Do you think teams can “ruin” Qb’s?

[Mr Raider]

To me it's not really debatable that teams can ruin QBs. That doesn't mean that EVERY bad QB, or QB that failed to live up to expectations is a victim of their environment and a byproduct of their teams incompetence though. 

Just because a guy may be seen as not reaching expectations and goes to another team and doesn't become better doesn't indicate the team didn't play a huge part in "ruining" them. I don't in most cases (David Carr is a guy I do believe became shell shocked from all the hits and wouldn't have recovered in any environment) believe it's a case of a QB being shell shocked or being ruined for the rest of their career in every subsequent stop, but to me it isn't debatable that a QB playing in a terrible environment with poor leadership, a ton of coaching instability, bad coaching overall, etc can play a part in that player never reaching the heights on a second or third team they could have had they gone to a strong environment to start. Practice habits, the way you are coached to process certain things, the things coaches teach you about fundamentals and such can be a ridiculous thing to try and break and relearn/correct for the future. Be it immediately or ever. Not everyone is capable of changing things like their technique and the way they were drilled to process information and what they look for in specific instances particularly in live action where the bullets are flying and things happen incredibly quickly. It takes a tremendous amount of practice, repetition, and rewiring your mind and body. And the NFL isn't the place where you have a ton of time or a long leash to relearn those things and fix out the kinks and teams will live with the struggles that come with trying to do that until you are comfortable.

Going to another team and not succeeding doesn't mean if you are good it will automatically come to the surface with a new team either. For one, it is entirely possible a QB goes from one terrible situation to another. Just because they get a new start on a new team doesn't mean they are leaving for a team with a GM that knows how to identify talent to surround the QB with, it doesn't mean the GM knows how to find value in free agency to do the same. It isn't a guarantee your new team will have high quality coaches that are capable of finding the right way to communicate coaching in a way players understand. It isn't a guarantee that new team will have stability, surrounding talent needed for any one player to look as good as they can. It doesn't mean the front office and coaching will have a united vision for what they are building. It won't be a lock you will get consistency in terms of good coaches and those good coaches staying keeping you from having to learn and adjust to multiple offensive systems, the techniques they believe are most beneficial and all of that. 

The vast majority of the time highly thought of QB prospects are drafted highly. That means they are going to one of the worst teams in football. Often time those bad teams are bad because of poor ownership hiring GMs that aren't qualified, who hire coaches with the expectations they take over a team the GM hasn't proven capable of supplying talent to. They then expect that coach to take a team devoid of talent, significantly less talented than a lot of other teams and turn them into a good team. And they expect it to happen in 2 or 3 years and refuse to give them enough time to truly show if they are the man for the job from a realistic viewpoint of expecgations. Which leads to constantly forcing players to learn new systems early in their careers, a lot of times those players are now no longer fits skill set wise to thrive in those systems, the free agents they can attract they have to over pay, a lot of draft picks are busts that don't contribute to helping the QB play up to their potential. There's a reason so many bad teams are bad consistently over years and years and sometimes even longer. And then when those QBs don't live up to expectations they are then cut or traded, and where do they get traded to? It's not typically good teams with a great foundation from ownership on down. Those great teams typically can't be great teams if they are in need of a QB to the point of drafting or signing a guy that failed to impress in their first stop and are a reclamation project. They most often are traded to bad teams, and bad teams often have to roll the dice on those types of QBs because they haven't been able to find an even solid QB at all. And now we think we can determine if the player just wasn't good enough or if the team played a factor just by moving them to another terrible team that can never draft and develop a QB themselves? 

It obviously doesn't mean every instance is a case of the team ruining the QB. Obviously some just don't have it. And obviously guys that have troubles off the field or are lazy or whatever shouldn't get any of that type of benefit of the doubt. But to act like teams are never culpable for QBs not reaching their potential? That's crazy talk. They definitely do. And them not instantly finding success on their second team isn't proof. It doesn't mean what they experienced in their first stop didn't form holes and flaws in their game mentally or physically. And it's entirely possible, and I'd argue most likely that in most cases their second team has some or all of the same holes and deficiencies they experienced on their first team that plays a large part in their failures to improve or show what they are fully capable of then. Let alone what they may have been had they gone to a stable, well run, smart organization with talent throughout the roster from the very start. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Mr Raider

[Mr Raider]

I would also say in most cases, it's at best a combination and not solely the team ruining a player that would have been elite or something. Teams ruining a QB is used far more often that it should really apply. The majority are in situations where if they have the tools they will at least be a decent starting QB. Now could they have been a really good one in a better situation? Sure. There's so much that goes into being a good QB. I don't know how to quantify the right amount percentage wise ownership, coaching, surrounding talent, etc plays a part in comparison to just overall talent of the player. But I am a believer that sound ownership and coaching are a majorly underrated aspect by at least casual viewers. 

There are a few guys I think I'd buy were put in such a bad spot that they were forever going to be damaged goods. Most of the time QBs that don't look great on their first team weren't in such a bad spot that it was going to be impossible for them to play at a high level where I would say they are ruined. But their chances of turning their careers around when they get to that point does increase substantially if they can go to a well run, well coached organization as opposed to going from one terrible team where they looked bad to a different terrible team. 

I'd also say that there's plenty of examples of QBs that were good but not elite or anything that the team was limiting their full potential. We have seen guys that were solid or good go to a new place and look like an entirely different player. If teams don't play a factor in a QB being bad or whatever what is happening there? The team had nothing to do with it they just significantly improved right when they got to the other team after however many years already in the league? That seems unlikely. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Mr Raider

[TitanSlim]

I’m forever going to think the Titans “ruined” Mariota to a degree by going through 4 OCs in his 5 years here, while also never developing an offense that was similar or close to the one he ran in college that made him one of the most efficient QBs in NCAA history.

He probably would’ve busted here anyway because of his durability but it’s forever a “what if” for me.

[RaidersAreOne]

100%.

[pwny]

Blake Bortles is a what-if for me as well.

He had a very unnatural throwing motion that wasn’t conducive to playing at the NFL level. He’d often go out to Arizona to work with Jordan Palmer on his throwing motion when it was at its worst and come back looking better in the pocket, being more accurate with the ball, making big plays. But then inevitably his throwing motion would start to degrade again and he’d look completely awful.

I don’t necessarily think the team ruined him because ultimately it was his natural throwing motion that was the issue. But I do wonder if the Jaguars hadn’t just completely ignored his mechanics and expected that him working on them during the offseason when it was really just disastrous would be good enough, and instead had hired an assistant coach whose job involved always working on mechanics with him throughout the entirety of his career, if he could have stayed being the more successful version of what his range of play was. Drafting a guy with mechanical issues and then never addressing it as a team seems a good way to doom a player to never being good.

And then after 5 years with the Jags, he’s not really worth a team investing those kinds of resources into refining his arm the way that it made sense to do when he was viewed as a potential franchise QB after being drafted.

[CP3MVP]

I forgot about Matthew Stafford. He was drafted to the worst team ever and Managed to become a top 15 QB who led his team to the playoff several times. 
 

You’re not going to a team worse than the 2008 lions so there’s no real excuse to be terrible Individually

[CP3MVP]

1 hour ago, Mr Raider said:

To me it's not really debatable that teams can ruin QBs. That doesn't mean that EVERY bad QB, or QB that failed to live up to expectations is a victim of their environment and a byproduct of their teams incompetence though. 

Just because a guy may be seen as not reaching expectations and goes to another team and doesn't become better doesn't indicate the team didn't play a huge part in "ruining" them. I don't in most cases (David Carr is a guy I do believe became shell shocked from all the hits and wouldn't have recovered in any environment) believe it's a case of a QB being shell shocked or being ruined for the rest of their career in every subsequent stop, but to me it isn't debatable that a QB playing in a terrible environment with poor leadership, a ton of coaching instability, bad coaching overall, etc can play a part in that player never reaching the heights on a second or third team they could have had they gone to a strong environment to start. Practice habits, the way you are coached to process certain things, the things coaches teach you about fundamentals and such can be a ridiculous thing to try and break and relearn/correct for the future. Be it immediately or ever. Not everyone is capable of changing things like their technique and the way they were drilled to process information and what they look for in specific instances particularly in live action where the bullets are flying and things happen incredibly quickly. It takes a tremendous amount of practice, repetition, and rewiring your mind and body. And the NFL isn't the place where you have a ton of time or a long leash to relearn those things and fix out the kinks and teams will live with the struggles that come with trying to do that until you are comfortable.

Going to another team and not succeeding doesn't mean if you are good it will automatically come to the surface with a new team either. For one, it is entirely possible a QB goes from one terrible situation to another. Just because they get a new start on a new team doesn't mean they are leaving for a team with a GM that knows how to identify talent to surround the QB with, it doesn't mean the GM knows how to find value in free agency to do the same. It isn't a guarantee your new team will have high quality coaches that are capable of finding the right way to communicate coaching in a way players understand. It isn't a guarantee that new team will have stability, surrounding talent needed for any one player to look as good as they can. It doesn't mean the front office and coaching will have a united vision for what they are building. It won't be a lock you will get consistency in terms of good coaches and those good coaches staying keeping you from having to learn and adjust to multiple offensive systems, the techniques they believe are most beneficial and all of that. 

The vast majority of the time highly thought of QB prospects are drafted highly. That means they are going to one of the worst teams in football. Often time those bad teams are bad because of poor ownership hiring GMs that aren't qualified, who hire coaches with the expectations they take over a team the GM hasn't proven capable of supplying talent to. They then expect that coach to take a team devoid of talent, significantly less talented than a lot of other teams and turn them into a good team. And they expect it to happen in 2 or 3 years and refuse to give them enough time to truly show if they are the man for the job from a realistic viewpoint of expecgations. Which leads to constantly forcing players to learn new systems early in their careers, a lot of times those players are now no longer fits skill set wise to thrive in those systems, the free agents they can attract they have to over pay, a lot of draft picks are busts that don't contribute to helping the QB play up to their potential. There's a reason so many bad teams are bad consistently over years and years and sometimes even longer. And then when those QBs don't live up to expectations they are then cut or traded, and where do they get traded to? It's not typically good teams with a great foundation from ownership on down. Those great teams typically can't be great teams if they are in need of a QB to the point of drafting or signing a guy that failed to impress in their first stop and are a reclamation project. They most often are traded to bad teams, and bad teams often have to roll the dice on those types of QBs because they haven't been able to find an even solid QB at all. And now we think we can determine if the player just wasn't good enough or if the team played a factor just by moving them to another terrible team that can never draft and develop a QB themselves? 

It obviously doesn't mean every instance is a case of the team ruining the QB. Obviously some just don't have it. And obviously guys that have troubles off the field or are lazy or whatever shouldn't get any of that type of benefit of the doubt. But to act like teams are never culpable for QBs not reaching their potential? That's crazy talk. They definitely do. And them not instantly finding success on their second team isn't proof. It doesn't mean what they experienced in their first stop didn't form holes and flaws in their game mentally or physically. And it's entirely possible, and I'd argue most likely that in most cases their second team has some or all of the same holes and deficiencies they experienced on their first team that plays a large part in their failures to improve or show what they are fully capable of then. Let alone what they may have been had they gone to a stable, well run, smart organization with talent throughout the roster from the very start. 

There’s a big difference between as you said “not reaching his full potential” and being flat out garbage though lol. Andrew luck was drafted to a dumpster fire with indy and never reached his full potential but managed to be a really good player despite all of this because of his talent. 
 

Also how many teams do these guys have to fail with before we acknowledge they stink. You said failing with the second team isn’t proof. 4,5? 

[CP3MVP]

1 hour ago, TitanSlim said:

I’m forever going to think the Titans “ruined” Mariota to a degree by going through 4 OCs in his 5 years here, while also never developing an offense that was similar or close to the one he ran in college that made him one of the most efficient QBs in NCAA history.

He probably would’ve busted here anyway because of his durability but it’s forever a “what if” for me.

The titans “ruining” him went out the window when another QB came into the lineup and started lighting it up. I remember people clowning the titans weapons and coaching as the reason Mariota stunk.

 

Nah he just sucks, it’s just him, it’s the vast majority of failed QBs. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, pwny said:

Jeff Garcia is a pretty great example of this in motion.

He was a pretty good QB in SF in their west coast offense. Dennis Erickson comes in and changed the offense, and he’s terrible. He goes to Cleveland to start and play in a system that’s about as different from the West Coast offense as one can imagine and he’s complete garbage again. Goes to Detroit, again not playing West Coast offense and he’s awful in his few games there. Then he goes to Philly, and when he’s tasked with playing Andy Reid runs west coast concepts and suddenly he’s an effective player again. Then he goes to the Bucs and they run more west coast concepts and he’s again an efficient QB.

Three straight teams decided to not run concepts the guy was good at and instead asked him to do things that showed off his limitations. Meanwhile the three stops where he’s put into an offense that he can do the things that he’s good at and hides the things he’s not good at, he’s an effective player.

Throw any player into the start of their career with the string of coaches and misfit offense that Garcia had for three years, and a guy is going to look like a complete bust and never really be given a chance to prove otherwise.

The 49ers offense wasn't changed in Dennis Erickson's first season as coach with the 49ers, which was Jeff Garcia's last. Gregg Knapp was still OC there when Erickson arrived, and the 49ers offense had been one of the better units in the league up until that point. Erickson wasn't going to come in and tear it down, which he didn't. Garcia's play had slowly been getting worse since his 2000 season, and he was really banged up that year. 

[TitanSlim]

1 minute ago, CP3MVP said:

The titans “ruining” him went out the window when another QB came into the lineup and started lighting it up. I remember people clowning the titans weapons and coaching as the reason Mariota stunk.

 

Nah he just sucks, it’s just him, it’s the vast majority of failed QBs. 

Yeah he was done by then. I’m mainly focused on the Mularkey/Robiskie years.

[Soko]

I don’t even believe it’s debatable that some QBs are ruined by their teams/coaching. But there’s no absolutes. Not every guy who fails was failed by his coaching. Not every guy who’s failed by his coaching, fails in the league. 

[RuskieTitan]

4 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

No, it’s the opposite.  
 

QBs are ruining teams.

Just look at Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers.  

I disagree, one could argue that Devin Funchess is the reason that the team is getting ruined.

*Ducks and runs*

[HolmesPriest]

The Colts ruined Andrew Luck. Now the Bengals are trying their darndest to ruin Joe Burrow.

[Mr Raider]

56 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

There’s a big difference between as you said “not reaching his full potential” and being flat out garbage though lol. Andrew luck was drafted to a dumpster fire with indy and never reached his full potential but managed to be a really good player despite all of this because of his talent. 
 

Also how many teams do these guys have to fail with before we acknowledge they stink. You said failing with the second team isn’t proof. 4,5? 

I mean I agree with that. 

But the context is everything, what are we classifying as flat out garbage?

Like JaMarcus Russell? The Raiders did him virtually zero favors, but they didn't ruin him. His lack of work ethic, leadership, passion for the game, understanding of the game, accuracy, etc are what ruined him. He would have busted regardless of situation IMO. 

Like does RG3 count past his rookie season? How abot Sam Bradford? Jameis Winston and Mariota? Are we strictly talking the guys like Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, EJ Manuel, Ryan Leaf, Manziel, Kyle Boller, Leinert, Weeden, etc type of busts? 

I personally wouldn't say Sanchez (from the original post) was awful on the level of guys like Russell, Manuel, Gabbert. Though Sanchez certainly wasn't good lol. I wouldn't argue Sanchez was one of the guys that should have a real argument made that he was ruined by the franchise that drafted him. 

The type of guys I would consider deserving of an argument like that would be David Carr, Tim Couch, guys that were drafted to expansion level talent. Not just your typical bad/lack of talent of the teams picking top 5 most NFL drafts. 

Carr and Couch were tasked with being the #1 overall pick and the literal franchise for expansion teams that were totally devoid of talent. Carr was brutalized at a level no other young QB has ever experienced, especially to begin their career. His time in Houston was filled with sky high expectations, nothing exceptional coaching wise, very little talent anywhere else on the field. He didn't really have one thing to point to as a service to his development like a lot of high first round QBs get. He was put into a situation where I find it hard to believe ANYONE would have found success in his position. I have no idea if Carr would have been great somewhere else. But I feel comfortable saying that he was put into a situation that actively hurt his development and ability on the field, and was sacked at such a rate so early that coming back from and overcoming long term is an unreasonable ask IMO. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Mr Raider

[Mr Raider]

And as far as the question of how many teams do you need to see someone play on before you can say they aren't good, I don't think there's one singular answer. I don't think something like that can be answered with a blanket statement. It's going to differ from player to player and situation to situation. If were talking about making that decision if you are the GM of the team it comes down to need, scheme fit, just how bad that guy has played, what you currently have on the roster, and how much that player would cost to sign vs your evaluation of his ceiling. If you're talking from a fan perspective, again it's tough to say. Guys like Russell and Leaf? I wouldn't/didn't need to see multiple seasons to know they were doomed. Not because of their situation but their attitude and character. Someone like RGIII? I don't think we can ever say he absolutely wouldn't have been good or better if things were handled differently with his knee his rookie season. Who knows exactly how much effect that had on the rest of his career, every player is different. And there's other variables the injury could have effected that contributed beyond just physically. He was drafted by one of the worst run franchises in recent memory with the pressure of not only being the #2 pick but the team trading multiple high picks to select him there. He's great as a rookie. That terribly run franchise botches the decision to play the long game and keep him in when something was clearly wrong, he blows out his knee, comes back and sees a clear decline in his play, but wasn't AWFUL. He then has the HC that drafted him leave, gets a new HC and new offense, all the roster turnover that comes with that, gets hurt again and then traded. But he's traded from one team not known for stability to another team that has been even worse in recent memory. He is viewed as competing for the job, but struggles with injuries again, and the coaching and talent around him at almost every spot is just awful. This is a team that ended up 1-15, and that wasn't even rock bottom. Not exactly a situation you can say was the best situation to show how much was situation and how much was his ability (though injuries were the biggest factor and even that could go back to his first team and the ripple effects that had). Then was traded to Baltimore which is obviously a huge upgrade from both his previous spots but they have an entrenched starter that has won MVP in the last 2 years that is in his mid 20's. Now that all the damage has been done by injuries and previous bad coaching/situation/whatever we will probably never truly know how good he actually was. 

It just depends on HOW bad someone has been. Their character matters. But there isn't a definitive number for guys that aren't downright all time type awful. We have seen players at all positions find a lot of success on their third NFL team. I would say for mid level QBs that didn't live up to the hype like Jameis, Mariota, Darnold, Wentz, those types I would need to see them fail to show solid starting caliber play at 1 more place before I would say definitively that you have the necessary information to know they shouldn't be viewed as anything more than a quality backup, because they all were in situations that could have had a negative impact to their on field ability and they are all now stepping into situations that are clearly better than what they were in. When it's clear to say the situation improved if you don't see any improvement it's safe to say they just don't have "it." Right now even if none have looked great, they have showed enough that you could justify starting them this season at least as a stop gap with youth to have potential for more long term. But even then I wouldn't say I could feel 100% confident they wouldn't have been better had they been drafted into better positions to start their careers (besides Wentz really) And they would have to fail at a ridiculously bad level for me to say they are just bad players not worthy of a backup spot. Someone like Trubisky, he was a pretty huge bust for Chicago but his play wasn't SO bad it kept Chicago from having any success. I don't think much of Naggy and Pace, but the Bears didn't "ruin" Mitch. I would say he was in a good enough spot to say he won't ever be the franchise QB he was drafted to be. Before I would say he can't be a low level starter I would need to see him see extensive time for the Bills in a good situation for a QB and show zero improvement after being able to sit on the bench and work on some things. Goff? He's shown enough highs to say that he isn't awful, but was put in a great situation most would agree. He's now going to a MUCH worse situation, so even if he looks worse this year, I wouldn't definitively say that the Lions weren't holding him back. He's shown enough and had a good enough situation to show in the right environment he can be decent to pretty good. If you're asking if he can be better than his best on the Rams you have enough info. If he bombs with the Lions you also have enough info to believe the right situation could see him improve back to decent starter type ability. 

Context is everything in deciding that. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Mr Raider