Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
If the demand for QB's weren't higher than the supply every year, each team would have a fine QB.
|
Though I agree that not every team can have an adequate quarterback every season (it's not possible because even if there are more than 32 adequate quarterbacks, it's not like there's no incentive for a team to have two), the real issue is that not every team can win every year. Because the wins and losses are of course zero-sum.
In essence, 'level of performance x' which is adequate for a consistent winner might be inadequate for a consistent loser. Even though the actual grade on player performance is no different. Matt Ryan and Alex Smith wouldn't receive totally disparate grades based on their skill sets (and they are asked to do fairly similar things), but Ryan throws for a heck of a lot more yards, points, completions (with better efficiency numbers), and wins more consistently than Alex Smith does, so the Falcons don't need to bring in competition for Ryan where as the 49ers would be in big trouble if they don't have competition for Smith next season.
So QB demand is always going to be fairly constant every year because teams will always lose and fewer teams will always string together losing seasons. So even if the supply of quality quarterbacks in the NFL exceeds 40, that will just drive the standards to win up so that demand doesn't change any.
Bottom line is that losing teams/organizations will always need quarterback upgrades, even if they are performing competently.