The Evolution of the QB Position

Posted: October 22nd, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 62 Comments »

I need to clarify a few things on QBs. First, I’m not against the Eagles taking a QB high. If the team has a bad season and ends up with a Top 10 pick, I’d love to get a franchise QB.

I’m also not delusional and saying that you’re as likely to find a QB in the mid-rounds as in the Top 10. A few of you, including Sam, tried to point that out to me.

As we’ve discussed the 2013 season, more than a few of you have talked about wanting the Eagles to lose so that the team can get a high pick and then use it on a QB. I get the mentality. That’s where many star QBs come from. The point of my post was that you didn’t have to spend a Top 10 pick on a QB in order to get a good player.

That hasn’t always been the case. There was a period when a lot of QBs taken from 11-32 felt like reaches. There was a decade or so when all but one QB taken in the 2nd round turned into a bust. The good one was Drew Brees. You had to go early 1st round or late round and hope. Things are changing. The position of QB is evolving.

I played high school football in the 1980s. No one threw the ball. You ran the veer or the wishbone or the power-I. A school in central NC started using the Run ‘n Shoot in the early 90s. They might as well have practiced witchcraft…until they started winning big. Then people quit sneering and started admiring them. Pretty soon a powerhouse school put in that offense and they won multiple state titles. I’m sure all 50 states have a similar story. Nowadays, it is common for high schools all over to throw the ┬áball a ton.

That means that QBs and receivers are developing advanced passing game skills younger than ever. QBs don’t go to college to learn to throw the ball. They’re ready to go by the time they get there. They might have to adjust to the speed of the game or a more complex offense, but they are veterans of the passing game. It also helps that receivers are more advanced than ever. Dwight Clark caught 11 passes as a Senior at Clemson. Sammy Watkins had 11 catches after the first 2 games of his Clemson career. This is a completely different world.

The transition from college to pro football is easier than ever. Part of that is due to NFL teams embracing college plays instead of sticking to ancient playbooks that were completely foreign to the kids.

I think all of this is going to help teams find franchise QBs outside the Top 10 picks. In the old days, you needed the guy who was 6-3 or 6-4 and 220. He had to have a strong arm. He needed 30 starts in college and a certain pedigree. That’s not the case anymore. Just look at last year’s Super Bowl. You had Joe Flacco from Delaware and Colin Kaepernick from Nevada. Both were big and had rifle arms, but neither was a polished QB coming into the league. Kaepernick had poor passing skills since he played in the Pistol in college. Flacco faced small school competition and played in a shotgun-based passing attack. This was about as far from the standard pocket passer golden boy as you could get (Aikman, Elway, Mannings, Stafford, etc).

The players you’re going to take later in the 1st round or in rounds 2-4 are going to be more advanced than ever. That should give them a better chance of being successful in the NFL. That doesn’t mean spending a high pick on a QB is now a bad thing. The players at the top of the draft are the best prospects. You’d always love to have a shot at those guys.

I don’t think the Eagles need a Top 10 pick to find the right guy. I don’t think the team has to prepare some mega-package to move up for a QB. That said, if there is a player you covet, go get him. Just make sure the deal isn’t out of desperation. If you pay steak prices, make sure you get steak. You see times when it sure feels like a team talked themselves into liking a QB. That’s one position where you need to be ultra-choosy.

It used to be that finding a stud QB outside the early part of the draft was about like buying a lottery ticket. That’s changing. And hopefully it will benefit the Eagles if they look for a franchise QB in the upcoming draft.

* * * * *

Sounds like Michael Vick will get the start on Sunday against the Giants.

The Giants won last night, but only because the Vikings were awful. I mean really awful.

The Eagles last home win came against the Giants. Makes sense that the team they beat to break the losing streak should also be the Giants. And the Eagles better win this. I can’t deal with another home loss.


62 Comments on “The Evolution of the QB Position”

  1. 1 Bob Brewer said at 5:27 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I’m not going to link it, but Andrew Sharp wrote a garbage column for Grantland on Chip Kelly today. Read it at your peril.

  2. 2 Anders said at 5:37 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I read the intro and decided that it was the worst written article in a decade and that says something consider all the crap already written on Chip Kelly

  3. 3 mksp said at 5:49 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Its this annoying satire thing that Grantland does where they purposely try to write “the worst sports article of all time” or something.

  4. 4 Bob Brewer said at 5:50 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    My satire senses may not be that great. If that’s it then I apologize for misinterpreting it.

  5. 5 Jake said at 5:54 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    “Every now and then, we will attempt to write the worst sports column on earth. Today: Let’s talk about Chip Kelly and the oldest story in the world.”- it was a note under the picture on the article…really stupid idea though

  6. 6 Bob Brewer said at 6:18 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    OK. I didn’t see that.

  7. 7 Anders said at 5:52 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    might be. never thought of that.

  8. 8 Matthew Verhoog said at 8:22 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    the whole things written to get people mad in the comments section that’s where the comedy is

  9. 9 Anders said at 5:40 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    With guys like Kaepernick, Wilson, Flacco, Eli etc. been very good in the post season also shows you do not need a Peyton Manning if the surrendering cast is good.

    You still wants to have a better QB than Matt Schuab (tho I think they might have won the SB in 2011 if he hadnt gotten hurt), but even if you settle for a guy like him, if the defense and playmakers are very good, you have a chance.

  10. 10 GEAGLE said at 5:47 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Don’t want us drafting a QB this year…no reason to play a rookie behind an average team in an impatient city that will demand you to prove you are a stud before his 10th game lol…wait til 2015 to draft a QB in rd 1..
    Sign two Quality defensive free agents(last year we signed Quantity) draft another defender in round 1 or two, and then use the rest of then to draft picks to build the offense…then the team will grow some more in 2014 and you can expect FOles, Barkley or Vick to improve with a better year in the offense and a better supporting cast..

    Then in 2015, you add a few other free agents, and you will have a good enough team in place to where you can afford to mortgage a draft trading up to go get the QB of your eye, and he will get to play behind a team that’s good enough for him to have some success with, that can carry him through some of his struggles

  11. 11 eagleyankfan said at 6:40 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Haha, someone voted you down. There’s no such things as building a team — as your logic suggests. The only solutions is win a SB this year or next year. Oh and replace close to all starters on D and upgrade the offensive line and a WR or 2 — while finding your QB. Build? hogwash!

  12. 12 GEAGLE said at 8:51 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Lol right…silly me. Let’s just spend a decade on the hamster wheel discarding draft picks after 8 starts….SB here we come

  13. 13 ACViking said at 10:40 PM on October 22nd, 2013:


    I appreciate your optimism.

    I think though that history is against you.

  14. 14 GEAGLE said at 8:01 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    Where do you sense optimism?

  15. 15 RC5000 said at 12:17 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    Wrong. If they get Kelly’s franchise QB in the draft this year, you will be happy.

  16. 16 GEAGLE said at 8:01 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    Doubt it….I will still have to listen to idiots calling for the rookies head after 5 games lol

  17. 17 Bob Brewer said at 5:49 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Honestly, I’m just looking for playmakers. If he’s a QB that’s great. If he’s not, the Eagles need a WR, OLB, ILB, or anyone who can influence the game.

    But I don’t want to draft QBs in rounds 3 and 4 when it’s possible the Eagles can get a more productive player at another position of need. The probability of QBs panning out that late is just not great and the team can only play one QB at a time. Build depth in rounds 3 and 4.

  18. 18 GEAGLE said at 5:54 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I have no interest in adding ILB before 2015..
    2) Safety
    3) WR
    4) 330 plus pound NT
    5) TE
    If we can nail two studs out of those positions in free agency, and hit on the right playes filling those left over positions in the first 3 rounds…This team will start heading in the right direction…but ATleast two pro bowl caliber players need to be added

  19. 19 Anders said at 5:55 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    We do not need a NT. Logan is the future, Sopoaga can play another year and in many passing downs either Thornton or Cox plays NT as well.

  20. 20 GEAGLE said at 5:59 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    You need 6 quality Dlinemen…Cox,Thornton,Curry, Logan.lets say one of the two pan out(Kruger,or Square), we would still need a girthy 6th man depending on how much Soap declines or rebounds during the second half of the season

  21. 21 Anders said at 6:02 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    yea, but we do not need a NT. We could just as well use a late round DE like Taylor Hart from Oregon

  22. 22 Insomniac said at 12:02 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    I wouldn’t say we don’t need one. Soap is a stop gap and Bennie needs more playing time to see what his ceiling can be. I’m an Andy era guy, solidifying the line can never hurt you.

  23. 23 Anders said at 8:38 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    My reason is that Soap can stay another year and Logan already looks pretty good in limited time. Cox and Thornton also plays NT in certain situations. Of Course if a NT prospect is clearly BPA in the 3rd we take him.

  24. 24 Jake said at 5:59 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    a true number 1 CB should be at least above NT and TE. NT, we have Logan for anyways, only plays like 33% of the snaps and tight end we don’t even have enough snaps for Casey to get on the field.

  25. 25 GEAGLE said at 6:05 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I am not ready to say that Cary and Bradley can’t be the answer if a star safety is added…..Casey and Ertz, stylistically aren’t the types of TE that replace Celek. They are compliments to a Celek type

  26. 26 shah8 said at 6:04 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    People only tend to be successful with first round QBs because, specifically speaking, there are very few people who are able to throw the ball adequately at an NFL level. It’s also usually pretty obvious. I know I’m all elitist and grey-poupon (well, sipping my Lao Banzhang tea, and letting someone else have a bit, too)-y, but I feel it’s just not all that hard to be discerning. It’s *easy* to tell that Foles doesn’t have the arm. I never see him drive the ball anywheres but straight ahead, or really short outs of seven yards or so. It’s *easy* to tell that Foles, for all that he moves in the pocket well enough, is way too slow to be effective–slower than many definite pocket QBs out there. It’s *easy* to see that long windup. It’s also easy to, with the help of a dvr, to tell what plays he is actually anticipating and “throwing people open”. And no, I don’t mean the stuff he’s doing as a first read, but as part of a routine set of plays where he has three or four options and have to scan. As such, it was **easy** to understand that a meltdown was going to come. I certainly have trouble understanding how neutral people can overlook those issues, if not too much trouble understanding how motivated reasoning can blind you to certain realities, like that cliff you’re running towards.

    Look, right now, in college, there are only a handful of obvious candidates from major college football programs who are capable of even just starting at an NFL level, forget excelling. Most of these guys are very young, and only Teddy Bridgewater is any sort of truly ready. People talk about Manziel, Murray, McCarron, Mettenberger, but none of those guys have NFL athleticism. Only Bridgewater has any refinement. Mariota is okay, but he needs much more. Then you’re left with guys like Hundley and Devin Gardner, who has promise, but needs even more refinement. After that are the guys like Braxton Miller, Stephen Morris, who are Terrelle Pryors right now. Boyd is okay, but seems to be more of a backup quality like Josh Johnson.

    Thing is, teams that get good prospects late in the draft, get them because of unusual circumstances. In normal circumstances, Brady is drafted much higher than he was. A health Schaub wouldn’t have been a third rounder. Warner and Romo would be big-time if they had played at a major conference school. The way the Vikings handled Webb is quite frustrating, because Webb was an insane value in the sixth round. Instead of jumping up and down at their good fortune, management was mostly embarrassed, and tried to go with lesser talented alternatives. That’s just how it is. A good QB picked later than pick fifty is always, always, always, a matter of oversight and conservatism, because everyone does search hard for people who possibly could succeed at the NFL level, and even out of the people who had the tools, plenty of them will bust for injury and aptitude reasons. They don’t catch everyone, because there are lots of football programs out there, but they’re going to see the Cornell guy and the Wyoming guy, etc, etc, just like they saw Delaware’s Flacco.

  27. 27 RobNE said at 6:42 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    And your thoughts on Barkley?

  28. 28 shah8 said at 7:02 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Fourth round because of arm. If he had arm, he’d be first round. Has most of the other tools, and was very good in the context of college football. Not completely disregarding him because we might see arm strength get up to juusssst enough. Much more high on him than Foles, all the way.

  29. 29 RobNE said at 7:11 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Ok and the arm strength could keep improving, or have already improved, as he gets farther away from his injury

  30. 30 Jerry Pomroy said at 9:29 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Despite throwing it to the other team, Barkley’s arm did look stronger last Sunday. While I don’t recall seeing him drive iit down the field deep, he was throwing with much more velocity than I remember in PS & you could clearly see a difference in greater velocity over Foles. Not anointing him, just staying what I observed based on including him in the convo.

  31. 31 BobSmith77 said at 6:30 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Tommy – I didn’t want the Eagles to tank on purpose. I wanted them to dump Vick, bring in a Peterson-type veteran backup, name Foles the starter, and if necessarily due to injury/performance to Foles let Barkley start a handful of games. Basically let Kelly and staff sort out what they had this, decide who were keepers including if they had a long-term solution at QB, and play out the year.

    Yes it probably would have resulted in a poor season where the losses did mount up including the possibility of another double-digit loss season. It would have allowed the Eagles though to have a clear understanding of whether Foles/Barkley were the potential answer at QB, possibly placed the Eagles in a favorable position if they did lose a fair amount to grab a QB they really wanted in an upcoming QB talent-laden draft, and a year where most Eagles’ fans would have been willing to tolerate a rebuilding year where the Eagles weren’t a playoff contender.

  32. 32 bdbd20 said at 6:49 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Vick’s gonna start and I realize we’ll probably win, but there’s a big part of me that wants to see Barkley.

    It would be nice to see what he can do with a full gameplan tailored around his skill-set.

  33. 33 anon said at 9:51 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    set a pick records

  34. 34 eagleyankfan said at 6:51 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I’m voting tank for a draft pick. I get the whole – “you can’t tell your team that” – but if you’re a team player — you HAVE to know how good you are and expect teams to be playing for the future. Players aren’t dummies(or insecure). Except linemen.(just kidding). Build a “winning” environment? I call BS on that too. Plenty of teams have gone from worse to first. It’s done all the time in the nfl now. Think KC was yelling last year “we need to build a winning environment” last year while stinking out the joint?
    Try out different offensive/defensive strategies. Think out of the box this year. Learn. That’s how 2013 should be used. Get that early pick and hopefully an impact player(on defense) is available.

  35. 35 A_T_G said at 10:15 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Why not really commit to the strategy? Trade away our top three picks this year and one of the young QBs, ‘Meco, Celek, Peters, and Mathis, all for picks in next year’s draft. Sign all the top FAs with the freed up cap space to deals with substantial signing bonuses, then flip them immediately for picks, essentially buying more draft choices.

    Sure, next year will suck, but we will weed out the fair weather season ticket holders before we have the greatest draft of all time and positioning ourselves to be a true dynasty for years to come.

  36. 36 ACViking said at 6:54 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Re: Losing as Tonic

    Does anyone really want the Eagles to lose?

    Or are commenters here just expressing the desire to see young players like Foles, Graham, Ertz, Curry, and maybe even Barkley now?

    The argument about the “QB competition” still strikes me as a bit of a red herring for a couple reasons.

    First, Vick had 9 years of NFL versus Foles’ 6 career starts.

    Second, the argument’s been made that Kelly will lose the team, or something, if he were to bench a healthy Vick in favor of Foles or Barkely.

    Not only does Kelly have a 5-year contract. Other teams have benched a starter having success in favor of a rookie QB.

    In 2004, the Giants Kurt Warner got off to a 5-4 start. Well, he was benched in favor of rookie Eli Manning . . . who proceeded to go 1-6.

    Did Coughlin lose the team? I don’t know . . . except to say the Giants went 11-5 in 2005.

    Why won’t Kelly do what Coughlin did?

    The only answer that makes sense is Kelly’s decided Foles is NOT the future. Nor is Barkley.

    And if that’s not Kelly’s conclusion, then at a minimum he’s decided he doesn’t want to waste valuable time with a 1-and-done Vick finding out about the future. Kelly wants to win now with a QB who’s gone next year . . . so he doesn’t lose the locker room?

    As for the other players, get them out there. Graham already has 1 more sack than Cole in about 1/3 the time. Curry’s getting time, finally.

    Bottom line . . . I don’t want the Eagles to lose.

    I want the Eagles to find out what the future holds.

    Playing Vick and Cole apparently means the future does not include, or at least is not projected to depend on, Foles and Graham.

  37. 37 Anders said at 6:58 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Reason why Cole is played over Graham, is that Graham is lost in coverage.

    Kelly playing VIck, Cole, Celek etc. is not about losing the locker room, but about installing a certain way things are done. Kelly is rewarding players who do their assignment and practice the right way. That was the reason why Square got playing time over Curry to start the season.

  38. 38 Stormbringer said at 11:13 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Cole is not good in coverage himself and, in reality, neither should be covering anyone that often. Is there anyone who thinks we’d draft someone like Barr for example (a ‘pure’ pass rushing OLB) and then have him cover a substantial amount of the time? They had a stat on DeMarcus Ware who used to play in a 3-4 until this year. Dallas would only have him drop in coverage about 5% of the time.

    Graham has out produced Cole in 1/3 the snaps and that is by Football Outsiders as well as PFF. He should be playing more, period. Even if only to boost his value so we can get some value for him in a trade. Cole is gone after this year anyhow.

    As to attitude, Graham was the one the Eagles site did an article about how players were buying into Chip’s system by losing a lot of weight, hiring a dietician and a personal trainer and staying at the facility to learn the new position. He has been playing special teams and wherever they’ve asked him without complaint.

  39. 39 Anders said at 8:44 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    There is a different in systems, but it also is a product of the player.

    The Steelers dropped both of their starting OLB in 2012 around 25% of the time, where Dallas hardly dropped Ware.

    Because Davis is more of the Steelers type 3-4 and not the Phillips type, he would want both his OLBs to be able to drop back.

    So if we draft a Barr or Mack, it will be because both can rush the pass and drop back.

  40. 40 Stormbringer said at 10:39 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    I’ve seen Mack. He can (and does) definitely drop back. Barr I question as he’s a converted RB who got moved to OLB last year if I recall. He rushes pretty much every snap.

  41. 41 RobNE said at 7:09 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I think the division is too weak so Kelly is playing to win. It is weak and we could win. If they lose more and are out of it then this complaint should win the day. Until then I can see the logic of going either way and I can’t blame Kelly for playing to win

  42. 42 holeplug said at 7:16 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Their starting to play Curry and Graham more the last couple of weeks

  43. 43 Iskar36 said at 9:12 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    There is a major difference between Vick and Foles vs. Warner and Manning. By investing a first round pick in Manning, it was declared loud and clear that manning was the future of the franchise. In fact, they even traded for him beyond the first round pick. So in Mannings case, the franchise was already committed to Manning and was going to sink or swim with him. Foles on the other hand is a 3rd round pick by the previous regime.

  44. 44 ACViking said at 10:37 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I get that argument. The problem is Eagles have all but said Vick is history. I think that makes the Manning as first rd pick is a distinction without a difference.

  45. 45 Iskar36 said at 11:06 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    First of all, I don’t think the Eagles have said anything in terms of Vick’s future. While we all seem to believe he is gone by the end of the year, the same could have been said last year. I certainly don’t think he has done anything so far that warrants getting a new contract of course, but for all we know, the Eagles can keep him for cheap and he wants to stay. At the very least, they haven’t been going out of their way to start getting him to pack his bags.

    Second, I’m not sure how Vick’s future with the Eagles changes the argument. The distinction is Manning as a first round pick vs. Foles as a 3rd round pick. Vick isn’t part of that equation. Manning was a Coughlin’s pick, a 1st rounder with tons of potential, and finally, a guy who the franchise put in significant finances towards, not to mention significant draft resources. Foles on the other hand is a AR pick, a 3rd rounder and a guy that the team has limited resources invested in. That difference is what resulted in Manning not going through a true competition for the starting position. For the Giants, as soon as Manning was ready to take on the reins, they wanted to get him the experience. That was made clear when they drafted him. For the Eagles, Kelly made it clear that he wanted the best player to play, and since he had no investment in Foles, he chose not to give him any advantages due to being younger. As we have discussed before, I think you could argue bringing Vick back was a major mistake by Chip Kelly, but unlike a 1st round pick like Manning, you can’t sell to the rest of the team that Foles is the future for the Eagles. No one will be willing to buy into that.

  46. 46 Michael Winter Cho said at 10:32 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    I have noticed a lot more chatter about possibly bringing Vick back. I never got why people thought it was a foregone conclusion that he’d be gone. If we manage to sneak into the playoffs with him at the helm, are we really going to get rid of him?

  47. 47 Telmert said at 7:09 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I would add two comments that skew the numbers. 1) Teams picking quarterbacks in the top half of the first round usually don’t have a good one. Teams drafting quarterbacks in rounds 2-5 are often looking for someone to groom. 2) Teams picking early have a huge investment in the guy they picked. Both of those things mean the guys drafted early get a lot more opportunity and get a lot more rope.

  48. 48 A_T_G said at 8:31 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    But it also means they have a lot less of a supporting cast or time to develop.

  49. 49 TheRogerPodacter said at 8:22 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    what a weird schedule this year. first we play 3/4 of our AFC opponents in a row. now we’re playing the giants again? i feel like we just played them…

  50. 50 Corry said at 8:37 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    Why are we worried about QB? WE HAVE GJ KINNE BACK! That also fixed problems at back up corner, safety, gunner on the punt coverage units, etc., etc., etc.

  51. 51 SteveH said at 9:42 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    I stand by a previous statement… I will not be content until we have “the guy” at QB so it can stop being a topic of discussion anymore. I do not care who “the guy” is but he can’t get here soon enough.

  52. 52 Insomniac said at 11:00 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    If Chip told you that the IT guy at the Linc was his next QB and slapped you with a bunch of butterscotch krumpets would you be happy? Jokes aside, I hope whoever is the next QB can handle the media as well as Vick.

  53. 53 SteveH said at 11:11 PM on October 22nd, 2013:


  54. 54 anon said at 10:52 PM on October 22nd, 2013:

    this guy is a great addition to the philly blog circuit.

  55. 55 mksp said at 12:10 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    Man, Nick Foles really complicated this whole QB situation, didn’t he?

    If he played an average game, the Eagles probably win, and Nick gets a chance to start next week and prove that he can be better than average. If his long term future is somewhere between average and his performance against Tampa Bay…..maybe we roll with him next year.

    But, yeah. He played about as badly as you can play the position.

    Also, and I’m sure this had been discussed already, but the sheer poetic brilliance of it literally makes my brain hurt.

    If Foles was competent enough to simply hit a wide open Avant in the end zone, he doesn’t get hurt, and I bet the Eagles manage to win the game. But he was incompetent to such a high degree, that he couldn’t even make that one, simple throw. And then got hurt on the next play.

    Now we probably won’t find out what we have with Nick, and will go into another offseason with a ton of uncertainty at the most important position on the field.

    But, if we end up drafting Johnny Manziel with, say, the 12th or 13th pick, and Johnny goes on to become our franchise quarterback, superbowl MVP, “Allen Iverson on the gridiron” (best case scenario)….we’ll be able to look back to that one, stupid, simple throw that Nick Foles short-armed as the very moment that the fortunes of this franchise changed. You heard it here first.

  56. 56 anon said at 8:01 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    Maybe would have been better if he just thought he’d be a backup forever.

  57. 57 RC5000 said at 12:10 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    When you’re a bad team with a new head coach and system and no franchise QB, it is much better to have a higher pick to ensure you get the QB you want if that QB is in the draft.
    If you don’t have a high pick and someone else takes the QB you want before you pick, you lost the franchise QB you wanted.
    Eagles waited around on Russell Wilson and someone else took him. Why it happened doesn’t matter much. They did not get him. Wilson was also a very high profile player at Wisconsin.
    There have been exceptions for a long time. Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Randall Cunningham, Drew Brees.
    The Eagles considered Barkley a 2nd round QB and one who fits franchise QB. Foles was taken in the 3rd round. Are you saying they got their franchise QB lower in the draft? Following your logic you can get a franchise QB whenever, we have our franchise QB.
    I guess I don’t understand why you think they will get a franchise QB if they finish with a lower pick. They need to get one. They don’t need to maybe get one I guess is what the concern is.
    If they have the franchise QB in Foles or Barkley, then they don’t need to use a later pick on one. I guess the problem I have is you make it sound like it’s easy to find one any time in the draft.
    Also to me if you take one later, you’re basically saying you aren’t sure you are getting a sure franchise QB. So how many times do you take the maybe he will be a franchise QB later?
    I do agree you aren’t necessarily assured you are getting one if you get a very high pick.

  58. 58 anon said at 7:59 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    I think if there’s one you really like go get him. If not then don’t waste all of your picks trying to get one. I REALLY wish Foles was better. I think he’ll get another shot this year — hopefully he can redeem himself.

  59. 59 austinfan said at 9:49 AM on October 23rd, 2013:

    The term franchise QB is grossly overused. I can only think of a half dozen QBs the last two decades who were true difference makers, the rest depended on the talent around them, Eli is a great example.

    Difference makers:

    Warner – the best QB I’ve ever seen, including Peyton, amazing playoff record, and that includes Arizona, a 6-10 team without him that got to a SB.
    Brees is very good, but his physical limitations require good skill players to bail him out. He’s had excellent players surrounding him.

    Look at some of the names among the yardage leaders who played the last two decades (excluding guys like Montana and Elway who are really from the 1980s), not a lot of SB winners:
    Favre #1 (1)
    Moon #5
    Testavarde #9
    Bledsoe #10
    Kerry Collins #12
    McNabb #17
    Matt Hasselback #21
    Eli #25 (2)
    Aikman #28 (3)
    Brunell #32
    Big Ben #34 (2)
    McNair #35
    Palmer #36
    Rivers #38
    Kitna #41
    Plummer #43
    Brad Johnson #44 (1)
    Gannon #45
    Chris Chandler #47
    Trent Green #38

    Big Ben played with a great defense, as did Aikman who had Emmitt, Irvin and Novacek and a great OL. Eli won with two of the worst teams ever to play in a SB that got hot and lucky. None is a guy I’d want to carry a team.

    The odds of landing a great QB are almost zero.

    The odds of landing a very good starter who can play for 8-10 years and win a SB with the right talent surround him are pretty long.

    I’ve got 25 QBs listed over a 20+ year period over 32 teams.
    9 won SBs,

    The change is that the fat part of the long tail of the distribution of QBs has become much fatter, it’s much easier to find a Trent Green or Rich Gannon, it’s still going to be hard to land an outlier like Brady. And note of the 5 top guys, UDFA, 6th rd, 2 between 20-32, one was a #1 pick in the draft.

    Build a great team and hope a good QB lands in your pocket.
    A lot easier than hoping you can draft the next Peyton instead of the following top 5 QB picks:
    Bledsoe #1
    Mirer #2
    Shuler #3
    McNair #3
    Leaf #2
    Couch #1
    McNabb #2
    Akili Smith #3
    Vick #1
    Carr #1
    Harrington #3
    Palmer #1
    Eli #1
    Rivers #4
    Alex Smith #1
    Vince Young #3
    Russell #1
    Ryan #3
    Stafford #1
    Bradford #1
    Newton #1

    Bledsoe, McNair, McNabb, Vick, Palmer, Eli and Rivers are the best of this list.

    Ryan, Stafford, Bradford and Newton may have solid careers.

    11 of 21 “hits”, 12 if you count Smith.
    None are elite QBs, none good enough to carry a team to the promised land on their back.

  60. 60 RC5000 said at 7:55 PM on October 23rd, 2013:

    The term franchise QB is not grossly overused. You just don’t understand the term.

  61. 61 RC5000 said at 8:17 PM on October 23rd, 2013:

    It’s not this complex. You are trying to plan when it is not the time to make a plan because you don’t have enough information.
    If Kelly wants a QB he will take one. If the opportunity does not present itself, he will mess around with Foles and Barkley or someone else that is not drafted and build his team. You don’t plan anything until the draft and offseason. Maybe he is fine with Barkley and Foles. Maybe he is not. Maybe a QB will be available at a draft pick he wants. Maybe one will not be.

  62. 62 Daniel said at 4:37 PM on October 23rd, 2013:

    Love the quasi-historical, big picture posts. Have you ever gathered the kiddies around the campfire and told us how you became an Eagles fan growing up down South anyway?