BobDigital
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 16,350
- Reaction score
- 15,044
What is it you hear everyone say about drafting QBs? Develop them slowly, ease them in, give them a few years so you know for sure what you have. Usually year 3 is the make or break year they say. Well I'm here to say this is utter nonsense! The Patriots will not compete for a championship without a great QB.
Instead of listing all the QBs who are HOFers borderline HOFs let's list the ones who aren't. Jim Pucket 2, Eli 2, Theismann 1, McMahon 1, Simms 1, Williams 1, Myriep 1, Dilfer 1, Johnson 1, Flacco 1, Foles 1
That means of the 54 times a QB won a superbowl 13 have been without a very good QB for the era. The QBs run the gauntlet between respectable to bad QBs who just got hot. Of course a few HOF winning QBs weren't amazing either, but they certainly were very good for stretches of their career.
Now with all that said let's get down to the more important issue. If the QBs who are HOFers win, how quickly did they show signs of being that kind of player?
Going in order of oldest to newest. Starr year 2 (mostly sat year 1), Namath year 1, Dawson year 6 (first year starting), Unitas year 1, Staubach year 3 (first yea starting), Bob Griese year 1, Bradshaw year 3, Stabler year 4 (first year starting), Montana year 1, Aikman year 3, Young year 7 (2nd year starting), Farve year 2 (first year starting), Elway year 2, Warner year 2 (first year starting), Brady year 2 (first year starting), Ben year 1, Peyton year 1, Brees year 2 (first year starting), Rodgers year 4 (first year starting), Wilson year 1, Mahomes year 2 (first year starting). Also just to be clear when I say first time starting, I mean for a sustained period of time.
While in the past years were a bit more inconsistent in the more modern game the only QB to truly start slow and then pick it up year 3 was Aikman. As for other QBs who aren't or don't have a good chance of being HOFers they showed it early too. Eli by year 2 (first year full time starting), Johnson by year 3 (first year starting), Since the 80s and particular 90s most QBs who were going to be great showed that potential early. The only big outlier being Aikman.
So what is the point of all this? Move on from your QBs in a hurry. I see team year after year holding on till year 4 or even 5 in hopes a guy will turn it around or holding onto a good but not great QB who isn't likely to win anything in his career. QBs who show they don't have by year 2 should be quickly cut or traded for any reprieved value they may have. Ideally early in year 2. As for good QBs, holding on to them is often false hope and overlywhelming likely will keep you from winning for a longer period of time.
This is why I don't like the Patriots signing Newton. Even if he comes back to his prime days and plays that way for 5 he will only make them 'compete' and not win for those 5 years. If NFL teams want to win to maximize their chances they should making decisions quickly and move on after 2 years of starting. They should also trade any QB they aquire who is good but not great for draft picks to try again.
I understand BB not wanting to do this so late in his career, but it maximizes the chances of picking a great QB. You may think picking a great QB is a hopeless proposition that is merely luck based and incredibly difficult. It is difficult but not as hard as you may think. We can break it down math wise too. We will look at from the 80s on.
Instead of listing all the QBs who are HOFers borderline HOFs let's list the ones who aren't. Jim Pucket 2, Eli 2, Theismann 1, McMahon 1, Simms 1, Williams 1, Myriep 1, Dilfer 1, Johnson 1, Flacco 1, Foles 1
That means of the 54 times a QB won a superbowl 13 have been without a very good QB for the era. The QBs run the gauntlet between respectable to bad QBs who just got hot. Of course a few HOF winning QBs weren't amazing either, but they certainly were very good for stretches of their career.
Now with all that said let's get down to the more important issue. If the QBs who are HOFers win, how quickly did they show signs of being that kind of player?
Going in order of oldest to newest. Starr year 2 (mostly sat year 1), Namath year 1, Dawson year 6 (first year starting), Unitas year 1, Staubach year 3 (first yea starting), Bob Griese year 1, Bradshaw year 3, Stabler year 4 (first year starting), Montana year 1, Aikman year 3, Young year 7 (2nd year starting), Farve year 2 (first year starting), Elway year 2, Warner year 2 (first year starting), Brady year 2 (first year starting), Ben year 1, Peyton year 1, Brees year 2 (first year starting), Rodgers year 4 (first year starting), Wilson year 1, Mahomes year 2 (first year starting). Also just to be clear when I say first time starting, I mean for a sustained period of time.
While in the past years were a bit more inconsistent in the more modern game the only QB to truly start slow and then pick it up year 3 was Aikman. As for other QBs who aren't or don't have a good chance of being HOFers they showed it early too. Eli by year 2 (first year full time starting), Johnson by year 3 (first year starting), Since the 80s and particular 90s most QBs who were going to be great showed that potential early. The only big outlier being Aikman.
So what is the point of all this? Move on from your QBs in a hurry. I see team year after year holding on till year 4 or even 5 in hopes a guy will turn it around or holding onto a good but not great QB who isn't likely to win anything in his career. QBs who show they don't have by year 2 should be quickly cut or traded for any reprieved value they may have. Ideally early in year 2. As for good QBs, holding on to them is often false hope and overlywhelming likely will keep you from winning for a longer period of time.
This is why I don't like the Patriots signing Newton. Even if he comes back to his prime days and plays that way for 5 he will only make them 'compete' and not win for those 5 years. If NFL teams want to win to maximize their chances they should making decisions quickly and move on after 2 years of starting. They should also trade any QB they aquire who is good but not great for draft picks to try again.
I understand BB not wanting to do this so late in his career, but it maximizes the chances of picking a great QB. You may think picking a great QB is a hopeless proposition that is merely luck based and incredibly difficult. It is difficult but not as hard as you may think. We can break it down math wise too. We will look at from the 80s on.
Last edited: