WSJ: Trading for a Quarterback Doesn't Really Help

[DaKCMan AP]

Trading for a Quarterback Doesn't Really Help

Trading for quarterbacks has been quite popular this off-season, but are NFL teams being wise to do so? Recent history suggests otherwise.

This week's trades of Carson Palmer to the Arizona Cardinals and of Matt Flynn (pictured, far right) to the Oakland Raiders brought the total of projected starters acquired via trade to three this off-season, along with Kansas City's Alex Smith.

Notable quarterbacks such as John Elway and Brett Favre were traded by the teams that drafted them, before they had their greatest successes. But if Palmer, Flynn and Smith succeed in their first seasons with their new teams, it would buck a pretty clear trend in recent NFL history.

Since 1994, there have been 25 trades involving quarterbacks who started at least eight games for their new team the following season. Only two led their new teams to the postseason in the first year—Brad Johnson (1999 Redskins) and Steve McNair (2006 Ravens).

Some quarterbacks were successful, but struggled in their first season in a new city. Matt Hasselbeck went on to win five postseason games with the Seattle Seahawks and lead the team to Super Bowl XL. Trent Green had some success following a trade to the Kansas City Chiefs, and Matt Schaub and Jay Cutler remain upper-echelon quarterbacks with the Houston Texans and Chicago Bears, respectively, but have only three combined playoff victories with their new teams.

The failures of traded quarterbacks have far outweighed the successes, especially with over-the-hill QBs such as Brett Favre, who struggled down the stretch in his one season with the New York Jets, and Donovan McNabb, who struggled in his only season with the Washington Redskins, and later with the Minnesota Vikings. Both Palmer and Flynn were last traded within the past two seasons—and in both cases, the teams that traded for them gave up more than they got, while not achieving the results they were expecting.

—Eric Edholm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...?mod=djemITP_h

[Ace Gunner]

Originally Posted by Wonton Prejudice

And neither of them were the reason we went 2-14.

You are obtuse, and probably trolling.

you ****ing idiot. this is the ultimate team sport. sport.

[Kaepernick]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...?mod=djemITP_h

Those bad trades say a lot more about the teams than they do about the strategy of trading for a QB.

[Kaepernick]

Originally Posted by ndws

lets revolutionize the game and play without a QB

So you are saying to use Tebow?

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by Kaepernick

So you are saying to use Tebow?

Colin Kline will do.

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by KCDC

The difference is that Kolb, Palmer and Flynn were acquired for very little consideration surrendered. So, even if they prove to be useless, it cost the team nothing but salary.

With the Chiefs, we gave up the equivalent of a low first round pick. So, Alex failure will have double the sting (as well as a triple sting in passing up drafting a good QB as well potentially).

People who keep saying this must have the "equivalent" of a high school education.

[Bump]

Brad Johnson was traded to the Buccs right? Well there you go! TO DA SHIP

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

To be fair, using their methodology, drafting a QB in the first round really doesn't help either. Only 7 out of 48 QBs drafted in the first round since 1994 lead their teams to the playoffs in their first year. Two of those were last year, Luck and RG3, which everyone is saying are once in a generation QBs. Otherwise, '08 is the only other standout year when both Ryan and Flacco led their teams to the playoffs.

Before folks start their bitchfest and give themselves an aneurysm, understand I am only using the apparent methodology used by the article. I'm not saying that first round QBs don't develop into franchise QBs (ie the Mannings); I'm just using the same criteria as the article when they say that trading for a QB doesn't really help. Using their criteria, drafting a QB in the first round doesn't really help either.

Well the whole idea of trading for a VET is that they are supposed to be already developed and allow you to win NOW. Rookies always need to be developed to one extent or another.

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by RunKC

These guys say hi.











And these QB's were traded from the teams that drafted them originally and then went on to have success.





And there are other QB's like Fran Tarkenton and Bobby Lane who were also traded and had success, not to mention Phillip Rivers, even though he hasn't won a SB, but I'm just too lazy to put them up.

Most of those guys were traded before any significant playing time. Gannon is the only QB I can think of (in modern times) to have significant success after losing his job elsewhere. Alex Smith has years of mediocre play on his resume and lost his job. It is incredibly unlikely that he will all-of-a-sudden become the franchise QB that we all want.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by el borracho

Most of those guys were traded before any significant playing time. Gannon is the only QB I can think of (in modern times) to have significant success after losing his job elsewhere. Alex Smith has years of mediocre play on his resume and lost his job. It is incredibly unlikely that he will all-of-a-sudden become the franchise QB that we all want.

Drew Brees...

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by TEX

Drew Brees...

I guess we would have to define "significant playing time". IIRC, Brees played only a few seasons in San Diego and then got hurt. Brees didn't bust, the Chargers gave up on him too early and I'm guessing they would do that differently if they had the chance.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by el borracho

I guess we would have to define "significant playing time". IIRC, Brees played only a few seasons in San Diego and then got hurt. Brees didn't bust, the Chargers gave up on him too early and I'm guessing they would do that differently if they had the chance.

Yeah - but your point is still valid. Brees, like Gannon, is the exception.

[philfree]

I guess a question could be when was the last time a QB was benched and then traded when he was leading the league in QB rating? When was the last time a QB who had put up a 97 rating in his last 30 games traded period?

I'm not in love with Alex Smith but this situation is a little unusual. I don't hate Alex either it's not his fault he was traded but at this point I'm going to root for the guy.

[Jakemall]

Logic Fail by the article.

If trading for a qb has more failures than successes then teams shouldn't trade for QBs.

Let's follow the logic to drafting.

If drafting for a qb has more failures than successes then teams shouldn't draft QBs.

Yeah...that works.


By the way, Brett Farve wasn't drafted by Green Bay...and Steve Young was with the Bucs before the 9ers. You don't do these things because they always work...you do it because there's a chance.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by philfree

I guess a question could be when was the last time a QB was benched and then traded when he was leading the league in QB rating? When was the last time a QB who had put up a 97 rating in his last 30 games traded period?

I'm not in love with Alex Smith but this situation is a little unusual. I don't hate Alex either it's not his fault he was traded but at this point I'm going to root for the guy.

This.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by TEX

Drew Brees...

Wasn't traded. Therefore isn't a part of this discussion.