Tristan Thompson finishes fifth in Sixth Man of the Year voting
April 20, 2015Browns sign Johnson Bademosi and Craig Robertson, Gipson next?
April 20, 2015Today’s conventional wisdom holds that the key to success in the National Football League is finding the Holy Grail: The Franchise Quarterback. The pursuit of this goal—this Superhero and Knight in Shining Armor—is usually discussed as if everyone knows it is the most important factor in a team’s level of success, with no close second. But the term has been so misused, confused and abused as to become counterproductive and diversionary.
The use of the word “franchise” in this context dates back at least to the 1950s when certain great players were given the tag. By the 1970s it was fairly common for an extraordinary talent to be called, “the franchise.” The concept concerning a franchise quarterback implies several things: One who performs at a consistently high level, the undisputed team leader and the long-term face of the franchise, the one whose tremendous talent and charisma delivers the victories and the revenue. And it is on his shoulders that the fate of the team rests.
Too much hyperbole, you say? But truly, this is what much of the pro-football world has come to accept as gospel, in part because the narrative has been repeated incessantly in the high-volume, high-definition world of sports television and radio—where seldom is heard a discouraging word. In recent days on one of the local radio stations, a caller politely suggested that, when you think about these franchise quarterback types, they’re all on teams of longstanding success, with strong offensive lines and receivers and coaching staffs. He went on to say that, sure, it would be great to have a quarterback like that but you can’t sacrifice the building of the overall team in the hopes of striking gold at the quarterback position.1
In the middle of this modest plea for a reality-check, I stopped washing the kitchen floor and listened. This column was nearly finished and I began to wonder if the caller had hacked into my computer. Then to my dismay and disappointment the host of the popular daily program that covers the Browns said something like, “Yes, I believe that finding that franchise-type quarterback is always the most important item on a team’s agenda — and always will be — every year.”
End of discussion. Neither the host nor anyone sitting around with him even bothered to disagree with the caller and they certainly weren’t interested in elaborating. It was as if the caller’s ideas were filtered through some sort of software that translates dissension into the religion of the true believers: Must get franchise quarterback … no matter the cost … must get franchise quarterback … Of course, this was the same person who, a few minutes later, was bragging about how he would be the one to win a drinking contest between them.
That can explain some things but how do you explain the extremes to which some teams are willing to go to acquire an untested college quarterback. The Washington Redskins (after winning a bidding war with the Cleveland Browns) gave up their first round picks for 2012, 2013 and 2014 and their second-round pick for 2012 in exchange for the St. Louis Rams’ first pick in the 2012 draft (the second overall) in order to nab Robert Griffin III. The Rams had drafted Sam Bradford with the No.1 overall pick in the 2010 draft so they felt they already had their guy and were thus willing to make the trade. It should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that neither of those guys has turned into a significant force at quarterback.
In fact, it is the rare bird, indeed, who is prophesied to be the next superstar quarterback, who actually achieves that kind of success. In fact, for all the investment of heart and soul and draft picks, for all the angst-filled maneuvering surrounding the acquisition of quarterbacks, the end result is very, very often … meh.
During the eleven years from 2004-2014, forty-six quarterbacks were drafted in the first and second rounds. Here they are:
Conceding that it’s a little early to write off the entire 2014 class, I would suggest there are only four names on the above list who can reasonably be considered “Franchise Quarterbacks: Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Flacco and Luck. And even then, Flacco is debatable and it’s still a bit early for a Luck coronation. So, that’s two, three or four out of forty-six.
One can imagine a meeting between a new owner of an NFL franchise who sits down with his front office and coaching staff and, envisioning the future of the team, looks at this list.
Owner: You keep telling me that we’ve got to have a franchise quarterback, whatever that is. But this business of drafting quarterbacks is pretty risky, isn’t it? Seems like it can really blow up in your face, especially if you’re investing a bunch of draft picks on one guy. Those are valuable assets, aren’t they, those draft picks? Our team isn’t very good right now and all this talk about franchise quarterbacks sounds like a red herring. Know what a red herring is? Something that draws attention away from the main issue.
GM: And the main issue is?
Owner: Why, winning football games. What do you think it is?
What stands out most significantly about the franchise quarterback idea and its loss of meaningful relevance is the notion that a team has to get one in order to win. Not only is this not true, it’s actually a reversal of the cause and effect of the matter. It would be far more accurate to suggest that a team has to win — has to build and sustain a winning organization with strength up and down the roster — before it can hope to have what we now think of as a franchise quarterback … or before someone on their roster can become one.
This is a theory that can be tested a number of different ways. First of all, look at the history of Super Bowl winners and you’ll find more than a few teams that have won without a so-called franchise quarterback. Super Bowls 42 (2008) and 46 (2012), were won by the New York Giants by scores of 17-14 and 21-17, respectively. In both games, the Giants, who were 10-6 in 2007 and 9-7 in 2011, and with Eli Manning at the helm, defeated the New England Patriots behind Tom Brady. Nowadays, hardly anyone is calling Eli Manning one of the elite franchise QBs but Manning was named the MVP for both of those championship games.
But look again at the scores of those two Super Bowl games, 17-14 and 21-17, and think again about the overall strength of those Giants teams — their defense — and you begin to see the MVP awards for what they are, an almost irresistible urge to focus on one person, the quarterback, at the expense of the rest of the team. In those two Super Bowl-winning years, Eli Manning had QB ratings of 73.9 in 2007 (lower than Brian Hoyer’s 2014 rating) and 92.9 in 2011. But in the two Super Bowl games his game-ratings were 95 and 103. In 2014, Eli Manning’s QB rating was 92.1 for the 6-10 Giants. What was the difference between those Super Bowl Giants and the 2014 Giants? Did Eli Manning drag his team down to that record or did the team, overall, need a reboot?
Was Eli Manning a franchise quarterback in those Super Bowl years? Is he one now? Perhaps the more important question is, what difference does it make? So you’ve got Archie Manning on your roster, but the rest of your roster are the 1970s New Orleans Saints. Whoop-dee-doo.
Super Bowl 37 in 2003 matched up two quarterbacks who certainly can’t be called “franchise” types, Rich Gannon of the Raiders and Brad Johnson of the Buccaneers. Kurt Warner won one in 2000 and lost one in 2002. Trent Dilfer quarterbacked the Ravens over the Giants, 34-7 in the 2001 Super Bowl and, following that season, Baltimore didn’t even bother to re-sign him. If you expand this search to include all the quarterbacks in Super Bowl games, winners and losers, the answer to the main question is even more obvious: Do you need a top-five, “elite,” “Hall of Fame-caliber,” “franchise-type” quarterback to reach, even win, a Super Bowl? Clearly not. But then, winning games — not finding a future Hall of Fame quarterback — is the first order of business for any NFL team.
For those quarterbacks who are currently considered among the elite, it’s interesting to ask the chicken or the egg question. Take Tom Brady. He was selected by the Patriots in the sixth round of the 2000 draft with the 199th pick — a compensatory pick, by the way. The year 2000 was also Bill Belichick’s first year as head coach of the Patriots and, in his fifteen years with the Pats, he has come to be considered one of the greatest coaches in NFL history, and not just because of his game preparation and reputation as a strategist. The depth and breadth of his leadership skills permeate the entire culture of that organization. Now, Tom Brady is generally considered one of the best NFL quarterbacks of all time. But did Tom Brady carry his team to its preeminent status the last 14 years? Or is Brady just one important part — among many — of an NFL franchise, led by Bill Belichick, that has few if any peers in this era?
A generation before Bill Belichick brought the Patriots to its dominant position, Chuck Noll did the same with the Pittsburgh Steelers. He was named head coach in 1969 at the age of 37 and stayed on for twenty-three years. Under his leadership, the Steelers reinvented their organization, establishing a culture dedicated to excellence. It’s fair to say that Noll was the architect of the great Steeler teams of the 1970s, winning four Super Bowls. And the Steelers are still on that course that he charted decades ago.
During Noll’s tenure with the Steelers, Terry Bradshaw made the most significant contribution to the team’s success — at the quarterback position. Bradshaw is, of course, in the NFL Hall of Fame, but given the roll of Chuck Noll and the Steeler organization and the extraordinary rosters they assembled, it’s folly to suggest that the quarterback played a determinant role. In his career, Bradshaw (1970-83) threw for 212 touchdowns, 210 interceptions and had a QB rating of 70.9. Although he was the first overall selection of the 1970 draft, he had to be brought along slowly and patiently, sometimes painfully. He had to be developed. And he was certainly not a continuous starter from the outset of his NFL career.
A fairer reading of those successful Pittsburgh Steelers teams should give the lion’s share of the credit to their defense — the Steel Curtain.
When it comes to deciding who belongs on the list of the elite handful, you could claim it’s a subjective matter. Fair enough, but take a look at this list of “elite” QBs from last year in order of their 2014 QB ratings:
Now compare the list above to that of the ten winningest NFL teams since 2000:
Seven QBs with ratings over 95 … And the top ten teams since 2000. The correlation is obvious. There’s a lot of overlap there.
The Eagles are thought to be up in the air about trying to solve their own quarterback issues but they still went 10-6 in 2014, primarily behind Mark Sanchez, who had a QB rating of 88.4. The Ravens with the sixth best record since 2000 have Joe Flacco with a 2014 rating of 91. And the Seahawks, one of the NFL’s best in recent years have Russell Wilson with a 2014 rating of 95.0.
Tony Romo doesn’t generally seem to be in the conversation about top-tier quarterbacks in the league but Dallas went 12-4 in 2014. The Cowboys had an excellent ground game and Romo had a career-best year, statistically. But all the rest after Romo are members of the winningest organizations in the NFL over the past fifteen years (and the Cowboys are not exactly the dregs of the league). These are the teams that seem to do many things well, that always seem to be in contention.
On the other hand, having an above average quarterback, say with ratings at 90 and above, doesn’t guarantee a winning record. Examples are Drew Brees for the Saints at 97.0 with a record of 7-9, Matt Ryan for the Falcons at 93.9 with a record of 6-10 and Eli Manning for the Giants at 92.1 and a record of 6-10.
Quarterbacks who are not “good” year after year are often in a position of having to explain their statistical drop-off. Consider Colin Kaepernick. He started only seven games in 2012 and went 5-2 as a starter with a QB rating of 98.3. After going 11-4-1 that season, the 49ers lost to Joe Flacco’s Ravens in the 2013 Super Bowl, 34-31. In 2013, Kaepernick became the full time starter, had a QB rating of 91.6 and the team went 12-4. But in 2014 the 49ers slipped to 8-8 and Kaepernick’s QB rating dropped slightly to 86.4. Really now, amidst all the turmoil in San Francisco this past year, do you really think the performance of their quarterback should have been the primary cause for concern? Oh, and by the way, Kaepernick was sacked 52 times in 2014. Only rookie Blake Bortles of the 3-13 Jaguars was sacked more times (55).
In general then, the best performing teams have the best performing quarterbacks. In a way, this may seem obvious. What is far from obvious, however, is how this can possibly be interpreted to suggest that higher rated QBs are primarily responsible for their teams’ success or that lower-rated quarterbacks are the primary cause of their teams’ poor performances. The quarterback may be the most ‘impactful’ player on the field, he may make a significant contribution, but he’s only one of thirty-some starters on offense, defense and special teams. There is far more logic to the notion that the best performing teams, especially those that are perennial contenders, are sculpting and fashioning their franchise quarterbacks and providing them with ample support from the wealth of their organizational assets.
Going back to that list of the forty-six quarterbacks drafted from 2004-14, it’s interesting that, of the very few from that group who are in the conversation today as franchise QBs, Ben Roethlisberger wasn’t selected in the first round in 2004 until after two other quarterbacks had been drafted. Aaron Rodgers was the first QB picked in the 2005 draft but not until the 24th selection. Joe Flacco was the second quarterback selected in the the 2008 draft with the 18th overall pick. So it’s not as if their future success was obvious to the entire nation. Of this group, only Andrew Luck was seen as a consensus can’t-miss, first-pick-overall future star who has, so far, lived up to the predictions. The other three were selected later in the first round by, who else? By the teams with the third, fourth and sixth-best overall records over the last 15 years.
New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Baltimore and those other top-ten teams have been winners for a long time. They’re not only good at scouting quarterbacks, they’re good at building their teams — their entire rosters — through the draft. They’re good at knowing better than to expect too much from a single player or to expect it too soon. They’re good at maintaining a football infrastructure that makes the success of players like Brady, Roethlisberger, Rodgers and Flacco far more likely than had they gone elsewhere to lesser organizations. (Eli Manning saw that writing on the wall when he was drafted by the San Diego Chargers. He refused to sign with them and forced a trade with the Giants for Philip Rivers. Can’t you just imagine the conversation Archie had with his son, Eli, when all that went down?)
But back to that meeting between the new owner and his front office and coaching staff …
Owner: So what I’m trying to say is, I think there should be a whole lot less talk about “franchise quarterbacks” and more talk about “franchise franchises,” if you get my drift.
- I’m paraphrasing, but not taking liberties. [↩]
38 Comments
One year ago I begged and pleaded for this pitiful organization not to pursue another golden goose at QB and for 21 selections I felt good. Then came draft pick #22. Why I asked? A year later I’m still asking why and once again begging and pleading for this pitiful organization TO NOT CHASE THE GOLDEN GOOSE by drafting another Heisman Trophy winning QB. Instead please use those two first round draft picks to select players who can come in and immediately contribute. I’m so tired of the constant first round futility that even I will be happy if two lineman, one defensive and one offensive, are selected. Part of me is hoping one of the LBs lasts. If so I take one at #12 then probably a DL at #19. The defense needs help, not depth. Use a second round pick and get the OL some depth.
So yes unless you can draft another QB later this means you head into the season with the M&M boys. I don’t care. There isn’t a sure fired proven QB in this draft so why continue to waste draft picks in pursuit of one. Build the rest of the team.
Goodnight.
I think this might be the best football article I’ve ever read. If I could ever have Haslam’s ear for one second I’d suggest he read this guide.
Good points, well articulated. Too bad the Browns always end the season with more holes in the roster than the year before. I suspect it has something to do with either our drafts or our free agency activities. It is hard to keep the boat afloat when not only are you failing to plug the leaking holes with your fingers, but are actively drilling more holes in the boat.
Take Garrett Grayson in the 5th round and be done.
He played under center. He’s the only QB I’m even remotely interested in.
If it’s in the fifth round why not take a shot.
I’m with Sam Gold. See below…..and thus an admirer of this piece of gridiron wisdom. Not hearing much of that wisdom on CBD of late. Just a lot about their favorite booze……and how tedious is that?!
Don’t he’ll be there in round 5. I’d rather have Bryce. Petty and I’m willing to use my ONE PICK on him and red shirt him just like Baylor did…..2 years.
Don’t think Grayson will be there in Round 5. I wouldn’t hate it but I hope they get Petty. Re-watched the record-breaking Cotton Bowl and after reading Bruce Feldman’s QB book…..I arrive at him.
I think there are 2 important aspects of this article that can’t be ignored –
For the Browns, there is a Huge difference between “Franchise”, “Average/Serviceable” and “God Awful”. The problem hasn’t been the lack of Franchise QBs, the problem has been the lack of “Average/Serviceable”. By average, I’m talking someone in the top 10-20 range. AKA Andy Dalton. The Browns have had is a never ending train of God Awful. As an example, look what Brian Hoyer and Derek Anderson could do with reasonably talented teams. I think the 2007 and 2014 teams prove the point of this article like not others. If the Browns could get a reasonably Talented Average to Above Average QB, we could make the playoffs in 2016 with just 2-3 other players. We are that close
The other point is that chasing the golden goose has 2 versions. The “trade the farm” approach that was tried with RGIII, or taking late 1st or 2nd round shots each year. The Browns have yet to trade the farm for a prospect so the damage hasn’t been severe. The real crime is that most of the other picks outside of the QBs have been so fruitless that the attempts at finding an “average/serviceable” QB have looked destructive by comparison. The Browns need to expend some resources to get that guy that can not lose games for us. This would propel the Browns into the playoffs. AKA Brian Hoyer in Games 1-6 last year with an 88 QBR – Yikes.
I’d consider a 4th, since we have two.
I’m easy, okay.
This. Please and thank you.
Though fair point everyone is making: won’t be there that late
So far I haven’t seen anything where Jimmy Haslam states that he is done with Johnny Manziel, and he now wants Marcus Mariota. So I think he already knows that’s it’s more important to build the team rather than seek a “franchise” QB no matter the cost.
Yes, I think Grayson will wind up going in the 2nd or 3rd round. QBs are scarce commodities.
I am a bit more lenient in my “franchise QB” definitions as I would have Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, and Philip Rivers in that category as well and, honestly, would take Cam Newton under consideration. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of the article.
I think you’re right. Also, since this article espouses the Steeler way and I’m assuming some of that rubbed off on Haslam he already knows this. Given the opportunity though I would like to throw one more log on the fire.
2nd is too high.
Maybe 3rd. MAYBE.
Trust.Your.Board.
I really like Zegura a lot. He is perpetually glass is half full but I think that’s how he really sees it vs being just a shill for the team. I feel for these guys at this time of the year because there is nothing to talk about.
HEAR, HEAR!!
I’ve been arguing for years that the Browns need to ‘finish off’ the defensive side of the ball for exactly this reason. You’re already close on that side of the ball, so get yourself a dominant defense, and suddenly the pressure is off your QB for the most part. Just get us enough points to win. Take your time, don’t make mistakes, and drive down the field. FGs are worth a lot more. Opponents give up when they’re down 9-0 because they don’t think they can score twice, including a TD. How many times have we seen teams fold against Seattle simply because they go up two scores?
For what it’s worth, this is exactly what I think these Browns are doing. They’re building a ridiculous D to go with a great OL and putting strong RBs behind that line, and they’ll be happy to pound their way to 16-17 points a game and try to hold teams to 13. People may get upset, but don’t be surprised to see two defensive players picked in the first round, and maybe another in the second, too.
I haven’t missed a single podcast of CBD since Vic started the show. It was rough in the beginning when Nathan joined with that stupid Notorious V.I.C. stuff and his wrestling imitations. Vic was a gentleman throughout and always brought in great guests from his many years covering the league. I was shocked when he announced his departure but pleasantly surprised the way things started with Matt Wilhelm. When they stick to football and do some pre-show prep it can be a tight show that hums but all too often……they go off on tangents that are like random water cooler talk about golf games, favorite TV shows, Cavs games and worst of all……their favorite alcoholic drinks. They forget that they are NOT at a restaurant and thousands of people are sitting in the audience. They seem totally unaware when they go off that people are walking out of the theatre and turning the dial to the FAN. When Jimmy Donovan co-hosts we see what a pro does. He knows that it has to be always entertaining and it is a job not just that we are lucky to be able to listen in to their random conversations about non-football issues. The name of the show is Cleveland Browns Daily, not Golf Daily or Cavs Daily or Alcohol Daily. Sorry, Pet peeve. Go Browns!
Miss Carucci. Liked the friction (which remained pretty civil) that sometimes came up between them when Vic wouldn’t buy into Zegura’s fantasy take on real world football decisions. The show also seemed to better stay on point then, too. Think Wilhelm might be one of the worst on-air personalities I’ve ever heard. He seems like a genuinely good guy but terrible on air awareness and presence. It appears I’m in the minority based on what callers have to say about how much they like both guys but he’s nails on my chalkboard.
I liked Matt more in the beginning. He likes to continually reference his years playing. It’s good that he has the experience but he needs to learn the lesson….”it isn’t about you.” He’s a rookie. where are the coaches? They both play like rookies but they could develop a decent show. Not until they realize the audience is in the theatre with them though. Nails on the chalkboard is any time Nathan tries to be Mr. Voice-Radio guy. Play within yourself, gents and do your prep work. Meanwhile, I often listen to Mike Missanelli 97.5 – the Fanatic out of Philly on iTunes just to hear how pros do it. Sal Pal is on every week. That is the best. Remember when he would come on with Vic? The only better stuff was Fred Smerlas. THAT was sports entertainment.
Hi bossman09 … I happen to think that the “never ending train of God Awful” for the Browns is, for the most part, a function of their past organization (and hopefully it’s changing for the better). Or as Urban Meyer puts it, QBs are the product of the team around them. My thesis, and I’m sticking to it, is that there are many experienced, highly reputed professionals who earn lots of money working with quarterbacks in a variety of roles and none of them has a good track record of predicting success. The reason? Because their best guesses are all based solely on the candidate’s personal skills. None of the experts wants to admit the obvious, that the better the prospect’s team, the better the odds of his success. It’s extremely rare that an NFL draftee is willing to go toe-to-toe with the NFL power structure and refuse to sign with the lousy team that drafted them. John Elway and Eli Manning are notable examples. It is simply not possible to compare Tom Brady, who had the best of all worlds in which to reach his potential, and Tim Couch, who had the worst. But there is a way to minimize the risk and maximize the chances of success, and it’s not rocket science. It is to 1) draft prospects who have good size and arm strength — the prototypical physical specimen — and sound character and intelligence; and 2) — and this is the big one — provide the supportive football infrastructure of time, talent, protection and expertise. The former is up to the prospect. The latter (and it’s the bigger proportion) is on the organization. Forget about saviors and quick fixes. Those are for losers.
Great article. The gist of the article, to many, might be “the team makes the QB” . I think it’s the consistency and quality of the organization: ownership, GM, head coach, coordinators, and on down the line to position coaches – that makes the team. That is why the number one thing we need to do – above and beyond anything else – is stick with Pettine and hope his coordinators stick with him. This also includes Ray Farmer. I think he will go with BPA at positions of need. He will trade up or down depending on his targets – not over-reaching if he thinks he can trade back and still get his man. If Pettine is still our HC in 5 years we will be having multiple winning seasons. But look out if we don’t go 8-8 this year and fans scream for a change. Jimmy needs to stay strong and keep his staff together – no matter what.
Not saying I would pick him there, saying it is where I expect him to go. I would consider him in the 3rd round depending on how the draft was going.
Fantastic writing Richard! Great premise backed up with solid statistics.
Always wondered by Cassel and Flynn had such good season’s/games with New England and Green Bay; but couldn’t do it for other teams – ha – it was the “teams”, not the QB.
Great wisdom in your theory and article.
Well done!
I pity them as they have to talk about the Browns 52 weeks a year. Zegura is paid to be a myopic Homer and he fills the role admirably. I’m thankful I can get svp and russillo down the dial.
“GM, head coach, coordinators, and on down the line to position coaches – that makes the team.” Agree entirely with this. In the real world, let’s face it, some organizations do things better than others and the best rise to the very top. But those owners who understand HOW and WHY they reach that level of excellence AND WANT TO MAINTAIN IT, stick to their philosophy with every GM and HC they hire and with every draft choice they make. They aren’t distracted by the glitz and glamor of celebrity. The Rooney family bought in to the Noll model completely and look how they continue to excel. Amazing. And Chuck Noll was a product of the Paul Brown system. Commitment to excellence and a tremendous attn to detail.
I would argue the same would be true for McCown with Chicago and then TB. The whole, “You can’t put lipstick (fancy qb) on a pig (crap team)” analogy works here pretty well, IMO.
Russillo, eh? I’ve come across him. I’ll try to see where he is on the dial although I only listen via podcasts and he nay not be there in the iTunes store. I’ll find out though and thanks for the tip.
I know all of this is subject to cherry picking but I heard an analyst say that Bryce Petty makes Brandon Weeden look like a rocket scientist when it comes to decision making. If so, pass (no pun intended)
http://profootballspot.com/_/nfl-draft/scouting-reports/qb/2015-nfl-draft-scouting-report-qb-bryce-petty-r5669
Yet, Mayock has him at three. I’ve watched Petty with Gruden and in interviews and I do remember Weeden of course. Someone is just trying to paint Petty with a bad brush. Why? Silly season of disinformation maybe. Petty is mature beyond his years comes form a great family and is a huge character guy. Also the best arm in the draft. That being said…..he sits for year one. Totally. Maybe if they didn’t throw Weeden out there on day one things would have been different.
All in all I think Pettine would wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Pietro’s view. Tony Grossi might stop his “get me a franchise quarterback” toddler tantrum if he took the time to read it. Poor Weeden, thrown in on day one without ten minutes in the QB Processing course, with a leaky line slamming him amid the chaos. Of course Hoyer, a QB who had at least taken the time to download some of the processing at Brady-Belichick University would come in and look like a genius after that. Suppose we had drafted a supporting staff with the Richardson and Weeden “saviour picks”, got Foles instead of Hughes in round three and let him sit and learn for a year. No QB is a winner when he’s getting hit and running for his life or throwing at 5’7′ receivers with a catch radius the size of your toy store dart board.
I believe that piece was written before Petty’s record setting Cotton Bowl appearance when he was hitting receivers in stride all over the field. He was knocked down badly by the MSU defense and calmly brushed himself off and whipped a 45 yd. strike down the sideline over Trae Waynes. I didn’t see Mariota or Winston hitting anybody in stride in their bowl games…..certainly not at those distances.
I’m takin’ him for my team. Hope he’ll play in my back yard……for free.
sorry, seeing this one late. I was among those who disliked Weeden the most on the field, but he was definitively a mature and responsible person off the field from all accounts that I have read and also had “the best arm in the draft” while coming from a 1-page offense system.
the issue with Petty, Weeden, and many more is that it is impossible to know if they can make the NFL throws of “throwing open” the WRs since they never do it in college.
Weeden was great guy but I do think that Petty has more”processing speed” from watching them both in interviews. I think that Petty has more “attitude” on the field whereas Weeden was more of a big friendly lab puppy. Also Weeden, as a former pitcher had a bit more of a windup in his motion while Petty has a much quicker release. I like the way Belichick keeps drafting QBs to learn the trade and then if Brady is still slingin’ it and the students get to the end of their rookie contract like Mallet and Hoyer, off they go into the real world. I’d like to see us draft Petty and let him attend McCown-Flip University for a year along with Johnny and see what develops. We can’t really believe that a savior is out there that we need to throw our whole draft at. We’ll know soon! Putting poor Weeden out there day one and telling him and making him repeat that he was “the man” was cruel. Remember him getting caught under the giant flag minutes before his first start. Everything was foretold n that pathetic drama.
Another “system “QB of the non defensive big 12
yes, was not meant to say that Petty=Weeden as a prospect and that can be seen from their release alone. Some scouts believe that release may end up helping Petty become more Flacco in the NFL.
and, I love the idea of letting that rookie QB sit for the year, then I remember how I felt in the hours and days after that Indianapolis game last year 🙂