Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Billick on QBs

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; a great interview. He better communicated some thoughts I was trying to convey in another thread- Q: What makes a good (NFL) quarterback? Billick: You can see certain traits, the size, speed, strength and vision and say he's going to ...

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-04-2006, 09:35 AM   #1
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
Billick on QBs

a great interview. He better communicated some thoughts I was trying to convey in another thread-

Q: What makes a good (NFL) quarterback?

Billick: You can see certain traits, the size, speed, strength and vision and say he's going to make it. But you've seen the same attributes and seen him not make it. There is a reason why Bill Walsh never took a first-round quarterback. If you're going to crap shoot, don't do it in the first round. No matter how good you are and what your track record is, if it's a crap shoot, you don't want to throw that dice on the fifth, 10th, 15th or 25th pick. You'll do it with 40, 50, fifth round and sixth round. No matter how good of an evaluator you are, everybody had Ryan Leaf at second, third or fourth on their board. I promise you. The debate between Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning was close. In hindsight, you
go around and check with everybody's draft board. They'll tell you afterward where they had (Matt) Leinart, (Jay) Cutler and Vince Young. Vince Young seems to be the most debatable and interesting topic right now. There are some that they'll have him as high as five and some will have him as low as 15 or 20. After the fact, if Vince Young makes it, then you'll hear, “I know he would.� If he doesn't make it, you'll hear, “That's why we had him rated that low.� When I was doing that book with Bill Walsh, I kept pressing him on how you know when a guy is good and when he isn't. When's that dividing line? I kept pushing and he said, “You just know. You've been there enough and sense that he's
either going to get it or he's not going to get it.� Bill (Walsh) was one that kind of thought that 30 to 32-game marker. If he doesn't get me hope by then, I'll cut my losses and move on. It's not a very exact science.
My first bold is relating to the uncertainty of 1st Rd QBs vs other positions.
Second bold is relating to how AB was given a couple of years too much leash.

other good stuff too-
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 10:35 AM   #2
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,762
Very intersting ideas. It makes sense that Billick was asking Walsh about it as Billick seems completely mystified about picking QBs.

It reminds me of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. The thesis of his book is that experts just "know" things with a minimum of information. For instance, how art experts are able to spot a forged painting as soon as they see it without being able to explain why or how they know it's forged. Another neat example was this tennis coach who could predict when a player would fault on the serve just before they hit the ball and was accuarte about 95% of the time. Sounds like Walsh believed that to a degree (still wasn't willing to draft a QB high in round 1). It was nice to hear someone admit the serious debate over Manning and Leaf and who would be the better pro.

I highly recommend the book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...Fencoding=UTF8

It would be nice if we could break down what it is that guys like Walsh are seeing when they evaluate QB prospects. But then a lot of good coaches can't do this to save their lives (Billick, Cowher, Gibbs, etc).

BrooksMustGo is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 12:28 PM   #3
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
I'd have to take Billick's comments with a grain of salt. Didn't he move back up into the first to get Kyle Boller? And trade for or sign Elvis Grbac? Tony Banks, Trent Dilfer, Anthony Wright. Not a good history there.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 01:01 PM   #4
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
I believe that was Ozzie Newsome.

The Ravens eventually hired Brian Billick, the Vikings' offensive coordinator, to replace Ted Marchibroda. Billick will not have Czar Coach powers; instead, he will be part of what Modell calls "our collegial" way of decision-making that will involve Billick, the Modells and player personnel guru Ozzie Newsome.
Since that stated from Ravens Exec VP David Modell Newsome has been elevated to GM. In the previous article he even stated you'll have to talk to Ozzie to find out what their draft plans are. It varies quite a bit in team's FO as to who carries the biggest stick in personnel moves. It does not apppear that the HC does in Baltimore. There was thought that Billick could possibly be fired after last season I am not aware of any such rumors concerning Ozzie Newsome. So I don't hold him responsible for the Ravens QB moves. His viewpoints were also more a reflection of the highly praised Bill Walsh book 'Finding the Winning Edge' that Billick contributed to. Walsh is revered as both a front office and field guru.


I'm not a Billick apologist but I do find validity in the theory and thoughts even if he is the messenger.
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 06:48 PM   #5
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Richland, MS.
Posts: 2,248
IMO, Bill Walsh was the master. What he did in SF was just totally amazing. However, there is a hole in the theory as to why he does not take QB's in the first round of a draft. In his first year drafting, he did not even have the option of a first round draft pick, so that rules out any thought of picking a QB in the first round of the 1979 draft. If he had a first round pick, would he have taken a chance on Jack Thompson, or Phil Simms? Well, we will never know the answer to that. What he did was take Joe Montana with the last selection of the 3rd round. Just so happens that Joe Montana was able to ride the bench for a year, then he took over for Steve DeBerg, and the rest is history. Since Montana developed, there was never a need to pick another QB, especially in the first round. So the QB spot being a crap shot is totally accurate. For the reason as to why Walsh did not burn a first round pick on a QB, the simple answer is he did not need to since Montana developed so nicely.
MatthewT is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 06:52 PM   #6
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 11,971
i don't think anyone can fo sure say how any player, no mater the position, will end up
spkb25 is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 08:43 PM   #7
Fan Since 1967
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 7,059
Blog Entries: 3
It's all a crap shoot the only educated part about it is who's gets the dice next.
CheramieIII is online now  
Old 04-04-2006, 09:39 PM   #8
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
My contention is simply that QB picks have the lowest success rate of any position in 1st Rd picks- no matter who says so. That view just happens to correspond with the Walsh school of coaching. Walsh's insight to QBs goes far before Montana too. He was the QB coach for the Bengals with Greg Cook and Ken Anderson, and for SD when Fouts was at his best. After head coaching he was still the man for the 49ers in the front office bringing in Young and Garcia.

Would you count Brick, Mario, and Hawk as surer things than Leinart, Young, and Cutler? Sure a QB is the highest impact but odds of success just are not as good and the time to reach that impact level is usually a few years at least. Let's compare some of the comparable top QB, OT, DE, and LB picks of recent years-

Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell
Jammal Brown, Demarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman

Manning, Big Ben, Losman
Gallery, Vilma, Will Smith

Palmer, Leftwich, Boller
Jordan Gross, Kevin Williams, Terrell Suggs

Carr, Harrington, Ramsey
Levi Jones, Peppers/Freeney, Harris

Leonard Davis, Justin Smith, Dan Morgan

Samuels, Arrington, Brown

Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, Culpepper, Cade McNown,
Matt Stinchcomb, Claiborne, Ekuban

Nothing scientific but if I scored them as Success, Question Mark, or Failure it would be-
For QBs: 7 success, 6 ?, and 6 failures
For the others -
17 success, 2 ?, and 3 failures
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 06:07 PM   #9
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Richland, MS.
Posts: 2,248
Drafted QB's do have a high rate of failure. There is a good reason why. A QB is just a QB. Other position players, for the most part, can change positions. Example, if a drafted MLB sours out he can be moved to the OLB, or even special teams. RB's have the option of special teams too. QB's are basically stuck. If a guy sucks as a QB, the team does not really have the option of placing him in another position. The team can only give him so much time then move on. Not being able to move most QB's to another position translates into total draft bust if the guy does not turn out to be decent QB material. The QB has one position only, if he failes, off the CFL if he is lucky. QB is only 1 of 22 starting spots on a team. That 1 is non transferrable in most cases...
MatthewT is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 06:08 PM   #10
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Richland, MS.
Posts: 2,248
Sorry, meant 32 starting spots.
MatthewT is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Copyright 1997 - 2018 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts