Tanier on QB recycling

**JimZipCode** · 12-13-2018, 11:54 AM

More specifically, he writes on the Alex Smith / Kirk Cousins / Case Keenum three-way swap meet from this past offseason. But I didn't think I could fit that into the thread title.

Here's the piece:

QB-Needy Teams, Listen Up: Beware the Next Kirk Cousins
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...t-kirk-cousins

The failure to plan

The biggest winner in the quarterback swap meet is the team that didn't really participate: the Chiefs. They drafted Patrick Mahomes a year before they needed him, groomed him under Smith, set the whole cycle in motion and now get to spend their mid-weeks talking about no-look passes instead of firing coordinators. The biggest loser was Washington. They played franchise tag with Cousins for years but never thought to draft a potential replacement. Now they're at ground zero at quarterback, with a potential franchise-wide shakeup looming.

The biggest lesson of the sad 2018 quarterback grab is that teams should always have quarterback solutions. Unless you just drafted your Mahomes, you should be looking for your next one: trading for a Bridgewater, drafting Jimmy Garoppolo and Jacoby Brissett types in middle rounds, kicking tires on late-rounders a year before you need them instead of the year after.

The best organizations will plan ahead and think outside the box. The worst will end up disappointed because they looked for their quarterbacks in all the wrong places.

That bit reflects well on the Ravens and Lamar. Joe is under contract for two more seasons, but they moved very proactively when a high-upside QB fell to them at the back-end of the first round. They "groomed" him for the first half of the season behind Flacco, and now they have a path forward. It's way too early to know how it's going to turn out: but as a move it's very smart and alert.

That piece also has a little something in it for you Harbaugh haters:

Mediocrity-by-design is the NFL's gravity. Coaches prefer decisions that all but guarantee a record between 7-9 and 9-7 (everyone keeps their jobs) over gambles that risk a 3-13 disaster but hold 13-3 potential. Risk aversion is the force that keeps unimpressive coaches and their buddy assistants employed, ensures that outdated and inefficient schemes remain in use, and makes "proven" quarterbacks with firm handshakes and tucked-in shirts who are just good enough to lose playoff games filthy rich.

Now, don't act like I never give you anything.

**bmorecareful** · 12-13-2018, 12:17 PM

Typical Tanier article. It sucks when your QB gets injured? Mediocre QBs on mediocre teams tend not to dominate? It's good to have a plan at QB? Teams with dumb FOs get bad results? Wow, what insights!

**JimZipCode** · 12-13-2018, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

Typical Tanier article.

I like Tanier a lot.

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-13-2018, 12:58 PM

Didn't read the article and don't know who Tanier is, but I made a similar comment on here last week - of that QB carousel only KC has benefited.

Think you must have that top QB to compete, no matter the cost?

Last year's final 4 QBs included Bortles, Keenum and Folk...

**JimZipCode** · 12-13-2018, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

Didn't read the article and don't know who Tanier is...

He used to write for Football Outsides, and he contributed chapters to their yearly almanac. Went "solo" several years ago – I've followed him across "Sports On Earth" and now Bleacher Report.

He's a smart alec, tries to be funny a smidge more often than necessary. He deploys a lot of pop culture references. But he's got a good head for what's important, and he's smart. He looks at film and he goes to the Senior Bowl; he's not a dilettante. I have him bookmarked and read every piece.

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

Think you must have that top QB to compete, no matter the cost?

Last year's final 4 QBs included Bortles, Keenum and Folk...

Yeah, that's a helluva factoid.

Jags were stacked; Vikes also an extremely good team; Eagles got their seed because of Wentz, plus talented around the roster and a very innovative scheme. Maybe what the Keenum & Folk examples prove (and going back to Jeff Hostetler, and before that to Don Strock, and before that to Earl Morral) is the importance of having a good backup QB.

**bmorecareful** · 12-13-2018, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

He used to write for Football Outsides, and he contributed chapters to their yearly almanac. Went "solo" several years ago – I've followed him across "Sports On Earth" and now Bleacher Report.

He's a smart alec, tries to be funny a smidge more often than necessary. He deploys a lot of pop culture references. But he's got a good head for what's important, and he's smart. He looks at film and he goes to the Senior Bowl; he's not a dilettante. I have him bookmarked and read every piece.

Yeah, that's a helluva factoid.

Jags were stacked; Vikes also an extremely good team; Eagles got their seed because of Wentz, plus talented around the roster and a very innovative scheme. Maybe what the Keenum & Folk examples prove (and going back to Jeff Hostetler, and before that to Don Strock, and before that to Earl Morral) is the importance of having a good backup QB.

Meh. The Jags, Vikings, and Eagles have all regressed to the mean this year for reasons not particularly related to their QBs. What Tanier fails to see in his article is that so much of who "succeeds" in the NFL comes down to variance, particularly if you lack an elite HC-QB pairing.

You only play 16 games a season. That's just not enough to have fluky outcomes stabilize, so things like one BS flag or one miracle play can literally decide a game and one game can decide a season.

Are the Vikings really regressing or not improving because they swapped Keenum for Cousins? Or is it because they went from playing a 3rd place schedule in 2017 to a 1st place schedule in 2018? Even so, they're only 2 1/2 games back from where they were at this point last season (10-3 vs 6-6-1) That's a lot, but there might only be 10 plays total separating that win-loss record. Mind you, there is almost no daylight statistically between Cousins this year and Bradford/Keenum last year.

The "stacked" Jags team of 2017 is basically the same team this year, they returned like 20 of 22 starters. Fournette got hurt, but he wasn't playing great anyway and actually didn't play all that great in 2017 either. What has killed them isn't that Bortles regressed; he is who he is. They overachieved in 2017 and regressed as a team back to their mean level this year.

**GOTA** · 12-13-2018, 02:08 PM

That Jags O-line also got beat up and had zero depth. They're starting guys the Giants cut.

On the QBs you can also look at Watson in Houston. He was there the year before but as we all know got hurt. As his health improved so did the team. Drafting a QB fairly high sure seems the way to go even if you miss and have to do it again

**JimZipCode** · 12-13-2018, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

That Jags O-line also got beat up and had zero depth. They're starting guys the Giants cut.

Ew!

Originally Posted by GOTA

On the QBs you can also look at Watson in Houston. He was there the year before but as we all know got hurt. As his health improved so did the team. Drafting a QB fairly high sure seems the way to go even if you miss and have to do it again

I almost feel like you should draft one every 3-4 years, in the second if possible, so that you always have one on his rookie contract "on deck".

Can you imagine? Never sign a QB to a second contract; instead, use the money to max out on sack artists and skill-position players and a great O-line. Start a new QB every 4 or 5 years. That would be fun.

You'd have to have a fucking awesome OC and QB coach, though. Like, maybe Sean Payton could pull it off: damn few others. Even Andy Reid hasn't gone to that extreme.

**JimZipCode** · 12-13-2018, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

What Tanier fails to see in his article is that so much of who "succeeds" in the NFL comes down to variance...
You only play 16 games a season. That's just not enough to have fluky outcomes stabilize, so things like one BS flag or one miracle play can literally decide a game and one game can decide a season.

Tanier understands variance well enough. Better than most of us. It just didn't come up in this piece, which was about something else.

Good post, though.

**bacchys** · 12-13-2018, 02:31 PM

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Alex Smith getting hurt wrecked the Skins, but it was working for them before that. It's not like young players are immune to injury.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

**The Excellector** · 12-13-2018, 02:34 PM

Ravenswintitle was on this point a week or two ago. Tanker must have read the board.

**Shrubbs** · 12-13-2018, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

Ew!

I almost feel like you should draft one every 3-4 years, in the second if possible, so that you always have one on his rookie contract "on deck".

Can you imagine? Never sign a QB to a second contract; instead, use the money to max out on sack artists and skill-position players and a great O-line. Start a new QB every 4 or 5 years. That would be fun.

You'd have to have a fucking awesome OC and QB coach, though. Like, maybe Sean Payton could pull it off: damn few others. Even Andy Reid hasn't gone to that extreme.

Man I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't want to be the team that attempts that with how often QBs bust. I think if there is a position to sink money into, it's Quarterback.