26CornerBlitz Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 @theMMQB Since '06, no team that drafted a QB in first 2 rds sat him for full rookie yr & then saw him become a franchise QB. http://trib.al/JuWyQJi Every team would love to keep its highly drafted quarterback under wraps for a season or two so he can slowly transform into a franchise player, but it’s a pipedream in today’s NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 @theMMQB Since '06, no team that drafted a QB in first 2 rds sat him for full rookie yr & then saw him become a franchise QB. http://trib.al/JuWyQJi someone has to break that mold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) I advocate throwing the rookie in right away as the best way to develop, if it's a relatively high pick. The problem is a lot of teams don't have the "luxury" of HC and GM stability to absorb a 3-13 season as the rookie develops toward what can be a playoff team in 2-3 years. The advantage of doing it this way is you develop the rookie QB and get a high draft pick to keep building the team. It's just rare that it works out where you completely tear down and rebuild that way. The Browns were in that position but chose not to. They might end up doing it this year with Kizer. The Jags did this and it didn't work (yet). The Raiders did this, and it did. The Eagles did a soft rebuild with a rookie QB last year. I think that's a good middle ground. Edited May 17, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan17 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I said this to multiple people during the draft, he'll fought with Giants fans who talked about taking Watson and letting him sit behind Manning. The odds of it happening and the odds of it being successful aren't anymore of a crap shoot than the player selected. I have no true philosophy on how the approach should be handled but, I do think you can try and justify a developmental prospect, but trial by fire can give you certain insights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) I advocate throwing the rookie in right away as the best way to develop, if it's a relatively high pick. The problem is a lot of teams don't have the "luxury" of HC and GM stability to absorb a 3-13 season as the rookie develops toward what can be a playoff team in 2-3 years. The advantage of doing it this way is you develop the rookie QB and get a high draft pick to keep building the team. It's just rare that it works out where you completely tear down and rebuild that way. The Browns were in that position but chose not to. They might end up doing it this year with Kizer. The Jags did this and it didn't work (yet). The Raiders did this, and it did. The Eagles did a soft rebuild with a rookie QB last year. I think that's a good middle ground. I think it depends on what you see in practice. There's a degree of "readiness" that needs to be there. Can he call the play after its relayed in? Will he know the checks? The Audibles? The snap count? Formation? Has he developed a cadence? If the answer to any of the questions is no... then you should probably have him focusing on that stuff. Those things need to be natural - takes some guys longer than others. Like - i wouldn't want to get him killed by a Pro bowl DE because he tips the snap count or something stupid like that. Edited May 17, 2017 by dneveu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 This guy messed up too badly with his dumb Whaley tweet. How to you pre-program a tweet to go out about roster quality BEFORE the draft even takes place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Aaron Rodgers turned out alright. I thought the consensus was that college is not generally preparing qbs for the pro game. I understand there may be reasons to throw someone in the deep end and let them learn that way. I don't see that it is the only possible strategy. Bridge qb idea means nothing if you're not willing to let a rookie sit and learn. So many folks seem to think franchise qb equals ready to play immediately. That seems very short-sighted to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Aaron Rodgers turned out alright. I thought the consensus was that college is not generally preparing qbs for the pro game. I understand there may be reasons to throw someone in the deep end and let them learn that way. I don't see that it is the only possible strategy. Bridge qb idea means nothing if you're not willing to let a rookie sit and learn. So many folks seem to think franchise qb equals ready to play immediately. That seems very short-sighted to me. He was Drafted in 2005, behind a HOF QB...so, factually inaccurate relative to the article and not even close when comparing his situation to virtually that of every other save Joe Montana and Steve Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 @theMMQB Since '06, no team that drafted a QB in first 2 rds sat him for full rookie yr & then saw him become a franchise QB. http://trib.al/JuWyQJi All this means to me - were any of these guys drafted by teams who had a franchise QB at the time? No? Then who are they sitting behind for a full 16? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) All this means to me - were any of these guys drafted by teams who had a franchise QB at the time? No? Then who are they sitting behind for a full 16? "bridge" QBs. I think if they are taken in the 1st or 2nd, they should just start unless a franchise QB is in place. No bridge crap. Edited May 17, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodman19 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I would be willing to bet a few busts since then may have carved out a better career had they sat for a year or two. Loss of confidence can kill development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 "bridge" QBs. I think if they are taken in the 1st or 2nd, they should just start unless a franchise QB is in place. No bridge crap. years ago, you put your Rookie in and let him learn as he went....but everyone knew that meant mistakes and moments of frustration....today, everyone must win now. This is the hard part of being a Bills fan...we know it's not McD's fault or Beane's but the benefit of the doubt they would get with nearly any other franchise (except the Browns), they fail to get from us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellyToughII Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) well our 5th rounder is sitting behind a 6th rounder who sat 3 years and even went to a superbowl. After sitting 3 years, playing 2 years our current starter still isn't a franchise QB. So start Peterman now and lets see if we need to draft a QB next year. Edited May 17, 2017 by KellyToughII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4BillsintheBurgh Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 "bridge" QBs. I think if they are taken in the 1st or 2nd, they should just start unless a franchise QB is in place. No bridge crap. But for example, Big Ben started on the bench until the starter got hurt early in the year. I think there is a responsibility to your team and the year long effort they make (and you as a coach expect them to give) to start the guy that gives the team the best chance to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Aaron Rodgers turned out alright. I thought the consensus was that college is not generally preparing qbs for the pro game. I understand there may be reasons to throw someone in the deep end and let them learn that way. I don't see that it is the only possible strategy. Bridge qb idea means nothing if you're not willing to let a rookie sit and learn. So many folks seem to think franchise qb equals ready to play immediately. That seems very short-sighted to me. Rodgers is the exception. I think it can work out, but you have to have the staff in place that can aid the development. You also must have a QB who possesses the talent and drive to get better. Is Peterman that kind of QB? I don't know. Maybe Peterman pulls a Russell Wilson and outplays Tyrod in the preseason to the extent he wins the starting job? The fact of the matter is no one knows. The key for each of these QB's was falling into the right situation. It didn't happen for Trubisky imo, but it just may have for Watson, Mahomes, Kizer, Webb, and Peterman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Rodgers is the exception. I think it can work out, but you have to have the staff in place that can aid the development. You also must have a QB who possesses the talent and drive to get better. Is Peterman that kind of QB? I don't know. Maybe Peterman pulls a Russell Wilson and outplays Tyrod in the preseason to the extent he wins the starting job? The fact of the matter is no one knows. The key for each of these QB's was falling into the right situation. It didn't happen for Trubisky imo, but it just may have for Watson, Mahomes, Kizer, Webb, and Peterman. There are a lot of variables for certain. My recollection is that rookie qbs used to sit on the bench and learn decades ago, but perhaps I am imagining that. Perhaps there has always been a gap between the college game and what a pro qb is asked to perform. I personally do not believe one should exclude taking a qb early if one doesn't think he can immediately step in and start. The new front office seems to be bringing in quality people. Hopefully they are good at evaluating qb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I advocate throwing the rookie in right away as the best way to develop, if it's a relatively high pick. The problem is a lot of teams don't have the "luxury" of HC and GM stability to absorb a 3-13 season as the rookie develops toward what can be a playoff team in 2-3 years. The advantage of doing it this way is you develop the rookie QB and get a high draft pick to keep building the team. It's just rare that it works out where you completely tear down and rebuild that way. The Browns were in that position but chose not to. They might end up doing it this year with Kizer. The Jags did this and it didn't work (yet). The Raiders did this, and it did. The Eagles did a soft rebuild with a rookie QB last year. I think that's a good middle ground. ..pretty difficult to come up with a generic, "one size fits all" formula IMO.....depends on the rook's prep in college and how it relates to NFL game, ability to readily adapt to speed and complexity of game at this level, good coaches to bring him along, a decent stable of RB's and WR's/TE's so he can mix and match the offense to keep opposition at bay, and certainly his confidence level..and it is not work ethic alone....Tebow and EJ both had great work ethics, but failed in the end.......if it was simple, we'd never be talking about the Peyton vs Leaf debate.....and the failures far outweigh the successes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts