Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
Lists like these really drive home how important the quarterback position is. If you're a GM or a coach, your legacy will be driven by your quarterback, and guess what? Your quarterback will be a result of your philosophy toward quarterbacks.
If you unwaveringly hitch your wagon to a guy who's not good (Pioli with Cassel), you'll be reviled. If you never take a chance to get a great quarterback, you'll never succeed (Peterson with retreads). And if you find and draft the greatest quarterback we've ever seen, you'll never buy a beer in this town again (Veach).
|
It's fair to point out that Peterson just operated in a different time.
We use the rearview mirror to deify a LOT of mediocrity in the 90s. The Cowboys didn't win because Troy Aikman was a great quarterback. Troy Aikman is considered a great quarterback BECAUSE the Cowboys won.
Jim Kelly's the same way. Watch videos of the guy and he wasn't amazing - he was a glorified game manager. Mark Rypien is another.
There are LEGITIMATE arguments for somehow placing Bobby Hebert among the 10 best quarterbacks of the 90s, likewise with Randall Cunningham. I'd have taken Trent Green over Hebert, Cunningham, Rypien and probably Kelly. I'm not sure he was notably worse than Aikman, he just didn't have the defense the Cowboys had those years. And while Elvis Grbac was by no means a real success here, he was also not clearly worse than someone like Jimmy Grapes - he just didn't have the surrounding cast Garappolo had.
Steve Bono was the only egregiously stupid decision he made at quarterback when you consider the majority if the era he operated in. By the end of his run, the worm had started to turn but through most of his Chiefs career, he made decisions that were reasonable when they were made. And even then, can you imagine a scenario in the modern draft when "These two quarterbacks are vying for 1.1!" yields the loser a slide all the way down to 24?
In 2020 the 4th best quarterback in the draft was taken at 26 to replace a guy many thought was the single best player in the draft when he was taken at 24 in 2005. Tua will never be taken at 24 again. I don't imagine there will be many years where Herbert slides out of the top 20 going forward and he was never truly in the mix for a top 5 selection. Rodgers was a legit possibility at 1.1 and went into free-fall when a single team passed on him.
Even at the end of Carl's run, an elite quaterback was considered a luxury, especially when the prototype of an elite quarterback over the previous 25 years or so never won a championship.
Carl operated in an era when you could create the myth of greatness for a quarterback by surrounding him with talent. Marty is in a similar boat. What they did at the time wasn't absurd or unheard of - in fact it was largely conventional wisdom.