May 10, 2006
"Meritorious Work or Unsubstantiated Hype?" by Vikes Geek


farmzygi.jpg


When the Minnesota Vikings hired new head coach Brad Childress they characterized their hiree as a man of integrity and family values. Once the Vikings’ front office deigned to speak in more meaningful terms about Childress, they assigned to Childress the label of “quarterback guru.” For his part, Childress has neither run from this label nor done anything other than perpetuate the conception that it suited him. But does it?

To the best of anyone’s knowledge, Childress’ designation as a quarterback guru derives from the work that he did with quarterbacks while serving as Andy Reid’s offensive coordinator in Philadelphia. Addressing whether Childress truly is a quarterback guru is a fairly straightforward proposition, then, requiring only an analysis of the benefits of Childress’ work with the Eagles’ quarterbacks.

In a previous column on college quarterbacks, I offered numerous statistics that suggested the potential value of certain quarterbacks beyond the college level. At first blush, all five quarterbacks about whom I wrote had impressive credentials. Upon further review, however, some concerns undoubtedly arose in the minds of some regarding where recent NFL draftees fall in the scheme of things. The same might be said of Childress’ work with his purported savants.

More Hype than Substance?

The following are some statistics for five well-known NFL quarterbacks:

Player..... Yards........ Comp. %.... TDs.... INTs.... Rating

1............ 2,654........ 55.8........ 16...... 13...... 86

2............ 2,385........ 62.7........ 17...... 9........ 98.6

3............ 4,110........ 63........... 26...... 14...... 92

4............ 4,456........ 59.1........ 28....... 16...... 85

5............ 2,059........ 45.4........ 9........ 14...... 55.2

A casual glance at the statistics suggests that quarterbacks three and four are far ahead of the other three quarterbacks on the list. It also suggests that quarterbacks one and five have a considerable amount of work to do to. It’s not surprising, then, that quarterback three is New England Patriot Tom Brady or that quarterback four is Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb, whose 2005 numbers are prorated here over a sixteen-game season. Nor probably is it surprising that quarterback number two is Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

What might surprise even the astute NFL observer, however, are the identities of the two remaining quarterbacks. Quarterback number one is former Eagles’ backup quarterback A.J. Feely—whose 2002 numbers with the Eagles are prorated here. And Quarterback number five is former Eagles’ backup Mike McMahon—whose 2005 numbers are prorated here.

What’s surprising about Feely and McMahon is that, despite working with a purported quarterback guru in Brad Childress, both have, at best, very modest NFL numbers. In the case of McMahon—the quarterback that Childress now has tabbed as the backup to Brad Johnson in 2006—the numbers are far below modest spiraling to the depths of awful.

Is McMahon’s poor 2005 performance the result of poor quarterback tutelage under Childress in Philadelphia? Probably not, given that McMahon’s 2005 numbers look very much like his career numbers in Detroit. But neither can it be said that Childress did anything to make McMahon better—at least nothing that someone in Detroit had not already at least matched. And that makes one wonder.

Feely is an even more interesting case with respect to Childress’ purported quarterback-grooming prowess. The casual NFL fan will point to the Eagles’ ability to the fifth-round pick Feely into a second-round pick for Feely in a trade with Miami. What that same fan will ignore, however, is that the Feely trade was predicated on Miami’s desperation more than on Feely’s performance. For, even with prorated numbers in his most active season with the Eagles, Feely was a modest to below average quarterback. His performance since leaving the Eagles does nothing to alter that view. That, again, makes one wonder what it is that Childress has done that merits labeling him a quarterback guru.

But more disconcerting with respect to Childress’ purported ability to cultivate prior unknown quarterbacks is the fact that Feely was not an unknown when he entered the NFL. Instead, Feely entered the NFL with scouts having only one concern—whether he had recovered from an injury that he had suffered in his junior season. Feely was a star in the PAC-10 prior to his junior-year injury. Only after his injury did he lose some luster—yielding to future first-round selection Joey Harrington during his senior season. That made him an injury risk in the draft, but one that most expected to pay off if he had recovered from his injury. At best, Childress merely showed Feely for what he was when he entered the NFL—a quarterback with modest to below average ability. That’s not Childress’ fault. But neither is it a cause to celebrate Childress as a quarterback guru.

Nor would anyone say with a straight face that Donovan McNabb has exceeded expectations since being drafted. In fact, most Philly fans would probably voice their concern over virtually all of McNabb’s non-Terrell Owens years with the Eagles. And the fairly modest QB ratings suggest just why that might be the case.

In short, if Childress truly is a quarterback guru, it is not on the strength of the work that he has done with Feely, McMahon, and McNabb. In fact, one could make the argument that, on the basis of what Childress was able to accomplish with these three quarterbacks, he is no better than average in developing quarterbacks. And that should raise at least a concern about Childress’ self-professed ability to develop a quarterback in Tavaris Jackson who, by Childress’ own admission, is “a piece of unmolded clay.”

Up Next: SWAC, 2007, and Mini-Camp



Posted by maasx003 at May 10, 2006 01:01 AM
Comments

I'm not sure prorating these numbers on McMahon last year is entirely fair. The Eagles were very banged up last year, with players at many key positions injured - and of course, they had no #1 wideout given the Owens fiasco. I don't disagree entirely with your assessment, but am not sure that these stats are a fair way to evaluate that.

Posted by: Rev. Vike at May 10, 2006 08:49 AM

Rev,

Unfortunately, that's all we have to work with when it comes to Childress' time spent with McMahon. Prorating merely offers a better point for quick comparison. One could simply look at McMahon's actual numbers from last year to get the same feel. It's hard to look at McMahon as a good quarterback no matter how the numbers are spun. Yes the Eagles had some health issues and were without Owens last year, but, in that respect, they looked very much like many teams around the league--including Minnesota. As I said, the numbers that the quarterbacks under Chidress' guidance have put up don't necessarily merit criticism of Childress, but they do take some of the luster off of the notion that Childress is a quarterback guru. And if the Vikings are built, in part, on the philosophy that Childress can mold any quarterback then maybe that philosophy needs some adjustment.

VG

Posted by: vg at May 10, 2006 09:18 AM

Good points; I agree with your basic thesis. I would like to give McMahon the benefit of the doubt given the difficult circumstances of last year; however, the little I saw him play in relief of McNabb, I was not impressed. One hopes Childress et al. know what they are doing; the Foley fiasco has caused me to start doubting all of their moves thus far.

Posted by: Rev. Vike at May 10, 2006 10:16 AM

You certainly have a point about Childress not being proven to be the quarterback guru he's been hyped up to be, at least not yet. But what about Brad Johnson, probably the most knowledgeable starting QB in the league right now? Simms holds Johnson's advice in pretty high regard. And what about Kevin Rogers, whose done some good work as QB coach for college teams (was Mcnabbs QB coach in college)? Surely anything Childress lacks Johnson and Rogers can fill in.

Posted by: Jake at May 10, 2006 01:19 PM

I'm agreeing, but I would take McMahon out of his resume. He wasn't a draft pick. He was a free agent pick-up with time served in the West Coast offense. I don't believe Childress is going mold him into anything. McMahon is a "good athlete". That's the kiss of death. With a career qb rating at 55, I hope he's not our #2 at the start of the season.

Outside of McNabb and Feeley, Childress hasn't mentored many quarterbacks. Did he do anything in the college ranks?

Posted by: pa viking at May 10, 2006 01:20 PM

Who else is going to be our #2? Tarvaris Jackson will have to be kept on the roster at the #3 spot. Is there anyone else on the horizon?

Posted by: Rev. Vike at May 10, 2006 01:23 PM

And also if he goes to NFL Europe he'll probably get some pointers from O'Sullivan, who won the World Bowl in 2004 and had some impressive stats there too.

Posted by: Jake at May 10, 2006 01:27 PM

you could do so much better I'm sure.Do me a favor and shut the hell up

Posted by: jo calihan at May 10, 2006 07:12 PM

How long did he work with both Qb's? I don't think your assesment is very fair or accurate.
I do think that McNabb is pretty dang good and he did have some quality time with B.Childress- At least give him that much- Those other 2 qb's are terrible no matter who they work with.
I am not ready to crown B. C. " QB Guru" either though!

Posted by: BlankITCoverage at May 10, 2006 07:31 PM

Finally GEEK writes something with substance! I hope he's wrong about Childress cause I sure don't have the faith in choice for head coach by Zygi Wilf! Who was giving him advice? Bud or Rob Brezinski? At any rate, decent article! NOW GFY!

Posted by: MoVikes at May 12, 2006 07:35 PM

That's a poor opinion Mo Vikes

Posted by: Northland Viking at May 13, 2006 11:30 AM
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.