Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Does Manning example increase QB stocks in drafts. « previous next »
Page: 1 2

bucsbum

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2447
Offline
« : February 06, 2007, 12:36:38 PM »

Looking back at the past few super bowls with Bucs being the exception.
It appears that teams who have drafted their QB are getting to the Super Bowl like Manning, Grosman, Brady, That guy from Philly when he does not have to play against Rohnde Barber.

Does drafting a QB go up in importance seeing the Manning example.

RedAlert

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4657
Offline
« #1 : February 06, 2007, 12:48:28 PM »

Methinks the Bears made it in spite of Grossman, not because...




Guest
« #2 : February 06, 2007, 12:54:45 PM »

It doesnt take a QB 5 years anymore. These QBs are advanced by the time they reach the pros. Phillip Rivers, Vince YOung, Matt Leinart, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Jay Cutler, Drew Brees, Alex Smith. Theyve all had growing pains, but these guys have been very capable starters much earlier than it would take in the past

I dont think the QB position takes any longer than most other positionos to succeed in ealry in.

acacius

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4909
Online
« #3 : February 06, 2007, 12:55:04 PM »

Yeah, I'd put Grossman as the exception rather than Johnson.  Johnson was actually one of the better quarterbacks in the league the year we won the Superbowl.

And I don't think Manning really changes anything, per se.  I think most teams know that teams that succeed with poor quarterback player are very much the exception rather than the rule.

RedAlert

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4657
Offline
« #4 : February 06, 2007, 12:57:24 PM »

A solid OL can make a QB look alot better. Except maybe Vince Young, he's a freak already.

tampabayfan

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1925
Offline
« #5 : February 06, 2007, 01:04:42 PM »

Yeah, I'd put Grossman as the exception rather than Johnson.  Johnson was actually one of the better quarterbacks in the league the year we won the Superbowl.

And I don't think Manning really changes anything, per se.  I think most teams know that teams that succeed with poor quarterback player are very much the exception rather than the rule.
I think the point is we didnt draft Johnson, we picked him up in free agency.  New England drafted Brady, Colts drafted Manning, Steelers drafted Rothlisberger and Chicago drafted Grossman.  I think qbs like Manning and Brady only come along so often.  The idea is to be in the right position when he comes along.  now that doesnt mean suck until a great comes up in the draft, but there are routes to take to get a very good qb.  First off, getting a qb like Brady that far down the list--somebody was doing their homework. Gradkowski aint it.  2ndly, there are still a lot of bad qbs that fall through the cracks and teams end up paying heavy costs to find out the guy sucks. LEAF!!!

acacius

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4909
Online
« #6 : February 06, 2007, 01:10:03 PM »

I think the point is we didnt draft Johnson, we picked him up in free agency.

I gotcha, and you're right.  I misread the original post.  Thanks for the correction.

BP1

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1231
Offline
« #7 : February 07, 2007, 09:57:03 AM »

It doesnt take a QB 5 years anymore. These QBs are advanced by the time they reach the pros. Phillip Rivers, Vince YOung, Matt Leinart, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Jay Cutler, Drew Brees, Alex Smith. Theyve all had growing pains, but these guys have been very capable starters much earlier than it would take in the past

I dont think the QB position takes any longer than most other positionos to succeed in ealry in.

Didn't Rich Gannon say it takes like 4-5 years for a QB to feel confident in Gruden's system? That is coming from a smart QB with many years in the NFL as a starter.


OpTiOnMaStA

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
« #8 : February 07, 2007, 11:20:05 AM »

Then Gruden needs to change his system. He doesn't have 4-5 years left. There are ways to win without taking 4-5 years and I think he knows that. This is a common problem that people have with the west coast offense, particularly the most complicated versions. They said the same thing about Ty Willingham at Notre Dame. They said it would take 3 years for a QB to feel comfortable with the offense. That means you only have one winning season every 4 years due to graduation. Go figure, he didn't last there.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37082
Offline
« #9 : February 07, 2007, 11:23:02 AM »

Quote
There are ways to win without taking 4-5 years and I think he knows that

I think he is starting to realize that.

Quote
Then Gruden needs to change his system

I hope so.  Less shifts and throwing in the shotgun is a step in the right direction (although plays from the shotgun could be just as complex).




stereochemistry

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1911
Offline
« #10 : February 07, 2007, 12:01:17 PM »

It doesnt take a QB 5 years anymore. These QBs are advanced by the time they reach the pros. Phillip Rivers, Vince YOung, Matt Leinart, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Jay Cutler, Drew Brees, Alex Smith. Theyve all had growing pains, but these guys have been very capable starters much earlier than it would take in the past

I dont think the QB position takes any longer than most other positionos to succeed in ealry in.

I'm all for the arguement to take a QB in the draft to build around, but I wouldn't include some of those names as examples of very capable starters at a young age: Certainly not Eli, but the Giants are stuck with him either way because of how much they gave up to get him; Drew Brees didn't "get it" until his 4th year, Jay Cutler could be the argument for "The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't" going 2-3 in the games he started when one more win would have gotten the Broncos to the playoffs, Alex Smith has merely gone from horrible (his rookie year was even worse than Gradkowski's: 875yrds, 1TD, 11INTs) to below average, and believe it or not, the jury might still be out on Big Ben (who had a worse super bowl performance than Rex Grossman, but no one cares when your team wins) unless he recovers fully from the injuries this season.

Booker Reese

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8061
Offline
« #11 : February 07, 2007, 12:37:33 PM »

Great points StereoChemistry.

I don't agree with the premise that Gruden's offense is somehow unique in the NFL in terms of players being able to run it effectively. I've heard variations on the Gannon comments for a bunch of offensive coaches in this league (Al Saunders and Reid come immediately to mind), and I think they are misconstrued. Gannon has talked about mastering the offense taking several years, but it's worth noting that Gannon improved immediately under Gruden (and they only had 3 years together).

Here are his numbers with Gruden (and Callahan) - the yards per attempt were the same almost every year, but in 2002 he threw a lot more passes:

'99: 59% complete, 3,8000 yards, 24 tds, 14 picks
'00: 60% complete, 3,400 yards, 28 tds, 11 picks
'01: 66% complete, 3,800 yards, 27 tds, 9 picks
'02: 68% complete, 4,600 yards, 26 tds, 10 picks

As you can see, while he clearly got more comfortable in the O as time went on (especially accuracy), it's not like he stunk the joint out early on. It's worth noting that Gannon wasn't a particularly accurate passer prior to getting together with Gruden. His best year in terms of accuracy (I used a minimum of 100 attempts) was 1994 at Minnesota, when he was a hair under 60%.

I think Gannon is simply stating a pretty obvious point - Gruden's system is complex and it takes a bit to master. That makes it tough on rookies of course (but where is the system that isn't tough on rookies?), but it doesn't mean that a QB should stink for 4-5 years.

I seem to recall that the Bull managed to pick it up quickly enough to win a Super Bowl in just 1 year, with I believe only limited previous experience with the WCO (Minnesota under Denny Green?). Let's not read more into the point than is there.

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
« #12 : February 07, 2007, 12:46:56 PM »

Given the design of this O, I think there's a good reason why vets looked better at it.  It really comes down to reading a D.  While the playcalling in general is good, the real strength is in the flexibility.  If you can read a defense at all you can run the O, and it'll function fine.  As you get more comfortable in the system, you should be able to leverage it more, and it starts to look real good.  Greise's a good example of this.  He wasn't spectacular himself, but he did run the right plays. 

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46182
Offline
« #13 : February 07, 2007, 12:52:09 PM »

Caradoc, I don't think that it is the design of just this offense.  Every NFL offense is complicated and vets look better than rookies.  And Stereo and Booker are all over it.  The O takes a few years to master, but the qb doesn't suck while he learns it.  The issue for the bucs is better talent at qb, and perhaps staying healthy in Simms case.  Heck, even Rattay looked pretty good in the bears game, and there are not lines forming looking for his services.   

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

tampabayfan

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1925
Offline
« #14 : February 07, 2007, 01:30:05 PM »

Great points StereoChemistry.

I don't agree with the premise that Gruden's offense is somehow unique in the NFL in terms of players being able to run it effectively. I've heard variations on the Gannon comments for a bunch of offensive coaches in this league (Al Saunders and Reid come immediately to mind), and I think they are misconstrued. Gannon has talked about mastering the offense taking several years, but it's worth noting that Gannon improved immediately under Gruden (and they only had 3 years together).

Here are his numbers with Gruden (and Callahan) - the yards per attempt were the same almost every year, but in 2002 he threw a lot more passes:

'99: 59% complete, 3,8000 yards, 24 tds, 14 picks
'00: 60% complete, 3,400 yards, 28 tds, 11 picks
'01: 66% complete, 3,800 yards, 27 tds, 9 picks
'02: 68% complete, 4,600 yards, 26 tds, 10 picks

As you can see, while he clearly got more comfortable in the O as time went on (especially accuracy), it's not like he stunk the joint out early on. It's worth noting that Gannon wasn't a particularly accurate passer prior to getting together with Gruden. His best year in terms of accuracy (I used a minimum of 100 attempts) was 1994 at Minnesota, when he was a hair under 60%.

I think Gannon is simply stating a pretty obvious point - Gruden's system is complex and it takes a bit to master. That makes it tough on rookies of course (but where is the system that isn't tough on rookies?), but it doesn't mean that a QB should stink for 4-5 years.

I seem to recall that the Bull managed to pick it up quickly enough to win a Super Bowl in just 1 year, with I believe only limited previous experience with the WCO (Minnesota under Denny Green?). Let's not read more into the point than is there.
I dont think its was so much that Brad mastered the offense in one year.  As I recall the offense really struggled the first half of the season learning the new offense.  We were lucky enough to have an outstanding D to carry the load.  It wasnt til late in the season that the office finally clicked and put it all together.  The games Brad was out though, Rob and King were horrible.  We came out of that 2-1 including a huge win in Chicago. In 2004, Brad started off 0-4 before being benched. I would think that if he truely mastered the offense that by then, the offense should have been peaking.
  Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Does Manning example increase QB stocks in drafts. « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools