"Ruining" a QB by starting him too soon

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, mjt328 said:

 

OK.  Go ahead and argue for those guys.  Throwing random names out isn't actually saying anything.

There is no way to prove that any of those players were "ruined" by playing too early, or if they would have just busted regardless.

 

Everybody likes to talk about David Carr, but statistically his best seasons were his 3rd, 4th and 5th in the league. 

If he was ruined by playing too early, you wouldn't expect to see any progression after his first season. 

But like many NFL quarterbacks, he just peaked at a certain point and never got better. 

 

You're right.  There is no way to argue for or against because the terms aren't well defined, and because as you state there is no way to know.  So why are you getting your panties in a knot? The guys I mentioned all started as rookies and have not gone on to good careers.  Were they ruined or did they just not have it?  You might as well argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

[C.Biscuit97]

34 minutes ago, mannc said:

Hope you’re right. Peterman actually looked pretty good in the Indy snow game before he got hurt.

He had 57 yards passing.  Dear lord, the bar for qb play in Buffalo is so low.

 

every QBs benefits from playing.  The problem is fans and media don’t have the patience to let a young qb struggle.  They are willing to take the growing pains.  Guys are learning the hardest position in sports and fans expect them to master it in one training camp.  

Edited July 31, 2018 by C.Biscuit97

[TPS]

It would be interesting to see who the alternative was in each case?

 

Regarding Allen, I think what most people suggest here, me included, is that he only starts if he is the clear cut winner in the preseason. If not, there IS value in having him watch and learn early in the season.

[Elite Poster]

9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nah.

 

Despite the changes in the rules, then and now have about the same percentages of great QBs, franchise QBs, mediocre QBs and simply not good enough QBs. Been about the same through the history of the NFL.

 

Playing QB has not gotten all that much easier. The stats have gone up but that just means that higher stats are necessary to be considered decent. It's still spectacularly difficult to play QB very well in the NFL.

 

The thing is I feel like the league disagrees with you. Look at the frequency of rookies being thrown right into the game; imo you can teach small things but at the end of the day you can either play or you can't. Josh could finish 18/15 TD to INT but the film will show the truth behind the stats. 

[jrober38]

12 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I’m not sure what you are arguing.  I named some of the greatest qbs of this generation who benefited from sitting.  It’s not 100% but man, it seems like guys do benefit from learning at first.  My god, stupid people were calling Goff a bust after 7 games.

 

You named 10 guys. Half of which never actually sat on the bench because they played as rookies. 

[Ramza86]

I dont think its the being on the field part thats the problem. 

 

I think the biggest issue is the mental state if things go wrong. 

 

The QB can lose faith, change his game to a fault. Players and coaches can give up on the QB. 

 

Lotta outside factors.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Ramza86

[RoyBatty is alive]

13 hours ago, greeneblitz said:

IMO there absolutely no such thing, the only danger about starting a QB early is with insecure coaches and GM pulling the trigger and yanking them out of the starting gig.

No, neither has ever shown a single sign that they would have been good only if...

 How can you say they never shown a single thing they could be good when, certainly in the case of David Carr,never really had a chance to begin with.  Carr showed a whole lot of of potential in college, wit the Texans all he ever did was run for his life.

[Figster]

Every 1st round draft selection at the QB position is unique in the style O that was run at the college level, the supporting cast, the caliber coaching, and opposition they faced IMO. Every rookie QB destination is also unique making it a case by case decision on the best course of action to follow by way of development in my humble opinion.

 

My reservations of starting Josh Allen early on has much to do with Allens supporting cast/Oline protection Buffalo can provide combined with the new Offensive system installation.

 

 

[mannc]

1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

He had 57 yards passing.  Dear lord, the bar for qb play in Buffalo is so low.

 

 

Relax.  He only played about a quarter, IIRC.  And under those conditions, 57 yards ain’t bad.

[Forward Progress]

Each QB gets only one path through their career.  They either start early, backup early or toggle back and forth.  When they succeed, we get to see the entire path of their success, but when they fail, we are forced to speculate on whether a different developmental path could have resulted in success.

 

We all got to watch the EJ path, where he hasn't developed into an NFL starter.  Did his path take away from his success or did he not have the right set of skills, including his mindset to succeed?  We never get to know for sure, but we can see that EJ faced some early adversity and never bounced back.  NFL QB's who can't bounce back from adversity aren't likely to succeed, so my opinion is that EJ would never have succeeded, regardless of the path given to him.  This is just one guy's opinion - you are welcome to your own.

 

Even though Josh Allen has a long way to go to become an NFL starting QB, I am more hopeful.  Allen has overcome adversity at every level just to become a college QB and first round NFL prospect.  Allen has an elite arm, but he has many skills that need to develop to be the NFL QB we all want him to become.  I am sure he will face more adversity in the next few seasons, but I think that Josh will respond constructively when the going gets tough and draw upon his own determination to overcome the challenges. 

 

If you haven't read the back story on Allen yet, you should.  These links are pretty good.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/football/nfl/bills/2018/07/19/josh-allen-buffalo-bills-quarterback-first-round-nfl-draft-pick-university-wyoming-firebaugh-farm/783231002/

 

https://blogs.usafootball.com/blog/6207/how-josh-allen-s-perseverance-earned-him-a-spot-in-the-nfl

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Forward Progress

[TonyBeets]

Carr will be a top 5 qb in the league for the next decade

[wppete]

I hope he sits out at least the first 4 games on this schedule. 

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

He had 57 yards passing.  Dear lord, the bar for qb play in Buffalo is so low.

 

every QBs benefits from playing.  The problem is fans and media don’t have the patience to let a young qb struggle.  They are willing to take the growing pains.  Guys are learning the hardest position in sports and fans expect them to master it in one training camp.  

Most fans do have the patience to let a promising QB take his lumps. They just don't want to waste time watching a lost cause flounder around in a sea of futility. 

[Thurman#1]

8 hours ago, Domdab99 said:

****

Either a QB has confidence or he doesn't. Peyton wasn't ruined, Goff wasn't ruined....hell, when he finally got a chance to play, Favre was awful. But he wasn't ruined. Why? Because he and the others had confidence in themselves, the results be damned. 

 

Allen has confidence. He oozes it. He's like Ryan Fitzpatrick, but with, you know, actual talent. 

 

Everyone saying putting him behind a disastrous OL like what happened with Carr would be bad, and I agree, but no one knows how good or bad this offensive line is going to be yet. Same with the wide receivers. Maybe they'll be crap, maybe they'll step up and fit really great with Daboll's new scheme. Who knows? 

 

Let's see what happens. I trust the coaching staff to put him out when they think he's ready. They're not going to let him be a goddamned sacrificial lamb to be offered up to the "scary" defenses of the Ravens, Chargers, and Vikings if he's not ready. But if he plays, then they believe he's ready. 

 

One more thing: strength of schedule is bull ****. Who's good and who's bad changes yearly. 

 

 

 

From your linked article:

 

It is concluded that high-intensity strength training sessions can be partly replaced by IMC training sessions without any considerable reduction of strength gains.

 

That's a far cry from "The weight lifters gained the most, but the ones who imagined it gained almost as much strength."

 

Oh, and go jump in a lake. 

 

Missed the point yet again. You're not usually so clearly unprepared. You usually seem to at least manage to read the posts you reply to thoroughly. Not in this conversation, though.
 

That's not one isolated study, as I pointed out. Wasn't even the one I was originally referencing. It was just the first one I found on google when searching. Here's yet another I found, again after a quick google search.

 

"In this integrative review, we examine four (non‐exhaustive) cases in which mentally simulating an experience serves a different function, as a substitute for the corresponding experience. In each case, mentally simulating an experience evokes similar cognitive, physiological, and/or behavioral consequences as having the corresponding experience in reality: (i) imagined experiences are attributed evidentiary value like physical evidence, (ii) mental practice instantiates the same performance benefits as physical practice, (iii) imagined consumption of a food reduces its actual consumption, and ..."

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spc3.12257

 

This isn't one study, it's been researched exhaustively. It's accepted scientific fact. It's generally called "motor imagery" if you want to research it. I referred only to the part of the research involving strength gains, as it's easily understood and surprising to those who don't know about it. But it's not just a strength thing. Doing mental reps of complicated skills has been shown to increase proficiency. It's why you hear constantly about guys taking "mental reps," from the sidelines and the bench. 

 

"In some medical, musical, and athletic contexts, when paired with physical rehearsal, mental rehearsal can be as effective as pure physical rehearsal (practice) of an action." Doing mental reps only, without physical reps, won't do the job, which is why teams do actually hit the practice fields. But if you're also doing physical reps, the mental ones you do can in some areas be as effective. The quote is from the Kappes and Morewedge article "Mental Simulation as Substitute for Experience."

 

The person I was replying to - QuoteTheRaven83 - said "I never understood the theory behind learning by sitting." I was pointing out that whether or not he understood was immaterial. It's a scientifically accepted fact at this point, not a theory. 

 

"Jump in a lake." Oh, Golly. Wow, well, you really threw in some advanced reasoning there.

[North Buffalo]

So basically we haven’t a clue or maybe better termed we have an inkling but could be wrong or given the right circumstances and good coaching or system Allen could be great or not be able to take the next step.  Guess all we have is hope and we will see. Obviously the guy has talent and despite the physical skills that EJ had he had trouble reading a defense.  Allen seems to know when he screws up and is able to learn from it.  That gives me hope.  Yeh there will be a learning curve.  Still haven’t and I don’t think anyone here knows if Allen is better learning on the field or watching.  Guys are different in which they are better at.  Preseason games will tell a lot imo.

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, QuoteTheRaven83 said:

 

LOL.

 

I just stopped reading after this...Scientific fact. 

 

This is football not weightlifting junior. A sport and position that involves a lot more brainpower and instinct than lifting weights.  I just stopped reading after the first paragraph. Just pure nonsense. 

 

 

 

Yeah, not surprised the words "scientific fact" caused such a negative reaction from you.

After all, if you read something new, you might learn something. Wouldn't want that. It's much better to stop reading when you hit something you disagree with, I find. It won't improve your understanding of the world, but hey, confirmation bias makes people feel good about themselves.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Thurman#1

[North Buffalo]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Yeah, not surprised the words "scientific fact" caused such a negative reaction from you.

After all, you might learn something. Wouldn't want that. It's much better to stop reading when you hit something you disagree with. You won't improve your understanding of the world, but hey, confirmation bias makes people feel good about themselves.

Understood why he reacted.  If you understood both scientific method and science you would understood their is no such thing as fact only high probabilities until proven wrong or adjusted or correlations with sample sizes as limiting factors that also don’t account for outliers.  I like the analysis and think it has value... but I think it has limits as well and again it depends on an individuals ability to implement and use as a tool.  It may be useful or it may not be worth the time based on that indidual.

[Thurman#1]

29 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

Most fans do have the patience to let a promising QB take his lumps. They just don't want to waste time watching a lost cause flounder around in a sea of futility. 

 

 

Agreed that most fans do have the patience to let a guy - especially at QB - take his lumps for a while. But it is much less common to have the patience to let a high draft pick NOT take his lumps, even when what he needs is time to be developed.

 

One of the main reasons that Allen was hated by many or most on these boards before the draft was that people understood that he was likely to need time on the bench to develop. Many of the pundits were saying he would likely need a year and very possibly two. The fans didn't want that.

 

Now since we drafted him they love Allen and he's magically considered by many to now be ready. That "development" stuff is forgotten and ignored by many, including many of the same folks who didn't want us to draft him because it would mean we'd be drafting a guy who might not play for a while.

 

Allen could still play well enough to convince the brass that he doesn't need development time. Many high draft picks end up starting early. It hurts some of them and taking lumps isn't the only negative effect starting something too early can have.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Thurman#1

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

14 hours ago, greeneblitz said:

IMO there absolutely no such thing, the only danger about starting a QB early is with insecure coaches and GM pulling the trigger and yanking them out of the starting gig.

No, neither has ever shown a single sign that they would have been good only if...

 

I think you're wrong, David Carr had plenty of talent, that guy got his ass kicked every game, yeah he had Andre Johnson to throw to but when you only have 2 seconds to throw the football nobody would be able to succeed that way. 

[Thurman#1]

7 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Understood why he reacted.  If you understood both scientific method and science you would understood their is no such thing as fact only high probabilities until proven wrong or adjusted or correlations with sample sizes as limiting factors that also don’t account for outliers.  I like the analysis and think it has value... but I think it has limits as well and again it depends on an individuals ability to implement and use as a tool.  It may be useful or it may not be worth the time based on that indidual.

 

 

Yes, yes, I know. The theory of gravity is only a high probability from the standpoint of the scientific method. From this viewpoint there's no such thing as a fact. But only a scientist would say that. It's why I several times used the words "accepted scientific fact" in the posts. 

 

I don't disagree with you that it has limits and depends somewhat on an individual's abilities. If you doubt that Allen has the mental and physical abilities to learn from mental reps at QB, I would have to politely disagree with you about that opinion.