What matters: a QB’s talent or their situation?

[Tbe]

Great analysis from last year on how important a good team is to a QBs development.
 

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/nfl/2021/8/30/22647741/nfl-quarterbacks-nature-nurture-trevor-lawrence-zach-wilson-trey-lance-justin-fields

 

Summary:

“good” teams hit on quarterbacks almost two out of three times (64 percent), while “bad” teams hit on quarterbacks just one out of three times (32 percent).

2018: Josh Allen went to the Bills, who had made the playoffs the previous season.

2018: Lamar Jackson went to a Ravens team that had just gone 9-7.

2017: Patrick Mahomes went to a Chiefs team that had won 12 games with Alex Smith.

2017: Deshaun Watson went to the Texans, who had won their division two years in a row.

2016: Dak Prescott took over a Cowboys team with perhaps the league’s best roster (and definitelythe league’s best offensive line).

2012: Russell Wilson joined the Seahawks, who had one of the greatest defenses of all time.

2012: Andrew Luck landed on a Colts team that was awful in 2011 but made the playoffs with Manning in 2010.

The last quarterback who was the primary force in turning around a bad situation early in their career was Cam Newton, who did so with the Panthers in 2011. Aside from him, just about every quarterback who’s been widely considered a “good” pick from the past 10 years went to a team that was building on some kind of preexisting success.

There have been more than 50 quarterbacks drafted in the top 10 in the past 30 years. Only three have led their first teams to a Super Bowl win: Patrick Mahomes, and Peyton and Eli Manning. 

[kungfoodude]

IMO, 70% player, 30% team.

[SCO96]

The situation definitely has the biggest impact on a QB's success. There are a lot of examples of good/great QBs' who didn't win titles. I won't list them all now, but one example is the father of two of the guys mentioned above: Archie Manning. I've heard players like Jack Lambert, Jack Ham, Roger Staubach, etc say that Archie was very underrated QB who would have regularly competed for championships had he had stronger supporting casts. His New Orleans teams were terrible. I actually heard Jerry Glanville say (prarphrasing) "Peyton and Eli wouldn't have survived in the NFL. They'd be dead" had the played on those woeful Saints teams in the 1970's. Look at some of his footage from back in the day. He seemed to running for his life on half of the snaps. Neither Peyton, nor Eli, had the mobility of their dad and would have been beat to death playing under the rules in the 1970's

There are just as many examples of average to good QB's who will never make the Hall of Fame but won SB's because they were on very strong teams: Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Jim McMahon, Doug Williams.

Trevor Lawrence came out of Clemson touted as the next Elway, Manning, or Luck. You couldn't tell it by the way he played last season. Does that mean he stinks as a QB and was overrated? Of course not. Imagine if he'd ended up in New England instead of Jacksonville for his rookie season. I'm hoping Peterson can turn things around for him. But, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he could suffer like Archie Manning did if the front office fails to put the proper pieces around him or the coaching effort is subpar.

Edited March 24, 2022 by SCO96

[mrcompletely11]

18 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

IMO, 70% player, 30% team.

I'd flip that

[Jon Snow]

Both. Talent can only get a qb so far in this league. It takes a well built and coached team to maximize that talent.  

[LinvilleGorge]

It's both. If you have a great QB in a bad situation you end up with the Rivers era Chargers or Stafford era Lions. But there's a reason why QB busts rarely bounce back elsewhere. I don't think they were "ruined" I just don't think they were ever up to the task to begin with. 

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I'd flip that

I think the fans very much overestimate how much a team develops a player versus a player developing themselves. 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's both. If you have a great QB in a bad situation you end up with the Rivers era Chargers or Stafford era Lions. But there's a reason why QB busts rarely bounce back elsewhere. I don't think they were "ruined" I just don't think they were ever up to the task to begin with. 

 

It is amazing how people choose to ignore player faults when players fail.

That's how so many talked themselves into Sam Darnold when the truth was so blatantly obvious. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by kungfoodude

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I think the fans very much overestimate how much a team develops a player versus a player developing themselves. 

Yep.  Guys like Mariota had no chance.  He had like 5 different OC's in 5 years.  No way you can develop with that type of turnover.   I also think going to a bad team where you are getting your brains bashed in weekly then it has to have a permanent effect on you as well.  Once you develop bad habits its tough to turn that around thinking you are going to be killed on every passing down

[SCO96]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I'd flip that

Agreed. I don't think Tom Brady would be recognized as the "GOAT" had he been drafted by either of the following teams when he entered the NFL: Bengals, Lions, Cardinals, Bears, etc. He may have improved their situation because of his talent, but the history of the NFL would not be significantly different.

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Yep.  Guys like Mariota had no chance.  He had like 5 different OC's in 5 years.  No way you can develop with that type of turnover.   I also think going to a bad team where you are getting your brains bashed in weekly then it has to have a permanent effect on you as well.  Once you develop bad habits its tough to turn that around thinking you are going to be killed on every passing down

Read my post again. Mariota was unlikely to ever be successful anywhere because he isn't a player that strives to succeed. He doesn't have what it takes.

Hence why I say 70% player and 30% team. If you want to be great and put in the work to be great, your team isn't going to matter. Them sucking isn't going to matter. You will do what it takes to make yourself great on your own time. Training, working out, nutrition, film study, personal trainers, working with teammates on your own time, etc. 

That is what great players do. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by kungfoodude

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

Agreed. I don't think Tom Brady would be recognized as the "GOAT" had he been drafted by either of the following teams when he entered the NFL: Bengals, Lions, Cardinals, Bears, etc. He may have improved their situation because of his talent, but the history of the NFL would not be significantly different.

Nothing Bill Belichick did made Tom Brady who he is. That was all Tom Brady.

That's why he kept winning and Bill has fallen off.

[Michael G]

Its easier to "see ghosts" when your OL is constantly dying around you. You develop bad habits and lose confidence for sure.

[ThPantherFan]

35 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

IMO, 70% player, 30% team.

If you don't have a line no quarterback is going to light it up.  There's good ones for sure as Cam was.  Front 5 of the offensive line is crucial.  My humble opinion.