So with the draft coming up, a lot of people are wondering why Cam Newton is possibly going to be the number one pick of the draft coming from a very simple offense in which he lined up in shotgun and usually looked at one receiver before taking off on the run. The reason why is because of the intense pressure that a mobile QB puts on a defense.
Normally, when a defense lines up against a standard drop-back QB, the defense enjoys an advantage of 11 players to 10 because the defense doesn't have to worry about accounting for the QB. With the mobile QB, the game evens out and the defense is forced to account for the QB's running ability, thus leaving one less defender to defend the pass. The problem is that none of the extremely mobile QBs have managed to master the passing game the way a Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Drew Brees have.
This is what originally made the wildcat offense in Miami, and then other teams who copied the attack, so difficult to defend. It became an 11-on-11 game where, if you can win the one-on-one battles, you have a very good chance at success. This sort of pressure has allowed teams in the college game to dominate with offenses like this. The Single Wing and option offenses are based on this. With an even battle, defenses have to be extremely disciplined in order to stop it. One mistake its a touchdown. At the NFL level, where defenses are as fast the offenses and extremely well disciplined, they can account for all the offensive players and stop the option offenses if they try to run it. If the QB can still be a viable threat to pass with success, he would essentially be unstoppable. You began to see signs of this in Philadelphia this year with Michael Vick. Under these circumstances, WR's don't have to worry about being double-teamed. The problem is that Vick is so injury prone and his inconsistencies as a passer began to reappear as the season went along. Put pressure on him and he still has a tendency to panic.
This is where Cam Newton comes in. His running ability, while not at the level of a Michael Vick or Vince Young, is still above average. His size makes him seem much more durable in the NFL then the others that have come before him. He is much further along than Vick or Young were coming out of college. His throwing ability needs much less work. The question then becomes if he will be willing to put the time in to be one of the best. Manning, Brady and Brees all live their profession. Young -and Vick early on in his career - is a "9-5 QB". The quarterback position in today's game of complex defenses and blitzes requires total devotion. You have to be willing to be the first one to show up and one of the last to leave. It certainly is not a job of convenience.
Many people compare Newton to Young in saying they are exactly the same - running QB's, getting drafted on their exploits in their final season, primarily the national title game. In reality, they are not that similar. Newton is not as gifted a runner. He is slower, but also more durable. He seems to be willing to work. Primarily, however, is his ability to deal with adversity. This was Young's biggest flaw. When things went bad, he didn't deal well with it. Newton has been dealing with adversity all season and still performing well.
All-in-all, as discussed in my previous post, there is no real way to translate a QB's success in college to the NFL. That said, Newton seems to be much more likely to become the mythical "Dual-threat NFL Quarterback" than his predecessors. Things could change, however, if he is not willing to commit entirely to his profession.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Is a QB worth the money at the top of the draft?
This post will sort of be made obsolete when the rookie salary wage scale comes into effect with the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, but its a good topic to discuss anyways. First, lets look at Quarterbacks taken in the top 5 over the last 10 years:
2010. Sam Bradford, #1, St. Louis Rams, 6 years, $78 million
2009. Matthew Stafford, #1, Detroit Lions, 6 years, $72 million
Mark Sanchez, #5, New York Jets, 5 years, $60 million
2008. Matt Ryan, #3, Atlanta Falcons, 6 years, $72 million
2007. JaMarcus Russel, #1, Oakland Raiders, 6 years, $61 million
2006. Vince Young, #3, Tennessee Titans, 5 years, $58 million
2005. Alex Smith, #1, San Francisco 49ers, 6 years, $49.5 million
2004. Eli Manning, #1, New York Giants, 6 years, $45 million
Philip Rivers, #4, San Diego Chargers, 6 years, $40.5 million
2003. Carson Palmer, #1, Cincinnati Bengals, 6 years, $40 million
2002. David Carr, #1, Houston Texans, 7 years, $46.2 million
Joey Harrington, #3, Detroit Lions, 6 years, $36.5 million
2001. Michael Vick, #1, Atlanta Falcons, 6 years, $62 million
Although there seems to be an upward trend in success for QBs taken in the top 5 in recent years, 6 of the 13 quarterbacks drafted (Vick, Harrington, Carr, Smith, Young, Russel) that high have been undoubtedly busts for the teams that drafted them. For a couple others, their success is either still being determined or questionable (Palmer, Stafford, Sanchez, Ryan, Bradford). Eli Manning is the only one to be the starter for a Super Bowl winning team, and outside of that has been pretty mediocre. Philip Rivers is, as of today, unquestionably the best of the bunch. When you draft a QB in the top 5, and you pay him the amount of money that they are paid, you should be expecting that QB to be a top QB in the league at some point.
If you take a look at the best QBs in the league, most lists would include, in some order, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers. Of these five, only Manning and Rivers were top 5 picks.
The problem is that all of the QBs taken early are taken based on college success. As Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out in his article Most Likely to Succeed, (which you can find here) with QB's you can not predict how they will do in the pros based on what they have done in the past. This is what makes taking a QB so high in the draft a risky proposition. You simply can not predict their success with any degree of certainty. There are too many intangibles. How fragile is the guy? (Stafford) How will he handle pressure? (Young) How will he handle the complex schemes? (Russel) Can he stay out of trouble? (Vick)
With other positions, like offensive linemen or almost all positions on defense, you can predict success on a number of factors. It makes them safer picks. If you bust on a QB, it sets your franchise behind by years because of the sheer numbers in their contracts. Taking a second round QB will push the contracts down to below $15 million in most cases. Taking a QB simply later in the first round saves you almost $30 million. (Joe Flacco, the 18th pick in 2008, signed a 5 year, $30 million contract)
Its really simply a gambling game. If someone came up to you and said, I will give you 20% odds of winning the lottery if you will pay me $20 million. If you pay me $60 million, however, I will increase your odds to 40%. When you put it in those terms, does it really seem worth the risk?
2010. Sam Bradford, #1, St. Louis Rams, 6 years, $78 million
2009. Matthew Stafford, #1, Detroit Lions, 6 years, $72 million
Mark Sanchez, #5, New York Jets, 5 years, $60 million
2008. Matt Ryan, #3, Atlanta Falcons, 6 years, $72 million
2007. JaMarcus Russel, #1, Oakland Raiders, 6 years, $61 million
2006. Vince Young, #3, Tennessee Titans, 5 years, $58 million
2005. Alex Smith, #1, San Francisco 49ers, 6 years, $49.5 million
2004. Eli Manning, #1, New York Giants, 6 years, $45 million
Philip Rivers, #4, San Diego Chargers, 6 years, $40.5 million
2003. Carson Palmer, #1, Cincinnati Bengals, 6 years, $40 million
2002. David Carr, #1, Houston Texans, 7 years, $46.2 million
Joey Harrington, #3, Detroit Lions, 6 years, $36.5 million
2001. Michael Vick, #1, Atlanta Falcons, 6 years, $62 million
Although there seems to be an upward trend in success for QBs taken in the top 5 in recent years, 6 of the 13 quarterbacks drafted (Vick, Harrington, Carr, Smith, Young, Russel) that high have been undoubtedly busts for the teams that drafted them. For a couple others, their success is either still being determined or questionable (Palmer, Stafford, Sanchez, Ryan, Bradford). Eli Manning is the only one to be the starter for a Super Bowl winning team, and outside of that has been pretty mediocre. Philip Rivers is, as of today, unquestionably the best of the bunch. When you draft a QB in the top 5, and you pay him the amount of money that they are paid, you should be expecting that QB to be a top QB in the league at some point.
If you take a look at the best QBs in the league, most lists would include, in some order, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers. Of these five, only Manning and Rivers were top 5 picks.
The problem is that all of the QBs taken early are taken based on college success. As Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out in his article Most Likely to Succeed, (which you can find here) with QB's you can not predict how they will do in the pros based on what they have done in the past. This is what makes taking a QB so high in the draft a risky proposition. You simply can not predict their success with any degree of certainty. There are too many intangibles. How fragile is the guy? (Stafford) How will he handle pressure? (Young) How will he handle the complex schemes? (Russel) Can he stay out of trouble? (Vick)
With other positions, like offensive linemen or almost all positions on defense, you can predict success on a number of factors. It makes them safer picks. If you bust on a QB, it sets your franchise behind by years because of the sheer numbers in their contracts. Taking a second round QB will push the contracts down to below $15 million in most cases. Taking a QB simply later in the first round saves you almost $30 million. (Joe Flacco, the 18th pick in 2008, signed a 5 year, $30 million contract)
Its really simply a gambling game. If someone came up to you and said, I will give you 20% odds of winning the lottery if you will pay me $20 million. If you pay me $60 million, however, I will increase your odds to 40%. When you put it in those terms, does it really seem worth the risk?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)