Earlier this week, I read an article in ESPN The Magazine that was 100 percent dead-on. The article basically said that the Bears, among other teams, are screwed if their starting quarterback gets hurt. After seeing how bad the Bears were in the one game they played without Jay Cutler, I couldn't agree more with the assertion that some teams might only be able to go as far as their backup quarterback will take them. And in some cases, that's not very far.
As a means of illustrating the importance of a good backup, let's look at two AFC South teams that had very different seasons in 2011: the Houston Texans and the Indianapolis Colts. The Texans lost starter Matt Schaub for the season after Week 10, so they turned to Matt Leinart. Leinart then proceeded to break his collarbone in the first half of his first start, making rookie T.J. Yates, the third-string quarterback at the beginning of the season, the Texans' starter. Yates won his first two starts and the Texans won the division for the first time in franchise history. They then beat Cincinnati in the first playoff game in franchise history before losing to Baltimore. If the Texans hadn't had a quality backup in Yates, they wouldn't have been able to weather the loss of Matt Schaub.
Now let's compare the 2011 Texans to the 2011 Colts. Peyton Manning never missed a start during his first 13 years in the NFL. In fact, he barely missed any plays. As a result, the Colts never felt the need to have a quality backup. Well, the flaws in that strategy were exposed very clearly when Peyton missed the entire 2011 season after neck surgery. The Colts couldn't find a quarterback all season, started the year 0-13, and ended up with the worst record in the NFL. I still don't understand the logic in getting rid of the guy whose absence was the reason they sucked, but they turned that No. 1 pick into Andrew Luck, which is probably the only reason they found Peyton expendable. Anyway, they still haven't quite figured out the backup situation, although they have upgraded a little in that regard. Their current backup is Curtis Painter, who they got from the Jets in that indirect three-way "trade" that involved the Broncos, Peyton and the most-publicized backup QB in NFL history.
Speaking of Mr. Tebow, he isn't the only backup on a disappointing team whose fans would prefer to see over the starter. The fact that Tebow sucks more than Mark Sanchez evidently doesn't matter to Jets fans. And frankly, whether it's Sanchez or Tebow, and whether it's Michael Vick or Nick Foles in Philadelphia, makes no difference on a team that's going nowhere.
The Steelers, on the other hand, who's playing quarterback for them definitely matters. Early in the season, Pittsburgh looked like it might be the one elite team best-equipped to weather an injury to its starter. They have a pair of former starters, Byron Leftwich and Charlie Batch, backing up Ben Roethlisberger. So when Roethlisberger went down, it looked like the Steelers would be OK with Leftwich playing quarterback for a couple weeks. Then Leftwich got hurt after one game (just like the 2011 Texans), moving Batch into the starting role. But, as it turns out, the 2012 version of Charlie Batch is not the same Charlie Batch that was the Lions' starter 10 years ago. The Steelers lost to the Browns last week and are in danger of missing the playoffs if Roethlisberger can't come back quickly.
Then there's San Francisco, the team that at one time had the greatest backup QB in NFL history (Steve Young). After starter Alex Smith suffered a concussion in that Monday night walloping of the Bears two weeks ago, Colin Kaepernick came in and continued the demolition of the Chicago defense. Kaepernick then got the start last week in New Orleans, and the 49ers won again. Smith's healthy, but Kaepernick will start again this week in St. Louis. The 49ers have a quarterback controversy on their hands (in a good way, unlike the Jets). If one goes down, Jim Harbaugh will be more than comfortable with the other. That's why the 49ers have to feel very confident in their chances to get back to New Orleans in February.
Kaepernick/Smith, Yates and Leftwich are the cream of the crop among the NFL's backup quarterbacks. Another playoff contender that seems to be in decent position backup-wise is Seattle. The Seahawks signed Matt Flynn, Aaron Rodgers' backup in Green Bay last season, with every intention of making him their starter. Flynn lost-out to Russell Wilson in camp, but should Wilson go down, the Seahawks will still be in good hands with him running the offense.
Eli Manning's just as durable as his brother. In fact, Manning still has the longest streak of consecutive QB starts in the NFL. It's just a different one now. But if the Giants do lose Eli for any period of time, they've got an experienced backup in former No. 1 overall pick David Carr. The Vikings' Joe Webb is also a serviceable backup who's capable of winning a game or two. Tampa Bay's backup is Dan Orlovsky, the only quarterback to win a game as the Colts' starter last year. Let's also not forget that this is a franchise that won a Super Bowl with Brad Johnson at quarterback.
And the Bears have Jason Campbell. Now, I know it sounds silly to say this after how incredibly clueless that offense became without Cutler, but if the Bears had to turn to Jason Campbell for an extended period and adjusted their offense accordingly, I do think they would actually do fine. That team is so good, they would just need him to not screw up too badly.
There are a few contenders that would be lost without their starters, though. One is the Broncos. They evidently didn't learn anything from the 2011 Colts, because they've got some dude named Brock Osweiler backing up Peyton. That's basically the same as keeping Tebow. If Baltimore loses proven commodity Joe Flacco, it's up to Tyrod Taylor. I only know that because I looked it up. In other words, if Flacco goes down, so do the Ravens. Same with the Falcons if they lose Matt Ryan. Their backup is Luke McCown, who couldn't keep the starting job in either Cleveland or Jacksonville. And the Packers went from having one of the best backups in the league to Graham Harrell. I didn't know who Graham Harrell was without looking it up, either.
So, while all potential playoff teams would much prefer a healthy starter and no need for a backup quarterback at all, some are in better positions than others if that situation arises. And if forced to make a Super Bowl pick based on who has the best backup quarterback, I'd go with the Texans and 49ers.
No comments:
Post a Comment