love this article about the lack of QB evaluation

[PSBLAKE]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-thoughts/


I think this is spot on and why the NFL teams who spend huge money analyzing QBs cant figure it  out is beyond me.

[Guest]

Because it is more than the qbs.  It's the system.  

When we had a stacked box facing a run blitz with AP - no handoff lead to qb pressure.  So is our line that much better?  Or is our offense now unpredictable and capable getting yards running or passing - making the o line's job easier?

Is it a mystery why every backup in New England is so great?  What would Brady look like on Cleveland?  Why San Fran was just as good with Montana, Young and even backups like Bono.  

Case would be a superstar in New England too.  

[Guest]

I agree totally with the general premise that the NFL can't evaluate QBs. I just don't quite buy the examples he uses to support it. Keenum would probably do better in Chicago and Cleveland than Glennon or Hoyer did, but he sure as hell wouldn't be playing like he is here. 

With a few exceptions (maybe Brady, Brees, Rodgers and a handful at the bottom) every QB in the NFL rises and falls based on his system and changes to his supporting cast. That's why it's so important to get those things right before you try to develop one. And it's especially important to consider those things before you try to evaluate one. 

Look at Alex Smith. For years, he was considered a bust (especially since he was taken 1st overall when Aaron Rodgers went 20-some picks later). They forced him to learn 6 different offenses in 5 years. I don't care if you're Joe Montana, that isn't going to work. And it's going to give you a false read on his true ability. He's in KC now with some stability and he's been to two Pro Bowls and looks like he's headed to another. 

[Guest]

Keenum came into the best situation BY FAR of any of the QBs listed in the article.  I think that is a big reason for his success compared to the other QBs.  That said, the article does make a good point about NFL team's struggling to evaluate QB talent.  There is no reason that Glennon and Hoyer should have been paid that much more than Keenum given their prior production and "perceived" talent.  The Vikings got a major FA STEAL when they signed Keenum.  In hindsight, it's too bad we didn't give him a multi-year contract.

[Guest]

It also explains Zimmer's interview comment from back in the day when he refused to say what his strategies would be. It's clear that the coaches who "figure it out" (i.e., how to create a complete system) do not like to share that knowledge, because it can be a long-term game changer.

[Guest]

For my two cents worth, what has changed in "QB assessment" is that these kids today are immature when it comes to playing in the NFL.  These crappy teams that draft these phenoms out of college and immediately throw them out to the sophisticated defensive wolves behind makeshift O lines are to blame.

Rodgers, a first round pick, had been a back up for three years before becoming the starting QB. What teams would even do that today? By contrast look at the QB's that have failed after starting way too soon. 

Hundley never thought for a minute he was going to start this year. That the Packers coaching staff failed to get this kid up to speed is obvious.  But looking at his college career, did they really draft a potential replacement for Rodgers (as Rodgers was for Favre) or just an inexpensive sub?

[Guest]

Always blows me away that these teams pay millions of dollars to coaches and gms and can't figure out to build the lines before adding the QB. 

Adding my two cents about QB evaluations, some teams are just desperate and stupid.  Cleveland paid $100 grand to study which QB was best.  Then they ignored that and drafted an entertainer.  So many get desperate, throw money at unproven, aren't patient enough to teach a player to be a QB in their system.