Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

30 Jan 2013

Former Jets GM Tannenbaum Breaks Silence

I'll just leave this quote here: "Our thinking on that was Mark is only one of five quarterbacks in the history of pro football to win 30 or more games in his first three years. In the 2011 season he had scored 32 touchdowns, 26 throwing and six rushing. Like any contract we do, we thought it would be a win-win. Get cost certainty from a standpoint of we know what he’s going to cost and he gets the benefit of some security. Based on how we played this year, that’s a decision, as of now, that doesn’t look very good."

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 30 Jan 2013

63 comments, Last at 01 Feb 2013, 2:23pm by Raiderjoe


by Noah Arkadia :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 1:17am

That would sound retarded coming from a fan, but from a GM? How do people like this get hired? Can it be possible that real GMs and football people buy into typical, idiotic cliches such as "he's won so many games"?

FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!

by RickD :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 1:33am

It also explains why he brought in Tebow.

He just wins!

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 12:51pm

The more time I spend on this Earth, the more I realize that people in positions of authority often make major decisions (far more important than how much money to pay a QB) based on shockingly poor reasoning. We're just not always privy to the stupidity behind the decisions.

by Noah Arkadia :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 1:59pm

I believe that. So long as they "just get it right", I'm fine with it.

FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!

by theslothook :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 2:50am

Seriously...don't gms get paid to be more discerning?

by tunesmith :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:33am

I still don't understand how anyone can argue that Tebow was a negative surprise to the Jets. Every criticism that people have about Tebow was known before he got there.

by MC2 :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:47am

I'm still convinced that the Tebow signing was just a pure publicity stunt, right from the start, and from that standpoint, it was actually pretty successful. Of course, to any normal human being, that seems like an awfully high price to pay to be on the front page, but Woody Johnson seems to be a man who loves the spotlight.

by RickD :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 1:50pm

Woody Johnson has said that Tebow was "forced on him," presumably by Tannenbaum. Ryan didn't want him.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:30pm

Yeah, he says that. But to what extent can the guy who signs the checks have something "forced on him?" Woody is apparently not a fan of Harry Truman.

by Richie :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:43pm

To me, the biggest surprise about Tebow in 2012 was the lack of usage.

by mehlLageman56 (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:36am

While I think the Sanchez extension was incredibly foolish, Tannenbaum was there when the Jets signed Testaverde to a one year contract in 1998, and then after Vinny kicked the leagues' butt in 98, he proceeded to destroy the Jets' salary cap with a huge contract. If you don't have an extension for Sanchez, you are taking a risk that he turns it around, leads the team to a Super Bowl, and then can sign with anyone else for a huge contract. Kind of like what's going to happen to Baltimore this off season. Either way you go with that decision, you are taking a gamble. The smart money would have been to not give him an extension, but apparently Tannenbaum doesn't read this site. And that's why he was fired.

by CBPodge :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 6:00am

I have a feeling that Flacco's contract extension might look even more ridiculous than Sanchez's!

by BJR :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 8:42am

Joe Flacco is a much, much better QB than Sanchez. Maybe he isn't in the top ten QBs in the league, and maybe he might not be worth what the Ravens are going to pay him, but at least they will be safe in the knowledge that they will not be paying heaps of money to a bad player.

by mehlLageman56 (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 11:53am

According to this site, Flacco is a slightly above average quarterback, which makes him a lot better than Sanchez. But Flacco wants 20 million a year. The contract would not be more ridiculous than Sanchez's, but more dangerous toward the Raven's cap. Sanchez's extension crippled the Jets cap for this year. The contract that Flacco wants would cripple the Ravens cap for much longer.

by commissionerleaf :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 12:53pm

Flacco is not a great quarterback and at this point is unlikely to suddenly turn into one (although he is about Eli Manning's age when Eli turned it around so it isn't impossible; he also has a lot of the same tools as Plaxico Burress era Eli). However, like pre-2010 Eli, he is also absolutely worth locking up with a long term extension, almost regardless of cost. As has been demonstrated over and over, going deep into the playoffs does not require Peyton Manning or Tom Brady; it just requires Alex Smith or Joe Flacco.

DVOA zero from the QB position is worth over $10M a year. That's just the way the NFL is now.

by Deelron :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 2:11am

I put your comment in my crazy thought machine and came out with:

Ravens let Flacco walk and pick up Alex Smith. Brilliant!

by RickD :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 1:52pm

Flacco is going to be overpaid, and probably overpaid by the Ravens. They're at a point where they really cannot afford to lose him. There just are not enough QBs in the league, and Flacco is one of the few who has proven that he can win playoff games against good teams.

by Kal :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 2:54pm


Really, the concept of overpaying a good QB in the NFL seems kind of ludicrous. This is why it always confuses me why a good starting QB can be traded for for something like only a 2nd rounder, or why so many think that the Jay Cutler or RG3 deals were so horrible. They really weren't; if anything, given the importance of a good QB they were steals.

by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:37pm

Flacco= nice grouper sandwich
Sanchez= openn can of sradines left otu in sun on hot South Carolina afternoon sun

Any questions?

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:55pm

"Any questions?"

Why are you eating rotten sardines?

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 5:39pm

It's a traditional food for Scandinavian raiders?

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 9:24am

VikingJoe = RaiderJoe's long-lost Swedish cousin.

by Hurt Bones :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 6:17pm

Even Garum is considered cuisine if prepared correctly.

by Richie :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:48pm

Flacco is one of the few who has proven that he can win playoff games against good teams.

And Sanchez is another.

by JIPanick :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 5:52pm


by jackiel :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 4:08pm

I disagree. I believe that if Sanchez and Flacco switched jerseys we'd scarcely know the difference.

Throughout his career Flacco has had the benefit of playing with a great defense, a good o line, good to great talent at the skill positions, and consistently good offensive coaching (Cameron did very well in SD with Brees and Rivers and Jim Zorn and Jim Caldwell have coached a lot of good QBs). And the Ravens are perhaps the best in the league at creating a consistently deep roster every year, so when a starter goes down, the dropoff with the backup is manageable. Sanchez has not had good to great talent at the skill positions, his o line has become at best average, and his offensive coaching has been somewhat poor in recent years. Also the Jets under Tannenbaum were completely unable to find offensive depth, so when someone like Dustin Keller went down, the passing offense went from pedestrian to god awful. Short of a legend like P. Manning, I don't think that any QB could have led the Jets to the playoffs this year. Too many injuries, too little talent on offense, poor play calling. Really the perfect storm for a crappy year.

by mehlLageman56 (not verified) :: Fri, 02/01/2013 - 10:42am

I posted a comment like this before the 2012 season on a barnwell article, and got completely schooled comparing their stats. Flacco has posted completion rates above 60% almost every year he's been in the league; Sanchez has not been able to do that for any year he's played in the league. Another huge advantage for Flacco is his arm; it might be the strongest in the league. As far as their respective situations, the Ravens are a better team right now, this is true. But I don't think the problems are exactly what you say; the offensive line ranked third in adjusted line yards in 2012. They allowed a bunch of sacks, but some of that is the quarterbacks's faults. The offensive depth became a problem when Holmes went down, but even before they were relying on Stephen Hill, and other than the first Buffalo game he didn't produce. But the offensive talent around Sanchez hasn't always been this bad; it was quite good both in 2009 and 2010. Both of those years, Flacco had better stats than Sanchez.

by Sifter :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 5:35pm

I think you've nailed it. It's risk vs reward. 2 years ago, the Jets were doing very nicely and Tannenbaum could see a dynasty forming so he overpaid for his young QB. The alternative was gambling that Sanchez wouldn't improve any further, and letting him get to the end of his contract. Tough to gamble that your #5 overall pick, with limited college experience isn't going to improve his game. As it turns out he hasn't improved and Tannenbaum took the wrong side of the bet. REALLY easy to sit here in 2013 and criticize him, but I can at least see why that decision was made.

I think him quoting 30 wins in 3 years is not him saying that Sanchez was awesome, but more him saying that they had a very successful TEAM under Sanchez and it made a lot of sense to extend Sanchez'z contract so that the successful TEAM could stay together for longer.

by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 6:53pm

Fair points. And you can imagine what the press would have done with it had they sat back and not given him a contract. They'd have been called foolish for giving up on him, Sanchez' lack of development would have been blamed on the uncertainty, etc.

by db :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 1:03am

Sanchez' lack of development is a coaching issue. I can not recall a more precipitous drop in fundamentals, especially footwork, for a QB. It could be that he is not teachable. It could also be that he wasn't coached.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 9:33am

1) "I think him quoting 30 wins in 3 years is not him saying that Sanchez was awesome, but more him saying that they had a very successful TEAM under Sanchez"

That's fine, but it's still giving disproportinate credit to the QB for the team's success. That team was winning with defense and mostly playing a "don't screw it up" offense.

2) Love the word "Sanchez'z" and would like to see this become the standard possessive form for words that end in z.

by Noah Arkadia :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 2:05pm

You're making it sound as if it was extending Sanchez or letting him walk. It wasn't like that. An extension wasn't necessary at that point and it was, in fact, viewed in general simply as a gesture to improve Sanchez'z confidence.

FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!

by mehlLageman56 (not verified) :: Fri, 02/01/2013 - 10:45am

It was viewed as a gesture to improve his confidence, but it really was a cap move, shifting the expense from 2012 to later years. The problem was guaranteeing the 2013 money.

by mehlLageman56 (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:45am

I also don't want to defend Tannenbaum's handling of the cap too much, but the issues are not long term. According to the NY Jets Cap site, they have committed less than 100 million to the cap in 2014, less than both the Bills and the Patriots, and that is including Sanchez, who will likely be a cap casualty that year, saving 8 million, and several cuts this year. Their cap is not like the Raiders cap from several years ago. They're strapped this year, and this year alone.

by CBPodge :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 6:03am

I think, while he obviously made some pretty crappy decisions, he does deserve some credit for basically accepting that yeah, the Jets should be better and that's his fault.

by DenverCheeze (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 11:57am

If he really believes that the 'wins' Sanchez put up in his first 3 years were a result of just Sanchez being a great QB then he should never be a GM again...anywhere...even in Pee Wee. Sorry everyone, but this is a team sport. You need to build a team and cannot do that when your QB is commanding too much of your cap space, see Peyton Manning's Colts in Indy, the Brett Favre Packers after his 100mil contract, etc. for reference.

by DGL :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 2:39pm

"You need to build a team and cannot do that when your QB is commanding too much of your cap space, see Peyton Manning's Colts in Indy, the Brett Favre Packers after his 100mil contract, etc. for reference."

Wait, we're using the Manning-era Colts, which made the playoffs 11 out of 13 seasons, made the conference championship three times, and won a Super Bowl as an example of how not to build a team?

I'm missing something.

by Kal :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 2:58pm

Yeah - the Colts were one of the most successful teams in the last 12 years. Two superbowls, 10 playoff appearances in a row. The Pats can't say the latter. Neither can the Steelers. No one from the NFC can compare to this.

Furthermore, Manning routinely restructured his contract during his time so that he had a fairly weak cap hit.

And even more, Brady had a pretty big contract too. So did Ben. It didn't kill those teams.

by bengt (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 3:43pm

I think the Steelers are pretty close this off season, though.

by Jerry :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 7:20pm

If he really believes that the 'wins' Sanchez put up in his first 3 years were a result of just Sanchez being a great QB then he should never be a GM again.

There's a huge difference between "We won 30+ games with Sanchez at quarterback" and "We won 30+ games because Sanchez was at quarterback". In the former case, you can decide he's good enough to keep around, even if you're not claiming he's the reason you won. And if you're wrong, you end up doing interviews about why you lost your job.

by Danish Denver-Fan :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 7:03am

Maybe he's trying to save face.

When I've played a hand badly in poker, and the worse players at the table are giving me a hard time about, I, out of shame, end up dressinng up my decisions with BS arguments like "but it was suited" and "he felt weak" and "I haven't seen a good in hand in hours".
Basically I know I made a bad decision, but I dress it up with arguments that the weak players will accept as solid reasons for my play.

Tannenbaum knows he messed up, and now, to save face, he goes with the "he just wins" argument because he knows that 80% of football fans (and media) see that as a perfectly solid reasoning.

It's a longshot probably, but he's not in a good spot. At least he's accepting responsabillty.

by Ryan D. :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 9:40am

I might have played that poorly, but why were you calling with King-seven off suit, you donkey!?

by bernie (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 11:20am

Luxury! We used to dream of King-Seven offsuited when I was a lad...

by Theo :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 7:31pm

I'm afraid you're just thinking a step too far.

by Led :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 11:07am

Since this seems the most appropriate forum, do Seahawks or Bucs fans have any thoughts about John Idzik as a GM? Also, what is the Seahawks' approach (if any) to analytics?

by are-tee :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 1:26pm

During Tannenbaum's tenure as GM, the Jets won as many Super Bowls as the Patriots did!

by AnonymousA (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 1:28pm

Dollars to donuts that exact carefully crafted "statistic" was used by Sanchez' agents when negotiating this deal (along with a number of other, equally garbage ones). So when it comes time to defend himself, he pulls out the same pseudo-reasonable nonsense, pre-scripted for him!

by someguy (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:03pm

For a long time I have been down on Sanchez. Schadenfreude? Happy my opinion is true, but depressed as a Jet fan. (Couldn't Kellon Clemons have played just as well for a fraction of the cost?) Hopefully Tannenbaum is playing to fan base in the interview and he actually had better reasoning than the words coming out of his mouth. Sanchez combines the three worst thing you want in a qb: he makes bad decisions, he is inaccurate when he throws, and he fumbles a lot! But I did understand the logic of the Sanchez contract for a few reasons:

1.) Sanchez is still young and could develop. He was terrible in first year. Showed decent improvement in second. Then had setback in third. So maybe the third year was an aberation and his true trajectory was on the up and up. (in hindsight the second year was probably the aberation and he is not ever going to get better)
2.) There may have been doubts about offensive coordiators Brian Schottenheimer's ability. Maybe he was holding Sanchez back. (clearly not the case)
3.) Sanchez has been very healthy and that is important for a qb. (unless he is terrible and then you wish he would get hurt more)

At the time, Bill Barnwell said the contract "wasn't so bad" (March 2012)

Overall I felt Tannenbaum was ok. Drafting wasn't great. But both offensive and defensive lines are solid. Sanchez was huge mistake. Tebow was a risk, but I understand the ground and pund logic of bringing him in with a "wildcat" coach (too bad Sparano is clueless). Maybe my judgement is colored, but I have a few fond memories of Jets free agents - LdT for a few years, Alan Faneca, Damian Woody, Kris Jenkins when healthy, Cromartie, Landry... And I do love Rex Ryan!

by Aloysius Mephis... :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 3:40pm

Yeah, the Sanchez contract looks bad in hindsight, and I winced at that comment about Sanchez's winning record, but maybe it wasn't such a bad bet based on what they knew at the time. Sanchez didn't need to take some big leap to justify the contract - a modest improvement would have done it. And I read an analysis that said Sanchez would need to collapse to a Blaine Gabbert level of performance for the contract to really hurt the Jets. Unfortunately for them, that's exactly what happened.

by Richie :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 4:04pm

Mark is only one of five quarterbacks in the history of pro football to win 30 or more games in his first three years.

That's funny. He only gets to 30 wins if you count post-season.

I did a PFR search for QB's who started 42+ games in their first 3 seasons. There are 17 of them. (Marino had only 41, but won 33 games. Roethlisberger had 30, but won 28.)

Manning won 26.
Matt Ryan won 33.
Flacco won 32.
Sanchez won 27.
Joe Ferguson won 26.

The other guys won many fewer games. I'm not even sure who the 5th QB is who won 30 games (including playoffs) in his first 3 seasons.

Elway only had 27. Prior to 2005, it was just pretty rare for any QB to get enough starts in his first few seasons to win 30 games.

by Travis :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 5:05pm

I'm not sure he's Tannenbaum's answer, but Otto Graham had 30+ wins in both his first 3 seasons in the AAFC and the NFL.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 9:44am

Thanks for that. I was thinking along those same lines, but couldn't find the W/L record from Graham's AAFC seasons. The use of the term "pro football" immediately had me thinking that at least one of them had to be outside the NFL.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 5:48pm

As much as one can tell from these things, from 1924-1926 the Frankford Yellow Jackets went 38-10-3. Tex Hamer seems to have functionally been their QB for much of that. He could have scraped together 30 wins.

by DEW (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 4:53pm

*sigh* Every time someone quotes quarterback wins, God kills a statistician. Or possibly a non-quarterback position coach. That a GM, who's supposed to understand the subtle nuances of football and build a complete team, would even mention it is beyond absurd. I like Danish Denver-Fan's rationale for being the only thing that makes Tannenbaum not sound like a complete fool.

Not sure what I believe about Tannenbaum being responsible for Tebow. It's certain, based on in-season behavior, that Ryan had nothing to do for it, so it was either a publicity stunt by Johnson (Sell T-shirts!! Keep the Jets headlining SportsCenter and First Take every frickin' day of the preseason and season!) in which case it worked fine for "publicity," or Tannenbaum is an idiot. Mind you, if it's the latter, I don't necessarily blame Johnson for letting his football guy talk him into it--we've seen what happens when unqualified owners try to play GM (see Dan Snyder, latter-years Al Davis, and Jerry Jones).

The Sanchez contract extension was, IMHO, a bad idea, not because of the money (okay, they have to pay him in 2013, which is not good, but they don't have to put him in games unless the Sunk Costs Fallacy eats their brain, so long as they don't keep Tebow as the alternative). The underlying problem was that Sanchez was a poor QB for three years running and virtually all the success he had was due to the fact that for the first two years, Ryan's defense and guys like a healthy Revis were kicking butt. Trent Dilfer was not a good QB just because Ray Lewis and His Amazing Friends won him a Super Bowl (amazing how Dilfer never gets mentioned in "SB wins are the only things that matter" or "he just wins in the playoffs!" arguments; it's like he's the threshold of sanity in QB discussions). When you have a good QB, you do what you can to keep him, but you don't extend a *bad* QB who's showing no signs of significant improvement; you realize that it's time to move on to Plan B and you go draft Russell Wilson before the Seahawks can get to him. Or sign Matt Flynn before...well, before the Seahawks can get to him.

So from a "WE'VE DOOMED THE CAP FOREVER!" contract, yeah, the Sanchez contract wasn't horrible. But Tannenbaum went into 2012 with Sanchez, Tebow, and McElroy as the quarterbacks on his roster and knew that he'd have to pay Sanchez an obscene amount in 2013 which would (a) make him impossible to unload for value, and (b) risk the Sunk Costs Fallacy making him start football games no matter how awful he was.

And then, of course, Sanchez went out there and completely stunk up the joint this year. To the point where 2011 Tavaris Jackson would have been worlds better. The post-injury version. The declining line play hurt him, the injuries to Holmes and Keller (his best two targets) hurt him, and given what we're told about his psychological make-up, having Tebow around probably didn't help in the slightest.

So 2012 goes by with the Jets being clowns on and off the field both. Not just bad in the way, say, Cleveland or Jacksonville or even KC was bad, but laughable. Pathetic. And they've got a QB controversy before the season even starts since, again, they're paying $20M to Sanchez and the Sunk Costs Fallacy is God to many people in sports. And a cap problem for trying to rebuild this year, so they may have to wait to 2014 to actually be relevant again.

by Richie :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 7:31pm

You gotta give Seattle credit for not falling to the sunk cost fallacy in regards to Matt Flynn.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 9:56am

"amazing how Dilfer never gets mentioned in "SB wins are the only things that matter" or "he just wins in the playoffs!" arguments"

I don't know about anyone else, but I always immediately invoke Dilfer whenever someone gets into the "he just wins" nonsense about some caretaker QB. Brad Johnson is another solid choice, but I think he was a better player than Dilfer.

Another new stat that ESPN recently trotted out is one I'll enjoy in the future -- Joe Flacco is the only QB to win a playoff game in each of his first 5 seasons. So there you have it. Joe Flacco is the greatest winner ever!

by Snack Flag (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 12:30pm

No one invokes them because it would be silly. Both Dilfer and Johnson rode historically great defenses to Super Bowl victories. Not a single analyst, not even the people that praise game managers, gloss over that fact. I don't think anyone is arguing that qbs are the only reason behind team success, ergo all teams that are successful have good qbs.
On the other hand, if you do have a great QB, you are more than likely to be successful. If you look at teams that have consistently won throughout NFL history, an overwhelming majority have had very good to great qbs at the helm.
Sure, a lot of people overvalue wins, but how often do you see a poor quarterback with a lot of wins? People talk trash on Flacco, but he's above average. That's all the Ravens need and, as we've seen with Dilfer, Tony Banks, Kyle Boller, Troy Smith, etc. it's not easy to find.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 3:45pm

"I don't think anyone is arguing that qbs are the only reason behind team success, ergo all teams that are successful have good qbs."

No one argues it in those exact words, but plenty of people come quite close to that line of thought. A former GM literally just said that Mark Sanchez won 30 games in his first 3 seasons. QB win-loss record is a stat that can be easily looked up. Why is that? Because there are a lot of people out there that automatically assign wins and losses to the QB. Check out the headline of this article -- Flacco beats Brady after knocking off Manning.


"Sure, a lot of people overvalue wins, but how often do you see a poor quarterback with a lot of wins?"

Happens all the time. This thread is about Mark Sanchez, after all. Vince Young? This year, Christian Ponder.

by mehlLageman56 (not verified) :: Fri, 02/01/2013 - 10:51am

While they may provide more entertainment than Jacksonville or KC, they weren't as bad as those teams. They will probably have to wait until 2014 to be relevant, but stranger things have happened. I agree with your assessment of the problem: it really is self-scouting. The Jets over-estimated the talent on the roster.
On another note,

Buttfumble! Are you not entertained?

by Dan in Philly (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2013 - 6:10pm

RE: Overpaying QBs.

I strongly speculate that the trend of going to more athletic QBs, effectively turning the QB into a hybrid RB/QB, might greatly change the salary structure of the QBs in the near future (assuming this holds). With a RB/QB hybrid, more of the emphasis is on him runing and less on intangibles - this means it will be easier to project a QBs likely success in the NFL based on measurable stats, and increase the number of available QBs out there.

Similar to the way RBs are somewhat fungible, putting more RB responsbilities onto the QB will make that position more changable, and will also produce a shorter playing career for any QB. While the QB will still be critical to the team's success, there will be more QBs who can fill the role than the highly specilaized skills of the current breed of QB.

If the trend continues, I can even see a future where the QB isn't the highest paid member of the team.

by Nicholas Ray (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2013 - 1:50am

I get your logic, but I'll be stunned if what we've seen from a few teams this year and their quarterback play is going to be a long-term deal in the league. I don't see any teams buying full-time into some kind of college system with 2-3 quarterbacks playing in one season. We've seen too many developments in the passing attacks to just abandon it all for a 'hybrid' player who leaves himself open for severe punishment every time he tucks the ball and runs. This all seems to me to be an outlier season for the kind of play. Griffin's constant injuries will scare most teams off from ever putting a talented qb at risk like that.

by Dan in Philly (not verified) :: Fri, 02/01/2013 - 6:20am

I thought the gimmicky high school offense would never take hold in college, and it has. I thought it would never be used in the pros, and it has. I thought it would never get a team to the superbowl, and it has. At this point I give up, and wouldn't at all be surprised if in 10 years, maybe just 5, we are watching a completely different game than what we've grown used to since the late 80s.

by Raiderjoe :: Fri, 02/01/2013 - 2:23pm

RFIII het injured due to frail body. Not due to wshsingto offense.