Jump to content

QBs can develop while getting smashed


scribo

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

Young was a late bloomer primarily because he sat on the bench a fairly long time before he got his chance.

 

He also had some rough outings when he did get in there. He was a project. He was much too quick to bail the pocket and run. He had to learn to stay in the pocket and make throws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scribo said:

I agree, he needs better touch. But there are times where a fastball is just what's needed, such as the bullet dropped by Benjamin in the endzone yesterday.

Of course. But Im pointing out that it likely affects his comp.%. That's bad.

Edited by OJ Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Formerly Allan in MD said:

Young was a late bloomer primarily because he sat on the bench a fairly long time before he got his chance.

Young started in the USFL and then for Tampa Bay. He was a reclamation project of sorts. Young himself said that he had to make a conscious decision to change his game and make plays primarily from the pocket. If he didn’t , he knew he would be out of the league. He’s also stated that he sees a similarity between the early version of himself and RGIII. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Fair enough about your plan. But Peyton Manning coming out of college was widely considered one of the most NFL-ready QBs of all time. Josh Allen not so much.

 

He may possibly be ready but the evidence certainly isn't convincing.

 

I was not comparing Allen to Manning, rather suggesting that the Bills (who are talent-deprived in much the same way that the Colts were back in those days) use a similar model to what the Colts used to protect and nurture their young QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

Young was a late bloomer primarily because he sat on the bench a fairly long time before he got his chance.

 

 

Not true. Yeah, he sat for nearly two years. He then played 5/16ths of his second season and all of his third. To say the least, he did not look good. I mean, his passer rating did not exceed 65 for those two years. And he still looked awful given three games to start in each of his next two years.

 

He looked awful in Tampa. Given three games to start his first year in SF he looked very good. But had he developed or was it a lucky three games? His poor performance the next year when given three games would argue it was a statistical anomaly. It really wasn't till he'd been several years developing in SF that he looked good consistently.

 

If anything the evidence indicates that he only started to look good after sitting the bench for a while in a place where they knew how to develop QBs.

Edited by Thurman#1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OJ Tom said:

Of course. But Im pointing out that it likely affects his comp.%. That's bad.

The other line of thinking is that our WRs aren't good enough and should be able to catch those NFL bullets. I don't know which is the right and wrong way of thinking. Clearly it would be a huge advantage to be able to catch them as the windows are tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...