Could Anthony Calvillo have succeeded in the NFL?

[Bellsprout]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Does every team HAVE to have a franchise QB? Let's throw away the '80s because that seemed like an anomalous decade mainly due to the '83 draft. I bet if we focused on the '70s, '80s, and 2000s we'd find that about half the league or more didn't have "franchise" type QBs but guys who were at the very least average to good. Perhaps i'll undertake such a task but I don't feel like it at this late hour.

In my lifetime, since 1989, 2 teams have won a Super Bowl without one. Depending on if you consider Kurt Warner a franchise quarterback.

The 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Buccaneers. Both, I believe, had defenses that were so historically good that they were able to make up for it.

So, if you want to win a Super Bowl (which is every team's ultimate goal), yes.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dayman

In my lifetime, since 1989, 2 teams have won a Super Bowl without one. Depending on if you consider Kurt Warner a franchise quarterback. The 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Buccaneers. Both, I believe, had defenses that were so historically good that they were able to make up for it. So, if you want to win a Super Bowl (which is every team's ultimate goal), yes.

Point taken, but I think that's an unrealistic goal. That's why until the very recent past SB or playoff contending teams relied almost as heavily on the running game and defense as they did on QB play.

It's like the old thing with baseball, everyone WANTS solid starting pitching but it's such a limited resource that you're never going to get it in a realistic world.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Point taken, but I think that's an unrealistic goal. That's why until the very recent past SB or playoff contending teams relied almost as heavily on the running game and defense as they did on QB play. It's like the old thing with baseball, everyone WANTS solid starting pitching but it's such a limited resource that you're never going to get it in a realistic world.

How is it an unrealistic goal?

The Broncos signed Manning for one reason. I don't see how you could argue against that?

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

How is it an unrealistic goal? The Broncos signed Manning for one reason. I don't see how you could argue against that?

It's not an unrealistic goal to seek out a franchise QB but unreasonable to think that all 32 teams are going to have one. It's a precious commodity, that's my point.

I think we're kinda circling around though....Needless to say bringing this back on topic in a way, at least some players from the CFL have made it in the NFL at different positions like Cameron Wake and Brandon Browner.

[slickdtc]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dayman

In my lifetime, since 1989, 2 teams have won a Super Bowl without one. Depending on if you consider Kurt Warner a franchise quarterback. The 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Buccaneers. Both, I believe, had defenses that were so historically good that they were able to make up for it. So, if you want to win a Super Bowl (which is every team's ultimate goal), yes.

What about other measurements of success? How many teams got to the Super Bowl (but lost) without one? Conference championship games?

First one to pop in was Rex Grossman, but the Bears defense works with the great defense theory.

Perhaps Rich Gannon of the Raiders, but he was a top QB just wasn't young anymore.

[Clemsonpanther]

Quote: Originally Posted by shotgun styles

At another position, maybe. But QB is rapidly becoming the easiest position in sports. High school QBs like Cassell come out of nowhere to set records now. With the super-easy passing rules there are alot of guys who could do it at a high level. Remember, prior to the 1978 rules changes only one QB had ever thrown for more than 4000 yards in a season, Joe Namath. In the last three years a full 1/3 of the NFL has routinely thrown for four grand with multiple 5000 yard passers. There are literally way more guys that can do the job, and do it well, than there are teams for them to play on. The problem is the coaching and scouting are garbage and everyone keeps trying to invent the RoboQB who can run a 4.4 forty dash and throw like Marino. If they gave up on that crap and stuck to grooming pantywaists like Brady and Manning (who specialize in accuracy and anticipation) the whole league would look like Arena football.

The 78 rule changes were needed. Offenses were averaging iirc something like 17 ppg per team. The pass blocking was improved with the hands rule and the 5 yard no contact rule is good. I don't like how pass happy the nfl is now days, I prefer a mix, including the option, but to go back to pre 1978 rules would be insane.

[shotgun styles]

Quote: Originally Posted by kingkilla56

Im not following this line of thinking at all. Why are so many teams still looking for franchise qbs then?

If you read the rest of that paragraph I said it has to do with poor coaching and scouting.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dayman

Why are there so many ****ty to average quarterbacks if this is so easy? I count about 14 teams who don't have a slam dunk franchise quarterback. Some might need more time to make a complete assessment (Locker, Ponder, Dalton [We might argue about this. I think he's pretty average. Admittedly I don't watch a ton of Bengals, but I'm just going off what I've seen], etc), but that's about the amount of teams I saw who can't be 100% sure about the future at that position.

Define "slam dunk". Eli was on the verge of being called a bust when he went in there and beat the Pats to win his first SB. Alot of those guys are just a good season away from being called "the guy". It's not just about the QB eithier. For him to succeed guys gotta block and catch. Coaches have to call passing plays. Ponder may be getting better, but we won't know because Peterson's gotta get his touches.

Consider Rex Ryan. The guy just doesn't get offense, and has drafted/coached his offense poorly. Players can only do so much when the coaching and scouting is poor. For reasons I don't claim to understand, NFL coaches keep trying to experiment with QB types. The formula is there and we've seen it's success. Eli, Peyton, Brady, Brees, Ryan etc. Find a pantywaist who can hit what he's shooting at, block for him, see the playoffs routinely. You draft these experimental "mobile" guys and you get all kinds of mixed results.

Pass defense has been outlawed. The coaches like Bellicheat, who runs that same pick play in the red zone 30 times a season, that take advantage of the unfair rules have great success in the passing game. Matt Cassel. High school QB comes in and lights it up for NE. Take him out of that system and he's garbage. Why? Crappy coaching.

It's less the QB's and more the systems and coaching. That's why guys keep coming out of nowhere to wreck shop on the NFL. If QB was so hard to play, that wouldn't happen.

[Cusefan]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

Career clipboard holder.

You make it sound like a bad thing. Not knowing anything about CFL salaries, I think it's safe to say that being a career NFL clipboard holder makes more sense financially than a CFL star.