one season than any other coach before or since. John Elway did have a fantastic supporting cast surrounding him from 1996-1998. He did not have anywhere near as fantastic of a supporting cast when, under Shanahan's tutelage, he was named the MVP of the 1987 season. Shanahan worked with Elway during three distinct stints, and Elways seasons with Shanahan were demonstrably and substantially better than his seasons without, even controlling for supporting cast.

Brian Griese had some solid years in Tampa, but his best season by a huge margin came under Shanahan. I never said that no one else was capable of extracting good performances from players, I just said that Shanahan was one of the best at it.

Plummer was anything but "so-so" in Denver. He was a pro bowler, and even with his disastrous final season, his total Denver numbers were really good. Prior to his final year meltdown, he was putting up a 2:1 TD:int ratio, about 7.5 YPA, and a QB rating of around 90. Oh yeah, and a winning percentage better than Elway's. Denver didn't select Cutler because Plummer was "so-so", they selected him because Plummer was getting older and Shanny loved Cutler. Still, compare Plummer's stats with Shanny to his stats without him- he's a completely different QB. Night and day difference. It's like the difference between Rex Grossman and Trent Green.

Cutler didn't have Clinton Portis. His running back during his 4,000 yard season was Michael Pittman... No, wait, he was lost for the year. It was Selvin Young. No, wait, he got hurt, too. It was Hillis! No, lost for the season. It was Torain, or P.J. Pope. No, it was Andre Hall! No, wait, it was Tatum Bell! That's right, he was finishing out the season with his 7th string RB, a guy who was selling cell phones in the mall in October and leading the team in rushing in November. His leading rusher that year failed to crack 350 yards. That's not a typo. Marshall was great, but his next four receivers were Royal, Scheffler, Stokely, and Daniel Graham- out of curiosity, what has that group done since? It's hard to say Cutler was the product of his supporting cast.

Heck, even scrubs like Rex Grossman got in on the act. His numbers with Shanahan are better than his numbers without Shanahan in terms of comp%, rating, YPA, ypc, td%, Ay/A, and ANY/A. Ditto that for John Beck and Bubby Brister. In fact, with the single exception of Donovan McNabb, every single QB that has spent part of his career with Shanahan and part without has had his best career season under Shanahan. Almost without exception, their with-Shanahan numbers just destroy their without-Shanahan numbers.

Shanahan has a lot of weaknesses. Developing QBs is not one of them. There are few better people for a young QB to learn his craft under in the game today.

 

[SSOG]

I'll have to save this for later in the year. RG3 may be great but doesn't look that good yet. Shanahan may be able to get a lot more out of him but we'll see.Wilson gets more out of the players around him. I'm not saying he will be better but I like him better right now. Long term we'll see.

Griffin looks plenty good. A lot was made of Wilson's 112 preseason passer rating. Well, Griffin's was 103.3. Sure would have been nice to see him throw more than 31 passes, but he's looked good enough on the passes he has thrown to make any thoughts of downgrading him absurdly premature.

 

[duaneok66]

everyone likes the "alleged" diamond in the rough.

 

[SSOG]

Serious question to the Wilson fans: if you were the GM of some random team with QB issues (say... Jacksonville), would any one of you trade the #6 pick, an early 2nd rounder, your first next year, and your first the year after that to secure Wilson?

 

[lbouchard]

Serious question to the Wilson fans: if you were the GM of some random team with QB issues (say... Jacksonville), would any one of you trade the #6 pick, an early 2nd rounder, your first next year, and your first the year after that to secure Wilson?

No. But I wouldn't have done it for RG3 either.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Mike Shanahan did get the most out of his QBs but his QBs not only had the coaching of Mike Shanahan they also had other players helping them.

Shanahan worked with these quarterbacks:

Steve Young

Steve Young had 11 Pro Bowlers on his offensive lines with the 49ers and he also got to throw to the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) wide receiver in Jerry Rice, Terrell Owens, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Ricky Watters, Garrison Hearst, Tom Rathman, etc et el.

I think its safe to say that Steve Young had a fantastic supporting cast AND Mike Shanahan. If he had a gun put to his head and had to choose between begining his career with his supporting cast of an elderly Mike Shanahan I think he would choose the sensational supporting cast of players he worked with.

John Elway

Had Mike Shanahan as his OC for a few years prior to him going to Oakland to be the head coach and returning to Denver. John not only had Mike Shanahan he also had, Shannon Sharpe, Rod Smith, Terrell Davis, along wtih some of the best offensive linemen of that era and the best overall teams that Shanahan assembled ILLEGALLY as he was busted by the Commish and forfeited draft selections. Its safe to say that John Elway had a lot more to work with than just Mike Shanahan.

Brian Greise, worked with pretty much the same supporting cast of Elway, wasn't very good but Mike got the most out of his skill set as he left Denver with the highest QB passer rating, yup even higher than Elroy's, but it should be pointed out that when Greise left and went to Tampa Bay that when he left Tampa Bay he also left with the highest QB passer rating in Tampa Bay history so it wasn't just Mike Shanahan's tutledge that got the most of Brian Griese.

Jake Plummer, still had Rod Smith and a great offensive line and numeroous thousand yard rushers yet he had so-so performance which lead Shanahan moving up in the draft to get the next QB he worked with in Denver.

Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, nice line, Clinton Portis. Nice supporting cast, hand picked talented QB but Jay had some issues with his type-1 diabetes and his production varied in Denver.

Um the guys that Shanahan has had in Washington were not good and I haven't followed them. They did not perform very well but the skill position players were lacking, older injured Cooley, older injured Portis, Fred Davis. I don't blame Shanahan but I don't give him loads of credit as those guys didn't do anything.

I'm not ripping Shanahan but the point is Mike had great success with great QBs but the great success came to those QBs with more than Mike Shanahan. Those great QBs had great supporting casts and that is something that RG III does not have in Washington and without high draft picks it will be be years before the team has a reasonable shot to land top skill players or top notch O-line help to him.

Steve Young had all those players surrounding him before Shanahan arrived. He had all those players surrounding him after Shanahan left. Despite this, in his single season working with Shanahan, young set career highs in comp%, TD%, QB Rating, AYPA, and ANY/A. The completion percentage mark was the second best in NFL history, just 0.3% behind Anderson's 9-game strike-shortened 1982 campaign. The QB Rating mark was an NFL record that stood until Manning's 2004 campaign. Clearly Shanahan was able to get more out of him in one season than any other coach before or since. John Elway did have a fantastic supporting cast surrounding him from 1996-1998. He did not have anywhere near as fantastic of a supporting cast when, under Shanahan's tutelage, he was named the MVP of the 1987 season. Shanahan worked with Elway during three distinct stints, and Elways seasons with Shanahan were demonstrably and substantially better than his seasons without, even controlling for supporting cast.

Brian Griese had some solid years in Tampa, but his best season by a huge margin came under Shanahan. I never said that no one else was capable of extracting good performances from players, I just said that Shanahan was one of the best at it.

Plummer was anything but "so-so" in Denver. He was a pro bowler, and even with his disastrous final season, his total Denver numbers were really good. Prior to his final year meltdown, he was putting up a 2:1 TD:int ratio, about 7.5 YPA, and a QB rating of around 90. Oh yeah, and a winning percentage better than Elway's. Denver didn't select Cutler because Plummer was "so-so", they selected him because Plummer was getting older and Shanny loved Cutler. Still, compare Plummer's stats with Shanny to his stats without him- he's a completely different QB. Night and day difference. It's like the difference between Rex Grossman and Trent Green.

Cutler didn't have Clinton Portis. His running back during his 4,000 yard season was Michael Pittman... No, wait, he was lost for the year. It was Selvin Young. No, wait, he got hurt, too. It was Hillis! No, lost for the season. It was Torain, or P.J. Pope. No, it was Andre Hall! No, wait, it was Tatum Bell! That's right, he was finishing out the season with his 7th string RB, a guy who was selling cell phones in the mall in October and leading the team in rushing in November. His leading rusher that year failed to crack 350 yards. That's not a typo. Marshall was great, but his next four receivers were Royal, Scheffler, Stokely, and Daniel Graham- out of curiosity, what has that group done since? It's hard to say Cutler was the product of his supporting cast.

Heck, even scrubs like Rex Grossman got in on the act. His numbers with Shanahan are better than his numbers without Shanahan in terms of comp%, rating, YPA, ypc, td%, Ay/A, and ANY/A. Ditto that for John Beck and Bubby Brister. In fact, with the single exception of Donovan McNabb, every single QB that has spent part of his career with Shanahan and part without has had his best career season under Shanahan. Almost without exception, their with-Shanahan numbers just destroy their without-Shanahan numbers.

Shanahan has a lot of weaknesses. Developing QBs is not one of them. There are few better people for a young QB to learn his craft under in the game today.

The arguement is valid that RG III lacks a good supporting cast and you have underlined that he doesn't have the sort of supporting cast that any of the QBs who Shahan has worked with who he developed had to work with.My point is the lack of supporting cast so don't try to spin lack of supporting cast into an attack on Shanahan which I never made.

I made the point that RG III lacks supporting cast and that the QBs that Shanahan developed had a decent supporting cast and furhtermore RG III's situation is not merely a lack of supporting cast right now but his front office lacks high draft picks which will hinder the opportunity to acquire top-notch skill and offensive linemen.

Also Shanahan had the help of one of the best offensive line coaches in modern NFL history in Alex Gibbs and that is when Shahan also Denver were able to take unheralded RBs and turn them into thousand yard rushers. Terrell Davis, Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns and Tatum Bell, all of whom have had at least one 1,000-yard season in a Denver.

It would seem Shahan is a RB guru but he hasn't been able to replicate that success in Washington but then again he doesn't have T-Bone or Stink or Alex Gibbs.

The mention of a coach named Gibbs and the Washington Redskins brings up Joe Gibbs who did not duplicate his early HOF success.

I can't accept the argument that coaching success carries over. That position needs a bit more proof before it can be accepted as fact.

In any case it doesn't nullify the point that RG III lacks a solid supporting cast or that the Skins lack high draft picks to help them acquire top-notch supporting cast to help him develop.

 

[SSOG]

The arguement is valid that RG III lacks a good supporting cast and you have underlined that he doesn't have the sort of supporting cast that any of the QBs who Shahan has worked with who he developed had to work with.My point is the lack of supporting cast so don't try to spin lack of supporting cast into an attack on Shanahan which I never made.I made the point that RG III lacks supporting cast and that the QBs that Shanahan developed had a decent supporting cast and furhtermore RG III's situation is not merely a lack of supporting cast right now but his front office lacks high draft picks which will hinder the opportunity to acquire top-notch skill and offensive linemen.Also Shanahan had the help of one of the best offensive line coaches in modern NFL history in Alex Gibbs and that is when Shahan also Denver were able to take unheralded RBs and turn them into thousand yard rushers. Terrell Davis, Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns and Tatum Bell, all of whom have had at least one 1,000-yard season in a Denver.It would seem Shahan is a RB guru but he hasn't been able to replicate that success in Washington but then again he doesn't have T-Bone or Stink or Alex Gibbs.The mention of a coach named Gibbs and the Washington Redskins brings up Joe Gibbs who did not duplicate his early HOF success.I can't accept the argument that coaching success carries over. That position needs a bit more proof before it can be accepted as fact. In any case it doesn't nullify the point that RG III lacks a solid supporting cast or that the Skins lack high draft picks to help them acquire top-notch supporting cast to help him develop.

And, again, I'm arguing that coaching counts as "supporting cast", so Griffin has a fine supporting cast, since he's working with one of the best QB gurus of this generation. And don't tell me that all the other QBs on that list had a great supporting cast- again, in Cutler's big season, he had Marshall, a seventh (SEVENTH!!!!!!!!!) string running back, Eddie Royal, Daniel Graham, Brandon Stokley, Tony Scheffler, and an average offensive line. This ain't the greatest show on turf, here. Besides, this is a comparison between Griffin and Wilson, from a fantasy perspective. Is Seattle's supporting cast really that much better? Lynch is better than any Washington RBs, but he's not without his issues. Is Rice, Tate, and Miller really all that much better than Garçon, Moss, and Davis? The Seahawks ranked 23rd in scoring and 28th in yards last year with Tarvaris Jackson. The Redskins ranked 16th in yards and 26th in points last year with Rex Grossman. Both teams averaged identical ypc values. Washington threw for over 600 more yards. Are we certain that Seattle just has so much more offensive talent? Seattle has a lot more talent on defense, for sure, but that's actually a negative from a fantasy perspective. So Wilson's preseason QB rating was 9 points higher, and Washington is down a pair of first round picks. Are these really reasons to take a mid-round QB against one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

The arguement is valid that RG III lacks a good supporting cast and you have underlined that he doesn't have the sort of supporting cast that any of the QBs who Shahan has worked with who he developed had to work with.My point is the lack of supporting cast so don't try to spin lack of supporting cast into an attack on Shanahan which I never made.I made the point that RG III lacks supporting cast and that the QBs that Shanahan developed had a decent supporting cast and furhtermore RG III's situation is not merely a lack of supporting cast right now but his front office lacks high draft picks which will hinder the opportunity to acquire top-notch skill and offensive linemen.Also Shanahan had the help of one of the best offensive line coaches in modern NFL history in Alex Gibbs and that is when Shahan also Denver were able to take unheralded RBs and turn them into thousand yard rushers. Terrell Davis, Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns and Tatum Bell, all of whom have had at least one 1,000-yard season in a Denver.It would seem Shahan is a RB guru but he hasn't been able to replicate that success in Washington but then again he doesn't have T-Bone or Stink or Alex Gibbs.The mention of a coach named Gibbs and the Washington Redskins brings up Joe Gibbs who did not duplicate his early HOF success.I can't accept the argument that coaching success carries over. That position needs a bit more proof before it can be accepted as fact. In any case it doesn't nullify the point that RG III lacks a solid supporting cast or that the Skins lack high draft picks to help them acquire top-notch supporting cast to help him develop.

And, again, I'm arguing that coaching counts as "supporting cast", so Griffin has a fine supporting cast, since he's working with one of the best QB gurus of this generation. And don't tell me that all the other QBs on that list had a great supporting cast- again, in Cutler's big season, he had Marshall, a seventh (SEVENTH!!!!!!!!!) string running back, Eddie Royal, Daniel Graham, Brandon Stokley, Tony Scheffler, and an average offensive line. This ain't the greatest show on turf, here. Besides, this is a comparison between Griffin and Wilson, from a fantasy perspective. Is Seattle's supporting cast really that much better? Lynch is better than any Washington RBs, but he's not without his issues. Is Rice, Tate, and Miller really all that much better than Garçon, Moss, and Davis? The Seahawks ranked 23rd in scoring and 28th in yards last year with Tarvaris Jackson. The Redskins ranked 16th in yards and 26th in points last year with Rex Grossman. Both teams averaged identical ypc values. Washington threw for over 600 more yards. Are we certain that Seattle just has so much more offensive talent? Seattle has a lot more talent on defense, for sure, but that's actually a negative from a fantasy perspective. So Wilson's preseason QB rating was 9 points higher, and Washington is down a pair of first round picks. Are these really reasons to take a mid-round QB against one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years?

If coaching counts as supporting cast then the six RBs listed above plus Clinton Portis had many people claiming that Mike Shanahan was a RB guru a few years back. His success with getting young and low drafted RBs to produce thousand yard rushing seasons was much stronger than his QB development since he churned out greater numbers in a shorer time span but he hasn't been able to reproduce that fete in Washington and the reason is because that success was not only due to Mike Shanahan and since he hasn't been able to reproduce any success with the running game in Washington that compares to the magic in Denver it makes sense that he wasn't the primary reason why those Denver teams had such huge succes running the football. Arguing Shanahan is part of a supporting cast is fine but we've seen that when he has been separated from the other 'supporting cast' that he had in place in Denver that whatever aspect he brought to the rushing attack in Denver hasn't had anything close to the same sort of success in Washington and he hasn't been able to assemble the sort of 'support' require to have that same success.Oh and Jay Cutler's one Pro Bowl season in the 2008 season he had more than just Brandon Marshall. Eddie Royal, in his rookie season, had 90 receptions for 980 yards. He was a second round pick. The first round draft pick by the Denver Broncos that year finished third for the OFFENSIVE ROOKIE OF THE YEAR award, offensive left tackle Ryan Clady.TWO HIGH DRAFT PICKS were crucial parts of the 'supporting cast' that Jay Cutler had in his best season of his career. Let me restate that for clear effect, TWO HIGH DRAFT PICKS.My point all along is the lack of high draft selections will hinder the development of rookie QB Robert Griffin the Third.

 

[Nagle2998]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

Agreed 100% teams are not planning right now for the way these guys play they are just going thru their own defensive plays it will change a lot week one. Im and Eagles fan and I like what I have seen with Foles but right now I wouldnt put him or Wilson in the same tier as Tannehill or even Weeden. There is a reason these guys fell in the draft and other went higher. Now before we start with well what about Tom Brady I understand players are missed and some players falter but 4 preseason quarters wouldnt make me change my dynasty view just yet.I'm a little more stubborn then others and one of the few who still hasn't given up on Gabbart and grabbed him in almost all my leagues dirt cheap so time will tell how wrong I might be.

 

[schurov]

Great points, SSOG. Wilson hype is just getting ridiculous.

 

[JayJay328]

SSOG - Please stop stating that RG3 is one of the top 5 QB prospects in the last 20 years as though it's a fact. It may be your opinion but I could argue Manning, Leaf, Palmer, Bledsoe, Vick, Carr, Couch, Mirer, Ryan, McNabb and Young were better prospects at the time they were drafted. Thats off the top of my head. What these players actually accomplished means nothing when discussing how they were viewed as prospects. You obviously feel RG3 is indeed deserving of a ranking that high however it's not a fact but rather your opinion.

 

[SSOG]

If coaching counts as supporting cast then the six RBs listed above plus Clinton Portis had many people claiming that Mike Shanahan was a RB guru a few years back. His success with getting young and low drafted RBs to produce thousand yard rushing seasons was much stronger than his QB development since he churned out greater numbers in a shorer time span but he hasn't been able to reproduce that fete in Washington and the reason is because that success was not only due to Mike Shanahan and since he hasn't been able to reproduce any success with the running game in Washington that compares to the magic in Denver it makes sense that he wasn't the primary reason why those Denver teams had such huge succes running the football. Arguing Shanahan is part of a supporting cast is fine but we've seen that when he has been separated from the other 'supporting cast' that he had in place in Denver that whatever aspect he brought to the rushing attack in Denver hasn't had anything close to the same sort of success in Washington and he hasn't been able to assemble the sort of 'support' require to have that same success.Oh and Jay Cutler's one Pro Bowl season in the 2008 season he had more than just Brandon Marshall. Eddie Royal, in his rookie season, had 90 receptions for 980 yards. He was a second round pick. The first round draft pick by the Denver Broncos that year finished third for the OFFENSIVE ROOKIE OF THE YEAR award, offensive left tackle Ryan Clady.TWO HIGH DRAFT PICKS were crucial parts of the 'supporting cast' that Jay Cutler had in his best season of his career. Let me restate that for clear effect, TWO HIGH DRAFT PICKS.My point all along is the lack of high draft selections will hinder the development of rookie QB Robert Griffin the Third.

People may have been claiming Shanahan was an RB guru, but that doesn't matter to me, because I'm not "people". I never claimed he was some magic "RB whisperer". I always maintained that Portis and Davis were transcendent talents that would have succeeded anywhere, that Anderson was an above-average back, and that everyone else was just a fungible player who got a solid amount of yards not because Shanahan made them better than they otherwise would have been, but because Shanahan was extremely committed to the run, so they got a boatload of carries at a low-4 ypc pace. Shanahan didn't make Gary a better player, he just gave Gary a crapload of carries. Same for Droughns. He was never an "RB guru", he was just a head coach philosophically committed to the running game. He didn't make those backs better, he just used them a lot. The result at QB are extremely different- it's not that QBs under Shanahan have been high-volume players who put up the best counting stats of their careers, it's that their efficiency metrics see consistently large boosts with Shanahan compared to without Shanahan, regardless of supporting cast.As for Eddie Royal... Yeah, Royal had a great season. In the 3 years since, he's averaged 429 yards per 16 games. This is the supporting cast that led to Cutler's big season? Royal's been absolute rubbish since, and Denver let him walk without compensation this offseason. Clady got a lot of love for his rookie season because he only gave up 0.5 sacks- fewest of any tackle. The problem is that he gave up 37 pressures- MOST of any tackle in the entire NFL. The reason his sack numbers were so low is because Cutler had a preternatural ability to get rid of the ball under pressure. Cutler made Clady look great, not the other way around. The years since Cutler left have shown that, while Clady is an above-average (and potentially quite good) tackle, he's not as good as Cutler made him look as a rookie.Besides, you haven't addressed my charge that Wilson's supporting cast, even discounting coaching, is no better than Griffin's. They achieved worse offensive results last year than Washington. Sidney Rice is a good receiver, but he can't stay healthy, and Fred Davis is one of the better TEs in the league. In terms of secondary weapons, I'd take Garçon and Moss over Tate and Miller. Again, it seems that the argument boils down to the loss of those 2 first rounders, but there's only a 50% chance those picks would have been used on an offensive player, and further, there's only a 50% chance said offensive player would wind up being any good. It's possible to build offensive talent without any first round picks. Just ask New England. Or New Orleans. Or Green Bay. If Griffin doesn't develop because his team lacks a first rounder for the next two seasons, then Griffin was never going to develop in the first place.

 

[barker132000]

SSOG - Please stop stating that RG3 is one of the top 5 QB prospects in the last 20 years as though it's a fact. It may be your opinion but I could argue Manning, Leaf, Palmer, Bledsoe, Vick, Carr, Couch, Mirer, Ryan, McNabb and Young were better prospects at the time they were drafted. Thats off the top of my head. What these players actually accomplished means nothing when discussing how they were viewed as prospects. You obviously feel RG3 is indeed deserving of a ranking that high however it's not a fact but rather your opinion.

Half of those are not the kind of prospect that rg3 is. Your just tossing out names of qbs who were held in high regard on draft day.

 

[SSOG]

SSOG - Please stop stating that RG3 is one of the top 5 QB prospects in the last 20 years as though it's a fact. It may be your opinion but I could argue Manning, Leaf, Palmer, Bledsoe, Vick, Carr, Couch, Mirer, Ryan, McNabb and Young were better prospects at the time they were drafted. Thats off the top of my head. What these players actually accomplished means nothing when discussing how they were viewed as prospects. You obviously feel RG3 is indeed deserving of a ranking that high however it's not a fact but rather your opinion.

Obviously any "top _" list is a matter of opinion. That never needs further clarification. With that said, I think the facts lie on my side, and I'd be happy to defend my position. For starters, QB is the most valuable position, so any QB who is a transcendental, "top 5 in 20 years" type talent will either go #1 overall, or will go #2 overall behind another top-5 talent, or will go #3 behind two other such talents, etc. That knocks Ryan and Young off the list (both selected 3rd overall behind two non-QBs). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Mirer being seen as the clear #2 to Bledsoe (unlike Manning/Leaf and Luck/Griffin where there was genuine substantive debate on the topic). 1993 was a long time ago, so I'd appreciate anyone who can offer further details on the thinking before that draft, but that's my hazy recollection (likely tainted by some degree of hindsight bias).This leaves us with the following names: Bledsoe, Peyton, Leaf, Couch, McNabb, Vick, Carr, Palmer, Eli, Alex Smith, Russell, Stafford, Bradford, Newton, and Luck. Newton, Russell, and Alex Smith can all be eliminated because they don't pass the laugh test- the general consensus was that Smith was a gimmick QB, Russell was going #1 solely on the strength of his pro day, and Newton was a spread QB with character issues. Bradford had injury concerns, so he's gone, too. McNabb got booed when he was picked, which sort of disqualifies him by default (your fans don't boo you for passing on a once-a-generation RB for a once-a-generation QB). Stafford didn't have anything resembling the resume of the rest of the guys left on the list (his best season was 3500/25/10). Carr had small school concerns. Palmer really only had one spectacular half of one great season to his name. Couch had system concerns. Vick was seen as a potentially transformational player, but it's hard to call him one of the top 5 QB prospects when there were so many concerns about his passing ability, and especially because he was acquired so cheaply via trade.This cuts us down to the top 6- Bledsoe, Manning, Leaf, Manning, Luck, Griffin. I really think you've got to take 5 of these 6 names, in one order or another, to fill out your top 5. Maybe someone would want to sneak Couch or Vick in, but personally, I think these are your guys. So why do I say "top 5" and not "top 6"? Partly it's a natural human bias towards multiples of 5, and partly because an easy heuristic exists that lets us compare three of those QBs. You see, three of those QBs were acquired via trade. Eli Manning was acquired for the #5, the #65, a future first, and a future fifth. Griffin was acquired for the #6, the #39, and two future firsts. Ryan Leaf was acquired for the #3, an early second (couldn't find exact pick number), a future first, and Eric Metcalf, a 30-year old 3-time pro bowl returner/receiver. Obviously it depends on your opinion of Metcalf, but Griffin commanded the biggest haul of the bunch, and both Leaf and Griffin cost substantially more than Eli Manning. For whatever that's worth. So there you go- my top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years. You've got the two no-brainers (Luck and Peyton). You've got the two guys from the same class who many were arguing for over Luck and Peyton, and who commanded a king's ransom in trade (Leaf and Griffin). And you've got Drew Bledsoe, who I dimly recall as a physical prototype with no negatives. Of course, my memory of the '93 draft is a lot hazier than my memory of the '98 draft, so if someone wants to make the case for Eli over Bledsoe, or critique my characterization of Mirer, they can feel free. If it's less controversial, I can call Griffin one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 19 years, instead. Either way, we're talking about an elite, elite, elite, elite, elite talent, here. An elite talent who put up a QB rating over 100 points in his first preseason.

 

[EBF]

I don't disagree with your general point, but based on my recollection of the past ~10 years I'd say Vick was up there in hype for sure. He was thought to be a potential superstar and commanded what was, at the time, thought to be a very nice bounty for the #1 pick. A lot of people were really high on Carson Palmer (though I wasn't one of them). And Eli was a strong #1 in a draft that also included Rivers and Roethlisberger. I'm not sure I'd keep Newton off the list either since his profile is so similar to Griffin's.

I like Griffin, but I think a lot of his perceived value stems from his flashy playing style, his catchy nickname (seriously), and the college football hype train. They sold the Heisman voters on the whole "RGIII is more important to his team than Luck" bill of goods even though it was complete BS (Stanford BARELY beat the mighty San Jose State on Friday with many of the same players).

I do like Griffin as a prospect and I think he's clearly above the likes of Alex Smith and Tim Couch, but I don't know that he's any more highly-regarded than a Stafford/Eli/Carr type and these thought experiments are always biased by hindsight since we know that guys like Carr and Palmer never completely lived up to their billing.

 

[Shanahanigans]

After reading this thread I think people are really sleeping on Ryan Tannehill. He has the arm, pocket presence, and the athleticism to be a very good QB. Mayock and McShay both saw him as a franchise QB when scouting him. Beyond that, he easily won his QB competition, looked very good for a rookie QB in preseason, and seems to have leadership qualities when you watch him on the field. Tannehill is a buy now in dynasty imo.

 

[Tau837]

Besides, ranking Wilson as comparable to Griffin based on supporting cast is comparable to ranking Martin as comparable to Richardson because of the same. Only even more ludicrous, because Martin was still a first rounder. It's true that a lot of draft experts whiffed on Wilson, but is there anyone in the entire universe that thinks there is a single NFL franchise that would trade the #6 pick, two future firsts, and a very high second for Wilson? Or that, had a franchise been as addled and insane as to actually do it, regular NFL writers would be nodding sagely and saying "sure, it's an insane amount, but when the opportunity comes along to get a player the quality of Russell Wilson, you have to do whatever it takes"? Of course not. Russell Wilson is a great story, and a guy who could become a solid starting QB in the league. Robert Griffin is one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years, and an Olympic-caliber athlete with the potential to become a mutant hybrid between Randall Cunningham (the Eagles edition) and Randall Cunningham (the '98 Vikings edition). And people are going to rate them as roughly comparable because Wilson posted a solid QB rating in a couple of halves against the 2s and a couple of halves against first string defenses running vanilla preseason packages? That'd be like trading AJ Green for Denarius Moore last offseason because the Bengals were a mess, Green was playing with a rookie QB, and Moore was lighting it up in camp.

IMO this perspective is flawed.You are ignoring an important fact that makes this comparison different from most. IMO if Wilson was 2-3 inches taller, he would have been a top 10 pick. And I think it's pretty hard to dispute that. And then no one would think it was crazy if people were suggesting that he would end up better than RGIII who was taken earlier.As I've posted in other threads, Wilson is essentially a unique prospect. There has literally never been a player who was as good as Wilson entering the NFL at his height. Consequently, Wilson's draft position is a bad data point for comparison, because it was significantly influenced by bias.

We're talking dynasty, right? Supporting players change in a hurry. It's not like Wilson has a Fitzgerald or a Calvin- a transformational, cornerstone, all-pro weapon who will still be providing a huge competitive advantage for years to come. Wilson's "better supporting cast" might help him this year, but most dynasty owners aren't relying on either for this year- anything that happens in year 1 is gravy, it's the stuff that happens in year 2-16 that really matters.

I agree with this, but I do think there is enough merit to say it is an advantage that the Seahawks have all of their future picks. They will be in position to draft a cornerstone player for their offense; Washington won't. Furthermore, it is my impression that the Seahawks have drafted pretty well under Schneider and Carroll.

And, again, coaching is part of "supporting cast", and Griffin is working with one of the most accomplished QB tutors of this generation. He's working with the guy that got Brian Griese and Jake Plummer to lead the league in TD:Int ratio. That's supporting cast, too.

I'm not sure about this. Shanahan didn't do much with his QBs when he was head coach of the Raiders, and he didn't do much with McNabb, Beck, or Grossman in the past two seasons in Washington.Sure, he was the OC from 1992-94 with the 49ers, during which time Steve Young was elite, and he was Elway's OC early and HC later, and Elway played well under him. But how do we know that's because of Shanahan? Couldn't it just be that he happened to be working with two all time great QBs?And when you talk about Shanahan's years as Denver HC, how do we know it was due to Shanahan as opposed to Kubiak? Kubiak was the OC under Shanahan for his first 11 seasons in Denver, which covers the Elway, Griese, and Plummer years you referenced. When Kubiak left after 2005, Plummer had a horrible 2006 season there.And what exactly did Shanahan do that was so great with Cutler? Cutler had one very good season in Denver, but he threw the ball 616 times. He wasn't particularly efficient.So, overall, I agree that having Shanahan as the HC could be an advantage, but I think it is much less meaningful than you suggested here.

 

[Tau837]

Steve Young had all those players surrounding him before Shanahan arrived. He had all those players surrounding him after Shanahan left. Despite this, in his single season working with Shanahan, young set career highs in comp%, TD%, QB Rating, AYPA, and ANY/A. The completion percentage mark was the second best in NFL history, just 0.3% behind Anderson's 9-game strike-shortened 1982 campaign. The QB Rating mark was an NFL record that stood until Manning's 2004 campaign. Clearly Shanahan was able to get more out of him in one season than any other coach before or since.

This is misleading IMO. Shanahan's first season as 49ers OC was the first season Young was a full-time starter, so "before Shanahan arrived" is irrelevant. Yes, he performed extremely well in those 3 seasons with Shanahan, but it's impossible to know how much of that was due to Young being one of the greatest QB talents of all time just stepping into a full time QB role while in his prime and how much was due to Shanahan's coaching. Then, when Shanahan departed, Young was 34 and missed 9 games due to injury over the next 2 seasons. He continued to play well when he played for the rest of his career after Shanahan, but age and injury can just as easily explain the dropoff as Shanahan's departure.

 

[Tau837]

Serious question to the Wilson fans: if you were the GM of some random team with QB issues (say... Jacksonville), would any one of you trade the #6 pick, an early 2nd rounder, your first next year, and your first the year after that to secure Wilson?

No. But I wouldn't have done it for RG3 either.

 

[Tau837]

Besides, you haven't addressed my charge that Wilson's supporting cast, even discounting coaching, is no better than Griffin's. They achieved worse offensive results last year than Washington. Sidney Rice is a good receiver, but he can't stay healthy, and Fred Davis is one of the better TEs in the league. In terms of secondary weapons, I'd take Garçon and Moss over Tate and Miller. Again, it seems that the argument boils down to the loss of those 2 first rounders, but there's only a 50% chance those picks would have been used on an offensive player, and further, there's only a 50% chance said offensive player would wind up being any good. It's possible to build offensive talent without any first round picks. Just ask New England. Or New Orleans. Or Green Bay. If Griffin doesn't develop because his team lacks a first rounder for the next two seasons, then Griffin was never going to develop in the first place.

IMO:Seattle OL > Washington OLSeattle RBs >> Washington RBsSeattle TEs < Washington TEsSeattle WRs >= Washington WRsThe WR comparison (Rice, Edwards, Tate, Baldwin, Obamanu vs. Garcon, Moss, Hankerson, Morgan, Banks) favors Seattle IMO, if Rice stays healthy.

 

[SSOG]

I don't disagree with your general point, but based on my recollection of the past ~10 years I'd say Vick was up there in hype for sure. He was thought to be a potential superstar and commanded what was, at the time, thought to be a very nice bounty for the #1 pick. A lot of people were really high on Carson Palmer (though I wasn't one of them). And Eli was a strong #1 in a draft that also included Rivers and Roethlisberger. I'm not sure I'd keep Newton off the list either since his profile is so similar to Griffin's. I like Griffin, but I think a lot of his perceived value stems from his flashy playing style, his catchy nickname (seriously), and the college football hype train. They sold the Heisman voters on the whole "RGIII is more important to his team than Luck" bill of goods even though it was complete BS (Stanford BARELY beat the mighty San Jose State on Friday with many of the same players). I do like Griffin as a prospect and I think he's clearly above the likes of Alex Smith and Tim Couch, but I don't know that he's any more highly-regarded than a Stafford/Eli/Carr type and these thought experiments are always biased by hindsight since we know that guys like Carr and Palmer never completely lived up to their billing.

Vick was traded for the #5, a 2nd, a 3rd, and Tim Dwight. That's substantially less than Leaf and Griffin commanded. In addition, Michael Vick is the only one of the top prospects whose rights were traded away by a team that actually needed a QB. That's a pretty damning indictment- St. Louis in 2012 and Arizona in 1998 both had top young QB prospects on their roster when they traded their pick away for a king's ransom. San Diego desperately needed a QB, yet still traded the rights to Vick away (for a lesser haul) and drafted Brees, instead. Great prospect, but it seems to me NFL decision-makers weren't buying the hype as much as casual fans. Newton had a similar profile to Griffin, for sure, but he had way more red flags (dismissed from Florida, under investigation by the NCAA, terrible interviews, and perhaps most importantly, literally just one good season against D1 competition). So, yeah, worse prospect. Eli I've already mentioned- it's debatable, and I'm probably biased because I didn't like him, but give me Griffin. Like I said, any "top _" list is going to be opinion, and some will disagree, but I think my position is both reasonable and defensible.

 

[SSOG]

Besides, ranking Wilson as comparable to Griffin based on supporting cast is comparable to ranking Martin as comparable to Richardson because of the same. Only even more ludicrous, because Martin was still a first rounder. It's true that a lot of draft experts whiffed on Wilson, but is there anyone in the entire universe that thinks there is a single NFL franchise that would trade the #6 pick, two future firsts, and a very high second for Wilson? Or that, had a franchise been as addled and insane as to actually do it, regular NFL writers would be nodding sagely and saying "sure, it's an insane amount, but when the opportunity comes along to get a player the quality of Russell Wilson, you have to do whatever it takes"? Of course not. Russell Wilson is a great story, and a guy who could become a solid starting QB in the league. Robert Griffin is one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years, and an Olympic-caliber athlete with the potential to become a mutant hybrid between Randall Cunningham (the Eagles edition) and Randall Cunningham (the '98 Vikings edition). And people are going to rate them as roughly comparable because Wilson posted a solid QB rating in a couple of halves against the 2s and a couple of halves against first string defenses running vanilla preseason packages? That'd be like trading AJ Green for Denarius Moore last offseason because the Bengals were a mess, Green was playing with a rookie QB, and Moore was lighting it up in camp.

IMO this perspective is flawed.You are ignoring an important fact that makes this comparison different from most. IMO if Wilson was 2-3 inches taller, he would have been a top 10 pick. And I think it's pretty hard to dispute that. And then no one would think it was crazy if people were suggesting that he would end up better than RGIII who was taken earlier.

As I've posted in other threads, Wilson is essentially a unique prospect. There has literally never been a player who was as good as Wilson entering the NFL at his height. Consequently, Wilson's draft position is a bad data point for comparison, because it was significantly influenced by bias.

I've seen this assertion, but I haven't seen it backed up. I've heard scouting reports that said he would have been a first round pick, but there's a big difference between "first round" and "top 10". And an even bigger difference between "top 10" and "#2". And a big difference again between your typical #2, and a #2 worth the #6, #39, and two future firsts. Besides, obviously the NFL scouts thought Wilson's height would be an issue. Maybe a good preseason means they were wrong. Maybe a good preseason means it's just preseason, and the scouts were right. Maybe Wilson's height is still an issue, and defenses will be able to exploit it once they're actually game planning.

I agree with this, but I do think there is enough merit to say it is an advantage that the Seahawks have all of their future picks. They will be in position to draft a cornerstone player for their offense; Washington won't. Furthermore, it is my impression that the Seahawks have drafted pretty well under Schneider and Carroll.

Again, there's only a 50% chance each of those picks would have been an offensive player, and a 50% chance that pick would have panned out.

I'm not sure about this. Shanahan didn't do much with his QBs when he was head coach of the Raiders, and he didn't do much with McNabb, Beck, or Grossman in the past two seasons in Washington.

Sure, he was the OC from 1992-94 with the 49ers, during which time Steve Young was elite, and he was Elway's OC early and HC later, and Elway played well under him. But how do we know that's because of Shanahan? Couldn't it just be that he happened to be working with two all time great QBs?

And when you talk about Shanahan's years as Denver HC, how do we know it was due to Shanahan as opposed to Kubiak? Kubiak was the OC under Shanahan for his first 11 seasons in Denver, which covers the Elway, Griese, and Plummer years you referenced. When Kubiak left after 2005, Plummer had a horrible 2006 season there.

And what exactly did Shanahan do that was so great with Cutler? Cutler had one very good season in Denver, but he threw the ball 616 times. He wasn't particularly efficient.

So, overall, I agree that having Shanahan as the HC could be an advantage, but I think it is much less meaningful than you suggested here.

Young had 8 full seasons as a starter, three with Shanahan. He had two MVPs with Shanahan and zero without him. His three seasons with Shanahan happened to be his three best ANY/A totals of his career. We know Elway did better with Shanahan because Elway says so, and his numbers agree- with Shanahan numbers were better than without Shanahan numbers. And, again, his only MVP came with Shanny. As for Cutler... he was extremely efficient, especially considering the unreal run of injuries at RB that season.I'm not saying Shanahan destines anyone for greatness. At the end of the day, Rex Grossman will still just be Rex Grossman. But Shanahan plays a role, too. The addition of Shanahan is enough to even the "supporting cast" argument, IMO. So, again, this boils down to a 9 point difference in preseason QB rating and two extra first round picks.

 

[Goat Herders]

I don't disagree with your general point, but based on my recollection of the past ~10 years I'd say Vick was up there in hype for sure. He was thought to be a potential superstar and commanded what was, at the time, thought to be a very nice bounty for the #1 pick. A lot of people were really high on Carson Palmer (though I wasn't one of them). And Eli was a strong #1 in a draft that also included Rivers and Roethlisberger. I'm not sure I'd keep Newton off the list either since his profile is so similar to Griffin's. I like Griffin, but I think a lot of his perceived value stems from his flashy playing style, his catchy nickname (seriously), and the college football hype train. They sold the Heisman voters on the whole "RGIII is more important to his team than Luck" bill of goods even though it was complete BS (Stanford BARELY beat the mighty San Jose State on Friday with many of the same players). I do like Griffin as a prospect and I think he's clearly above the likes of Alex Smith and Tim Couch, but I don't know that he's any more highly-regarded than a Stafford/Eli/Carr type and these thought experiments are always biased by hindsight since we know that guys like Carr and Palmer never completely lived up to their billing.

Excellent posting. Griffin was highly Regarded by at least one team. Everything else is assumption.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

LuckRG3WilsonFOlesTannehillOsweillerWeedenCousins

I'd probably move Weeden over Osweiler, but I agree with everything else.

 

[SSOG]

I don't disagree with your general point, but based on my recollection of the past ~10 years I'd say Vick was up there in hype for sure. He was thought to be a potential superstar and commanded what was, at the time, thought to be a very nice bounty for the #1 pick. A lot of people were really high on Carson Palmer (though I wasn't one of them). And Eli was a strong #1 in a draft that also included Rivers and Roethlisberger. I'm not sure I'd keep Newton off the list either since his profile is so similar to Griffin's.

I like Griffin, but I think a lot of his perceived value stems from his flashy playing style, his catchy nickname (seriously), and the college football hype train. They sold the Heisman voters on the whole "RGIII is more important to his team than Luck" bill of goods even though it was complete BS (Stanford BARELY beat the mighty San Jose State on Friday with many of the same players).

I do like Griffin as a prospect and I think he's clearly above the likes of Alex Smith and Tim Couch, but I don't know that he's any more highly-regarded than a Stafford/Eli/Carr type and these thought experiments are always biased by hindsight since we know that guys like Carr and Palmer never completely lived up to their billing.

Excellent posting. Griffin was highly Regarded by at least one team. Everything else is assumption.

Here's what's not assumption. Merrill Hoge and Tony Dungy were calling for the Colts to draft Griffin over Luck. Russ Lande of TSN and the guys over in the Shutdown Corner blog on Yahoo rated Griffin the #1 player in the class. Greg Cosell stopped short of declaring which prospect was better, but he made it very clear that it wasn't a slam dunk decision. We know Indy preferred Luck, but that Washington traded what is probably the biggest haul in draft history to land Griffin. I think the two QBs were a lot closer as prospects than people think. I think it's Manning/Leaf 2.0, only we don't yet know how their pro careers are going to turn out.

 

[moderated]

Excellent posting. Griffin was highly Regarded by at least one team. Everything else is assumption.

You could say that about every single player and I'm sure you realize that isn't a valid argument.

 

[gregjcross]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

Insane? Have you watched both play. It's not insane.

 

[Tau837]

Besides, ranking Wilson as comparable to Griffin based on supporting cast is comparable to ranking Martin as comparable to Richardson because of the same. Only even more ludicrous, because Martin was still a first rounder. It's true that a lot of draft experts whiffed on Wilson, but is there anyone in the entire universe that thinks there is a single NFL franchise that would trade the #6 pick, two future firsts, and a very high second for Wilson? Or that, had a franchise been as addled and insane as to actually do it, regular NFL writers would be nodding sagely and saying "sure, it's an insane amount, but when the opportunity comes along to get a player the quality of Russell Wilson, you have to do whatever it takes"? Of course not. Russell Wilson is a great story, and a guy who could become a solid starting QB in the league. Robert Griffin is one of the top 5 QB prospects of the last 20 years, and an Olympic-caliber athlete with the potential to become a mutant hybrid between Randall Cunningham (the Eagles edition) and Randall Cunningham (the '98 Vikings edition). And people are going to rate them as roughly comparable because Wilson posted a solid QB rating in a couple of halves against the 2s and a couple of halves against first string defenses running vanilla preseason packages? That'd be like trading AJ Green for Denarius Moore last offseason because the Bengals were a mess, Green was playing with a rookie QB, and Moore was lighting it up in camp.

IMO this perspective is flawed.You are ignoring an important fact that makes this comparison different from most. IMO if Wilson was 2-3 inches taller, he would have been a top 10 pick. And I think it's pretty hard to dispute that. And then no one would think it was crazy if people were suggesting that he would end up better than RGIII who was taken earlier.

As I've posted in other threads, Wilson is essentially a unique prospect. There has literally never been a player who was as good as Wilson entering the NFL at his height. Consequently, Wilson's draft position is a bad data point for comparison, because it was significantly influenced by bias.

I've seen this assertion, but I haven't seen it backed up. I've heard scouting reports that said he would have been a first round pick, but there's a big difference between "first round" and "top 10". And an even bigger difference between "top 10" and "#2". And a big difference again between your typical #2, and a #2 worth the #6, #39, and two future firsts. Besides, obviously the NFL scouts thought Wilson's height would be an issue. Maybe a good preseason means they were wrong. Maybe a good preseason means it's just preseason, and the scouts were right. Maybe Wilson's height is still an issue, and defenses will be able to exploit it once they're actually game planning.

I agree with this, but I do think there is enough merit to say it is an advantage that the Seahawks have all of their future picks. They will be in position to draft a cornerstone player for their offense; Washington won't. Furthermore, it is my impression that the Seahawks have drafted pretty well under Schneider and Carroll.

Again, there's only a 50% chance each of those picks would have been an offensive player, and a 50% chance that pick would have panned out.

I'm not sure about this. Shanahan didn't do much with his QBs when he was head coach of the Raiders, and he didn't do much with McNabb, Beck, or Grossman in the past two seasons in Washington.

Sure, he was the OC from 1992-94 with the 49ers, during which time Steve Young was elite, and he was Elway's OC early and HC later, and Elway played well under him. But how do we know that's because of Shanahan? Couldn't it just be that he happened to be working with two all time great QBs?

And when you talk about Shanahan's years as Denver HC, how do we know it was due to Shanahan as opposed to Kubiak? Kubiak was the OC under Shanahan for his first 11 seasons in Denver, which covers the Elway, Griese, and Plummer years you referenced. When Kubiak left after 2005, Plummer had a horrible 2006 season there.

And what exactly did Shanahan do that was so great with Cutler? Cutler had one very good season in Denver, but he threw the ball 616 times. He wasn't particularly efficient.

So, overall, I agree that having Shanahan as the HC could be an advantage, but I think it is much less meaningful than you suggested here.

Young had 8 full seasons as a starter, three with Shanahan. He had two MVPs with Shanahan and zero without him. His three seasons with Shanahan happened to be his three best ANY/A totals of his career. We know Elway did better with Shanahan because Elway says so, and his numbers agree- with Shanahan numbers were better than without Shanahan numbers. And, again, his only MVP came with Shanny. As for Cutler... he was extremely efficient, especially considering the unreal run of injuries at RB that season.I'm not saying Shanahan destines anyone for greatness. At the end of the day, Rex Grossman will still just be Rex Grossman. But Shanahan plays a role, too. The addition of Shanahan is enough to even the "supporting cast" argument, IMO. So, again, this boils down to a 9 point difference in preseason QB rating and two extra first round picks.

You conveniently ignored that Young was hurt for 9 games over the 2 seasons following Shanahan's departure from the 49ers, after which point he was 36. Your facts relating to Young are correct, but you are conveniently ignoring relevant context.You are also ignoring my point about Kubiak. Who is to say how much of the success in Denver was due to Shanahan vs. Kubiak?

 

[moderated]

I love Wilson, but putting him in the same tier as RGIII at this stage is insane.

Insane? Have you watched both play. It's not insane.

I saw every game he played last year and all his preseason games. I love Wilson, but there is no way I'd rank him above RGIII long term based on preseason. Preseason defenses are a complete joke.At this point in time anyone ranking Wilson higher in a dynasty is crazy, although that doesn't mean it's impossible Wilson will end up better.

 

[Tau837]

Incidentally, I haven't commented on where to rank Wilson vs. the other rookie QBs in my posts in this thread. I've just been responding to posts that I thought were off base.

I think it's clear that Luck and RGIII should be ranked higher. But I think Wilson is in the next tier of rookie QBs, even though he wasn't drafted as high as Tannehill or Weeden.

(Think Cleveland or Miami might wish they had used those picks on other positions and drafted Wilson in the third round? In real life, they probably give zero thought to this sort of thing, because it isn't productive, but I think if they had it to do over, they would consider handling it differently.)