A pretty insane QB stat

[LinvilleGorge]

16 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

I actually think Cam Newton is directly to blame for the crazy short leash these QBs are given now.  He was so good so early in his career that he reset the standard for young QB play.  Before he showed up it wasn't uncommon for the learning curve to be a full two or three seasons.  The high draft pick guys that had short careers prior to him typically had injuries or off field issues.

Which highly drafted QBs have actually experienced having a short leash? Most of these guys get multiple years of starting to show what they have.

[frankw]

Well it's not exactly new information that you don't have to draft a QB in the top 5 to compete for a championship. But the poorly run organizations end up with the first three picks. Most of the QB's drafted there never stand a chance. And then you have teams like the Panthers led by the Tepper's that would rather make a big splash to serve their own egos and get talked about in the media for several weeks by trading all the way up than actually being intelligent and strategic and staying put. Worst outcome in that is if you miss you can try again without mortaging your future.

But there is another layer in all this. The league is changing again. Even a guy like Darnold with all his physical tools every box checked in that area did very little in the Super Bowl. Seattle had a stout roster all around. Same thing with the Eagles when they blew out the Chiefs.

Yet here we are stuck with the tiniest QB in the league.

[DeAngelo Beason]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Which highly drafted QBs have actually experienced having a short leash? Most of these guys get multiple years of starting to show what they have.

All QBs drafted in the first round from 2009 to 2016 were released from the team that drafted them.  I'm not going through the list for you.  There are two of them that we should all be extremely familiar with in Baker Mayfield and Sam Darnold, however. "Short leash" has a double meaning here.  One, not enough time, and/or two, unrealistic expectations of just how much they should be carrying the team. Baker had 4 years in Cleveland, for example, but three of those were very solid seasons.  For whatever reason, the fact that he wasn't a world beater meant he should be discarded.  

Edited 7 hours ago by DeAngelo Beason

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

All QBs drafted in the first round from 2009 to 2016 were released from the team that drafted them.  I'm not going through the list for you.  There are two of them that we should all be extremely familiar with in Baker Mayfield and Sam Darnold, however. "Short leash" has a double meaning here.  One, not enough time, and/or two, unrealistic expectations of just how much they should be carrying the team. Baker had 4 years in Cleveland, for example, but three of those were very solid seasons.  For whatever reason, the fact that he wasn't a world beater meant he should be discarded.  

I'm just saying almost everyone drafted in the top 5 of the draft is going to get multiple years as a starter before the team that drafted them cuts bait. Now whether or not you think they got a fair shake at it or not is a different conversation, but if you get multiple years starting I don't consider that a "short leash". Simply being a high pick almost always buys you a significant leash.

[jfra78]

Most of the super bowls in that time period were won by two QBs, or players drafted prior to 2000. Since when was winning the superbowl the only measure of success 

[csx]

 

Well Eli did it twice but I guess the trade technically invalidates that. The point remains.

I've been saying that for years. 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 hour ago, jfra78 said:

Most of the super bowls in that time period were won by two QBs, or players drafted prior to 2000. Since when was winning the superbowl the only measure of success 

10/26 is not a majority. It's not even 40%.

[fanpanther]

8 hours ago, Navy_football said:

Teams drafting a QB in the top 5 are usually just really bad personnel wise and/or not smart in the front office. Establish a strong front office and coaching staff that drafts well for multiple seasons. Then and only then do you go in for a QB. A good team is not drafting in the top 5, even if you have mediocre QB play. A good QB on a bad team won't win Super Bowls. An average QB on a really talented roster and FO can pull it off. 

it amazes me how bad nfl front offices are ar evaluating college qbs.  i have a better track record over the last few years as an armchair nfl exec lol.  i feel nfl teams tend to think they can turn a qb into what they want instead of just believing what their eyes see

[SmokinwithWilly]

35 minutes ago, fanpanther said:

it amazes me how bad nfl front offices are ar evaluating college qbs.  i have a better track record over the last few years as an armchair nfl exec lol.  i feel nfl teams tend to think they can turn a qb into what they want instead of just believing what their eyes see

I don't know that they're necessarily bad, it's just so hard to determine who is going to make the jump. Most of these guys face maybe 2 or 3 NFL draft caliber players a game, if any. Then all of a sudden they're facing the top 25-30% of guys that were even drafted, the ones that actually made a roster. 

The gap is huge between college and NFL defensive caliber players. There are no sure things anymore. We need to keep drafting guys that have the traits we want until we hit paydirt. Even with Brady, NE kept drafting QBs to develop. One injury can change a season. It's a good thing to be constantly looking for a potential starting QB. 

[toldozer]

All I know is you cannot pay Bryce 50 million a year. If he has a solid year next year I think the most prudent thing to do would be trade him and let someone else do it.

[Tbe]

Nothing magic here.

Bad orgs ruin good QB prospects. Good orgs can make mid QBs work.

As a whole, the NFL gives up on QBs far too soon.