Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

I collected some single season stats from the post Rypien era from some of the QBs who played here. Comparing Brunell's stats from 2005 the rest of these guys, I see many similarities.


Rich Gannon 1993: 8 games, 59.2% comp, 704 yards, 3 TDs, 7 INT, 88 rush yards, 1 rush TD.

Gannon completed 59.2% in 93 which is considerable considering he was stepping into big shoes. Efficient, but that 7 INT spot in 8 games played (and about half the starts) shows an inexpierenced QB. Gannon's stats look better when compared to Rypien's stats from the same season.


Heath Schuler 1994: 11 games, 45.3% comp, 1658 yards, 10 TDs, 12 INT, 103 rush yards

Theres no way to justify a 45.3% completion stat, but the guy really never got another chance to play after this horrid season.


Gus Frerotte 1995: 16 games, 50.3% comp, 2751 yards, 13 TDs, 13 INTs, 16 rush yards, 1 rush TD

Frerotte was an improvement over Shuler in his first year here, but 50% and only 2700 yards are not very impressive, obviously. Average Int total, but a mere 1 to 1 ratio between TDs and Ints.


Gus Frerotte 1996: 16 games, 57.4% comp, 3453 yards, 12 TDs, 11 INTs, 16 rush yards

Int total down from a year before, but TDs were down also. Still, Frerotte was far more efficient in 96 then in 95.


Gus Frerotte 1997: 13 games, 50.7% comp, 2682 yards, 17 TDs, 12 INTs, 65 rush yards, 2 rush TDs

TD production up, but passing efficiency went way down, comprable to his first year here.


Trent Green 1998: 15 games, 54.6% comp, 3441 yards, 23 TDs, 11 INTs, 117 rush yards, 2 rush TDs

Comp % is a bit low, but Green was really impressive in 15 apperances. 23 TDs was great for the era and 11 Ints is equally impressive. Plus, Green was somewhat of a rushing threat.


Brad Johnson 1999: 16 games, 60.9% comp, 4005 yards, 24 TDs, 14 INTs, 31 rush yards, 2 TDs

Johnson led a playoff apperance with a very high completion percentage, something he always has, 4000+ yards, and a high TD total, although his Ints weren't as impressive as Green's from a year back.



For sake of comparison:

Mark Brunell 2005: 16 games, 57.7% comp, 3050 yards, 23 TDs, 10 INTs, 111 rush yards

Over the past 12 years, only Brad Johnson and Gannon were more efficient with the ball (comp %) then Brunell last year. 10 Ints is the stat that stands out. Thats a full season low for the selected time period.

All of these guys (except Shuler) went on to have considerable success other places. Gannon and Green have been pro bowlers many a time, and Johnson won a SB. Brunell, of course, had considerable success in Jacksonville, before coming over here.

Here's the big question: with all the journeymen who came through here with considerable success, why were none of them ever retained through long term contract. I guess thats something the Franchise has always stressed, is a lack of reliance on one guy. We probably would have made the playoffs more often if we had settled on a guy. But then again I was too young to understand the business side of football during the 90's. So if someone could explain this trend of finding productive guys and letting them walk to me, that would be great.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

new coaching staffs = unstable roster = players leave when the contract is up. danny also wanted exciting players like jeff george over boring (but good) QBs like brad johnson.

so, jumpy owner, bad talent scouting of our current roster, and regeime changes gives way to missing the little details, like securing your quality QB long term..

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

its the redskins,there always has to be a qback controversy.remember we also had stan humphries here who qbacked san diego all the way to the super bowl

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

I NEVER understood why the hell we let Brad Johnson go in favor of Jeff "Headcase" George. I mean, I know that was Snyder's decision, but oh my God what a terrible call there. I really think it was one of the top 3 bonehead moves Snyder made in the early-going, and I think it set us back for years. The decision just flat-out made no sense.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

Shuler had a terrible attitude and was physically never right once he left Washington (and to reference another thread, yet one more great example of why investing a 1st rounder on a QB is a bad idea).

The key QB stat is TD/INT. With the exception of the Trent Green year (letting him go was a bigger mistake than letting B. Johnson go), a strong TD/INT ratio has resulted in playoffs.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

It's really unfortunate the franchise was in such an unstable situation right after Trent Green emerged.

We've had two potential long-term answers over the course of the last decade, Green and Brad Johnson, and the overall instability of the franchise both in the front office and in the coaching staffs allowed both guys to slip away.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=RiggoRules]investing a 1st rounder on a QB is a bad idea).

.[/quote]Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Carson Palmer,Vick,Mcnabb,were all first rounders. and i know that for every one of those you have the Ryan Leafs or Heath Shulers of the qb classes but its not always a bad idea!

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=RiggoRules]Shuler had a terrible attitude and was physically never right once he left Washington (and to reference another thread, yet one more great example of why investing a 1st rounder on a QB is a bad idea).

The key QB stat is TD/INT. With the exception of the Trent Green year (letting him go was a bigger mistake than letting B. Johnson go), a strong TD/INT ratio has resulted in playoffs.[/quote]but in defense of Shuler, he gave alot of effort, he was just no damn good:benched: .

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=gibbsisgod]Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Carson Palmer,Vick,Mcnabb,were all first rounders. and i know that for every one of those you have the Ryan Leafs or Heath Shulers of the qb classes but its not always a bad idea![/quote]

Leaf, Shuler, Manning and Rothlesberger are all anomolies in one direction or the other (most are going to be something other than a pure boom or pure bust). What I am arguing is that if you take a look at all first round QBs, the probability is that you will not get value for that pick.

The Ramsey experience is actually pretty typical.

What I am suggesting is that the history tells us that it is more probable that the overall impact that D'Brick Ferguson, Vernon Davis, and Mario Williams have on their first teams during the life of their first contract is will be greater than the impact from Cutler, Young, and Leinart.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=RiggoRules]What I am suggesting is that the history tells us that it is more probable that the overall impact that D'Brick Ferguson, Vernon Davis, and Mario Williams have on their first teams during the life of their first contract is will be greater than the impact from Cutler, Young, and Leinart.[/quote]

I agree there, but the thought of filling your most important need for 10-15years is pretty tempting, and top 5 picks don't come around that often... a lot of times top ten QB picks are purely need, whereas almost every other position involves a lot more "best talent" available.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=RiggoRules]The key QB stat is TD/INT. With the exception of the Trent Green year (letting him go was a bigger mistake than letting B. Johnson go), a strong TD/INT ratio has resulted in playoffs.[/quote]

I think Ints should stand independant of TDs. Having TDs is nice and all, but does it really matter whether the QB throws for it, or if the team runs it in. What you should look at is total team TD. Ints aren't always the quarterback's fault, but a high number never represents a good thing, whereas a low TD total works if the team scores a lot.

Both Trent Green and Rich Gannon would have hit their primes much sooner if we had kept them around. BJ quarterbacked here in his prime, and replacing him with Tony Banks and Jeff George is just plain stupid. Seriously, what's exciting about those guys?

To say that Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews were an improvement is an embarrassment, but something I believe to be accurate.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

I don't think anyone could have seen what Rich Gannon was going to do later in his career. I mean the year after he played for us no one wanted him. He sat out all of 1994.

Trent Green was just bad timing. He was a free agent when we had no owner. As for Brad Johnson, while I was never a big fan of his personally, it was a juvenile mistake for Snyder to let him go.

Anyone else remember John Friesz?

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

Thers still a dent in the wall from Gus. Does anyone have that clip?

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=That Guy]I agree there, but the thought of filling your most important need for 10-15years is pretty tempting, and top 5 picks don't come around that often... a lot of times top ten QB picks are purely need, whereas almost every other position involves a lot more "best talent" available.[/quote]

An interesting factoid I saw here:

[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12389000/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12389000/[/URL]

[QUOTE]
Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger is the only first-round quarterback to win a Super Bowl since Denver's John Elway in 1997-98.
[/QUOTE]

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

Trent Dilfer did it, but not with the team that drafted him. He actually kept that team from winning a superbowl.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

Yah, but that's a pretty tough standard Riggo. I mean in the history of the NFL, how my quarterbacks have actually won a super bowl? Maybe 30 or so? Certainly you wouldn't argue that guys like Peyton and Marino and Carson Palmer were bad first round picks, would you?

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=PSUSkinsFan21]Yah, but that's a pretty tough standard Riggo. I mean in the history of the NFL, how my quarterbacks have actually won a super bowl? Maybe 30 or so? Certainly you wouldn't argue that guys like Peyton and Marino and Carson Palmer were bad first round picks, would you?[/quote]

No, I never said anything like that.

Let me try and explain it like this....

Here is a list of the 37 QBs drafted in the first round (including supplemental because the cost is the same) from 1986 to 2002.

The numbers listed are QB taken, Round, Pick, Overall Pick:[INDENT][B]2002
1 1 1 1 David Carr Texans Fresno State
2 1 3 3 Joey Harrington Lions Oregon
3 1 32 32 Patrick Ramsey Redskins Tulane
2001
1 1 1 1 Michael Vick Falcons Virginia Tech
2000
1 1 18 18 Chad Pennington Jets Marshall
1999
1 1 1 1 Tim Couch Browns Kentucky
2 1 2 2 Donovan McNabb Eagles Syracuse
3 1 3 3 Akili Smith Bengals Oregon
4 1 11 11 Daunte Culpepper Vikings Central Florida
5 1 12 12 Cade McNown Bears UCLA
1998
1 1 1 1 Peyton Manning Colts Tennessee
2 1 2 2 Ryan Leaf Chargers Washington State
1997
1 1 26 26 Jim Druckenmiller 49ers Virginia Tech
1996
1 2 12 42 Tony Banks Rams Michigan State
1995
1 1 3 3 Steve McNair Oilers Alcorn State
2 1 5 5 Kerry Collins Panthers Penn State
1994
1 1 3 3 Heath Shuler Redskins Tennessee
2 1 6 6 Trent Dilfer Buccaneers Fresno State
1993
1 1 1 1 Drew Bledsoe Patriots Washington State
2 1 2 2 Rick Mirer Seahawks Notre Dame
1992s
1 1 0 0 Dave Brown Giants Duke
1992
1 1 6 6 David Klingler Bengals Houston
2 1 25 25 Tommy Maddox Broncos UCLA
1991
1 1 16 16 Dan McGwire Seahawks San Diego State
2 1 24 24 Todd Marinovich Raiders USC
1990
1 1 1 1 Jeff George Colts Illinois
2 1 7 7 Andre Ware Lions Houston
1989s
1 1 0 0 Steve Walsh Cowboys Miami (FL)
2 1 0 0 Timm Rosenbach Cardinals Washington State
1989
1 1 1 1 Troy Aikman Cowboys UCLA
1988
1 3 13 68 Tom Tupa Cardinals Ohio State
1987
1 1 1 1 Vinny Testaverde Buccaneers Miami (FL)
2 1 6 6 Kelly Stouffer Cardinals Colorado State
3 1 13 13 Chris Miller Falcons Oregon
4 1 26 26 Jim Harbaugh Bears Michigan
1986
1 1 3 3 Jim Everett Oilers Purdue
2 1 12 12 Chuck Long Lions Iowa [/B]
[/INDENT]Of those, I'd argue that in hindsite only 8 or 9 were worth the expense of a 1st round pick (which ones, that's subjective, but I think you can find 30 that you can argue were probably not the best use of the pick).

In other words, at least 3 out of 4 times maybe even 4 out of 5 times, those 1st round picks didn't provide good value. I am saying that those who swear by the conventional wisdom that you must follow NE & PIT by building through the draft at the QB position are banking on luck and ignoring the history.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=RiggoRules]An interesting factoid I saw here:

[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12389000/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12389000/[/URL][/quote]

1st round QBs tend to go to bad teams. look at how many #1 overall picks go on to win superbowls... its almost 0, and most who do, do it with other teams after their rookie contracts expire. Does that mean the #1 overall picks all suck? or just the teams that are taking them? ;)

I'd never draft QBs, RBs, or LBs in the first round, but i'm not a GM. that said, bad teams hurt.

tommy maddox went to the superbowl, dilfer, bledsoe, mcnair, collins, mcnabb did too. that's more than just ben.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

I understand what you're saying Riggo, and I agree with you that looking at that list certainly the majority end up being busts. I just took issue with the SuperBowl winning QB stat. I don't think that stat tells the whole story.

That Guy makes a great point too.....good teams with good QBs don't usually draft a QB in the first round......so a lot of these guys are put behind the 8-ball from the start (ala Carr, Harrington, Couch, Leaf, etc.).

I guess this whole discussion really needs a comparison. If we look back at the first rounders of any given position, how many really end up providing solid value? Which position typically performs the best and why? I'd like to see a comprehensive study.....it'd be interesting.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

If I'm a GM, theres nothing I won't do if a situation dictates it. That said here are some of my favorite (from a hilarity perspective) selections of first round QBs over the last 5 or so years.

2005-Packers take Aaron Rodgers without doing their homework on him
2004-Bills trade up, giving up their 2005 first rounder for JP Losman
2004-The Chargers work out a trade for Philip Rivers and picks, when they could have easily had the higher rated prospect, Roethlisberger
2003-Kyle Boller.
2002-Joey Harrington goes 3rd overall despite a promising start to Mike McMahon's career. Millen destroys two careers with one pick.
1999-Who graded this draft?

1999 excluded, the interesting thing about these decisions is that everyone knew they were mistakes at the time they were picked. You could make a good case for Rodgers having great value, but the Packers didn't really research that guy, so how can they justify drafting him?

With this draft, what mistake can you realistically make with the QBs here? The only potential mistake I see is someone trading up into the bottom of the first to take a Charlie Whitehurst or a Kellen Clemens, some guy with a third round grade.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=PSUSkinsFan21]
I guess this whole discussion really needs a comparison. If we look back at the first rounders of any given position, how many really end up providing solid value? Which position typically performs the best and why? I'd like to see a comprehensive study.....it'd be interesting.[/quote]

my guess would be OL and DB... cause its similar to what you do in college. QBs/RBs/WRs can get stuc in gimmick offenses which don't resemble what they'll be doing in the NFL.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=GTripp0012]
With this draft, what mistake can you realistically make with the QBs here? The only potential mistake I see is someone trading up into the bottom of the first to take a Charlie Whitehurst or a Kellen Clemens, some guy with a third round grade.[/quote]

yeah, as a 5th round rating, whitehurst is a steal, but now he and kellens have gotten hyped to the point that they're going to both go a round before they really should.

whitehurst has GREAT potential, but sometimes he looked terrible, so you don't really know what you're going to get.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=That Guy]my guess would be OL and DB... cause its similar to what you do in college. QBs/RBs/WRs can get stuc in gimmick offenses which don't resemble what they'll be doing in the NFL.[/quote]

I think I'm inclined to agree......and I'd probably add DT to that too. Of course there's a lot more positions for Olinemen, so the fact that somebody gets a starter from a first round OL pick probably shouldn't be surprising. Then again, there's always those huge OT busts too. What was that guy the Packers picked years back? And how has Gallery done so far?

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

Tony Mandarich

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

There it is........just couldn't think of his name........and too lazy to look it up.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=PSUSkinsFan21]I think I'm inclined to agree......and I'd probably add DT to that too. Of course there's a lot more positions for Olinemen, so the fact that somebody gets a starter from a first round OL pick probably shouldn't be surprising. Then again, there's always those huge OT busts too. What was that guy the Packers picked years back? And how has Gallery done so far?[/quote]

gallery's been okay... though he got moved to RT. judging him on his first year is a bit too early though. He's still starting though and will be a starter somewhere for years to come. so while he might not be a superstar, its hard to call a guy starting 16 games a year a bust.

OTs can be reaches though. most 1st round TEs, OGs, Cs tend to be starters for years, just because they aren't usually picked in the 1st unless they're REALLY good.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=GTripp0012]I collected some single season stats from the post Rypien era from some of the QBs who played here. Comparing Brunell's stats from 2005 the rest of these guys, I see many similarities. ....


All of these guys (except Shuler) went on to have considerable success other places. Gannon and Green have been pro bowlers many a time, and Johnson won a SB. Brunell, of course, had considerable success in Jacksonville, before coming over here.

Here's the big question: with all the journeymen who came through here with considerable success, why were none of them ever retained through long term contract.[/quote]

First, my compliments, Gtripp, on your well researched question.

I don't think we have to explain why Heath Schuler did not last here. But, he was part of the Redskins dream draft. The plan was to have Schuler throwing passes to scoring threats Desmond Howard and Michael Westbrook. You are maybe too young to remember this, but Schuler, Howard and Westbrook were [B]highly[/B] regarded college players. People spoke of them the way they talk about Bush, Lienert and Young today. Important to remember that the draft is a great way to build your team, [U]when it works[/U]. But it works best when you have time to develop young players. In today's free agency period, you are less likely to keep your stars, especially if they are skill players. It makes more sense to draft linemen and pick up skill players through free agency.

Gus Frerotte was adequate, but was not going to lead anyone to a title.

Trent Green was a salary cap casualty. The team might have kept him if John Kent Cooke was not preoccupied with keeping the Redskins in the family. He lost the Skins to Daniel Snyder. We lost Trent Green to Dick Vermeil and the St. Louis Rams.

We lost Brad Johnson to ownership arrogance. Daniel Snyder had his own ideas about how to build a team, despite absolutely [B]no[/B] experience in doing so, and no competent advisor who he respected. He drove GM Charlie Casserly out of town and did not replace him. Evidently, Snyder felt you could win NFL games through big plays all day, just like on Madden Football, and that you build teams by stocking big names rather than carefully matching your talent to your offensive and defensive schemes. So he undervalued the solid Johnson for ol' whatshisname, the forgettable QB with a big gun that [B]no[/B] other team in the NFL would touch.

Snyder was churning the roster big time with the imfamous $100 million team. Big names, big plays, big duds.

Gannon was just too early in his career. A new coach (Turner) and new offensive schemes didn't help. It takes a season or two for a new offensive or defensive scheme to jell. Gannon only had one really, really good season -- the year he led Oakland to the Super Bowl, where they lost to Brad Johnson and Tampa.

Incidentally, Johnson considered playing for Brian Billick and the Ravens instead of the Redskins. Billick was his offensive coordinator on the Vikings. Had he joined the Ravens, Johnson would have led them in the 2000 Super Bowl and Baltimore would almost certainly have returned before 2004 with Johnson at QB rather than Boller.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=That Guy]I agree there, but the thought of filling your most important need for 10-15years is pretty tempting, and top 5 picks don't come around that often... a lot of times top ten QB picks are purely need, whereas almost every other position involves a lot more "best talent" available.[/quote]

I couldnt agree with you more. The most important position on the offensive side of the ball is the QB. He gets the most touches every game and teams are always searching for the right talent at that position. If all first round QB's worked out then you wouldn't have a Tom Brady.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

Its poor scouting. If there was a draft for current nfl players, brady would be drafted in the first round.

A good college team can hide a QB's weakness. and a bad college team can hide a QB's talent. IF Brady was on last years USC trojans, he would be a Top 5 pick this year.

Re: Discuss: 90's QB Stats
 

[quote=jamf]Its poor scouting. If there was a draft for current nfl players, brady would be drafted in the first round.

A good college team can hide a QB's weakness. and a bad college team can hide a QB's talent. IF Brady was on last years USC trojans, he would be a Top 5 pick this year.[/quote]

if he was a starter it might have helped too.