In the days leading up to March 6, 1997, Archie Manning spoke with reporters about his son, Peyton, and the decision he’d made to eschew the draft and return for his senior season at Tennessee.
Archie, per The Tennessean, took on the role of unbridled adviser, speaking with the head coach and general manager of the team with the No. 1 pick, the Jets. He had become schooled in what he called “the agent situation” and “salary caps” and lamented the time the process was taking away from his golf game. While this feigned naivete lost a bit of its genteel southern charm when Archie was again center stage for his youngest son Eli’s refusal to play for the Chargers leading up to the 2004 NFL draft, the precedent for how a parent could intervene in the process and succeed was set.
Since that time, Caleb Williams’s father, Carl, yanked his son out of NFL combine drills and medical testing ahead of the 2024 draft to avoid anything that could create a harmful narrative surrounding Caleb. Now, ahead of the ’25 draft, it’s been impossible to ignore the (near countless) stream of conscious thoughts from Colorado coach Deion Sanders whose son, Shedeur, is widely considered one of the top quarterback prospects in the draft.
Sanders said on the Million Dollaz Worth of Game podcast: “I know where I want [my sons] to go. There’s certain cities where it ain’t going to happen. It’s going to be an ‘Eli.’” (The Mannings could be in the news again next year when Archie’s grandson Arch figures to be a high first-rounder.)
Throughout the past three decades of parental meddling, these stories are not uncommon. Less common, since most of these snowplow parents end up denying the scope of their involvement once the desired result is achieved, is a full pronouncement of what they wanted for their children in the first place. (Which makes LeBron James’s not-so-subtle efforts to have his son, Bronny, end up on the Lakers with him kind of refreshing.) That begs the question: Outside of the obvious—to never play for the Jets or Browns, which, at this point, should be considered a basic human right—what is the ideal locale and situation for a young quarterback? What should a parent and a player want?
With that very big question in mind, Sports Illustrated posed a prompt to nearly two dozen former pro quarterbacks, current and former NFL coaches and executives, high-level NFL QB trainers and agents of quarterbacks. If they had a child poised to be the No. 1 pick but could game the draft in their favor, which team would they choose and why? Each participant was permitted to give three teams as their answer and was granted anonymity so they could speak more freely on the matter.
The results are both a window into the league’s current standard-bearers and a mirror pointing back toward the sports parent in all of us—as well as a peek into what the future of drafts in every sport could look like for those who possess the clout to manipulate it.
“It’s a fundamental evolution; it’s survival,” says sport psychologist Jim Taylor, who has written on the intersection of sports and parenting. “It’s a different kind of survival in this day and age. But nonetheless, you’re ensuring your child’s survival in their achievement path. It will increase their chances of, air quotes, surviving, if they are put with a better team.”
The question posed to those in and around the NFL was left intentionally vague in order to help draw out what those connected to the league truly value and how all-encompassing a positive environment for a quarterback really is. For example, many respondents asked if they should consider the current draft order and weigh their responses accordingly, assuming that either the Titans, Giants or Browns—owners of the first three picks in this year’s draft—would insist on taking a quarterback. In order to glean more about the NFL, we said no, offering them a kind of unchecked, dictatorial authority over the machinations of the draft.
Taylor puts most sports parents on a kind of continuum. On one side are those who are acting out of selflessness, and on the other, selfishness. Taylor considers the latter a form of theft and has dealt with countless young prospects whose parents were living out some sort of fantasy through their children. Or, worse, utilizing their children in a kind of moneymaking scheme.
However, when it comes to highly successful people helping their children succeed in sports, it is often an expression of selflessness, Taylor says. Basically: Archie Manning and LeBron James have already been to the height of their respective professions. They don’t need the success of their children to heal a bruised ego or pad a bank account.
“It’s just part of the game,” Taylor says. “Is it fair? No. Because there are other college quarterbacks coming out who don’t have that.”
This is why the results of the poll are valuable because all of the respondents have already realized their dreams or are living them currently. The respondents were or are general managers in the NFL, Pro Bowlers, Rookie of the Year award winners or millionaires who have done some of the largest deals in modern NFL history. While highly unscientific and conducted largely through phone calls and text messages, their responses reflect a sober view of the NFL and what predicates success. It also draws out the complex nature of helicopter parenting at the professional level because so many people have different ideas of what success actually is.
In all, 18 teams received votes. The Bears received a kind of honorary vote from one panelist who said they were intrigued by new head coach Ben Johnson based on his body of work with Jared Goff in Detroit. The Bengals and Zac Taylor, who has molded Joe Burrow, also received a similar vote.
“I default to ownership and the play-caller when it comes to QB destinations,” said one former quarterback who voted in the poll.
Said one respondent who voted for the Cowboys first, noting the prevalence of marketing deals done by Dallas players compared to other franchises: “Money.”
Said the lone respondent who picked the Titans (but was not connected to the franchise in any meaningful way): “It’s bad for a young quarterback to be in a big market. See Zach Wilson [the Jets’ No. 2 overall draft choice in 2021]. A lesser media market is better for a young QB. And the new GM there is good and should get it right.”
Said another former quarterback who voted for the Chiefs, Ravens and Eagles, three teams with elite signal-callers: “These teams will do everything to build around the QB. They do a great job of meeting the player where he is instead of trying to change the very reason they drafted him. They also have a great culture of having each other’s backs from coaches to players. They have an identity and that’s why their QBs flourish.”
Said one current high ranking NFL offensive coach and the lone person to vote for the Giants (the coach hadn’t previously worked for the franchise and currently works in a different conference): “The [organizational culture], and the way they treated Eli Manning.”
So clearly, different teams offer different strengths. For example, the Giants evoked a kind of paternal feeling, ensuring that their kid would be cared for personally. The team stuck with Manning through what was a statistically complicated career and padded the runway to his first start by signing veteran Kurt Warner. Though the franchise has lacked recent success and shuffled through a rapid succession of head coaches following the finale of the Tom Coughlin regime, the team has maintained an air of maturity. Daniel Jones, who was drafted as Manning’s successor in 2019, made it to a second contract before his release during the 2024 season.
The Steelers were clearly a popular pick because of the stability provided by coach Mike Tomlin. The Cowboys offered financial opportunities, providing a safety net for players after the conclusion of careers. The Titans afforded precious anonymity and a slice of normalcy—or as much of those two things as a quarterback can enjoy at the NFL level—while strong workplace culture was a factor for other franchises.
These wishes are set against the backdrop of an increasingly cutthroat environment, which was brought up by one NFL offensive position coach. Quarterbacks are routinely discarded before the end of their rookie contracts, left to navigate the uncertainty of a second-chance market.
In 2020, all four first-round quarterbacks—Burrow, Tua Tagovailoa, Justin Herbert and Jordan Love—made it to second contracts with their original teams. However, the following year only one of the five first-rounders, Trevor Lawrence, made it to a second deal. Wilson, Trey Lance, Mac Jones and Justin Fields were all on different rosters prior to the expiration of their rookie deals. The lone first-round quarterback selected in 2022, Kenny Pickett, was just moved to Cleveland, his third team. While it’s too early to offer a judgment on the 2023 class, two of the first three quarterbacks selected, Bryce Young and Anthony Richardson, found themselves benched at some point during the ’24 season—though Young returned from his sabbatical looking better than he ever has at the NFL level.
Still, being cast away is not a death sentence for a quarterback. Sometimes it offers the chance to find a team that presents a better situation, a point underscored by the success of late bloomers like Geno Smith, Sam Darnold and Baker Mayfield—all of whom made their first Pro Bowls after leaving their initial teams. “The scariest thing these days are when a young QB goes to a bad team with a new head coach,” says one NFL offensive position coach. “It’s difficult to succeed. Quarterbacks need time to develop and the public and owners just shred them now. The days of time to develop are gone. You have to win now and the QB and head coach are first to get destroyed.
“Think if Peyton Manning or Jim Kelly or Troy Aikman had the records they had to start off in this environment.”
With so many different factors determining success and so many different beliefs on how to arrive there, perhaps the biggest surprise in the poll was that there was one clear-cut winner: the Rams. Having a head coach like Sean McVay certainly helps. But perhaps what makes the organization so admired is its ability to understand what all of our respondents seemed to emanate individually: When it comes to the most important singular position in American sports, it’s all at once more and less complicated than one could imagine.
Les Snead maintains a neatly manicured Southern accent from his days growing up in Eufaula, Ala., and attending college at Auburn. But when it comes to unpacking the Rams as a kind of quarterbacking utopia, the team’s GM sounds more like a West Coast real estate agent, sunglasses affixed, cruising down some water-edged freeway in a red convertible.
“This is a young person’s world and there’s an energy, an electricity and excitement to the city and the location,” he says. “Our owner built this iconic stadium that, if you’re flying into L.A. you can see. If it’s on television, you say that place looks different. And before the commercial they’re showing a scene of the sunset over the Pacific Ocean. Then you come back to the game and you see an urgent Sean McVay coaching, oozing this element of passion and enjoyment. It all compounds.”
Snead wants us to envision a Venn diagram in which the quarterback is at a center. Around him are circles involving location, a culture of personal respect and sacrifice for a greater good and the people who exist within that culture helping the quarterback achieve success.
“Sean and his staff have proven that they can give the quarterback an edge,” Snead says. “Sean will often say, ‘Hey, I’m designing how the sword fighter fights, but the fighter is the one with the sword in his hands.’ And I think that everyone recognizes that. We’re not ranked No. 1 without Sean as our head coach.”
Indeed, no other coach was mentioned more than McVay from our respondents. In 11 years as either an offensive play-caller or a head coach, McVay’s teams have been one of the top 10 units in the NFL in terms of net passing yards per attempt eight times. His teams have been top 10 in total yards six times. Beyond that is a kind of undercurrent of belief that McVay can make an offense work for anyone. One particular flourish on his résumé was a 2022 game in which Mayfield—who had been waived by the Panthers on Monday, claimed by the Rams on Tuesday and practiced with the team on Wednesday—proceeded to start for L.A. on Thursday Night Football against the Raiders, orchestrating a game-winning touchdown drive and finishing with a passer rating above 90.
After that game, Mayfield spoke of McVay’s ability to teach a QB to quickly adjust to any defensive look he might face. “It’s pretty special to watch how detailed he is and just getting to know him and how he wants to put guys in good positions,” he said.
Snead was speaking of Venn diagrams mere days after Matthew Stafford chose to return to the Rams despite having permission to seek a trade. He had overtures from QB-desperate teams, including a chance run-in with Raiders minority owner Tom Brady at a posh ski resort, but Stafford opted not to leave L.A. His backup, Jimmy Garoppolo, also came back to the franchise on a one-year deal despite this offseason’s myriad openings.
Snead alluded to the fact that, beyond mere formalities like interviewing coaches and choosing to sign quarterbacks, there is a “deep” level of vetting, assessment and analysis that comes with bringing in the kind of people that help fill out that Venn diagram. Specifically, emotional intelligence was so important that the team thoroughly researched it in candidates—including McVay, whom Snead hired in 2017—even before they reached the formal interview process. Underneath the haze of corpo-jargon (Snead referred multiple times to the “macro” and the “micro”) was an intentional word choice that he kept making throughout the interview, once even correcting himself to do so.
At no point did Snead ever use a transactional word to describe the quarterback. The Rams do not sign or extend or draft. Snead prefers the word partner.
And, perhaps, therein lies the heart of the matter. One NFL exec polled for this story who interviewed for multiple general manager openings this cycle, noted the effectiveness and simplicity in just having a plan for a quarterback and conveying it openly and honestly. A plan that takes into account the QB holistically as well as physically. Example: Are you looking at offensive tackles who better suit a dropback or mobile passer?
When put that way, the idea of force-feeding a prospect to a certain locale doesn’t seem that ridiculous after all. It bypasses the typical NFL cycle of failure, in which a team has to become so bad to be in the position to draft a franchise quarterback that there is often little hope the club can improve enough to actually help a prospect realize his full potential. As one former All-Pro and current NFL analyst put it: “If I were Deion Sanders, I would do it too. Why wouldn’t I?”
Regardless of what we really want for our children—financial success, statistical success, happiness or some combination of those things—we want those in charge of their development to treat them with the care that we would.
When thanked for sharing a small piece of how the Rams treat the position and informed that the reporter himself was feeling more prepared for understanding the nuances of the topic, Snead asked if he felt like he had enough plays in the playbook calibrated to his strengths.
“I expect three touchdowns from you,” he said with total confidence.
He was kidding—right? Or maybe this is just part of the Rams experience everyone is searching for.
Below are the full results from the survey:
This article was originally published on www.si.com as How to Raise a Quarterback: NFL Players and Executives Debate Best Environment.