My Article

bobbaggio

This is an article I wrote

Sorry sir, you are not qualified for the position

Being a Chicago Bears fan, you would figure my frustrations are many and perfectly understandable, but this one frustration I have is aimed at the whole situation. We, as football fans, and with a team we call our own have had years of utter dismay, rebuilding years, and years were we were just plain out of luck. We have all seen our team struggle against the run, against the pass, pass coverage, special teams and so on. We have also surely seen our fair share of pretenders at the coveted QB position. And as I said, being a bears fan, I have seen quite a few. To get to my point, what I hate to hear is when a quarterback is told to "manage the game" or to play it safe and not turn over the ball. If I am a general manager of a football team, I am picking my 53 man roster with the knowledge that every one on that 53 man roster will see playing time and is a potential game changer on any given sunday. I understand that things happen and you can lose your "franchise QB" or your general on defense can go down in the second quarter of the opening game, but the guy that is going in to replace him has as much responsibility and as much on his shoulders as the guy he replaces. My tirade is directed at the pretenders, and the people turning these players into pretenders….

Kyle Orton replaced Rex Grossman in the Bears 2005 season which ultimately saw the Bears reach the Super Bowl. I continuously heard commentators, pundits and analysts advising that he should manage the game and not make any mistakes. Pretender! Why are you there in the first place? sitting on the sidelines every sunday with rosary beads in hand praying that you don't have to go into the game? You have to give the man the reins and allow him to do what he is contracted to do, throw the ball, score points, read blitzes, avoid throwing the ball to the opponent, all the things you are thought to do when you first line out in pee-wee football. Not to single out Mr.Orton because since his renaissance in Denver and imminent trade to Kansas when Johnny Tebow (or whatever his name is?) came into town, he has become quite the signal caller and very capable Quarterback, but this is typical attitude towards back-ups coming in.

I understand there are situations when lofting the ball into the air is a disastrous decision and there are game plans and tactics involved in the game but if you back-up throws 2 interceptions on 4 attempts, stick with him, bench him, or cut him. Simple as that, don't preserve him. If he doesn't have what it takes and if he doesn't fit into your system, both he, you and I will benefit from him being picked up by another team. So next time I hear somebody in an NFL broadcasters booth telling us that the Key to the home team winning is the new quart back's ability to not lose the game for him, my answer to it will be, how can he win you the game, if he is not being given the chance make a difference?

Dohnny Jepp

I have no qualms with back ups being game managers and not game winners. The coaches have to play the odds. In the bears case, A back ups job should be to give forte the ball and not turn it over, that gives you the best chance of winning.

eagle eye

bobbaggio wrote: »

Kyle Orton replaced Rex Grossman in the Bears 2005 season which ultimately saw the Bears reach the Super Bowl.

What on earth are you talking about? It was the 2006 season when you reached the Superbowl and Rex Grossman started every game that season.

bobbaggio

eagle eye wrote: »

bobbaggio wrote: »

Kyle Orton replaced Rex Grossman in the Bears 2005 season which ultimately saw the Bears reach the Super Bowl.

What on earth are you talking about? It was the 2006 season when you reached the Superbowl and Rex Grossman started every game that season.

Apologies yeah, I was just talking about the 2005 season where orton started. Nothing got to do with the Super Bowl. Don't know why I said that. I was thinking the 2006 season and the Super Bowl was played in 2007, got my years mixed up... But I was just referring to them saying he should manage the game.....it's seems like that was the mantra for ortons time in Chicago, which I thought was ridiculous

I understand you need to manage the game but my thoughts are (unless for some reason the backup isn't up to speed on the play book I.e Carson Palmer this year for the raiders) that a backup should have full control of the play book. I also understand that he is a backup for a reason.

Just something I wrote point out my dislike of the term " he needs to not lose the game for them"

D3PO

my view. The view in the opening post is nonsence.

Clearly every team woud love to have 53 potential starters and game changers and have backup quarterbacks that are capable of stepping up and playing at the highest level.

the fact is its pie in the sky. There are different levels of players in the NFL.

Those that are elite, all pro or pro bowlers year after year the mr dependables.

There are the seasoned Pros experienced and good enough to start on all 32 teams and help them win.

Those on the borderline. Good enough to see the field but not consistent or good enough to start. The kind of corner you see in the nickle package or wide out you see in a 4 wide set.

Then there are the backups.

Capable of plugging a gap for you short term whilst you wait for your starter to get fit and capable enough to do a job if there is enough help around him but likely to get found out if there are 2 or 3 of these players on the field at any one time.

As one great football coach said to his QB. "Throw it at the backup when he comes in. If he was good he would be starting"


This will always be the makeup of an NFL team. The salary cap says so. To expect anything else is folly.

bobbaggio

No you're right, if injuries are the reason a guy comes in then fair enough, but when a lad replaces as a starter I just see the point of him playing just well enough to win, he is the focal point of the attack, unless obviously it is a running back, but even still. It probably is a little silly seeing as there are reasons for guys being signed I.e money etc, but I just thought of write it, being severely bored and thought it might get a good conversation going

bruschi

I really havent a clue what the article is about. its all over the shop.

You clarify it by saying you dont like commentators that a new player in 'should not lose the game'. but this is a point that a new player, not experienced in most cases, and its just a phrase that means they play it safely, do the simple things right, and get confidence up. Its a pretty simple point, and one coaches would make too. There is no point going in slinging passes if you arent used to facing similar defences previously. Keep it simple, and get used to things before opening up. If you open up too early and fail, it will rock the confidence and prove disastrous.

bobbaggio

bruschi wrote: »

I really havent a clue what the article is about. its all over the shop.

You clarify it by saying you dont like commentators that a new player in 'should not lose the game'. but this is a point that a new player, not experienced in most cases, and its just a phrase that means they play it safely, do the simple things right, and get confidence up. Its a pretty simple point, and one coaches would make too. There is no point going in slinging passes if you arent used to facing similar defences previously. Keep it simple, and get used to things before opening up. If you open up too early and fail, it will rock the confidence and prove disastrous.

I wouldn't really go so far to saying it is all over the shop, fair enough I rushed it and a lot of people don't agree, but I guess just being a bears fan and seeing several bad qbs both live and on Telly, I just couldn't ever understand it. Yeah I agree, going in throwing around passes isn't the answer but I watched johnathon Quinn for the bears and on 3 and 6 he would throw a 2 yard pass. That's what im trying to get at.....

tallaghtoutlaws

bobbaggio wrote: »

I wouldn't really go so far to saying it is all over the shop, fair enough I rushed it and a lot of people don't agree, but I guess just being a bears fan and seeing several bad qbs both live and on Telly, I just couldn't ever understand it. Yeah I agree, going in throwing around passes isn't the answer but I watched johnathon Quinn for the bears and on 3 and 6 he would throw a 2 yard pass. That's what im trying to get at.....

Back up QBs will always be conservative and its down to how they practice also. They will know the playbooks but the time they spend practicing the playbook with the other first team members is part of the problem. Its mad people are always under the assumption that any backup QB should fit in if the starter goes down. The rapport he will have with the starters will never be the same as the original starter. Besides the odds of a team having 2 ready to start QBs on there roster is very slim.

davyjose

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Back up QBs will always be conservative and its down to how they practice also. They will know the playbooks but the time they spend practicing the playbook with the other first team members is part of the problem. Its mad people are always under the assumption that any backup QB should fit in if the starter goes down. The rapport he will have with the starters will never be the same as the original starter. Besides the odds of a team having 2 ready to start QBs on there roster is very slim.

Tom Brady done ok.

tallaghtoutlaws

davyjose wrote: »

Tom Brady done ok.

Really? There is a reason why he is one of the greatest QBs the NFL has ever had. If every team had a Tom Brady on their bench they would be set but the thing is they don't. But even then Tom Brady sat for a year but when he did take over from Bledsoe he was thrown into the fire and had a very conservative few games as starter. But this isn't a question about ability so I have no idea what you are getting at by bringing up Brady.

kmart6

What exactly is the point of this 'article' or what is it for?!

davyjose

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Really? There is a reason why he is one of the greatest QBs the NFL has ever had. If every team had a Tom Brady on their bench they would be set but the thing is they don't. But even then Tom Brady sat for a year but when he did take over from Bledsoe he was thrown into the fire and had a very conservative few games as starter. But this isn't a question about ability so I have no idea what you are getting at by bringing up Brady.

Steve Young, Kurt Warner, there are a lot of teams who wouldn't be where they got without good backups. We don't even need to delve into Hof'ers. What about Jeff Hostetler - who won a superbowl as back-up. Or the job Matt Cassell did replacing a record-breaking Brady in '08? There's a few posters on here (myself included) who would add Tebow into the mix.

Listen, you made a statement and I responded. I think having a good back-up can be very important, but as a Colts fan, i'd know. When your QB goes down, a good back-up can save your season. And ultimately Tom brady is the most extreme example of a nobody 6th round draft coming along and winning 3 (maybe 4) Super Bowls.

tallaghtoutlaws

davyjose wrote: »

Steve Young, Kurt Warner, there are a lot of teams who wouldn't be where they got without good backups. We don't even need to delve into Hof'ers. What about Jeff Hostetler - who won a superbowl as back-up. Or the job Matt Cassell did replacing a record-breaking Brady in '08? There's a few posters on here (myself included) who would add Tebow into the mix.

Listen, you made a statement and I responded. I think having a good back-up can be very important, but as a Colts fan, i'd know. When your QB goes down, a good back-up can save your season. And ultimately Tom brady is the most extreme example of a nobody 6th round draft coming along and winning 3 (maybe 4) Super Bowls.

But you are naming a small % of guys who were backups that turned out to be good and actually had ability and used it when getting off the bench. For the most part you are not going to always have guys like Warner and Young and Brady on your bench. They are a dime a dozen these days. You missed my point completely to be fair and naming a small number of guys who made their trade by getting off a bench isnt a fair example of what a backup QB is these days. Im sure every team in the Pros would love NFL ready QBs who will get the job done properly while coming off the bench on their bench but the realism is you are never going to get it unless you find that gem.

Just on Warner though he did get first team action so technically didnt come straight off a bench to start he got some experience in NFL Europe.

davyjose

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

But you are naming a small % of guys who were backups that turned out to be good and actually had ability and used it when getting off the bench. For the most part you are not going to always have guys like Warner and Young and Brady on your bench. They are a dime a dozen these days. You missed my point completely to be fair and naming a small number of guys who made their trade by getting off a bench isnt a fair example of what a backup QB is these days. Im sure every team in the Pros would love NFL ready QBs who will get the job done properly while coming off the bench on their bench but the realism is you are never going to get it unless you find that gem.

Just on Warner though he did get first team action so technically didnt come straight off a bench to start he got some experience in NFL Europe.

But don't you think, looking at these small % of guys who were able to step up, that there's a lesson to be learnt? having a more than capable Back-up has proven to be an asset. I think that with the money and preparation put into the game it's weird that so many teams push all their chips onto the table betting on the health of one guy.

tallaghtoutlaws

davyjose wrote: »

But don't you think, looking at these small % of guys who were able to step up, that there's a lesson to be learnt? having a more than capable Back-up has proven to be an asset. I think that with the money and preparation put into the game it's weird that so many teams push all their chips onto the table betting on the health of one guy.

Well there is always a lesson to be learnt but the cold hard facts is that only a small % of QBs that get drafted or signed just simply dont have the required talent to step into a leading role. No matter how much coaching goes into them they will never succeed or be that guy. Look at the amount of starters right now who are barely scraping the barrel. With the league turning into a Pass Heavy league the pressure on teams and young QBs is so great many just don't live up to it.

But knowing you need to grow these guys how do you go about doing so? It is well known that the off season and pre-season doesn't really ever prepare guys to the harsh realities of starting. Andrew Luck could fail miserably but teams just dont know how guys will actually work out.

Jolly Red Giant

Interesting discussion -

I would agree that there are no guarantees when it comes to drafting a QB. Luck is the prospect with the most potential to succeed since Peyton Manning. He has the talent and the intelligence to match Manning and it would be a major surprise if he wasn't a franchise QB for many years to come.

Drafts rarely kick up more than one or two QBs who are NFL starting calibre QBs. The exception was the 1983 draft when the following QBs went on to play in the NFL

John Elway
Jim Kelly
Tony Eason
Ken O'Brien
Dan Marino
All taken in the first round

Even the bust of the draft Todd Blackledge taken at 7 by the Chiefs actually played for seven seasons in the NFL. Blackledge's failure was attributed to his inability to read defences (one of the issues that Tebow currently has).

No other QB was taken until round 5.

Onto back-ups - the player I consider to be the best ever back-up QB (and he spent his entire career as a back-up) was also drafted in 1983. Denver selected Gary Kubiak in round 8 (he would have gone undrafted in todays draft). During his nine year career he made less than 300 passing attempts but was extremely dependable every time he had to step onto the field.

His best game was the last game he played before retirement - when he replaced Elway wiith 4 minutes to go in the 1991 AFC Championship game against Buffalo when he brought the Broncos back from a 10-0 deficit in a game dominated by defence and in particular a fierce pass rush from both teams. The Bills Pass-rush had harrassed elway all game and eventually forced him out with injury. Kubiak went 11-12 and scored a TD on a 3 yd scramble. The Broncos won the on-side kick and Kubiak set off towards the Buffalo endzone again only for Steve Sewell to fumble the ball and give the Bills a 10-7 victory and a trip to the SB.

Kubiak had the ability to start for half the teams in the league during his career but stayed in Denver to back-up Elway and then went on to coach the offence in Elway's two SB win,s spending eleven seasons coaching in Denver. I would not be surprised to see him back in Denver as HC some day.

poldebruin

I had also read that Kubiak was very highly regarded, and had also heard the line that he could've started for half the teams in the league. Problem was, that Elway was so durable, and was never in danger of being benched (well Dan Reeves briefly had ideas of trading him to Washington and drafted Tommy Maddox as heir apparent in 1992ish) that Kubiak rarely had a chance to show what he could do. In the days before free agency, a good backup quarterback was liable to be able to stay with a team for a long period, and would know the playbook inside out - even if he wasn't receiving reps with the first team.

Another couple of notables from when I first started watching football were Steve DeBerg, who could possibly be more accurately described as a journeyman quarterback, but was ouseted from SF by Montana, DEN by Elway, and TB by Young. He also backed up Marino - backup at one time or another to 4 hof qbs!

Steve Bono also backed up successfully during his career - until he got a shot at being the starter in KC. He went 12-4 (or 13-3 or some such) nd led them to the playoffs, but the next year they decided to go with Elvis Grbac and traded him away.

Finally, Frank Reich - a long time backup of Jim Kelly is responsible for the greatest comeback in NFL (possibly only playoff ) history. He lead the Buffalo Bills back from 35-0 down at halftime against the Houston Oilers (Tennesse Titans) to win 40-38 in 1993/4. That team was loaded, but he certainly wasn't a game manager that night.

kmart6

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

His best game was the last game he played before retirement - when he replaced Elway wiith 4 minutes to go in the 1991 AFC Championship game against Buffalo when he brought the Broncos back from a 10-0 deficit in a game dominated by defence and in particular a fierce pass rush from both teams. The Bills Pass-rush had harrassed elway all game and eventually forced him out with injury. Kubiak went 11-12 and scored a TD on a 3 yd scramble. The Broncos won the on-side kick and Kubiak set off towards the Buffalo endzone again only for Steve Sewell to fumble the ball and give the Bills a 10-7 victory and a trip to the SB.

Confusing paragraph is confusing!

Think your saying he led them back, yet they were still losing, hadn't tied the game,'setting off to the end zone' consisted of one play lost at the 45....didn't really lead them back! Still a good performance of the day though!

poldebruin

kmart6 wrote: »

Confusing paragraph is confusing!

Think your saying he led them back, yet they were still losing, hadn't tied the game,'setting off to the end zone' consisted of one play lost at the 45....didn't really lead them back! Still a good performance of the day though!

Well et's say he led them back into the game after being down 10-0.

Sewell's fumble was indeed costly, but David Treadwell had such a Cundiff of a game, missing 3 makeable field goals, I wouldn't have liked to rely on him making anything on the day. I could be wrong, but after being in the pro bowl the year before, that game cost him his job.

Jolly Red Giant

kmart6 wrote: »

Confusing paragraph is confusing!

Think your saying he led them back, yet they were still losing, hadn't tied the game,'setting off to the end zone' consisted of one play lost at the 45....didn't really lead them back! Still a good performance of the day though!

kmart - one question - did you see the game?

I watched it live - the Buffalo defence harrassed Elway (11-21 for 121 and a INT) the entire game and stuffed the run. The Broncos defence did something similar to the Bills - Buffalo passed for a season low 109 yards. The Broncos kicker Dave Treadwell hit the post twice on field goals. It was a fantastic display of defence from both teams and one of the best games i have seen. Kubiak blew the Bills out of the water when he came in for an injured Elway (he went 11-12 for 136 Yds and rushed for a further 22 YDs). Only for Sewell fumbling the ball after the broncos recovered the on-side kick, the Broncos would have won the game - Buffalo couldn't stop Kubiak. Elway stated afterwards that he should have come out of the game much earlier and let Kubiak do his stuff.

Kubiak was an exceptional back-up QB - an extremely intelligent player with an excellent skill-set. He had plenty of opportunities to go to other teams but stayed in Denver. It was exactly the same when he was OC - the only job he was going to leave Denver for was HC with the Texans - he repeatedly turned down HC jobs with other teams. He began learning his coaching skills on the sideline when a back-up and was a key component part of the Broncos offence constantly discussing with Elway during the game - you rarely saw either of them on the sideline without the other standing or sitting beside them.

davyjose

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

kmart - one question - did you see the game?

I watched it live - the Buffalo defence harrassed Elway (11-21 for 121 and a INT) the entire game and stuffed the run. The Broncos defence did something similar to the Bills - Buffalo passed for a season low 109 yards. The Broncos kicker Dave Treadwell hit the post twice on field goals. It was a fantastic display of defence from both teams and one of the best games i have seen. Kubiak blew the Bills out of the water when he came in for an injured Elway (he went 11-12 for 136 Yds and rushed for a further 22 YDs). Only for Sewell fumbling the ball after the broncos recovered the on-side kick, the Broncos would have won the game - Buffalo couldn't stop Kubiak. Elway stated afterwards that he should have come out of the game much earlier and let Kubiak do his stuff.

Kubiak was an exceptional back-up QB - an extremely intelligent player with an excellent skill-set. He had plenty of opportunities to go to other teams but stayed in Denver. It was exactly the same when he was OC - the only job he was going to leave Denver for was HC with the Texans - he repeatedly turned down HC jobs with other teams. He began learning his coaching skills on the sideline when a back-up and was a key component part of the Broncos offence constantly discussing with Elway during the game - you rarely saw either of them on the sideline without the other standing or sitting beside them.

Nice post