No, quarterbacks aren't the only players on the field...

No quarterbacks are created equal. We have some strange expectations for our quarterbacks. I wanted to take a few seconds to jot down correct (and incorrect) axioms about quarterbacks.

Correct

The quarterback is a leader.

The quarterback runs the offense.

The quarterback is important.

Finding the right player to quarterback your team is essential.

Incorrect

The quarterback is the leader

The quarterback is the most important player on offense.

You must spend a first-round pick on a quarterback if that is your need.

If you are paying him [this] and picked him [here], he must start immediately.

There are all manner of weird things that we associate with quarterbacks. We expect them to save bad teams and we expect them to win every game. We compare them with our favorite quarterbacks growing up. We compare them to the previous star in that position. It really is a type of scrutiny we give no other position. I don’t think it is all unjustified, but it is a bit out of proportion.

There are three types of quarterbacks:

• Superstars: the type that are so much better than the rest that it doesn’t matter who else is on the team, they will still make the playoffs. I can think of only a few that fit this, perhaps John Elway, Dan Marino, and Warren Moon.
• Elite: these guys win, but their ability is inseparable from their team. Players like Joe Montana and Troy Aikman always had top-rated receivers and running backs around them. For them, success was guaranteed, but it was their skills that won Super Bowls.
• Everyone else: Marginal talents, weak talents, and great talents on bad teams all look the same.

I can understand the Raiders picking Jamarcus Russell first, going for the next John Elway. They are gambling that he has that special something that can take them where they need to go. But this highlights another false axiom: the one that drives me the craziest. It goes like this:

You need to find that ‘franchise quarterback’ around which you can build your entire team.

The 2002 Buccaneers didn’t have a franchise quarterback, neither did the 2003 Ravens. The Panthers a couple of years ago and the Bears last year made the Super Bowl without that franchise quarterback.

In truth, the most important part of your team is the guy that elevates the players around him; the guy that makes the team better and makes them achieve the impossible. That guy can be the Left Tackle that doesn’t allow a sack in the playoffs, it can be a wide receiver whose fearlessness is infectious, or it can be a running back who refuses to go down and takes several tacklers with him. These are the leaders. For as much as we want our quarterbacks to be John Elway or Joe Montana, they probably won’t ever be.

In 2004 and 2005, the Lions scapegoated Joey Harrington. Maybe he was picked too high in 2002 (3^rd), and maybe he was the wrong face for the franchise (I never understood why being a master piano player was a bad thing, but people around here thought it was awful, so whatever), but he was, and is, a good quarterback. He sets for us the example of how not to prepare a quarterback. Draft a guy high, to a terrible team; start him right away; make him take a ridiculous number of sacks; give him no protection so that 3-step drops become 2-step flings; give him no receivers (or no receivers that can stay on the field); give him no defense, so he takes over after the other team has scored, not after a punt; pile all of the blame on him. Despite all of this, Harrington had only one public outburst and display of immaturity, and that was the 2006 mini-camp. Not only was it totally justified for him to walk out and not participate after what he went through, but I can’t help that he was bated into doing that by coaching staff.

What is left of Joey Harrington and the number one pick that year, David Carr (who had virtually the same experience in Houston) is backup positions for better teams. Their replacements will have more success, but not because of talent at the position. The next time there is a major opening, a franchise will think about Harrington or Carr, but then go with the inexperienced rookie or second-year player. Harrington and Carr may now remain backups perpetually (ala Brian Griese).

I could dwell on what could have been with these guys. I could suggest that the right teams could make these guys look like Joe Montana. But they reveal for us the inaccuracy and the fear that goes into football executive (and fan) decision-making. Now that the Lions got rid of Harrington, they “improved” to 3-13. Perhaps we should focus on the offensive line. Perhaps we make it a goal for the Lions to give up fewer than 50 sacks (instead of last year’s 62). Perhaps they focus on driving a solid running game. Maybe the issues are personnel and coaching at all levels. Maybe the quarterback isn’t the only player on the field. Maybe we don’t know everything that we think we know. Quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, but real talents, including Harrington, aren’t so common. It’s amazing how easily we can ruin his career.