"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.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Elite Poster said:

 

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. 

 

 

I hear you. Good post.

 

I don't think the league disagrees with me. To me it seems more like there are plenty of cases where teams would rather sit a guy but instead finally feel too much pressure and put him in.

 

Guys are indeed often thrown in. A lot of that is because - IMHO - first round QBs generally go to teams that are absolutely desperate for a good QB right away. The GM and coach are often on hot seats and the fan base is dying to see the new guy and get some wins. Guys like that do often get thrown in early, but not necessarily for good reason. And when a good team picks a QB that early, or when a team for different reasons sits him for a while, well, the development of Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers are pretty good ones to model. Didn't hurt them to sit for a while.

 

With our QBs and hungry fans, I guess we'll probably see Allen sometime this year. I hope it's week 17, personally, but realize it could be earlier. Unless either McCarron or Peterman surpasses expectations and looks really good, there'll be pressure to see Allen on the field. If he does play, I just hope he's ready. Some guys are, but plenty aren't.

 

I'm hopeful. Won't be convinced, though, by anything less than results.

[BillsfanAZ]

I think the biggest adjustments to the NFL for college QB's is the speed of the game and learning an NFL offense in a short period of time. If a QB had some exposure to a pro style offense in college like Allen did, then he is ahead of the game. Allen has to learn from his mistakes....he will make them and it will be painful until he learns from them. Once a QB knows the offense like the back of his hand then his skills will either show or they wont. Expectations should not be high for rookie QB's. I think it was George Seifert that said you dont know what you have in a QB until his third season. 

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

4 hours ago, Drunken Pygmy Goat said:

 

Goff showed flashes as a rookie, but the numbers were rough. Jeff Fisher is pretty much the anti-QB guru, and the Rams moved on from him in favor of an offensive minded coach, added some talented WRs, and VIOLA! 

 

A QB either has it or he doesn't, but they are also products of their environment. I'm sure Goff would have made some strides in year 2 had it been under Jeff Fisher, but I highly doubt that he or his offense would have played anywhere close to as well as they did under McVay. Everyone was calling him a bust after his rookie season, but not me, because I saw the flashes and knew what it could become under the proper tutelage, and also because I knew that Fisher had a reputation of "not being good" for QBs.

 

Circumstance and environment always play a role, but that doesn't mean the same thing as "ruined by starting too soon". The term "too soon" itself essentially means "ill advised", a mistake. IMO, "too soon" as far as QBs goes is more about situation. Taking a beating behind a poor offensive line is one thing, but stunting a player's growth due to sub-par coaching/development is another. And in a league where you're really not afforded to much time, that can  alter a career. 

 

With Allen, he has some of the traits you want, but still needs some work. You can argue that it's best to work on those things off the field, but I think it's better to put them on tape in real games. Showing progress in practice is different than progress in live action.

 

The Bills may not have a very talented offense overall, but so far in camp, Daboll seems to be installing an offense that creates open receivers based on concepts (mesh, tossers, etc.), rather than relying more on WRs getting open and creating space on their own. And with an inexperienced QB (all 3 are really, in a way), it should help them gain confidence while they learn, and not have to play too risky early on. IMO, this team as currently constructed isn't as ill equipped to do this as many might think. They brought in McCarron as insurance, just in case Allen does need a bit more time, and (time will tell) they have a defense and run game that can be leaned on a bit more to keep games close. IIRC, Brady had a good D to lean on early in his career. Same with Big Ben. That allowed their teams to not have to give the QB more than they could handle early on, based on their lack of experience, and kept them competitive.

 

Tl;dr?

 

13 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I think the clearest argument that a QB can be mishandled would be Case Keenum and Nick Foles.  Kind of unusual to have two QB who both played poorly for a team relatively early in their careers, lighting the league on fire and meeting in the NFL Championship this year.

 

IIRC, the common theme with them (and Goff as a rookie) is Jeff Fisher.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's an interview with John Fox from this morning that relates to the op topic, with some parallels to Allen and his athelicsm, and RPOs. Start listening around the 12:30 mark

 

http://m.espn.com/general/play?id=24243476&cast=2445552

Edited July 31, 2018 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[Another Fan]

16 hours ago, jrober38 said:

If a QB can play, they usually show it very early on. 

I didn’t think EJ looked bad at all his first couple games here.  In retrospect that was kind off as good as it got in his career.  

 

I think of Mark Sanchez as well.  His first two years weren’t bad before he completely came apart with the butt fumble and all 

[jrober38]

8 minutes ago, Another Fan said:

I didn’t think EJ looked bad at all his first couple games here.  In retrospect that was kind off as good as it got in his career.  

 

I think of Mark Sanchez as well.  His first two years weren’t bad before he completely came apart with the butt fumble and all 

 

Statistically speaking, Mark Sanchez was an abysmal QB his entire career. In his 4 years in NY, his highest QB Rating was a terrible 78.2. 

 

His teams were successful because they played elite defense and had excellent running games. If anything, he held them back badly. 

[Royale with Cheese]

11 minutes ago, Another Fan said:

I didn’t think EJ looked bad at all his first couple games here.  In retrospect that was kind off as good as it got in his career.  

 

I think of Mark Sanchez as well.  His first two years weren’t bad before he completely came apart with the butt fumble and all 

 

EJ's first start against NE game me hope.  I was really excited after game 2 in the comeback against Carolina. 

After that, it fell apart for him.

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

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.

I am not sure, though he seems smart and likely he could (qualified)..  My question is what is best for Allen and his development.  Some guys do better getting in there and learning on the fly.  Some do well doing a hybrid of both. Doing, sitting, doing again etc... and some by sitting and watching.  Myself... I’m a bit of a hybrid... but I am not playing in the NFL.   And there is little patience for the hybrid model during a relatively short NFL season with no real developmental team like hockey, baseball and more recently basketball...  It is an interesting conundrum.

[LABILLBACKER]

15 hours ago, JoeF said:

Think about the difficult decisions Beane and McDermott made to get us in position to draft a potential franchise QB.  They traded Watkins, Darby, Ragland and eventually Dareus and got a partial year's contribution from EJ Gaines in return for all that.  By the way, they still made the playoffs.  They did this with a QB that the coach chose to bench and was likely convinced from about game 3 of the '17 season had no future in Buffalo.

 

They traded Tyrod, Glenn to stockpile enough to get into the top 10.

 

There is no question that Josh Allen has the most arm talent, mobility, athleticism of the three on the team right now.  These are factors in this decision, but not the only factors.  This Coach and this GM are not willing to throw away seasons.  They will play the QB who provides the best chance to win with the team we have this year.  The media will be clamoring for Allen and so will we...but I trust Beane and McDermott to play the QB who gives us the best chance to have the best 2018 possible.

 

In most cases starting a Rookie does not ruin a QB as the list shows.  Starting a QB who gives the team less of a chance to win than alternatives on the bench -- ruins and divides teams.  McBeane won't let this happen.   Guys like Lorax, Kyle, Shady, Hyde, TreDe, Dawkins, Benjamin, Clay won't stand for anything but a commitment to winning this year.

 

Well said, when Josh is ready he'll play.

[Rochesterfan]

16 hours ago, Buffalo86 said:

Below are the 40 39 37 QBs from 2004-2016 who were drafted in the first or second round & started during their rookie year.  Were any of them ruined by starting too soon?

 

 

 

 

Having read this thread and thought about it - I think both sides of the argument is just plain wrong - period!

 

You do not ruin a QB by starting him too early - this can be proved by guys like Manning, Aikman, Luck, Wilson, etc.  You also have guys that benefit from sitting like Rodgers, Brady, etc.  You also have guys that sat for various parts of their rookie season with mixed success - guys like Goff, Rothlisberger, Brees, etc.

 

There is no one right way or one wrong way to develop a QB.  It depends upon the individual QB and how the team moves forward that will determine success or failure.  Some people (even QBs) learn better/faster and more by playing or doing.  These guys need to be immersed in the game to get the most out of it. They learn about the speed and the reactions as they play - something they can not get by watching.

 

Some players can pick up a lot by watching film and practicing and are much more prepared when they get a chance to start, but others would get little out of it.

 

In the end you must understand your QB - you must support the QB - and you must give him time to develop in either process.  For some that means tough love and for others that means coddling, but either way it is the coach/QB relationship that must stand whether that QB starts from Week 1, Week 4, Week 15, or Year 3.

[Tenhigh]

3 hours ago, mannc said:

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

It's weird to me that people hold the snow game up as a good outing.  He wasn't bad, but all that snow is the equivalent of 2 extra O-lineman protecting you.

[PromoTheRobot]

I think most of the people who want Allen to start want to see him fail. There's a lot more to the job than making throws. There is no reason to start the guy if he isn't ready. Just impatience.

Edited July 31, 2018 by PromoTheRobot

[Rochesterfan]

20 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

It's weird to me that people hold the snow game up as a good outing.  He wasn't bad, but all that snow is the equivalent of 2 extra O-lineman protecting you.

 

I would not hold the yardage as anything great, but he threw for 57 yards basically through the first half.  Brissett threw for 69 in the equivalent of 5 quarters.  I am not sure the snow protecting you was much help with the wind and cold.

 

He left with the Bills leading and had the only TD up to that point.

 

It was also very windy as they were talking about this morning.

 

Was it a good outing -I don’t know, but he was easily the best QB that played that day - although Webb may have had the best throw.

[Bing Bong]

18 hours ago, DallasMac said:

There are a lot of guys on this list that weren't successful.  How do you know it wasn't because they were started too soon?  I don't think you can say definitively one way or the other.  I think it depends on the kid.  Some you can throw in and let them learn on the job.  Others can go in and get beat up and lose their confidence.  Just like when they throw a pick.  The good ones shake it off and others let it affect them the rest of the game.

I think losing confidence and not having game amnesia is the exact intangible trait that makes you a bad QB. That's why I like Peterman's confidence after his nightmare game. That's part of what makes a good quarterback.. 

 

Eli has quite the confidence for all the interceptions he's thrown. Take Eli and give him the mental fortitude of.. David Carr and he'd be out of the NFL. IMO it's simply one quality out of many that sets the better quarterbacks apart.. mental toughness.. likely the arrogant belief that they are better than their past has shown. So I want my quarterback to handle the fire and flames. One more measure of mental toughness.

 

I want a quarterback that can throw a 5 pick game, get sacked to oblivion, have drops, poor wr play.. and wake up the next morning thinking "I can score 5 TDs any damn Sunday, for all I know that's exactly what I did last week" I want my QB to be straight DELUSIONAL. (and learn a little bit from mistakes in a positive way lol)

Edited July 31, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[mannc]

1 hour ago, Tenhigh said:

It's weird to me that people hold the snow game up as a good outing.  He wasn't bad, but all that snow is the equivalent of 2 extra O-lineman protecting you.

It was better than his outing in LA...

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

Unless Allen looks very good in pre-season as first team QB, the Bills will likely do the same thing the Bears did last year with Trubisky. Let the veteran start the season, and (unless the Bills are .500 or better) start the rookie after at least 4 games. 

[reddogblitz]

13 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Matthew Stafford was abysmal his rookie year as he started out of the gate.  He threw 13 TD's, 20 INT's for 2,267 yards passing (53.3 completion %) and a QB rating of 60.9% behind a poor offensive line.  His mental toughness was in full display though against the Browns when he came back on the field to throw the game winning touchdown pass after he injured his shoulder.  It's my opinion that if you're mentally ruined by being thrown into the fire....you don't have the right stuff to begin with.

 

What has Stafford won?

[Doc Brown]

28 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

What has Stafford won?

He's on the Lions.  What has Barry Sanders won?  He's put up seven straight 4,000 plus yard seasons.  I'll take those numbers with Josh Allen and hope we have a coaching staff that can assemble a competent defense.

[reddogblitz]

19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

He's on the Lions.  What has Barry Sanders won?  He's put up seven straight 4,000 plus yard seasons.  I'll take those numbers with Josh Allen and hope we have a coaching staff that can assemble a competent defense.

 

And hopefully we don't get in the position where we are paying our QB so much we can barely field a whole team kindof like the Lions and others.

 

Hopefully Josh Allen is the second coming of YA Tittle.

Edited July 31, 2018 by reddogblitz

[Kelly the Dog]

102% of the quarterbacks that cave under pressure because they were thrown to the wolves too early were never going to be great anyway, and very likely not any good. 

 

It may help a player play better right away when he finally gets a chance if you sit him early. But it's just as likely he learns from the experience if he plays earlier so that cancels out. 

 

Allen may not be ready. We don't know that yet. I think he should and will start week one unless AJ has a great preseason. But he is not the kind of guy who will lose confidence if he fails early like Manning. 

[oldmanfan]

I assume most of the folks here have jobs.  So let me ask:  when you acceped a new job did you get an orientation meeting, maybe some training, maybe a mentor. Or did you just get thrown in the deep end and had to fend for yourself?