THURSDAY TAVERN TALK….
I have always believed that starting quarterbacks in the NFL are like pitchers in baseball and should have their win-loss record posted next to their name. So, here goes….
Brad Johnson (DAL) starting this week as well as the possibility of Seneca Wallace (SEA) starting
Here’s an update on the different QB’s used this season
Through Week 6, 43 different starting QB's this year (there were 45 different starters used through 6 weeks last year)
2008 STARTING QUARTERBACKS (THROUGH WEEK 6)
Team Starter/Record
Buffalo Trent Edwards (4-1)
Miami Chad Pennington (2-3)
New England Tom Brady (1-0) Matt Cassel (2-2)
N.Y. Jets Brett Favre (3-2)
Team Starter/Record
Baltimore Joe Flacco (2-3)
Cincinnati Carson Palmer (0-4) Ryan Fitzpatrick (0-2)
Cleveland Derek Anderson (2-3)
Pittsburgh Ben Roethlisberger (4-1)
Team Starter/Record
Houston Matt Schaub (1-3) Sage Rosenfels (0-1)
Indianapolis Peyton Manning (3-2)
Jacksonville David Garrard (3-3)
Tennessee Vince Young (1-0) Kerry Collins (4-0)
Team Starter/Record
Denver Jay Cutler (4-2)
Kansas City Brodie Croyle (0-1) Damon Huard (1-2) Tyler Thigpen (0-1)
Oakland JaMarcus Russell (1-4)
San Diego Philip Rivers (3-3)
Team Starter/Record
Dallas Tony Romo (4-2)
N.Y. Giants Eli Manning (4-1)
Philadelphia Donovan McNabb (3-3)
Washington Jason Cambell (4-2)
Team Starter/Record
Chicago Kyle Orton (3-3)
Detroit Jon Kitna (0-4) Dan Orlovsky (0-1)
Green Bay Aaron Rodgers (3-3)
Minnesota Tarvaris Jackson (0-2) Gus Frerotte (3-1)
Team Starter/Record
Atlanta Matt Ryan (4-2)
Carolina Jake Delhomme (4-2)
New Orleans Drew Brees (3-3)
Tampa Bay Jeff Garcia (1-1) Brian Griese (3-1)
Team Starter/Record
Arizona Kurt Warner (4-2)
St. Louis Marc Bulger (1-3) Trent Green (0-1)
San Francisco J.T. O’Sullivan (2-4)
Seattle Matt Hasselbeck (1-3) Charlie Frye (0-1)
EAGLES DRAFT STUDY….
Another project I always made sure I did when I had control of the personnel department (this was never done at the Hotel, as “Someone in the Building” had control), was to grade the scouts on their performance. Now, this always caused a huge blow up in the building and scouts thought it was wrong to judge their grades. But for me, it helped to evaluate the scouts as well as let me know when to push their conviction and when to know they were not as strong as their own grade.
FALSE POSTIVE--Meaning the scout gave a make it grade to the player and after three seasons the player failed to make an NFL team
FALSE NEGATIVE--Meaning the scout gave a non make it grade to a player and after three seasons the player did, in fact, play.
CORRECT GRADE--The scouts grade reflected the correct grade.
Here is the beginning of the memo I sent out…
“As we get better in our overall understanding of our own team's philosophy, it is important to review our standards year to year. Each year produces different challenges and goals. We should all feel proud that we have increased the talent on this team to a play-off level, yet we still need to become even better at our jobs so we can continue our success. It is vital that you improve your ability to accept the responsibility of your job. Making sure that every stone is uncovered and that every player that may have a remote chance to make our team is given the most sincere evaluation. With our new incentive program the organization has given each scout an opportunity to increase his salary by just doing a good job. Please take pride in your work. It’s important that we work harder, as the team has gotten better, to avoid the pitfalls of failure.
Each scout has been evaluated over the last three years on his grades by position, and has received an overall grade. We feel that if you will be willing to work on your weaknesses as indicated by our research, then you will become a more productive talent evaluator. We’ve graded when you have been too high on a player; and he has failed to play; when you have been too low on a player; and he has played. So when you think that your grade is not important, please think again.
We have a 75.9% accuracy grade as a department. We need to strive to improve that this year. Our goal is to take our number to 77.9%. If we can accomplish this then we have taken this department to another level.”
Now this leads us to the Eagles. They have been taking so much grief for showing no interest trading for Lions WR Roy Williams that I have defended their philosophies. But the problem with what the Eagles are doing is they bank so much on the draft, and the one area as an organization that they don’t excel is in the draft. I am not trying to be critical or get anyone fired, but simply state a fact based on studies of their draft.
SIMPLE FACTS
When you look at the names, what is most alarming is for all the talk about being cap sound and adding youth to the team, the names are not impressive, even if they do start. The Eagles are not a talent rich team---maybe that is why I defend McNabb so strongly. As John Madden used to say, “having a great quarterback is a great deodorant”.
Finding talent is a talent---- and the Eagles have the right plan in theory, but not in practice.
Mike,
Do a similar review of New Englands draft picks the last 6 years or so and you'll see a bunch of misses and underachiever's too....
... going 24-11. Not to forget Griese and Ferotte at 6-2 combined.
Mike,
Are you saying Mcnabb is the only reason this team has been any good? Dig deeper, are their second day pics better? This team has been as consistent as any in the last 6 years.
I too would like to see an analysis of the Pats, but you must include them trading draft pics for likes of Corey Dillon, Wes Welker and Randy Moss. They stole those players.
In your opinion who has been the best at drafting over the last 6 -8 years (chargers, indy?) and what has that teams record been. Don't just pic on the Eagles, follow it up with a team you think does it right.
Great article.
Regarding the pats I count 15 out of 22 starters plus the kicker are all from the draft.
You've really been piling on the Eagles, but if you are interested in objective grading - which you seem to be with the grades given to scouts - you should check the Football Outsiders stats. According to them, the Eagles are the #1 team in the NFL. Donovan McNabb is ranked 6th and Westbrook has missed a lot of snaps, so they're hardly covering up for a huge dearth of talent elsewhere.
Certainly the Eagles would be even better had they executed better in the draft. They've followed a perfect formula and would be far and away the NFL's best team if they actually had the talent on their offensive and defensive lines that their draft strategy could have led to. Still, they are hardly a talent deficient team.
I don't like the Eagles. I just don't think these criticisms match up with the facts. Also, according to FO, Roy Williams is a below average WR, which matches eyeball evidence pretty closely. You'd have to be a poorly run franchise to trade much of anything for him, and that is what the Cowboys currently are.
Putting a record next to the QB would kind of stink for a guy like Trent Edwards, who has that loss next to his name despite only playing 3 plays in that game!
I'd be interested to see a comparison to the Giants (from the same division and with similar ideals on drafting well) because their recent couple of drafts seem to have been very solid and helped build to the Superbowl win last year.
They appear to have drafted well, but don't have too many acknowledge 'stars' on the team yet.
These numbers are great, but they need some context. Where do they fall in relative to the rest of the teams? They should not be judged just next to the Pats or the Giants, but to all teams...
Drafting is an inexact science to say the least
Would you do any type of reconcile with other players taken in and around each pick and/or where a player was projected to go. While taking the right player is the key, it also makes sense to take someone as late as possible. An example would be taking someone in the 4th round since you knew he would be available but theoretically liking them better than your 2nd round pick. That may never happen but curious. Good stuff as usual.
Ignore that one, sorry. A scout's grade is way different than draft position. Me no read goods.
Sonny L
here is the 1st day break downs for the Pats
2008- Mayo (starter), Wheatley, OConneoll
2007- Meriweather
2006 - Maroney (starter), Dave Thomas
2005- Logan Mankins (probowl), Nick Kaczur (starter)
2004- Vincent Wilfork (probowl), Ben Watson (starter), Marquise Hill (deceased), Guss Scott
2003 - Ty Warren (probowl), Eugene Wilson (was starter for years), Bethel Johnosn (bust)
2002- Daniel Graham (starter), Deion Branch (SB MVP)
2001- Richard Seymour (probowl), Matt Light( probowl), Brock Williams (bust).
Interesting stuff. I suppose every job has accountability and oversight. Tho I can see why scouts might get hot over that, since they are not delivering finished products to the team. Do you also grade coaches on player development, or does that fall entirely on the HC? Is that given weight or factored into a scout's eval?
I agree that the Eagles are a model franchise in some ways. I read an interview a few years ago in PFW (not to be confused with PFT) with Joe Banner. And I thought he was pretty sharp, a guy with a plan for cap management and roster building, using a two year horizon to keep restocking. And rolling over unused cap space, ect. But yeah, lot of their draft picks are suspect. Lot of guys who don't seem to really fit what they do.
False Posi, that would be Teyo(loved him in college, a 6 TD every six touches of the ball).
Mr. Lombardi,
Do you think Carson Palmer is still considered the QB of the future for the Bengals? He's relatively young, yet with one of his targets only catching attention and the absence of a running game to go along with that Bagel they've posted in the Win column, do you think it's conceivable the Bengals are going to start the climb up next year and move on trying another QB? Or would you argue it's mostly their defense and that Marvin Lewis' mastermind on D can help fix that fast enough for Palmer to want to stay around?
PS.. Patrick Willis for President
Cory, let's use some logic shall we. What on god's green earth would the Bengals stand to benefit by searching for a new quarterback, the most precious commodity in all of football, when they already have a proven star in Carson Palmer who's prime is still ahead of him. Teams have wasted an entire decade in futility while trying to find a franchise quarterback. Right now the Bengals have one building block, and his name is Carson Palmer. So what is your rationale for moving on without him again?
Mike, I would love to see more studies of the draft, but you haven't convinced me re: the Eagles and Reid's ability to build a winner with their strategy.
1a. The best Eagles lineman drafted was not Derrick Burgess, it was Shawn Andrews. Burgess was never a first team All-Pro. Unless you are only talking 2nd and 3rd rounders, in which case...
1b. Why cherry pick the 2nd and 3rd rounders? If your 5th rounder is a pro bowler but your 2nd is a washout, does it matter compared to a 2nd round pro bowler and a 5th round washout? What data do you have that shows a high percentage of 2nd/3rd round starters on the team correlates with a high winning percentage, compared with an analysis of all rounds of the draft?
2. Your analysis looks built to make your point - you need to compare the Eagles success/fail rate against other teams in the NFL. Is 30% success rate in rounds 2 and 3 below average? By how much? How many starters on the average 2007 playoff team were drafted in the 2nd and 3rd round by the team playing them?
3. As a comparison example: Of the 2004 super bowl team's 22 starters, 10 were drafted by Reid. If you include rookies he claimed off waivers and signed as UFA (i.e. did not make a contribution as a pro until Reid found him) that number goes to 13 players. This is the same as the team they played in the super bowl, the Belichick Patriots (10 drafted starters).
I would love to see a list of Reid-era, successful teams who were built with more than 10-12 starters drafted and developed solely by that team. That would be an interesting starting point if you wish to compare the success of Reid's strategy vs. the NFL. Let's not forget that the Reid Eagles are the the second most successful franchise in his era, behind Belichick's Patriots. I think you could argue the Manning Colts as a #2 but the Eagles would be #3.
4. Getting the QB right is 90% of the job. The list of "great" head coaches without a great QB is pretty small. Consider the 1999 QB class other than McNabb, all of whom Reid could have had (other than Couch). They were all complete flameouts excepting Culpepper who is out of the league.
I guess it seems odd to me to single out the Eagles, who have largely been successful under Reid, vs. any number of franchises who have been wasting their time for most of the decade. Maybe it is all McNabb, but he is a product of Reid's strategy, which has been very successful thus far.
Thanks
What's sad for Carson(correct grade) is that his team appeared to have many pieces in place for establishing a team of the decade.
Suddenly they let some OL talent go to free agency, and it's run amok. Their backs look less impressive and Palmer is cashing his check.
The Cowboys had a big three with Troy, Emmit, Irvin,(big four counting Novacek). A huge OL crew.
Palmer, Chad, TJ, that's pretty good for a big three in the passing sector. The OL fell apart so no back could thrive there and Perry(Bengals false positive) is plastic when it comes to handling the rock as well(felt that all along, correct grade).
They have also developed a good young secondary though. The rookie LB(false negative, was confusing him w/his team mate Trojan) has been pretty solid as well, the D is on the way up. Cincy is closer than a lot of people imagine.
The team has a lot of pieces in place, but OL don't grow on trees. When you let them go over money it is an indictment against the top of their organization.
Palmer was never a scrambler either, letting go of a starting G and T without established compensation is like pissing upwind.
Would I rather have Chad's soap opera, or what we've got in O town with no true number one? At this stage I'd take TO and consider it a win. There's certain players you need to raise your level of play. Bill Walsh had players that he would bring along or sign for several seasons to improve his team.
That means making some risky calls perhaps, but when it's clear the time is past you have be just as judicious in cutting them loose. It's how the sport is played. Walsh even tried out Hollywood Henderson. If he'd have done that at the stage of his career he was in, it's pretty easy to believe he'd take serious dibs on a Chad, or would have approved retaining TO down the road. Maybe even yes on a Williams, as Jerry has done. The other two players fit more what the Niners types of teams do, in my opinion, but from a standpoint of whether your team has people of the size and strength to match up in the red zone or at the chain marker, that's the issue for Dallas. Does the new guy do things better than the players he'd replace on your charts? Seems like a big thing for Texas was inverted routes, the deep in or back line throw in the red zone. People play the out so tightly, the deep in should come in behind it, especially on dual routes vs. two deep zones, and teams have to zone up on TO most of the time. Their QBs Young and Sims weren't sticklers for accuracy, they got the ball in the general area and played tall, because their WR were the same way and could get to the ball if it was near.
As for Cedric Benson, I'll admit to having just looked at his numbers coming out of school. Vince Young as a QB can open all kinds of running room for a RB inside on the OZ run threat. In Benson's HS days his quarterback would flip Cedric the ball and pull lead for him on sweeps like an extra blocker so he always had numbers and it hid a lot of his speed shortcomings at that level as well. That would have taken a lot of extra film reps to get into, but if an NFL team were willing to pay, I'll take notes....
Here's something from Charlie Casserly, GM at Washington and Houston. Like most, Mr. Casserly's record is mixed. On the plus side, he got the good end of the Ricky Williams deal (1999, and made the right choice between Mario Williams and Reggie Bush; on the downside, he initiated the Jason Babin deal (2004).
Anyway:
Charlie Casserly: “we did a 10-year study on the draft to judge the success rate of players selected in each round. I defined a successful player as one who is starting four years after being drafted. Four years gives him a chance to prove himself, and if you are not starting after four years you will probably be replaced on the roster. The results were as follows:
Round 1 -- 75 percent
Round 2 -- 50 percent
Round 3 -- 30 percent
Round 4 -- 25 percent
Round 5 -- 20 percent
Round 6 -- 9 percent
Round 7 -- 9 percent
Sorry, I don't have the citation; time period was in the weeks leading up to the last draft.
Off that, the Eagles seem to be in range; not outstanding, but not awful either.
Mcnabb was the key, and the other picks have been able to benefit from McNabb..we will do this every thursday, as I can tell from the reaction, everyone loves he draft.....
Here is the Eagles draft history.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=3700&type=team
Couple things:
1. It is true they've drafted just (6) linemen, O or D, in rounds 2 & 3, and that Burgess is the best. In fairness, Bobbie Williams is starting too, tho in Cincinnati. Three others are young: Winston (06), Abiamiri (07) and Laws (08). Excluding Winston, who was taken ahead of McNeil btw, it would be a surprise if the others were starting.
2. Their Day 2 record is not good. LG Todd Herremanns (R4, 2005), DE Trent Coles (R5, 20050) and OLB Omar Gaither (R5, 2006)are the sole current starters taken R4 and on. DE/DT Raheem Brock (R7, 2002) is starting in Indy. That's it; that's the list.
2002 brought: Sheppard, Sheldon Brown, (Michael Lewis), Westbook and (Brock). 2005 brought Mike Patterson, Reggie Brown, Herremanns and Coles. Those were fairly good drafts but 2003 (1 starter, LJ Smith) and 2004 (1 starter, RG Andrews) were not. Back-to-back singletons, 5 and 6 years ago, are a real problem for this team, especially as there's no telling what's up with Andrews.
The catastrophe that is Kevin Colbert's recent mid-round record.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=3900&type=team
Since 2004, approaching Casserly's 4th year injunction above, the Steelers have made 18 picks from R3 thru R5. The results may be summarized as follows:
(1) starter: willie colon, very possibly the worst RT in football.
(2) situational players: MAtt Spaeth, 2nd TE and William Gay, developing as a package DB and gunner.
(3) scrubs who see the field if but only if disaster strikes: Max Starks, Trai Essex and Anthony Smith.
(3) rookies: it is fair to say that Bruce Davis and Tony Hills showed little in August action. Dennis Dixon did. At present, Davis is a special teams player; as such, he has been less impressive than two other rookie LB: UDFA Woods and Bailey.
(9) cuts: including R3 Willie Reid; R4 Fred Gibson, Orien Harris and Ryan McBean; R5 Nate Adibi, Rian Wallace, Omar Jacobs, Charles Davis and Cameron Stephenson.
From 2004 forward, in sum:
Of (6) R3 picks, (1) situational player (Spaeth), (3) scrubs (Starks, Essex and Smith, (1) rook (Davis) and (1) cut.
Of (5) R4 picks: (1) starter (Colon), (1) rook (Hills) and (3) cuts.
Of (7) R5: (1) situational player (Gay), (1) rook (Dixon) and (5) cuts.
Horrendous.
Oops. Hadn't enough coffee before; so omitted Dan Sepulveda, R4 2007. Sorry.
The tally then, is:
From 2004 forward, R3-5:
Of (6) R3 picks, (1) situational player in Spaeth, (3) scrubs (Starks, Essex and Smith), (1) rook (Davis) and (1) cut.
Of (6) R4 picks: (1) starter in Colon, (1) situational player in Sepulveda, (1) rook (Hills) and (3) cuts.
Of (7) R5: (1) situational player (Gay), (1) rook (Dixon) and (5) cuts.
Or:
(1) starter
(3) situational players
(3) scrubs
(3) rookies; of those, one may be described as promising.
(9) cuts
Bottom line remains: horrendous.
Hey Joey Murph, I don't believe I was asking you? Carson Palmer has a large deal with him and his services may very well be appreciated elsewhere, he understands that as does the NFL. He is only in sync with Houshmanzadeh and must be frustrated with this losing scene coming from USC and his previous seasons with the Bengals. If you happened to read at the end I offered an answer I may have been looking for, reassurance from Mr. Lombardi, in that Lewis can build up the defense in two years or so and Carson will still be ready to go by then. Thus he'd have the desire to stay, no where did I state it would be wise for them to get rid of their star QB (whose ridin some pine rite now with that injury). Relax sir.
fifty cent beer,
Thanks for the Casserly information. A couple years back I bought a pre-draft magazine from ESPN and they had an intersting breakdown of starters in the league and where they were drafted. The percentages followed a similar pattern:
1st rounders: 30.0%
2nd rounders: 19.5%
3rd rounders: 13.3%
4th rounders: 9.9%
5th rounders: 5.9%
6th rounders: 5.0%
7th rounders: 4.5%
Undrafted: 11.8%
That was based on 706 players they determined to be starters heading into the 2006 season.
I have the information broken down by position as well. Just track me down at my link.
Must be something in the air, i've started an excel spread sheet to chart drafts, just facts as objective as I can. In philly we always want to run a sword through andy for just about any reason at all. We overlook his record and his choices of mcnabb and westbrooke and tend to focus on the selctions like freddie mitchell and jerome mcdougal (not to mention taking lj smith ahead of jason whitten) and game time management. looking forward to see how the birds stack up against the rest. I think the birds most recent talent gaff was not getting gonzo, they could have brought in one tight end and got rid of the 3 existing ones giving up draft choices they don't use well.
Mike,
In your front office experience, did you have a devil's advocate, someone to check group think? It seems andy's problem is that he has good people but they all are of like mind and won't challenge him.
| powered by TheSeats.com |
No one knows the future, but one...
Unconventional thinking, plus...
Questions and thoughts about the...
Super Bowl thoughts: Freeney,...
Is Browns GM serious about Tebow?...
Oct 16, 2008
05:49 PM
Who would have thought back in early September that Jason Cambell, Matt Ryan, Jake Delhomme, Trent Edwards, Kerry Collins, AND Kurt Warner would all be included in the list of winning QBs six games in.