One of the Best Articles on Football You'll Ever Read (INCLUDES BROWNS)

[Shep]

Browns are prominent in this high-level article, an example of the have-nots. Some articles, you read them and instantly know more about the game you love. This is one of those articles.

Bottom line: It's the quarterback. You may not love hearing this, but articles of this depth and analysis are so rare... please enjoy.

Skonick: Elite QBs ? not parity ? behind NFL success - NFL- nbcsports.msnbc.com

[Enigmatic Evil]

Hah, gotta say Shep this is something I would expect you to link. It was a really good read though and it's hard to argue with really.

I can no doubt agree that some of our woe can be attributed to instability at QB. Since Couch unceremoniously departed, we have had a revolving door of Quarterbacks. Jake should give us a couple seasons and that will give us time to find someone should Colt McCoy not earn the confidence of the coach.

[Shep]

It's just so consistent: Find a franchise that stays at the top in spite of all machinations for "parity," and you'll find a great quarterback in place for a very long time. And that tends to lead to coaching stability, as the article suggests. All the other pieces change and move (Faulk replaced by Edge replaced by someone else, ditto for Harrison and a long run of WRs).

Look at long-term Have Nots and you'll find the polar opposite. Love how Gruden says you MUST find your quarterback... and if you're wrong, you MUST try again. Everything else is way easier to find.

Packers - Favre and Rodgers
Eagles - McNabb
Colts - Manning
Patriots - Brady
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Saints - Brees
Chargers - Rivers
Cowboys - Romo

You could go on and on, but as someone said, it's been the same 10 teams for a long time now. Not just good quarterbacks, but quarterbacks who are good year after year and stay on the same team.

And at the bottom -- Browns, Bills, Raiders, Lions, etc. -- you find the polar opposite.

[Vegasdogg]

We've had 4 head coaches.
We've had 4 front offices.

In 11 freaking years.

And we took TWO FIRST ROUND QB's.

We have been lacking organizational stability and good coaching. It isn't like we haven't freaking attempted to find a QB or ignored taking a QB.

It's A LOT MORE than us not having a QB dude. We've been stuck on a marry-go-round of organizational loserdom.

It seems you think we've ignored the position. Didn't we just take 2 first round QB's (one costing us two first round picks) within an 8 year span?

Good article.

[Shep]

You made me smile BROADLY with that last line!

It's really hard to overemphasize the importance of finding a great young quarterback, keeping him, and building around him. It's everything. Whatever's next on the list, which is probably coaching continuity, is far, far below and really the result of #1.

It's the second amazing, thoughtful, and insightful article on the subject I've read in the past couple years. The other was mindblowing because it was kind of unprecedented, this clear eyed looked at the league as it exists today and the prominence of the quarterback being SO incredibly huge.

I don't disagree: We've tried and missed badly twice, with Couch and Quinn. But until we get it right and have a true Pro Bowl caliber quarterback for a decade or so, we're not in that top third of the league.

[Vegasdogg]

Ravens
Jets

Remember what Holmgren said on many occasions?

[Thaak]

Shep,

You do bring up some very good points. I agree largely with the article. It is a good article.

But when you start bring up information to support yourself, one good way to bring even more credibility to your postulation, is to also note the information that does not conform to your postulate.

For example, if you added a paragraph about the anomaly of the Ravens and how they haven't had QB stability for almost the entirety of this decade, and yet have remained a very good team that consistently competes at top playoff level, and went on to explain why it was an anomaly, then your stance would be heard better.

But instead, we'll spend about 2 pages of this thread arguing about whether you are full of shit or not because you didn't mention the Ravens (or any of another 2 or 3 teams that might also be considered anomalies).

Just saying.

Also, and some may argue that it isn't true and wouldn't have mattered, but with a decent line or at least one receiver or at least one RB who could get 75 yards a game, Couch may have turned out to be a pretty good QB. Problem is, he didn't have a line to help, no receivers or running backs to help. He got killed and had a hard time doing anything... Yet, didn't he throw for over 20k yards?

You can't build a team from scratch around a rookie QB you plan to start right away, no matter how good he is.

Even Dallas with Aikman, Denver with Elway, and Indianapolis with Manning did not do well the first year or two of the QB's career. But they had some help. Perhaps not an all pro line or a 1200 yard back or receiver, yet. But they had enough help that they didn't get killed or lose confidence before the rest could be built around them.

The Browns in 1999, didn't have the luxury of a pre-built team to help Couch, even a little. It was a mismatch of throw-away veterans, and rookies. No matter how good your QB is, you can't succeed if the QB doesn't have some help.

I'd wager that you could pick any and all great QB's from NFL history, put them on the Browns 1999 team, and they would suck, get killed, lose confidence, and be out of the league 2 or 3 years after.

[Masters]

That article lost my respect in it's opening paragraph. Apparently that author was unaware that the NFL played a season in 1996, when they were the WC team (Harrison was on that team), or that in 1995 they were in the AFC championship game, and narrowly lost to PIT. The author also decided to ignore that the 1997 Colts were ravaged by injuries (including Harbaugh)

[Shep]

Here's where I disagree on the ever-popular Ravens example, Thaak: Prior to Flacco (and we don't have a big enough sample on him), they were NOT consistent winners like the Eagles, Pats, Colts, and so on. They would be a playoff team one year, out the next.

Up and down, up and down. As the article says, it's the curse of the team trying to win without a long-term franchise quarterback: Over time, they'll end up around .500, even with other pieces in place.

The Jets haven't been consistent winners either. They were a .500 team last year and got a couple laste season gifts from the schedule, the Colts, and the Bengals... both of whom sat starters. Hell, the coach thought they were eliminated, remember?

They packaged a bunch for the right to get Sanchez at #6 to change all that, to have one quarterback for 10-15 years. We'll see if it works out, but that was the effort. Same with the Ravens and Flacco. Both teams mentioned have first round quarterbacks.

It's tough to find a team at the top of the overal records for the last decade who don't meet that critiera: High level play and stability at the QB situation. Same guy for a long time.

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but it's SO stable as far as credibility, the article I read a couple years ago flat out blew my mind (similar detail). As that one guy said, "I thought it was complicated. It's not. It's about the quarterback."

[Shep]

Originally Posted by Masters

That article lost my respect in it's opening paragraph. Apparently that author was unaware that the NFL played a season in 1996, when they were the WC team (Harrison was on that team), or that in 1995 they were in the AFC championship game, and narrowly lost to PIT. The author also decided to ignore that the 1997 Colts were ravaged by injuries (including Harbaugh)

Funny.

[Shep]

To back it up, Thaak, between the Super Bowl (2000) and Flacco (2008), here's how up and down the Ravens were:

2001: Playoffs as Wild Card, lost in Divisional Round.
2002: Missed playoffs.
2003: Made playoffs at 10-6.
2004: Missed playoffs.
2005: Missed playoffs (6-10)
2006: Made playoffs.
2007: Missed playoffs (5-11)

They have not been a consistent winner. They've made the playoffs each of the last two years with Flacco, who really grew in his second year.

[Thaak]

Yes Shep, but one of the main stats the article talked about was average wins per year.

The Ravens are averaging 9.2 wins per year for the last 10 years. That's pretty consistently good.

Now I agree, if they had the marquee QB, they would probably have dominated the NFL much more strongly than any of the Decade dynasties that have been out there.

I'm just saying, it is possible to have a consistently good team without a consistent or stable QB situation.

Please respond to the rest of my post as well though...