Poor QB play is rampant in the NFL. Who else has a theory as to why?

[Freelance]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Ok i'm gonna bite on this Yeah there were some bad QBs on those teams but if you look at '83 to '99 there were some fine QBs that started for those teams. McMahon, Krieg, Tommy Kramer, Cunningham, the two headed monster of Grogan and Eason, Kenny O'Brien, Majkowski (who could've had a better career if he wasn't so injury prone) and DeBerg. I still maintain the drop off from elite to average and finally to horrible wasn't as steep as it is today.

I agree there has been a bad run of QBs lately. Teams got obsessed with the running QB thing, and that hasn't worked out anywhere. Alex Smith, Vince Young, Matt Leinart (so far), Tarvaris Jackson, Rex Grossman......

But there's still quality QBs out there: Brady, Manning, Manning (Eli), Ryan, Rivers, Brees, Romo, Cutler, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Pennington, Cassel, Delhomme, Hasselback, Rodgers, Collins, Garrard, Schaub, Palmer......there are plenty of good or at least promising starting quarterbacks out there.

[deaduck]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dice

I know I get blasted by Bears fans for this BUT one of the big reasons the 1985 Bears defense dominated was due to the poor QB play during that year.

You know...just maybe...you could look at the other way.

QB play in '85 was poor due to the combined D's of the Bears, the Giants, the 49ers, the Jets, the Browns, the Patriots and the Rams all having good solid defenses that year.

And add in the rule change of Pass interference being only called when the pass was catchable.

So... maybe your taking too much credit away from defenses.

[Speedy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rocky

I think there is a massive overreaction to a QB having a bad year or a QB who gets the job done but doesn't throw for a 101.2 QB rating. No more patience at that position anymore.

They get paid $5-10M/year so the scrutiny is warranted.

[The C]

Quote: Originally Posted by WakeUnc2321

They get paid $5-10M/year so the scrutiny is warranted.

Depends on their salary relative to the other NFL qbs. It is a lot more complicated then you make it out to be

[CW McGraw]

Is poor QB play really rampant?

Pats-good
Bills-bad
Jets-bad
Fins-good
Steelers-good
Ravens-good
Bengals-good
Browns-bad
Titans-bad
Colts-good
Jags-good
Texans-good
Chiefs-bad
Broncos-bad
Raiders-bad
Chargers-good
Cowboys-good
Giants-good
Eagles-good
Redskins-bad
Lions-bad
Packers-good
Vikings-bad
Bears-good
Falcons-good
Panthers-good
Bucs-bad
Saints-good
Seahawks-good
Cards-good
Niners-bad
Rams-bad

19/32 is pretty OK. The Skins, Rams, and Chiefs are pretty debatable. Granted, those 19 aren't all necessarily elite, but if 19 teams are pretty OK at QB, is that bad? Hell, there have to be losers among the group.

[shotgun styles]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Ok i'm gonna bite on this Yeah there were some bad QBs on those teams but if you look at '83 to '99 there were some fine QBs that started for those teams. McMahon, Krieg, Tommy Kramer, Cunningham, the two headed monster of Grogan and Eason, Kenny O'Brien, Majkowski (who could've had a better career if he wasn't so injury prone) and DeBerg. I still maintain the drop off from elite to average and finally to horrible wasn't as steep as it is today.

If you go still further back, into the 1970's before the rules changes, the statistical difference between top 10 passers and bottom 10 passers was not as steep as it is today.

That's because having someone like Randy Moss did not completely change the landscape on which each game is played. You could smack a fast guy like him around, negating much of his speed. Now, you're required to simply follow Randy around the field and hope to tackle him AFTER he catches the ball.

[shotgun styles]

Quote: Originally Posted by CW McGraw

Is poor QB play really rampant? 19/32 is pretty OK. The Skins, Rams, and Chiefs are pretty debatable. Granted, those 19 aren't all necessarily elite, but if 19 teams are pretty OK at QB, is that bad? Hell, there have to be losers among the group.

I'm going to dispute your list.


Pats= good- Good system QB. Lots of help around him.
Bills= new guy- Young guy learning the system.
Jets= new guy- Rookie
Fins=replaceable- Questionable track record. Injury prone. Replaceable.
Steelers= good- Solid starter with good track record of protecting the ball.
Ravens= new guy- Limited track record.
Bengals= replaceable- Injury prone, questionable track record; has only had 1 good season.
Browns= bad-Two guys that could both be Pro-Bowl players or busts
Titans= replaceable- A twitchy young guy and an inconsistent old guy.
Colts= good- Probably the best system QB in the league, but the team and coaching around him just fell apart.
Jags= replaceable- Questionable track record, like Cincy their guy has only had one good season.
Texans= replaceable- Injury prone and has not shown he can be consistently healthy and good. Has not done anything of note yet.
Chiefs= new guy- Limited track record. System guy with limited help around him. Unless Bowe becomes Superman overnight, he will struggle.
Broncos= bad- Idiotic coaching staff. Limited ability/inconsistent play for previous team.
Raiders= bad- Young guy who must learn to work withing the gameplan. Freelances too much and not accurate.
Chargers= second tier- Solid franchise starter with strong supporting cast and great running game.
Cowboys= replaceable- Fumble prone, lacks situational awareness, cannot handle big-game pressure. Will always crack.
Giants= second tier- System guy like his brother, but plays in a less aggressive scheme. Tremendous supporting cast.
Eagles= good- Freelancer with injury issues. Finally has help, but from young guys who are mistake prone.
Redskins= replaceable- Idiotic head coach who is married to his system. Nice arm and size, son of a coach. Not very accurate, possibly has too much windup in his delivery to be an effective West Coast QB. Does not make big mistakes, though. Is the exact opposite of Romo in that regard. Plays too careful, needs to take more risks.
Lions= bad- Rookie. Alternative has talent and a track record, but the coaching staff has already deemed him a stopgap.
Packers= new guy- Solid starter, limited track record. Could be Marino, could be Anderson. We just don't know yet.
Vikings= bad- A mess.
Bears= replaceable- Limited track record, questionable attitude. Feast or famine playing style will not go over well with his high profile defense.
Falcons= new guy- Limited track record. Time will tell.
Panthers= replaceable- Inconsistent and injury prone.
Bucs= bad- Rookie and several journeymen. Position is in transition.
Saints= good- Very good system QB. In spite of his lack of size, talent, or arm he is very productive. Coaching staff believes in him and lets him throw the ball alot.
Seahawks= second tier- Inconsistent track record, injuries. Only had one good year, but lost the SB. Solid starter.
Cards= good- One of the best system QBs in recent history when he has a good supporting cast. Very accurate, great release.
Niners= bad- A mess. Team will likely revamp this position next offseason to get the new coach the player he actually wants at this position.
Rams= bad- Rumor has it they are interested in Vick. Never a good sign.


By my count:

6 good ones.

3 second tier (I downgraded Cincy)

9 replaceables

6 new guys (1 year of solid production or less)

8 guys that outright suck.

Basically that comes down to 9 good players, 15 guys that are mediocre, and 8 bums. Not very impressive.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgun styles

(condensed quoted post by omitting list...) By my count: 6 good ones. 3 second tier (I downgraded Cincy) 9 replaceables 6 new guys (1 year of solid production or less) 8 guys that outright suck. Basically that comes down to 9 good players, 15 guys that are mediocre, and 8 bums. Not very impressive.

A quick comment about your list (without getting caught up in your list): you're definition of "replaceable" is very broad.

While the teams you have listed with these so-called replaceable quarterbacks may indeed be able to find a better quarterback somewhere in the NFL, that doesn't necessarily mean that that team's particular quarterback is a major liability to the success of the team, much less a liability at all. Along the same lines, the quarterbacks of some of those teams you have as being "replaceable" are by no means "mediocre".

More or less, I personally feel like you're painting with way too broad of a brush here. That's all.