Do quarterbacks have NO control over their own success?

[GaTechRavens]

It's time for a little rant that's kind of similar to one I had on the LWAIQB a while back, but with the general attitude towards QBs everywhere I'm really curious as to what people think.

I talked before about how imperfect young QBs never get blamed by their fans for anything - it's always someone else's fault. But this argument is used in a lot of other ways as well.

First, I'm seeing supporting casts get brought up way too much in arguments over successful quarterbacks. This doesn't seem like such a problem, but people completely overlook the chicken/egg question when looking at QBs and their weapons.

When people are asked which teams have the best sets of receivers/weapons, you're usually going to hear a lot of Packers/Saints/Patriots types of answers. This is an obvious problem - look at the QBs they have and pretend it's not a coincidence. But when people use this to actually discredit seasoned QB, that's when it becomes a problem. Brady's and Brees' receivers have resumes that basically amount to nothing under different QBs, yet are considered crucial to their success (despite Brady, at the very least, dominating regardless of who he was throwing to). With Rodgers, only Greg Jennings had previous success (Driver did as well, but is no longer playing at a high level.

All of the great QBs have still been great even when their o-lines have had weak seasons in pass protection or their receivers haven't been up to snuff. Yet we're supposed to believe that these things are necessary in order for them to have success. People will frequently say that even the best QBs will be hopeless behind poor offensive lines (despite Peyton and Rodgers dominating even with shoddy o-lines this year, and Big Ben going strong every single year). They'll also say that poor o-lines are a surefire bet to get a QB hurt (ask Texans fans why the Matts got season ending injuries with an elite o-line, yet David Carr played four full seasons out of five). The truth is, the great ones stayed great regardless of what changed. There wasn't much of an ebb and flow depending on the circumstances they faced, and if there was it wasn't drastic and he was still elite when everyone else struggled.

(Quick side note: the most hilarious argument relating to this is how Tom Brady is somehow a product of his system. People actually say that Bill Belichick, who has never been an offensive coach in his life, pretty much made Tom Brady what he is today. If that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is. And if people were quick to point out Brady being a product of his defense from 01-06 or his offense from 07-09, those myths have been shattered by the fact that he has carried the all around bleh teams in 2010 and 2011 as far as he has.)

As for QBs who are a product of the system? Those patterns are never sustainable. The fact of the matters is that, at least in recent times, there has never been a successful long term game manager who didn't later become successful in a larger role. People talk about it all the time - if you build the right team around him, it's perfectly okay to build around an average QB who can manage the game and avoid turnovers. But if you're looking for a team that has built that kind of successful formula, you're never going to find it. The "avoiding turnovers" thing is pretty much impossible regardless of how conservative you are (the last QB to start 12+ games and throw fewer than 10 interceptions in two consecutive seasons is Mark Brunell - from the 1990s - and he would have hit the 10 mark if he had stayed healthy). In reality, the only truly successful "game managers" were quarterbacks who were great in their own right. Quite simply, if they've been doing it for a long time, they're legit beyond any shadow of doubt.

But the most aggravating part of this is how people act like a quarterback prospect's development is completely dependent on everyone else. If I hear one more "what if Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers switched places" hypothetical, I think I'm going to explode. People will call Rodgers the best quarterback in the league, then say he would have been a bust in San Francisco. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, Aaron Rodgers is actually a good quarterback? That he would have succeeded anywhere because he's good enough to do so? We've seen plenty of young QBs enter rotten situations and succeed, and plenty have failed in good ones. I'm not saying the environment doesn't initially benefit or hurt a QB's development, but to act like he is completely reliant on the rest of the team is just over the top.

It's time to stop overanalyzing. If a QB's numbers are both prolific and efficient, it's because he's really good. If he wins a lot of games and has playoff success, that's probably on him as well. If he's not doing any of those things, he's not that good and almost certainly never will be. Any excuses or detractions need to stop, because the truth of the matter is that those things don't make nearly as much of a difference as these arguments would lead you to believe.
_________________

[JammerHammer21]

About Smith and Rodgers....

If Rodgers had gone to SF, he probably would have started right away. And instead of developing for 2 years and sitting on the bench, he would have been thrown to the fire. Some people thought that Rodgers was immature and may not have taken well to starting right away. Perhaps if he wasn't given time to develop and grow up and what not, he may not have been the QB. And who knows about Smith considering he doesn't look that good in general as a QB, however, in his first season with Harbaugh, a good QB guy, he showed improvement. So who knows what would happen if they switched?

Its not impossible to think Rodgers would have been worse or that Smith would be better or worse because of the time on the bench or lack there of.
_________________

[x0x]

Having seen Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, John Elway, Steve Young, Warren Moon, Brett Favre, Randall Cunningham and this generation's QBs, I feel the way it works is so:

On pure skill, no Quarterback can elevate his offense above Top 10 status, and assuming his defense is average, the ceiling is about ten wins and an unlikely road to a Super Bowl, more likely to lose in the Divisional Round.

Tremendous skill and leadership, which also comes along with strong mentality can have a QB lead his offense to standout but will never lead them to a Championship barring unforeseeable variation based off luck.

WRs and RBs will help elevate a QB's offense automatically, so a great QB can lead a Top tier offense with good receivers and a strong run game, especially with a RB that can catch.

Defense, because defense is the other half of the game ( or the other third depending on how you count special teams ) and because defense can stop an offense AND score, while an offense can only score, a good defense will automatically lower the responsibilities of a QB and allow him more room for error.


Ultimately, the playoffs are often a crapshoot, teams that are well built and have BYEs often only need two good performances in a row to win the prize because most Divisional matchups are lopsided except in some recent seasons ( even so we had Pats/Broncos and Ravens/Texans ). I believe that a QB ALWAYS has control for some success but the margins are small. If I rally had to peg it, I'd make a chart like so:

QB with no offensive or defensive aid
0-6 wins

QB with good offense help but no defense
2-8 wins

QB with great offense but no defense
6-10 wins

QB with great offense and mediocre defense
8-14 wins


I feel a QB with a strong negative on either offense or defense CANNOT win a Championship, ever.

If we look at the weakest teams to get to a Super Bowl, we're probably looking at the 1994 San Diego Chargers. The 82 Phins get brought up but I can speak more frankly about the 93 Chargers.

The 1994 San Diego Chargers had a mediocre defense and a good offense. Their QB was in my opinion good at best and average at worst. In the playoffs they got bum lucky twice, although the Divisional was literally the defense against one man, Dan Marino they managed to storm a comeback against a crap defense.

Although statistically the 2007 Giants would be argued as the weakest Super Bowl winner, let alone participant but the stats are slightly skewed in the general principle. It was a staunch running team and having a strong run game often supersedes a strong passing game because a strong run game will equate to the defense being more vulnerable with the pass. The defense meanwhile was above average in yards but were downsized statistically due to allowing more scores.

In the playoffs the Giants got a good matchup with the Bucs and Cowboys. In the cold against Green Bay they got some breaks and were able to better utilize their run game. Against the Patriots they got a free hand due to pushing them and their playbook in Week 17.



So there you have my long opinion.
_________________
Legends Never Die. They Breathe Through The New Generation.
100 Greatest Quarterbacks of All Time

[Uncle Buck]

Quarterbacks have a great deal of control over the success their own game AND that of their supporting cast. The great ones like Brady and Manning are able to "coach" their receivers in what they want them to do on the field. I saw this occur with Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin when Brett Favre came to Minnesota in 2009. Although it certainly didn't hurt them to have a Hall of Famer passing them the ball, I think their level of play increased dramatically as a result of practicing with Favre.

Teams with great receiving corps often have a great quarterback leading their offense. The Patriots always seem to be good, no matter who they plug into their receiver positions. The Colts had great receivers when Peyton Manning was there. The Packers have a great receiver corps as well, and I have no doubt that, in addition to good coaching by Mike McCarthy and his staff, they benefitted greatly from the tutelage of Lord Favre, and now by Aaron Rodgers.

The point is, it's not just the way the quarterback plays on the field. It's his leadership off the field and in practice that can definitely play a role in the performance of his receivers.
_________________


Bring Tim Tebow to Minnesota!!!

_

[iknowcool]

[mosteelers]

Referring to system quarterbacks, there are systems which are more friendly. Whether the system helps them and the coaching within the system.

The 49ers had a great system and it was taught better than anybody in the NFL. First look at how many of their guys later became head coaches. Second, you could plug in a lot of quarterbacks and they would succeed. Third, the quarterback had to manage the system and run it.

Joe Montana was great in the system. In my opinion, Joe Montana was the best at running the system but will never be, in my mind, the best quarterback. Steve Young was a failure in Tampa, goes to SF and is a success. Steve Bono when plugged in for injury wasn't bad. The system allowed them to be good to great. This is not the quarterback's fault. They are still good to great players but it does help with the situation they are put in.

Tom Brady I feel is another example. He is a guy who has mastered the system. Cassel even had a good year in the system to get a job somewhere else.

There are plenty of examples of this: Brees was good, moved and became great; Gannon was average for most of his career, goes to Raiders and is great for a while.

It is not a slam on some quarterbacks like Montana, Brady, or Brees. They are great quarterbacks because they mastered the system. Part of being a great quarterback is controlling the offense within the system. Guys would do not grasp this idea don't succeed.

It could be said for Smith of San Fransisco that he had like 7 coordinators in 7 years that he was not allowed to master any one system so his progress got stumped. Who knows? Some guys get drafted into great situations and then thrive.

This is another reason why stats are so missleading. Systems are different. Some ask to run more, some want more down field throwing, some want more check downs.
_________________

Sig courtesy of miafins23 Thanks

[GaTechRavens]

[Malik]

Sorry, disagree with development angle. Outside of the few players who are pretty much always going to be naturally great or naturally terrible in any situation where they end up matters. In every single profession/trade a person takes up in life their work/learning environment significantly affects how well they learn what they do.

I'm positive Jason Campbell would have never been some 1st ballot Hall of Fame QB regardless of any situations. To deny that someone like him would not have benefited from continuity within the team is absurd. Jason Campbell hasn't had a single season of his career when he was in the same offensive scheme and constantly had a revolving door of coaches and offensive players. It's still on him to master the fundamentals of being a QB in the NFL, but if you never get a chance to develop some trust and report with your coaches and receivers the glass ceiling is going to be extremely close.

[GaTechRavens]

[GaTechRavens]

[mosteelers]

[GaTechRavens]

[JaguarCrazy2832]

They have to have some part in their success. If you dont do any sort of work once you sign your contract then of course you are going to suck
_________________

[mosteelers]

[x0x]

I'm curious mosteelers, how would you rate Favre then?

Moved to the Jets and in less than a month of training had a great season ( till the last 5 games ).

Moved to Minnesota and had an amazing season after a month of training.
_________________
Legends Never Die. They Breathe Through The New Generation.
100 Greatest Quarterbacks of All Time