A player like Peyton Manning gives you a chance to win any game IF his offensive line is fairly competent. I think that's the most critical thing. You can get by with mediocre WRs, as Brady had for years before the Welker/Moss season, but if you're getting chased around the backfield by defenders every play you can't get the ball down field much.
And yet, the Packers have had an injury-destroyed offensive line for the last two years now, constantly shuffling people around and pulling third-stringers into starting slots, while at the same time Rodgers has put together a phenomenal couple of seasons, winning a Super Bowl in the process.Originally Posted by Wallapuctus
All else equal, you'd really like to have a good offensive line, and a great QB will play better with one; but a great QB is a great QB all the same.
There's a very interesting analysis on the Seahawks fan blog Field Gulls, taking a look at what GM John Schneider learned at Green Bay, and how he's trying to install Green Bay's system in Seattle. It's in many parts. Long read, but it's really good. Basically, it's how Green Bay builds almost solely through the draft, and how its personnel system is geared toward keeping them forever young, but also competitive each year.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
I would disagree slightly. The Packers and the Steelers in recent history have gotten great QB performance behind a leaky O-line due to having a QB that's hard to sack. Rodgers is surprisingly fast for someone not considered a running QB. Roethlisberger, like all examples of modern architecture, is difficult to tackle solo.
An elusive QB can survive and even thrive behind a weak O-line, especially in a system built around running/quick-passes. A lower mobility QB is going to get massacred, no matter how brilliant he is when given time to throw.
Since when is "rapist" considered an architectural feature?
If the Colts want to keep Manning and draft Luck and re-sign some of their big names -- I think Wayne is due for free agency -- they need to redo Manning's contract.
I also think Manning wants to win now and Luck doesn't help them do that. And Manning knows that drafting Luck probably means that Manning's gone after one season.
In other words, the Colts don't have a lot to offer Manning to redo his contract. They'll be asking him to take less money and play for a year for a team that probably won't contend, and then be ok with being kicked to the curb. Tough spot to be in.
An offensive line can make any team great. See Seattle making the Super Bowl with a pretty good running back and a pretty good quarterback, but the best offensive line in the league. See Kansas City setting offensive records in the early 2000s with a pretty good quarterback, a very good running back, and an obscenely good offensive line (plus absolutely no defense whatsoever). See the Washington Redskins from 1981-1991, winning three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks, constantly changing offensive philosophies (the ground-pound of John Riggins eventually giving way to the Posse's aerial attack), and the legendary Hogs.
But I think the moral of the story is the truly great players/units can mask a lot of problems on the rest of the team. Put Wes Welker and Randy Moss on the field with a never-starter QB and they'll make Matt Cassel look pretty good. Put Willie Roaf, Brian Waters, Casey Wiegmann, Will Shields, and John Tait in front of Priest Holmes and alongside Tony Gonzalez and you'll have an offense that sets records despite starting Eddie Kennison and Johnnie Morton at WR. Put Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson on the left side of your line and they'll make Shaun Alexander into an NFL MVP. Put Drew Brees behind your line and his quick release and identification of the blitz will make up for your turnstile tackles. Put Peyton Manning under center and you can staff the rest of your team with cardboard cutouts and waterboys.
You have to have a lot more pieces in place than just a QB to win a Super Bowl, but history has shown that it's a lot harder to build a championship team without an elite QB than with one. So, given the opportunity to draft a potential star at the most important position on the team, you do. Because that one guy is probably worth more than three good players at other positions.
You still need a good team, though. Peyton may make the Colts an 8-10 win team instead of dead last, but he can't win a championship by himself. But it's still a no-brainer to build your team around a star QB if given the chance rather than trying to do it the hard way.
And the other thing is, the dropoff between a top-3 QB and a top-30 QB is way, way larger than the dropoff between a top-3 and a top-30 player at some other position. You'd much rather have Aaron Rodgers throwing to a three guys who are as good as Donald Driver than Tyler Palko throwing in the vague direction of three guys who are as good as Calvin Johnson.
Right. There are some delusional fans on the Niner board I frequent who think they should try to trade up and get Luck. I try to explain that there is literally no way. Even if they traded two first round picks and Patrick Willis, arguably the best LB in football, the Colts wouldn't even consider it. Because a franchise QB is worth more than that.
But you're not drafting a franchise QB, you're drafting an unknown commodity.
Looking at the history of the draft over the past 15 years, starting from 2008, the top QB isn't always the best.
In fact, P. Manning and C. Palmer are the only two first QBs taken that turned out to be the best in their class. You can make an argument about E. Manning vs. B. Ben vs. P. Rivers.
2008 - M. Ryan (with M. Flynn in the 7th, but he's really just an unknown)
2007 - J. Russell (K. Kolb in the 2nd)
2006 - V. Young (J. Cutler was 3rd QB taken)
2005 - A. Smith (A. Rodgers was 2nd QB taken, with Cassel and Fitzpatrick in the 7th)
2004 - E. Manning (then Rivers and Big Ben; with Schaub in the 3rd)
2003 - C. Palmer (best of that group)
2002 - D. Carr (with D. Garrard in the 4th)
2001 - M. Vick (with D. Brees next)
2000 - C. Pennington (M.Bulger and T. Brady in the 6th)
1999 - T. Couch (D. McNabb and Culpepper drafted after)
1998 - P. Manning (best of that group)
1997 - J. Druckenmiller (J. Plummer)
While I agree that many first QBs are risky, Luck isn't a typical #1 QB pick. Most of those guys had one good year and in many cases weren't even being talked about widely until the college season before they were drafted. Luck is somewhat unique in that he's managed to live up to expectations for two college years now and is, unlike a lot of those examples, considered to be the best QB prospect in a number of years. So he's more comparable to Peyton then an Alex Smith. Griffin, who is currently predicted to be taken right behind Luck, is more the typical fast riser that can end up being a bust.
I really don't see the Colts trading the first pick, though. There is really nothing they could trade it for that would suddenly make the team that much better around Peyton if he returns healthy anyway. They have serious cap issues so they can't take on any big contracts. So seeing if Peyton can come back while slowly rebuilding around him, developing Luck, and getting their cap in order is not a bad way to go. The only downside is that with the shorter rookie contracts they will potentially end up the Favre/Rodgers scenario in a few years where the vet still has some game but the kid needs to play. But rather the Colts deal with that then pass on Luck then end up with no Manning if he retires this year or next. Letting Peyton go regardless of health might be an alternate strategy, but the general sense seems to be that idea is what got the Polians dismissed so clearly Irsay has different ideas.
As for my local team, the Seahawks, there is increasing evidence that unless they think Flynn is worth whatever it takes to get him (and though he's a free agent its been suggested the Packers might franchise him to get something back in trade), they are likely going to take a later QB to develop (i.e. not trade up for one of the top 2 - Luck or Griffin) and give T. Jackson another year to prove himself. The argument being that Jackson lead the team to a 5-3 finish and thus the team is at least a solid playoff contender with him. My concern is that while its great to develop a team around the QB position, it seems like a risk to do that and then throw a rookie in. Sure, it worked for the Steelers with Rothelisberger, but I'd rather see the kid come in before the rest of the team is playoff ready and reach that point with them.
The thing is, it may be a gamble to take a QB with the #1 pick but it's a gamble you have to take, because it's even more of a gamble taking a QB with a lower pick, and every team needs a QB. It's not like you can get a franchise QB for free. Maybe if you can sign Matt Flynn, but who's to say he isn't another Cassel or Kolb? So while Luck is by no means a sure thing, the effect of him being a bust is basically the same as the effect of not drafting him: you have to find a starting QB somewhere else. Whereas if he does pan out, your team is set for the next decade.
I didn't read that long article, but if the Seahawks are trying to follow the Green Bay model then they absolutely do want to be like the Steelers with Roethlisberger and the Packers with Rodgers. It's a lot easier for a young QB to be successful on a good team. That's part of the reason guys like Carr and Harrington washed out. Maybe some of them were just straight up busts, but I doubt they all were. Some of them probably would've turned into solid NFL players if they'd had three years to completely rework their throwing mechanics the way Rodgers did, rather than getting sacked a record number of times in those first three years like Carr was. Give him a defense and a running game and an offensive line that can protect, and he'll develop a lot better than if you put him on the field as a rookie with nobody to help and tell him to win the game for you.
What Niners board is that? Most seem to be reasonable and know there is no chance in hell we'll get Andrew Luck. Maybe if the Niners had a top-5 pick they could do something since then the Colts might consider RG3 along with everything else. Yea, even two first round picks, Willis, Kaepernick and an additional mid round pick or two might not even be enough.
Also, to develop a QB, you need to play him and unlike other positions you can only play one QB at a time. Hell you can't really even take them out mid-game and try a different quarterback lest you destroy the confidence of that guy. Other positions you can have them play a 1 and 2 down or be a 3rd down guy and see them rise to the challenge become an every down guy but you can't do the same with a QB. So you always have to take the best prospect and take the risk or you'll just end up with a bunch of average guys who aren't very good.
Last edited by Thongsy; 01-04-2012 at 08:12 PM. Reason: add more stuff.
Which is fine if there are first round worthy guys like Roethlisberger and Rodgers that fall to you so you aren't reaching for them. The question this year is whether anyone else beyond Luck and Griffin will be worth a mid-first round pick over talent at other positions. At the moment most mock drafts don't think so - guys like Foles, Tannehill, and Cousins are viewed as second rounders. And even if one or two of those guys does rise in the next few months, other teams like Washington and Miami that are also looking for QBs pick ahead of the Seahawks.
So if the Seahawks just wait to see what falls to them, they are likely going to be looking at taking a shot on someone in the later rounds, which means they are no closer to the long-term answer at the position then they are now with Tavaris Jackson.
Last edited by Sarkus; 01-04-2012 at 09:49 PM.
Part of me hopes the Seahawks go for Flynn. The Hawks seem to do better with backup quarterbacks from the Packers vs. anyone else.
I am not hopping on the hype train for Luck or any untested QB. All this stuff people are saying about Luck, they were saying about Matt Ryan, Sam Bradford, even Matt Leinart. I heard " could be better than Peyton Manning" used in reference to all 3 of those dudes. Now if those 3 examples don't perfectly illustrate the fairly wide range of results despite hype, then I don't know what to say.
I see nothing wrong with the Colts drafting Luck, however. That team needs to rebuild itself much like the Lions had to, and you don't rebuild with a 36 year old QB with neck problems, even if that QB happens to be Peyton Manning. Manning can go make another team that is one solid QB away from being a contender (Seattle) or dominating force (San Fran) but he would likely be wasting his time in the dumpster fire that is the Indianapolis Colts.
If Irsay really does want to keep Manning around, it's pretty obvious why: tickets.
Last edited by Bill Dungsroman; 01-04-2012 at 11:07 PM.
Is there someone I'm not remembering, or did you just turn Hasselbeck into more than one guy?
I think he's exagerrating. But Seattle's two best franchise QBs are a undrafted free agent (Dave Krieg) and Hasselbeck, acquired via trade of course. Their history with first round QBs they actually drafted is univerally horrid. Which is ironic given how many good NFL QB's the colleges in Washington State have produced.
How would you feel about Landry Jones? He seems to be projected as a early or mid-first round guy. He was up there with Luck and Barkley before the RG3 hype wagon began but it seems he's fallen off a bit. I agree, the Seahawks shouldn't reach for anybody but they're going have to take the risk and draft a QB sooner or later. QBs will always go high, there will always be a team willing to take a risk. Just look at last year's draft which most pundits said had one of the worst QB classes in a long time and four guys went in the first 12 picks, 6 in the first 36 picks, with one Ponder being a long reach since he was projected as a mid-2nd round guy. This year's draft class of QB is suppose to be superior in every way so Seattle should either take the gamble or try and get Flynn since if you're holding out for that late round/undrafted savior it just isn't very likely to happen.
The thing about franchise records is that they're superficially interesting but largely meaningless. Teams go through so many different coaches and scouts and GMs that talking about how "the Seahawks" have done in the draft is a red herring. Were any of those first round QBs drafted by the same GM? Have they even drafted a QB since Paul Allen bought the team?
Generally speaking, guys who waste first rounders on bad QBs get fired before they have a chance to waste another one. Hell, Polian got fired and he hit with his QB pick. Can this front office + Carroll identify a good QB in the draft? I don't know, but the fact that Tom Flores tied his pony to Rick Mirer seems a little beside the point.
Well Holmgren, who was considered a QB guru of sorts, drafted several QBs. The "highlight" of that list is Seneca Wallace. Who I'm sure Browns fans have a few things to say about at this point.
But while your argument is sound, that doesn't change the fan perception of a franchise's likliehood of succeeding this time. And some fans embrace that into the culture of the franchise, such as the north side baseball team in Chicago.
I guess the hallmarks of this regime have been Whitehurst and Tavaris, so even though they haven't been drafting them they're still carrying on the Seattle tradition of mediocre QBs. But at the end of the day, if your front office can't evaluate QBs well enough to draft or trade for one, you change your front office and not the way you go about things.
The current regime has not drafted a QB yet. The other QB on the roster right now is an undrafted rookie free agent.
There is a certain level of impatience because the team has needed a successor to Hasselbeck for several years and yet keeps passing on opportunities to draft one. They could have taken Sanchez and drafted Curry instead. They could have taken Dalton last year and took the lineman out of Alabama instead. So there is some frustration about what seems to be a reluctance to even start the process of finding the next long-term guy.
Sanchez is probably not the best example there. Just sayin', passing on him was definitely the right call!
Here is how you get yourself fired as an NFL GM.
When the lockout was settled, the Billy Devaney and the Rams front office told Laurent Robinson's agent (LR had been a Ram for the previous 3 seasons) that they were uninterested in re-signing his client.
Robinson was signed by the Cowboys. He started 4 games. He missed 2 games with injury.
Laurent Robinson caught 11 TD passes with Dallas. The 2011 St. Louis Rams receiving corps--all of them, every single player who caught a pass included--caught 9 TD passes combined.
One other thing about using the first pick on a QB: even if you sign a proven awesome game changer of a veteran player you can still get screwed. How many major free agent signings have ended with the player washing out? I'd say enough of them that there is NO way of getting a sure thing, whether rookie or established veteran.
So it still makes sense to take the risk for the QB, since you will be rolling the dice one way or another.
Of course there's no thing as a 'sure thing', but free agent signings generally have a higher success rate than signing first rounders because at least you know they _can_ play in the NFL.
The major variables that determine if a player will be good are ability, work ethic, personality, and system. Jumping into the NFL puts a huge question mark on all that for a rookie.
FAs at least have proven they can play. They can still fail due to work ethic and personality or being put into a system that is inappropriate for their skills, but at least one variable is removed. FA busts like Haynesworth were fairly predictable. But that type of stuff is more on the GM/coach than it is on the player.
Well Curry, who was supposed to be a "safe" pick, didn't work out either. And Sanchez failure to meet expectations could be a coaching/situation failure as much as a personal failure on his part. There is a lot that goes into whether a QB fails or succeeds in the NFL, though he was certainly in a better situation then a lot of guys are.
If the Jets want to trade him to the Seahawks (and Pete wants him), I wouldn't view it as the worst move they could make.
So apparently the deal on this is that the Raiders told the DC and some other coaches they won't be back, but are making them work until their contracts expire. So they haven't left the bulding yet, which is why the Raiders are officially denying they were fired. Which is a pretty poor way to do things.
Welcome to the new era, Raiders fans. ;-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote