Biggest bust ever
-
-
or here's another way to look at.....qb's in general......
1999...13 QB's drafted.......3 reg starters....2 real good ones - (culpepper/mcnabb)
2000...11 QB's drafted.......2 reg starters....1 real good one - (Brady)
2001...11 QB's drafted.......2 reg starters....1 real good one - (Brees)
2002...15 QB's drafted.......1 reg starter...... zero good ones
2003...13 QB's drafted.......2 reg starters.....1 real good one - (Palmer)
2004...17 QB's drafted.......4 reg starters.....3 real good ones too - (Manning, Rivers, Rapistberger)...good year!
2005...13 QB's drafted.......3 reg starters.....1 real good one - (Rodgers)
2006...11 QB's drafted.......1 reg starter.......zero good ones
2007...10 QB's drafted.......zero starters.......zero good ones
2008...13 QB's drafted.......2 reg starters......2 real good ones - (Flacco, Ryan)
2009...11 Qb's drafted.......2 reg starters.......1 real good one? - (Stafford)
2010...14 QB's drafted.......1 reg starter.........zero good ones
2011...12 QB's drafted.......3 reg starters......2 real good ones? - (Kaepernick, Newton)
2012...11 QB's drafted.......4 reg starters......2 real good ones - (Wilson, Luck)
14 yr...175 QB's drafted...30 reg starters...16 real good ones (roughly 1 out of ten and 1 per year).....
So, really, it's not about making bad picks, it just getting "the one" a year that shows up when you happen to have the pick.....
and, based upon this, with all things being equal(which they are not) it STILL would take 32 years for each team to hit on a "great" QB!....which we(and most other teams) are on schedule with(1 really good one every 30 years or so....per team).....(cept Denver and Indy, who always seem to have one)....
anyway....theres a wasted hour for anyone who likes this stuff.........
-
14 years 175qb's drafted and only 16 really good ones.
No wonder the Browns can't find one.
Also all the guys the Browns have drafted have played on bad teams. That hasn't helped
-
Completely different vein, but Jeff George has to be mentioned.
Great fucking arm... so tantalizing that something like eight teams were enticed by his potential. While he posted good numbers he never came close to delivering on his potential.
Kind of the Jay Cutler of the 90's.
-
14 years 175qb's drafted and only 16 really good ones.
No wonder the Browns can't find one.
Also all the guys the Browns have drafted have played on bad teams. That hasn't helped
I think that's a big part of what makes the numbers so lopsided. Most everyone that drafts a quarterback that high is probably in pretty bad shape across the board expecting that one player to make everything perfect.14 years 175qb's drafted and only 16 really good ones.
No wonder the Browns can't find one.
Also all the guys the Browns have drafted have played on bad teams. That hasn't helped
WSS
-
This is very interesting. I really like your analysis mudfly. Forget picking out the worst QB busts of all time, let's analyze the good to great QBs produced over the history of the super bowl era. Just those fourteen years you examined tell a strong tale: finding THAT GUY who truely has the mental, physical, and intangible gifts to truely be a good tom great QB in the NFL is a complete crap shoot.
Great scouting departments can pretty much get a good read on a guys physical and mental capabilities. In my opinion, its the intangibles that make average QBs into great QBs. Having a killer instinct, relentless work ethic, a clutch bone, a burning desire to win and improve, constantly being hyper critical of self, etc cannot be measured or detected or tested for. You don't know if a guy has the proper intangibles until he is thrown into real live regular season action for at least half a season. It truly is a guessing game.
It comes down to selecting the guy with the whom your scouting department has decided has the best mix of physical and mental gifts and potential and who just maybe has those oh so crucial intangibles.
Then you have a guy like Tom Brady. Smart by all accounts but looked like a fucking twelve year old choir boy come the combine. I'm sorry but no scouting department, following logical deduction and using the prototype of what most great QBs are built like physically, would have ever pinned him to possibly be the best ever.
Narrow it down as best you can and roll the fucking dice. And keep rolling. -
Gatsky.....while what you want to do is admirable....not look for the busts but look for the quality QBs that come along, the thread does ask for the busts.
And why identifying the busts is important? It might be illuminative to look at the fate of those teams after they drafted those busts.
Going back in time: Look how the Browns have been since drafting Weeden/Quinn....still trying to dig out of those holes
The Raiders have still not recovered from drafting Russell.
It took the Bears about 5 years to get over the McNown bust.
The Bengals actually did pretty well recovering from Akili....when they got Palmer
Chargers recovered fairly well, taking both Brees and Rivers within about 5-6 years of getting Leaf
Have the Redskins done anything since drafting Shuler?
In a certain sense, the Browns drafting of Bobby Garrett in 1954 was to soon replace OG.....they had to go through Tommy O'Connel and Milt Plum.
I think the Rams recovered OK from taking Terry Baker......when the picked up Roman Gabriel and were a force for the late 60s into the 70s.
The Dolphins recovered from drafting Norton in 1966 pretty quickly. In 1966 they took Norton #2 overall.....then again in 1967 they took Bob Griese with the #4 overall pick......imagine a team doing that today.
The Detroit Lions took Andre Ware....but they recovered pretty well with the likes of Rodney Peete and Dave Kreig (but more with Barry Sanders)
The Colts didn't have a winning record for 5 years after drafting Schlichter
So, I would say that about 2/3rds of the teams that ended up with a big bust took a fairly long time to recover. Grab one of those bust every 3-4 years....you get a record like the Browns have had over the last many years.
-
VesnaKociper said:
Tim Couch, Mike Phipps
Somewhat, but by no means all time compared to others.
-
Gatsky.....while what you want to do is admirable....not look for the busts but look for the quality QBs that come along, the thread does ask for the busts.
And why identifying the busts is important? It might be illuminative to look at the fate of those teams after they drafted those busts.
Going back in time: Look how the Browns have been since drafting Weeden/Quinn....still trying to dig out of those holes
The Raiders have still not recovered from drafting Russell.
It took the Bears about 5 years to get over the McNown bust.
The Bengals actually did pretty well recovering from Akili....when they got Palmer
Chargers recovered fairly well, taking both Brees and Rivers within about 5-6 years of getting Leaf
Have the Redskins done anything since drafting Shuler?
In a certain sense, the Browns drafting of Bobby Garrett in 1954 was to soon replace OG.....they had to go through Tommy O'Connel and Milt Plum.
I think the Rams recovered OK from taking Terry Baker......when the picked up Roman Gabriel and were a force for the late 60s into the 70s.
The Dolphins recovered from drafting Norton in 1966 pretty quickly. In 1966 they took Norton #2 overall.....then again in 1967 they took Bob Griese with the #4 overall pick......imagine a team doing that today.
The Detroit Lions took Andre Ware....but they recovered pretty well with the likes of Rodney Peete and Dave Kreig (but more with Barry Sanders)
The Colts didn't have a winning record for 5 years after drafting Schlichter
So, I would say that about 2/3rds of the teams that ended up with a big bust took a fairly long time to recover. Grab one of those bust every 3-4 years....you get a record like the Browns have had over the last many years.
Gatsky.....while what you want to do is admirable....not look for the busts but look for the quality QBs that come along, the thread does ask for the busts.
And why identifying the busts is important? It might be illuminative to look at the fate of those teams after they drafted those busts.
Going back in time: Look how the Browns have been since drafting Weeden/Quinn....still trying to dig out of those holes
The Raiders have still not recovered from drafting Russell.
It took the Bears about 5 years to get over the McNown bust.
The Bengals actually did pretty well recovering from Akili....when they got Palmer
Chargers recovered fairly well, taking both Brees and Rivers within about 5-6 years of getting Leaf
Have the Redskins done anything since drafting Shuler?
In a certain sense, the Browns drafting of Bobby Garrett in 1954 was to soon replace OG.....they had to go through Tommy O'Connel and Milt Plum.
I think the Rams recovered OK from taking Terry Baker......when the picked up Roman Gabriel and were a force for the late 60s into the 70s.
The Dolphins recovered from drafting Norton in 1966 pretty quickly. In 1966 they took Norton #2 overall.....then again in 1967 they took Bob Griese with the #4 overall pick......imagine a team doing that today.
The Detroit Lions took Andre Ware....but they recovered pretty well with the likes of Rodney Peete and Dave Kreig (but more with Barry Sanders)
The Colts didn't have a winning record for 5 years after drafting Schlichter
So, I would say that about 2/3rds of the teams that ended up with a big bust took a fairly long time to recover. Grab one of those bust every 3-4 years....you get a record like the Browns have had over the last many years.
I understand that's the point of the thread Gip. My point wasn't to suggest changing the thread but to simply point out that I found Mudflys analysis more illuminating than simply pointing out the big busts.
Your analysis was also well done. Its crazy how simply drafting a QB who does not possess the requisite skills to thrive in the NFL can destroy a team. It makes sense though once you examine the domino effect of setbacks that a unsuccessful QB brings to a team: blows to team moral, lack of leadership on the offense, lack of continuity and chemistry amongst the QB and skill positions, to long term damage like the inevitable GM/Head coach/coordinator change that usually occurs following a collapse at the QB position.
I stand by my statement that it all comes down to intangibles. A prospect can have all the physical and mental attributes in the world but if he lacks the intangibles like being clutch and not choking, having a insatiable drive to be the best etc., he will never be anything more than a sub par success at QB.
-
Gatsky.....while what you want to do is admirable....not look for the busts but look for the quality QBs that come along, the thread does ask for the busts.
And why identifying the busts is important? It might be illuminative to look at the fate of those teams after they drafted those busts.
Going back in time: Look how the Browns have been since drafting Weeden/Quinn....still trying to dig out of those holes
The Raiders have still not recovered from drafting Russell.
It took the Bears about 5 years to get over the McNown bust.
The Bengals actually did pretty well recovering from Akili....when they got Palmer
Chargers recovered fairly well, taking both Brees and Rivers within about 5-6 years of getting Leaf
Have the Redskins done anything since drafting Shuler?
In a certain sense, the Browns drafting of Bobby Garrett in 1954 was to soon replace OG.....they had to go through Tommy O'Connel and Milt Plum.
I think the Rams recovered OK from taking Terry Baker......when the picked up Roman Gabriel and were a force for the late 60s into the 70s.
The Dolphins recovered from drafting Norton in 1966 pretty quickly. In 1966 they took Norton #2 overall.....then again in 1967 they took Bob Griese with the #4 overall pick......imagine a team doing that today.
The Detroit Lions took Andre Ware....but they recovered pretty well with the likes of Rodney Peete and Dave Kreig (but more with Barry Sanders)
The Colts didn't have a winning record for 5 years after drafting Schlichter
So, I would say that about 2/3rds of the teams that ended up with a big bust took a fairly long time to recover. Grab one of those bust every 3-4 years....you get a record like the Browns have had over the last many years.
I understand that's the point of the thread Gip. My point wasn't to suggest changing the thread but to simply point out that I found Mudflys analysis more illuminating than simply pointing out the big busts.
Your analysis was also well done. Its crazy how simply drafting a QB who does not possess the requisite skills to thrive in the NFL can destroy a team. It makes sense though once you examine the domino effect of setbacks that a unsuccessful QB brings to a team: blows to team moral, lack of leadership on the offense, lack of continuity and chemistry amongst the QB and skill positions, to long term damage like the inevitable GM/Head coach/coordinator change that usually occurs following a collapse at the QB position.
I stand by my statement that it all comes down to intangibles. A prospect can have all the physical and mental attributes in the world but if he lacks the intangibles like being clutch and not choking, having a insatiable drive to be the best etc., he will never be anything more than a sub par success at QB.
GuNNerGatSKy said:
I stand by my statement that it all comes down to intangibles. A prospect can have all the physical and mental attributes in the world but if he lacks the intangibles like being clutch and not choking, having a insatiable drive to be the best etc., he will never be anything more than a sub par success at QB.
That is probably why quarterback is the hardest position to draft for and be successful. There are things like the intangibles that don't go into the statistics.
-
Gatsky.....while what you want to do is admirable....not look for the busts but look for the quality QBs that come along, the thread does ask for the busts.
And why identifying the busts is important? It might be illuminative to look at the fate of those teams after they drafted those busts.
Going back in time: Look how the Browns have been since drafting Weeden/Quinn....still trying to dig out of those holes
The Raiders have still not recovered from drafting Russell.
It took the Bears about 5 years to get over the McNown bust.
The Bengals actually did pretty well recovering from Akili....when they got Palmer
Chargers recovered fairly well, taking both Brees and Rivers within about 5-6 years of getting Leaf
Have the Redskins done anything since drafting Shuler?
In a certain sense, the Browns drafting of Bobby Garrett in 1954 was to soon replace OG.....they had to go through Tommy O'Connel and Milt Plum.
I think the Rams recovered OK from taking Terry Baker......when the picked up Roman Gabriel and were a force for the late 60s into the 70s.
The Dolphins recovered from drafting Norton in 1966 pretty quickly. In 1966 they took Norton #2 overall.....then again in 1967 they took Bob Griese with the #4 overall pick......imagine a team doing that today.
The Detroit Lions took Andre Ware....but they recovered pretty well with the likes of Rodney Peete and Dave Kreig (but more with Barry Sanders)
The Colts didn't have a winning record for 5 years after drafting Schlichter
So, I would say that about 2/3rds of the teams that ended up with a big bust took a fairly long time to recover. Grab one of those bust every 3-4 years....you get a record like the Browns have had over the last many years.
I understand that's the point of the thread Gip. My point wasn't to suggest changing the thread but to simply point out that I found Mudflys analysis more illuminating than simply pointing out the big busts.
Your analysis was also well done. Its crazy how simply drafting a QB who does not possess the requisite skills to thrive in the NFL can destroy a team. It makes sense though once you examine the domino effect of setbacks that a unsuccessful QB brings to a team: blows to team moral, lack of leadership on the offense, lack of continuity and chemistry amongst the QB and skill positions, to long term damage like the inevitable GM/Head coach/coordinator change that usually occurs following a collapse at the QB position.
I stand by my statement that it all comes down to intangibles. A prospect can have all the physical and mental attributes in the world but if he lacks the intangibles like being clutch and not choking, having a insatiable drive to be the best etc., he will never be anything more than a sub par success at QB.
GuNNerGatSKy said:
I understand that's the point of the thread Gip. My point wasn't to suggest changing the thread but to simply point out that I found Mudflys analysis more illuminating than simply pointing out the big busts.
Your analysis was also well done. Its crazy how simply drafting a QB who does not possess the requisite skills to thrive in the NFL can destroy a team. It makes sense though once you examine the domino effect of setbacks that a unsuccessful QB brings to a team: blows to team moral, lack of leadership on the offense, lack of continuity and chemistry amongst the QB and skill positions, to long term damage like the inevitable GM/Head coach/coordinator change that usually occurs following a collapse at the QB position.
I stand by my statement that it all comes down to intangibles. A prospect can have all the physical and mental attributes in the world but if he lacks the intangibles like being clutch and not choking, having a insatiable drive to be the best etc., he will never be anything more than a sub par success at QB.
Absolutely agree. Many QBs probably have say Brady's physical talents.....but few in any have ever had his intangible talents.
And look at the guy he is facing tomorrow......he is ALL about the intangibles
-
Well, if you consider collateral damage, how about Mike Phipps?
The Browns traded HOFer Paul Warfield in his prime to draft a guy who is little more than a footnote in Browns history
Not only was HE a bust, it - pretty much - busted the team for some time.
Rick Mirer??
it was frustrating during those years but the team basically had to be rebuilt. The older guys from the Collier years were retiring.
We had some great picks with Jerry Sherk and Greg Pruitt, and Sipe on the taxi squad...
When I saw Phipps play, I always thought of Bobby Douglas from those crappy Bears teams - he ran most of the time and couldnt throw worth a damn.
definite overreach as a first rounder for sure.. and steep price giving up Warfield.
my bust pick(s) - Ty Detmer , Steve Walsh they actually played awhile too
-
@douche-nozzle said:
I always saw Tebow as the biggest bust because of how big the hype was versus the reality. I made two bets, shorty after the draft, that little Johnny would overtake that by being done in less starts than it took Tebow.
Tebow beat the stooolers in the playoffs
-
In a related article here is SI's top 50 busts at any position.
http://www.lostlettermen.com/slideshow/4-16-2012-top-50-nfl-draft-busts-where-are-they-now/
-
@douche-nozzle said:
The Browns beat themselves for your entire life;)
Uh we were talking about Tebow making you his bitch.
Try to keep up.
WSS
-
let me check my archives. 7th grade..., okay got it.@douche-nozzle said:
Blow me
"ok. I'll blow the sweat off your back while you suck my dick."
WSS
-
@douche-nozzle said:
I always saw Tebow as the biggest bust because of how big the hype was versus the reality. I made two bets, shorty after the draft, that little Johnny would overtake that by being done in less starts than it took Tebow.
But Tebow won some games....even a playoff game. Some of these guys.....like Garrett, never even started a single game.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login