Don't Draft a QB
-
In 1997, the Indianapolis Colts gave up 62 sacks. What shenanigans! Drafting a QB would be sheer madness! Then, what do you know, they draft a QB. Clearly, they are collectively crazy like various Lewis Carroll characters. The following year, with Peyton Manning starting all 16 games, the line gave up 22 sacks.
22 divided by 62 is 35%. So, one new QB and their sacks are nearly one third of what they were in the previous year.
But, of course, I can't be dishonest and put this all on the QB. How much did the personnel around him change?
Here's the offensive line between the two years:
1997 1998 LT: Adam Meadows Tarik Glenn LG: Doug Widell Steve McKinney
Jay Leeuwenburg Jay Leeuwenburg
RG: Tarik Glenn Tony Mandarich
RT: Tony Mandarich Adam MeadowsThe total change was Doug Widell for Steve McKinney.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WideDo20.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McKiSt20.htm
Now, please understand this: I can't really compare the two, as I don't know enough about their careers to be able to compare the two. Nevertheless, it was only one lineman, and a guard at that. If they can add a guard and cut their sacks to 1/3 of the previous year, either he was Jesus in the form of a LG, or their was another, newer factor. Like an all-world QB, a rookie, nonetheless.
Did they win any more games? Well, no. No, they most certainly did not. However, their offense improved significantly: went from 19th in the league to 6th in the league. Franchise QBs sell, but who's buying?
I am.
-
In 1997, the Indianapolis Colts gave up 62 sacks. What shenanigans! Drafting a QB would be sheer madness! Then, what do you know, they draft a QB. Clearly, they are collectively crazy like various Lewis Carroll characters. The following year, with Peyton Manning starting all 16 games, the line gave up 22 sacks.
22 divided by 62 is 35%. So, one new QB and their sacks are nearly one third of what they were in the previous year.
But, of course, I can't be dishonest and put this all on the QB. How much did the personnel around him change?
Here's the offensive line between the two years:
1997 1998 LT: Adam Meadows Tarik Glenn LG: Doug Widell Steve McKinney
Jay Leeuwenburg Jay Leeuwenburg
RG: Tarik Glenn Tony Mandarich
RT: Tony Mandarich Adam MeadowsThe total change was Doug Widell for Steve McKinney.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WideDo20.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McKiSt20.htm
Now, please understand this: I can't really compare the two, as I don't know enough about their careers to be able to compare the two. Nevertheless, it was only one lineman, and a guard at that. If they can add a guard and cut their sacks to 1/3 of the previous year, either he was Jesus in the form of a LG, or their was another, newer factor. Like an all-world QB, a rookie, nonetheless.
Did they win any more games? Well, no. No, they most certainly did not. However, their offense improved significantly: went from 19th in the league to 6th in the league. Franchise QBs sell, but who's buying?
I am.
In 1997, the Indianapolis Colts gave up 62 sacks. What shenanigans! Drafting a QB would be sheer madness! Then, what do you know, they draft a QB. Clearly, they are collectively crazy like various Lewis Carroll characters. The following year, with Peyton Manning starting all 16 games, the line gave up 22 sacks.
22 divided by 62 is 35%. So, one new QB and their sacks are nearly one third of what they were in the previous year.
But, of course, I can't be dishonest and put this all on the QB. How much did the personnel around him change?
Here's the offensive line between the two years:
1997 1998 LT: Adam Meadows Tarik Glenn LG: Doug Widell Steve McKinney
Jay Leeuwenburg Jay Leeuwenburg
RG: Tarik Glenn Tony Mandarich
RT: Tony Mandarich Adam MeadowsThe total change was Doug Widell for Steve McKinney.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WideDo20.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McKiSt20.htm
Now, please understand this: I can't really compare the two, as I don't know enough about their careers to be able to compare the two. Nevertheless, it was only one lineman, and a guard at that. If they can add a guard and cut their sacks to 1/3 of the previous year, either he was Jesus in the form of a LG, or their was another, newer factor. Like an all-world QB, a rookie, nonetheless.
Did they win any more games? Well, no. No, they most certainly did not. However, their offense improved significantly: went from 19th in the league to 6th in the league. Franchise QBs sell, but who's buying?
I am.
depends on what your selling ?
Would you happen to have any pictures of a shirtless Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy ?
-
IMO, I think our line simply needs time to play together. Switching guys out all of the time won't work.
-
In 1997, the Indianapolis Colts gave up 62 sacks. What shenanigans! Drafting a QB would be sheer madness! Then, what do you know, they draft a QB. Clearly, they are collectively crazy like various Lewis Carroll characters. The following year, with Peyton Manning starting all 16 games, the line gave up 22 sacks.
22 divided by 62 is 35%. So, one new QB and their sacks are nearly one third of what they were in the previous year.
But, of course, I can't be dishonest and put this all on the QB. How much did the personnel around him change?
Here's the offensive line between the two years:
1997 1998 LT: Adam Meadows Tarik Glenn LG: Doug Widell Steve McKinney
Jay Leeuwenburg Jay Leeuwenburg
RG: Tarik Glenn Tony Mandarich
RT: Tony Mandarich Adam MeadowsThe total change was Doug Widell for Steve McKinney.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WideDo20.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McKiSt20.htm
Now, please understand this: I can't really compare the two, as I don't know enough about their careers to be able to compare the two. Nevertheless, it was only one lineman, and a guard at that. If they can add a guard and cut their sacks to 1/3 of the previous year, either he was Jesus in the form of a LG, or their was another, newer factor. Like an all-world QB, a rookie, nonetheless.
Did they win any more games? Well, no. No, they most certainly did not. However, their offense improved significantly: went from 19th in the league to 6th in the league. Franchise QBs sell, but who's buying?
I am.
depends on what your selling ?
Would you happen to have any pictures of a shirtless Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy ?
depends on what your selling ?
Would you happen to have any pictures of a shirtless Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy ?
I imagine that Google Image Search would turn something up. Failing that, you could try a Facebook/MySpace creeping session. Not that I would know anything about that...
@shepwrite said:
A better quarterback is one way to reduce sacks and improve the running game, for sure... but especially if he's Peyton Manning. He threw a TON of picks that year, but he was gonna get the ball out. He has the loudest clock in his head... ever. He needs his receivers to be as smart as he is and that took a little more time.Hey, we have a first round LT, a near first round LG, and a first round C. We can sign of draft a high quality right tackle, get Hadnot back, and field a first class offensive line in 2010. I wouldn't hesitate to start a rook behind that line.
True this. If it turns out that Harrison or Davis are viable offensive options, then we've got a running game. The only thing we lack, then, is... a passing game. In every aspect, truthfully. We have *no* proven receivers outside Braylon (gone next year), and unless DA, BQ, or Ratliff, as Mangini is purported to favor, can prove that they are a legit QB, then we need that, too.
I do wonder, however, what our complete lack of competent receivers will mean for our new QBs. Nevertheless, I can scarcely advocate taking a WR with the first overall. I don't think that there's a Calvin Johnson coming out this year, as far as I know. A WR corps of Furrey, MoMass, Robiskie, and Cribbs does not leave me with an easy feeling.
Thoughts on this last point?
I realize that I'm leaving out the defense, and that it is a vital component of a good team. Nevertheless, simply talking about this distracts me from the fact that the Browns are actually playing. I'll be watching the game, of course, and cheering for DA to put up a score, but the cynic/rational person/Quinn fag (whatever synonym you prefer) in me greatly doubts this. Thus, pondering the upcoming game further is less than ideal for me.
-
IMO, I think our line simply needs time to play together. Switching guys out all of the time won't work.
IMO, I think our line simply needs time to play together. Switching guys out all of the time won't work.
Amen mosley. Its an intricate dance with the biggest, fattest, and clumsiest dance team on earth. These 5 monsters have to move as one entity on every play like a synchronized swim team. A big, fat, synchronized swim team.
-
depends on what your selling ?
Would you happen to have any pictures of a shirtless Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy ?
I imagine that Google Image Search would turn something up. Failing that, you could try a Facebook/MySpace creeping session. Not that I would know anything about that...
@shepwrite said:
A better quarterback is one way to reduce sacks and improve the running game, for sure... but especially if he's Peyton Manning. He threw a TON of picks that year, but he was gonna get the ball out. He has the loudest clock in his head... ever. He needs his receivers to be as smart as he is and that took a little more time.Hey, we have a first round LT, a near first round LG, and a first round C. We can sign of draft a high quality right tackle, get Hadnot back, and field a first class offensive line in 2010. I wouldn't hesitate to start a rook behind that line.
True this. If it turns out that Harrison or Davis are viable offensive options, then we've got a running game. The only thing we lack, then, is... a passing game. In every aspect, truthfully. We have *no* proven receivers outside Braylon (gone next year), and unless DA, BQ, or Ratliff, as Mangini is purported to favor, can prove that they are a legit QB, then we need that, too.
I do wonder, however, what our complete lack of competent receivers will mean for our new QBs. Nevertheless, I can scarcely advocate taking a WR with the first overall. I don't think that there's a Calvin Johnson coming out this year, as far as I know. A WR corps of Furrey, MoMass, Robiskie, and Cribbs does not leave me with an easy feeling.
Thoughts on this last point?
I realize that I'm leaving out the defense, and that it is a vital component of a good team. Nevertheless, simply talking about this distracts me from the fact that the Browns are actually playing. I'll be watching the game, of course, and cheering for DA to put up a score, but the cynic/rational person/Quinn fag (whatever synonym you prefer) in me greatly doubts this. Thus, pondering the upcoming game further is less than ideal for me.
True this. If it turns out that Harrison or Davis are viable offensive options, then we've got a running game. The only thing we lack, then, is... a passing game. In every aspect, truthfully. We have *no* proven receivers outside Braylon (gone next year), and unless DA, BQ, or Ratliff, as Mangini is purported to favor, can prove that they are a legit QB, then we need that, too.
I do wonder, however, what our complete lack of competent receivers will mean for our new QBs. Nevertheless, I can scarcely advocate taking a WR with the first overall. I don't think that there's a Calvin Johnson coming out this year, as far as I know. A WR corps of Furrey, MoMass, Robiskie, and Cribbs does not leave me with an easy feeling.
Thoughts on this last point?
Having some semblance of a passing game should actually start to answer some questions we've all had
about our running game (Harrison & Davis )
and our receivers, MoMass seems to be able to get open,now lets see if DA can get him the ball
Furrey can definitely catch the football ,but I've notice him having trouble getting open(looks more like a scheme thing)
Robo,Cribbs? again we really need what would be considered a passing attack before we know if they can help at all
Edwards I believe we can Tag if we have to,and we may have to
I'd rather somebody trade us a #1 pick for his ass,but there's no question he can own a game when he and DA are in sync
The TE position trouble me,in this division you need a big time TE,Hiedens a nice fourth option,but he not on the same
level as Heap or Miller
No matter what shakes out in the next few weeks,I agree with you I just don't see any scenario where we pick a WR in the 1st,2nd,or 3rd rnd
-
1 1 1 Orlando Pace Rams T Ohio State
2 2 Darrell Russell Raiders DT USC
3 3 Shawn Springs Seahawks DB Ohio State
4 4 Peter Boulware Ravens DE Florida State
5 5 Bryant Westbrook Lions DB Texas
6 6 Walter Jones Seahawks T Florida State
7 7 Ike Hilliard Giants WR Florida
8 8 James Farrior Jets LB Virginia
9 9 Tom Knight Cardinals DB Iowa
10 10 Chris Naeole Saints G Colorado
11 11 Michael Booker Falcons DB Nebraska
12 12 Warrick Dunn Buccaneers RB Florida State
13 13 Tony Gonzalez Chiefs TE California
14 14 Reinard Wilson Bengals DE Florida State
15 15 Yatil Green Dolphins WR Miami (FL)
16 16 Reidel Anthony Buccaneers WR Florida
17 17 Kenard Lang Redskins DE Miami (FL)
18 18 Kenny Holmes Oilers DE Miami (FL)
19 19 Tarik Glenn Colts T California
Peyton Manning was the #1 pick overall by the Colts in 98. In 97, they drafted Tarik glenn, OT. And
they already had Marvin Harrison.
Shep's post pretty much hits it on the mark. But a better qb with no smart, quick to get open wr's, or running game, or protection,
and he isn't a great qb by any kind of measure at that time.
-
There is some amount of timing involved in a situation like ours. The Colts needed both a QB and WR; WRs take about 3 years to really get it, with a few exceptions (Moss, Rice, etc). If you draft WR on year, then QB the next, the WR and QB start clicking at about the same time - assuming, of course, that either is any good.
WR and QB both have a longer 'lifetime' if you will, so it's best to get those positions earlier in the buildup, then take in later years a RB.
Of course, this is all predicated on 'good drafts'. If your drafts consist of one starter and 6 guys that are cut...you'll never get there.
-
They better go for defense. If Berry is there you have to take him.
Forget offense, we need a dominating defense.
No QB worth taking #1.
They better go for defense. If Berry is there you have to take him.
Forget offense, we need a dominating defense.
No QB worth taking #1.
I thank you for this post simply because you're right: there isn't a Peyton Manning coming out this year, as far as I know (don't quote me, I don't know Bradford or Pike that well). Based on pure talent, it does seem like Berry/Mays are the best coming out.
Besides, it's not like we're going to be outside of the top 5 in the 2011 draft.
-
@shepwrite said:
Two ways to prove you really don't know shit about pro football:1. Say, "I'm sick and tired of trying to draft a franchise quarterback. We picked Charlie Frye in the third round, where so many greats are found, and that didn't work out. Then we picked Brady Quinn at 22 a few years ago. I'm just tired of it. I wanna turn this team around with an old free agent quarterback and Eric Berry."
Well, and some magic fairy dust.
2. Say, "I believe in drafting franchise quarterbacks high in round one, but there just isn't anyone out there." We heard that on this very board about Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, and Matt Stafford, among MANY others. Now we're already hearing it again about Bradford, Pike, Clausen, and McCoy.
God shep you really do get it.
-
@shepwrite said:
Two ways to prove you really don't know shit about pro football:I have admitted to this! What are you trying to prove? It's like people going 'AHA BARNEY FRANK SO YOU DO SUPPORT SINGLE PAYER!!! HA! HA!' at the Town Hall meetings, when he'd admitted to it a long time ago.
-
@shepwrite said:
Name a few guys who are hot young backups who excite you, who you've been reading a lot about. Who is the superstar in waiting stuck behind a franchise QB? Charlie Whitehurst?Matt Leinart?
Dennis
-
At this point, I think Leinart is going to have to be moved if he's going to have a career. If he gets named the starter after this year, I would think that the book on him in Arizona is that he got the job because they thought he should just get the job as opposed to beating the other guy out. As to whether or not he'll succeed, who knows? As we've seen so far this year with the Browns, there's a world of difference between the preseason and when the games start counting.
As to your earlier point about people essentially saying, "Screw it, let's draft Eric Berry and sign somebody," I think you're being too quick to dismiss the argument for not drafting a QB next year. For one thing, if you think that a QB has serious questions regarding his value as a first round pick (Bradford's shoulder, Bradford and McCoy playing in a conference with no defenses, Clausen with the traditional Notre Dame questions about strength of schedule, etc.), then I think it's a mistake to say, "Look at these guys who were drafted early in the draft, and their teams turned out alright." It ignores a ton of variables, like the fact that all four QBs you mentioned (Flacco, Rodgers, Sanchez, and Ryan) took over teams that had been in the playoffs within a couple of years of their arrival. Alex Smith and Joey Harrington might be better examples of guys who walked into situations like the one facing the next Browns' QB.
At the end of the day, you have to take the guy you think will help the team both in the immediate future and long-term. If you think Eric Berry is going to be an impact player for ten years or more (and I think he is), then taking a QB because that's just what you do is just as much of a give-up as saying that you can just sign a backup from another team and run the ball a lot.
Dennis
And, as blasphemous as it seems to type this while sitting on the UT campus, my tendency would be to go with McCoy.
-
@shepwrite said:
Dency, I don't agree on a lot of levels. First, we say that same thing every year, that there aren't franchise quarterbacks in the draft, that they have question marks... but there are 2-4 serious NFL starting quarterbacks in virtually EVERY draft. Guaranteed, Ryan, Flacco, Sanchez, and Stafford are a significant trend: Get a smart pocket passer from a pro style offense and play him immediately.They're also part of another significant trend--call it the Eli Manning principle: teams that go to the playoffs four out of five years, then have one bad year that either puts them in position to draft in the top five or trade into the spot, pick a guy, rebound in pretty much the same way they would have with the guys they had at QB, then bingo-bango, picking a QB is what turned the team around (which might be slightly premature in Staffor's case, since the Lions are 1-2 in franchise history with him as the starter)
Is picking Leinart what turned around the Cardinals? Harrington with the Lions? Alex Smith with the 49ers?
>>No, the Browns will not become a complete team overnight, but they'll be able to do some work at other positions, just as the Falcons did prior to 2008. But they MUST prioritize correctly. Safety does not go ahead of quarterback, for instance, in any GM's playbook. The order is: Quarterback, left tackle, cover corner, pass rusher, #1 WR. Safety isn't on the list. <<
I never said take a safety instead of a QB. I said look at the particular players that are available and make a decision. Look at 1991--the Browns took Eric Turner #2. They did not take Dan McGwire or Todd Marinovich, who went later. Was that a failure at the GM level? Should the Browns have taken one of those guys, and the team got bailed out because one turned out to suck and their other was a head case?
As I said, if there's a franchise QB there, take him. If not, taking one because there's probably one who will eventually develop out of the draft isn't smart strategy, it's fetishizing the position.
Dennis
-
@shepwrite said:
Well, then, the answer is "yes" on the quarterback virtually every year, as we've seen. They're almost always there.I'm not trying to be a dick, but this is a non-conversation if you polled GMs in the NFL. Here are the serious contenders in the NFL right now, many of them perennial contenders:
Patriots (Brady)--6th Rd.
Colts (Manning - #1 overall)
Chargers (Rivers - #2 overall)
Steelers (Rapelisberger - #10 overall)
Jets (Sanchez - #5 overall)
Ravens (Flacco - 1st round )
Eagles (McNabb - #2 overall, Kolb)
Packers (from Favre to Rodgers - first round)--First guy a 2nd rounder acquired through a trade
Falcons (Ryan - #2 overall?)
Saints (Brees - via f/a)--2nd rounder acquired via FA
Giants (Manning - #1 overall)
Cowboys (Romo)--UDFA
Vikings (Favre)--FA
Bengals (maybe?) (Palmer - #1 overall)
You have to ask yourself, what is this other road to Mecca? Is it based on anomalies? Or is it pretty clear how successful organizations are built, and a centerpiece of that architecture is a franchise quarterback.
A couple of things here. First, I never said a team doesn't need a QB...you're substituting my argument for a straw man. What I said, again, is that if you think your next franchise QB is available, take him--sweet Jesus, you're criticizing me for agreeing with you.
Second, it's dishonest to say that you need to take a QB #1 because teams are built around franchise QBs, and then list franchise QBs who were either drafted way later or acquired via trade or free agency.
Third, it's also problematic to include several guys who are teammates of the guys you always point to in your list of RBs who haven't played in the Super Bowl as evidence of why teams shouldn't take RBs high in the draft. The Chargers take LaDanian Tomlinson and don't win the Super Bowl? That's what they get for taking a RB. They take Phillip Rivers? That's how you become an elite team. Rivers throws three picks in a playoff loss? Great job, Tomlinson--that's why you don't take an RB in the draft.
Finally, I would wait until the Saints prove they can be successful in the playoffs (which could very well be this year) or the Cowboys actually win a meaningful game (the last time was when they had a real franchise QB) before holding them up as examples of how to put together a successful franchise.
Dennis
J.P. Losman--Now more than ever.
-
Keep in mind that this team is very bad - and will probably be bad for at least 2 more years.
With so many needs, trading back from #1 to between 5-10 should get a proven starter plus additional value.
Waiting until 2011 might give the added benefit of a franchise QB at a time when a new CBA is keeping rookie salaries more reasonable
-
Keep in mind that this team is very bad - and will probably be bad for at least 2 more years.
With so many needs, trading back from #1 to between 5-10 should get a proven starter plus additional value.
Waiting until 2011 might give the added benefit of a franchise QB at a time when a new CBA is keeping rookie salaries more reasonable
Keep in mind that this team is very bad - and will probably be bad for at least 10 more years.
With so many needs, trading back from #1 to between 5-10 should get a proven starter plus additional value.
Waiting until 2011 might give the added benefit of a franchise QB at a time when a new CBA is keeping rookie salaries more reasonable
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