4 comments Tim Keown Informs Us Quarterback Success Has Nothing To Do With Talent But Lack of Quarterback Need For That Team

If you like poor reasoning, then you are going to love Tim Keown. This short little article is like the cliffsnotes version on how to reason through a problem inaccurately. This is "How to Take One Variable to Explain A Situation and Ignore the Other Variables That Affect the Situation For Dummies."

Enjoy!

Keown's basic point is that possibly quarterbacks should sit and learn the offense for a while before being asked to start. A premise I completely agree with in fact. I think that is the best way to ensure a quarterback will be able to succeed in the NFL.


On the yellow brick road to this conclusion Keown takes several detours and refuses to become distracted by the fact there are other variables for success that affect how a young quarterback succeeds in the NFL.

Among the factors we will ignore are:

1. Talent level of the rest of the team around the QB

2. Whether the system is the right system for the QB's talents

3. If the young QB was lucky enough to stay in the same system under the same set of coaches during his "apprenticeship."

But mostly:

4. A quarterback's level of success has absolutely nothing to do with whether the team that drafted him had a need for a quarterback when the player was drafted. In essence it makes sense for a team that has every other position filled to use a draft pick on a young QB, but this essence runs head on into Tim Keown and nothing survives.

There are many lessons to be learned from the dual sagas of Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith, not the least of which is this: The best time to draft a quarterback is when you don't need one.


I like how he approaches this article, he goes ahead and gets his incredibly wrong conclusion out of the way early. Doesn't hesitate, just throws it out there. Rather than couch it in terms that may better explain what he is saying beforehand that could reasonably explain why this conclusion has been reached, he just jots it down and looks at it proudly. Well done Tim!


I would argue this lesson actually is the least of the lessons that could be learned. Among the better lessons are:


1. Alex Smith may not have as much talent as Aaron Rodgers


2. Aaron Rodgers studied under Brett Favre for three years, this had to help him 1%, at a minimum.


3. It is helpful to a quarterback to be in the same system with the same head coach, offensive coordinator and receivers for a few years.


4. Teams can not throw a QB on the field and expect success. The team actually has to assist the quarterback in becoming a great player.


Easier said than done, of course, since there are times when you don't think you need one until suddenly you discover you do.


What? This is Yoga Berra-esque.


In pro football it is really, really easy to see if you need another quarterback.


One way you can find out if you need a quarterback is to go through your "roster" and look under the heading "quarterbacks." Then you will want to see who your "starting quarterback" currently is, use a "pen" to scratch his name off, then look at who would be the "starting quarterback" if your original starter did not exist as a human being on this planet. If that name scares you, then you know you may need another quarterback.


It's pretty much unquestioned that quarterback is the most important position in any team sport.


I am not going to argue this point, though I really, really want to. I am just going to say you can not win the World Series with 5 average pitchers but you can win a Super Bowl with an average QB. That is all I am going to say.


Nothing else really compares -- not a big-time starting pitcher (significant only every fifth day)


You would have to compare all of the starting pitchers on a roster for a baseball team, you can't take just one...because all 5 pitchers make up that one position in different games.


Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson from 2001 and Josh Beckett from 2003 would like to even argue this point about one big time starting pitcher, but they will not. I do realize Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling are two people but I am converting them into one mullet sporting, John McCain loving, bloody sock wearing, camera man abusing unstoppable pitcher for the present time.

or even a LeBron James-type basketball player (though that one comes closest).


I think this IS the exact same situation as a big time QB. Our reader(s), if anyone can name one time in pro football when a shitty team won the Super Bowl because of one good player, being the QB, please tell me and I will send you a box of Hot and Spicy Cheez-Its. Just like a pro basketball player can't do it alone, a pro football quarterback can't do it alone.


And if NFL offenses seem at times to be overly complicated -- maybe even artificially complicated -- well, you're not alone in that line of thinking.

If Tim Keown ran an offense in the NFL, it would be incredibly basic and easy offense for a quarterback to run. There would be 8 plays in the playbook, including a flea flicker he ran 4 times a game. His audibles would consist of the quarterback shouting out the play and the direction of the play at the line of scrimmage and the offensive coordinator would hand the play to the quarterback after each play in crayon on a neon index card with each person's assignment for the play. His offense would rarely score and he would be fired from the position very quickly. At his farewell press conference he would bemoan the quantity of plays he is expected to formulate and give to the QB to run.

After the press conference the Kansas City Chiefs would hire him as their head coach so he can tutor Brodie Croyle. Croyle would still not understand how to run the offense.

Aren't all offenses "artificially complicated?" There are no offenses that exist naturally in the world, they are all man made, so they can not be complicated by their nature. I guess he is saying things are made harder than they should have to be, but I think that also prevents defenses from finding out what play is being run...unless they are playing the Patriots in which case all of the opposing team's offensive plays are on video tape because they cheat.


It is a good thing that the playbook and plays are so complicated, it prevents the defense from knowing exactly what the offense is doing. So yes, Tim Keown is alone in this thinking.

For three years he played behind Brett Favre, and it was the rare instance in football where nobody clamored for the backup.


Even when Favre's TD:INT ratio was 18:18 and 20:29 two of those years? I am sure someone clamored for Aaron Rodgers at some point...very quietly, but clamored nonetheless. Brett Favre is a god though, so no one would ever do this right?


I would call Brett Favre God Himself on Earth, but that would be insulting to Brett Favre, because he can do so many things that God on Earth can not.


How good do they look now? They drafted him in 2005 knowing he wouldn't play right away,


False. They drafted him because they needed a QB, other than Craig Nall, that could run the football team because Brett Favre had threatened to retire every single year since 1998. How quickly we all forget what a liar and overall flip flopper the ex-Packer QB is. We also forget the 2005 Packers had much larger holes they should have filled that fateful year, but chose to take Rodgers because they never knew when Favre might pack it up and go to Mississippi to retire, then call them a month later to un-retire, then retire again, then un-retire and demand a trade.


The theory on Rodgers is this: It wouldn't have happened if he started as a rookie. In fact, if he had started as a rookie, it might not have happened at all.


Good analysis but what other factors would play into this?


Yes, Aaron Rodgers would not be as good as he is now, if he had started his first year in the league. The Packer's talent level was not as high on the rest of the roster as it is today and Rodgers would have struggled learning the offense because it was his first year in the offense. Keown is correct but he forgets these other major points.


He is also correct it would not have happened at all because 95% of the Cheeseheads would have hung him in effigy because he was not Brett Favre and never have let him forget a single mistake that he made in a game. This is another reason why it would not have been beneficial for Aaron Rodgers to start his first year.


I truly believe QB's should be given time to mature into the position, rather than thrown out there immediately. There are exceptions to this rule but I think it is a good general rule.

Which brings us back to Alex Smith. Taken by a quarterback-starved 49ers team with the first pick of the same draft, Smith was tossed into the grinder far too soon. He played poorly, got hurt and wandered through three different offensive coordinators in his first three years.


Keown just named two major factors that impeded Alex Smith's development as a quarterback. He was throwing to Brandon Lloyd and an ex-QB (Arne(a)z Battle) for his WR's, so it is not like he had Donald Driver and Greg Jennings out there, like Aaron Rodgers has currently. Of course, according to Keown, Alex Smith would have been successful if he was drafted when the 49ers already had a good QB. They were quarterback starved, so he really had no chance. The fact he was throwing to 98 year Isaac Bruce and had three offensive coordinators in his three years had nothing to do with it.


Make sense to you? Not to me either.

Remember, Tim Keown is wondering if teams who currently do not need a QB should draft a QB as a high pick in the NFL draft even though they already have a QB. There is a difference in drafting a QB when you do not need one though, and drafting a QB when you current QB is still performing at a high level. If you have Jon Kitna, this theory works well and you will be able to groom a QB, but if you have Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb or Drew Brees, this theory does not always work to the advantage of the team. In the case of Favre, if he had not retired, Rodgers would probably have sat the bench again this year and then left in free agency, and then where does that leave the team when Favre does retire? Kevin Kolb is probably going to end up leaving in free agency and Drew Brees did go to New Orleans.

If your team has other holes that could have been fixed in the draft, it does not make sense to draft a QB. I would never argue a QB should be thrown into the fire quickly, but what is more important is having one offensive scheme for the QB to learn, good players around that player, and the QB has had plenty of time to learn the system. I think this is what dictates the quarterback's success, rather than when he is put on the field. If Aaron Rodgers had no one to throw to and was learning a new system this year, of course he would not have been successful no matter how many years he sat on the bench.


And Smith, out for the year with another shoulder injury and ostensibly through as a 49er, is being discussed as the worst pick in the history of the NFL draft.
And right now, it would be hard to craft a compelling argument against that statement.


Right now, my argument is not compelling but is correct. Akili Smith is the worst ever, or David Carr. They were god awful without being injured, as Alex Smith seems to be. Also, 49er fans might remember Jim Druckenmiller. He was horrible as well.


Akili Smith at least had Peter Warrick and Corey Dillon, while David Carr had Andre Johnson. I think everyone is being a little hard on Alex Smith. Would you want to QB the 49ers?

So what's a team to do? If you have the luxury, pick a quarterback high in the draft and wait it out.


Guess what another factor in this decision should be? The salary cap. How many teams can afford to tie up two expensive QB's on the roster? Not many. How many teams can afford to spend a high draft pick on a position of non need? Not many. It seems like a real luxury to do this that many teams can not afford.


Another problem with this theory you are inviting a quarterback controversy. Remember Drew Brees/Phillip Rivers, Kevin Kolb/Donovan McNabb, and Derek Anderson/Brady Quinn? Granted those three situations got worked out but you can't tell me the Eagles don't wish they had drafted another receiver or a pass rusher instead of Kolb or the Browns wish they had drafted a cornerback instead of Brady Quinn right now.


As a real-life example, think about how many years Peyton Manning has left at his current level. Four, maybe five?


I know where is going with this and rookie contracts are generally 4-6 years long. So the rookie QB would at best scenario in this example have one year to prove he is the starter whereupon he can be let go, without another QB to replace him possibly, or he will be a free agent. Neither of these seem like ideal situations. Carry on though.........


Look for a quarterback, now, with the idea of getting one of the top two in next year's draft.


It's that easy! One of the top 2 quarterbacks to back up Peyton Manning for the next four years at a minimum! If Peyton gets hurt, no biggie, there is your good, young backup. If Peyton does not get hurt, no biggie either, a 22 year old high draft pick does not mind sitting the bench for four years. Right? I know Mark Sanchez is at USC right now with a Peyton Manning poster on his wall dreaming of backing him up for the next four years, until he gets his chance to start in 2013 at the earliest.


Even if a team has no other needs, it still does not necessarily make salary cap sense to do this. Great idea in theory, but at that point the Colts are paying approximately 15-18 million dollars for two quarterbacks on the roster.

Would the Colts also have to trade up to get this QB? Usually the top 2 QBs are no longer available when the Colts would be able to pick. Assuming they don't have to trade up to get this QB, this still seems impractical to pay two QBs a lot of money. If Peyton Manning gets injured, assuming the backup is worth a crap, this looks like a genius move but when the defense can not stop the run or the Colts offensive line is leaking like a sieve, it does not seem that smart.

Pick your linebackers and wide receivers after the first round, and concentrate on the most important position first.


Let's look at the top 10 leaders in tackles last year in the NFL and see what round they were drafted in so we can find out when the impact linebackers were taken:


Patrick Willis- 1st round
D.J. Williams - 1st round
Jon Beason- 1st round
Ernie Sims- 1st round
Nick Barnett- 1st round
London Fletcher- undrafted
DeMeco Ryans- 2nd round
David Harris- 2nd round
Angelo Crowell- 3rd round
Brian Urlacher- 1st round


Let's look at the top 10 receivers in yards from last year to see where they were taken as well:


Reggie Wayne- 1st round
Randy Moss- 1st round
Chad Johnson- 2nd round
Larry Fitzgerald- 1st round
Terrell Owens- 3rd round
Brandon Marshall- 4th round
Braylon Edwards- 1st round
Roddy White- 1st round
Marques Colston- 7th round
Torry Holt- 1st round


So of the top 10 leaders in tackles and reception yards last year, 6 players in each of the categories were drafted in the first round. If you want an impact player in the draft and you are already set at quarterback, then it may not make sense to wait until later in the draft to get an impact receiver or linebacker.


I am all for having a quarterback wait a few years to take the starting spot, but you don't necessarily have to do it in the first couple rounds, especially if you are set at the position and have more pressing needs on the roster, as most teams currently do. You can develop a late round QB just as well as a early round QB. Other factors we have to remember is that you want to make sure any young QB has a good nucleus to build around him and will be using the same offense and coordinator for a few years.


So Keown is right in how to develop QB's but most QB's do not wait for 2-3 years on the same team, like Aaron Rodgers, for the opportunity to start.


Sign Alex Smith. Give him the apprentice years he wasn't afforded in San Francisco. That way, we'd all get to see whether environment is the main factor in the development of a quarterback.


If he were successful, then using the one factor of development time, we would be able to diagnose why he was not successful. Ignore the fact he could be more successful in his new environment because he has two Pro Bowl receivers a good running back and a great offensive line. Pay no attention to whether he had time to learn the system, or the type of offense he was expected to run matches up well with his skill set. Those don't matter, he will be successful because he was picked up by a team that did not need a quarterback and was given time to develop. Alex Smith, go ahead and sign with either the St. Louis Rams or the Pittsburgh Steelers. There is no difference in the teams now or in the future so it doesn't matter which one you choose, just sit the bench for a few years, and you will be a great QB no matter where you choose to go because both teams don't need quarterbacks right now. Perfect fit.