Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

[paco]

[YoHoChecko]

By the way, can we start the conversation that will go on throughout the year about how maybe, just maybe, the idea that any QB worth picking in the first round is worth playing as a rookie is officially dead? That maybe most QBs need to sit and take some time before being forced into action in year one? That the 49ers are doing it right with Lance, while the Jets, Jaguars (though #1 overall generational types typically start anyway), Bears (involuntary but still), and Pats are just sabotaging themselves, their QBs, and their offenses by inserting the rookies too early?

[BF004]

By the way, can we start the conversation that will go on throughout the year about how maybe, just maybe, the idea that any QB worth picking in the first round is worth playing as a rookie is officially dead? That maybe most QBs need to sit and take some time before being forced into action in year one? That the 49ers are doing it right with Lance, while the Jets, Jaguars (though #1 overall generational types typically start anyway), Bears (involuntary but still), and Pats are just sabotaging themselves, their QBs, and their offenses by inserting the rookies too early?

No idea what you mean.

image.png (236.06 KiB) Viewed 423 times

[lupedafiasco]

By the way, can we start the conversation that will go on throughout the year about how maybe, just maybe, the idea that any QB worth picking in the first round is worth playing as a rookie is officially dead? That maybe most QBs need to sit and take some time before being forced into action in year one? That the 49ers are doing it right with Lance, while the Jets, Jaguars (though #1 overall generational types typically start anyway), Bears (involuntary but still), and Pats are just sabotaging themselves, their QBs, and their offenses by inserting the rookies too early?

Justin Herbert, Kyler Murray, Baker Mayfield, Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen just off the top of my head all got starts as rookies. Josh Allen looked like &%$@. These are crucial reps that cannot be simulated in practice for these guys to learn from.

As far as the Jets and Jags are concerned they need to be sabotaging themselves. Those teams are talentless.

[Drj820]

By the way, can we start the conversation that will go on throughout the year about how maybe, just maybe, the idea that any QB worth picking in the first round is worth playing as a rookie is officially dead? That maybe most QBs need to sit and take some time before being forced into action in year one? That the 49ers are doing it right with Lance, while the Jets, Jaguars (though #1 overall generational types typically start anyway), Bears (involuntary but still), and Pats are just sabotaging themselves, their QBs, and their offenses by inserting the rookies too early?

No idea what you mean.


image.png

im sure the fact that those three QBs were drafted to and playing for complete dumpster fires has nothing to do with their success or production.

[YoHoChecko]

im sure the fact that those three QBs were drafted to and playing for complete dumpster fires has nothing to do with their success or production.

Yes, but that's part of the equation. If you're a terrible team, throwing a rookie out there to deal with much less-than-ideal circumstances when they're still trying to learn the NFL game creates massive problems.

I mean, look at how much better Andy Dalton was than Justin Fields. Dalton is below average. Their bad team is the same. And the offense goes from "not good" to "absolutely laughable"

Look at Tyrod Taylor versus Davis Mills. Tyrod being a washed up below average starter. Mills is a 3rd round rookie, so not a great call, but Taylor had a passer rating in the 120s and Davis Mills can't play.

Being a dumpster fire is a good reason to play a veteran while your rookie gets seasoned to the game. The QBs who rise above that and play well as rookies are rare--definitely less than 50% of first round picks who play. AND the QBs who play right away often (certainly not always) fail to develop into better passers as their careers go on in part due to the difficulty of unlearning bad footwork and bad muscle memory from their rookie years.

Only the last sentence of this post is opinion or debatable. It's just clear that rookie QBs playing on dumpster fire rosters is bad for both parties, team and player.

[Drj820]

Only the last sentence of this post is opinion or debatable. It's just clear that rookie QBs playing on dumpster fire rosters is bad for both parties, team and player.

totally agree. I just dont think the early failures of the rookie QBs in dumpster fire situations is some solid proof that there is only one way to do it. I think there is nuance in each situation. It is probably always ideal to sit a rookie, but it works out plenty.

[YoHoChecko]

It is probably always ideal to sit a rookie, but it works out plenty.

Given how often talented first round QBs bust, I'm not sure I can say "plenty" is a good enough return on investment.

Imagine someone is watching football in the 2020s and they're looking to develop a QB.

You're thinking, "gosh, how do I find the next Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, or Patrick Mahomes? What do they have in common?"

They did not start as rookies (except for a Mahomes week 17 sit-the-starters). Add Lamar Jackson since he's a recent MVP and remember that he didn't play the first half of the season and then only truly succeeded when they spent the offseason completely remaking their staff and offense to suit him.

I'm not saying it's the only way. Guys who are named starters early and start from day one are often guys who earned it by immediately looking the part and not needing as many mechanical adjustments or having unusually advanced processing skills--think Manning and Luck. Herbert being someone who was not scheduled to start but then did start and was great--he's such an anomaly and I haven't seen enough of him to know exactly how he's succeeding so much. But if you're looking at league MVPs and greatest players in this era, the guys getting it done at a hall of fame level, more often than not, took a seat.

So sitting rookies is good for the short term because a vet is almost always better than a rookie. Sitting rookies is good for the long term because there is at least some evidence that there is a developmental benefit to the young QB's eventual ceiling. The very best QB careers in the game these days, and most of the very best QBs in the modern era (just take out Peyton Manning pretty much) were benched early. Why WOULDN'T teams mimic that?

[Drj820]

It is probably always ideal to sit a rookie, but it works out plenty.

Given how often talented first round QBs bust, I'm not sure I can say "plenty" is a good enough return on investment.

Imagine someone is watching football in the 2020s and they're looking to develop a QB.

You're thinking, "gosh, how do I find the next Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, or Patrick Mahomes? What do they have in common?"

They did not start as rookies (except for a Mahomes week 17 sit-the-starters). Add Lamar Jackson since he's a recent MVP and remember that he didn't play the first half of the season and then only truly succeeded when they spent the offseason completely remaking their staff and offense to suit him.

I'm not saying it's the only way. Guys who are named starters early and start from day one are often guys who earned it by immediately looking the part and not needing as many mechanical adjustments or having unusually advanced processing skills--think Manning and Luck. Herbert being someone who was not scheduled to start but then did start and was great--he's such an anomaly and I haven't seen enough of him to know exactly how he's succeeding so much. But if you're looking at league MVPs and greatest players in this era, the guys getting it done at a hall of fame level, more often than not, took a seat.

So sitting rookies is good for the short term because a vet is almost always better than a rookie. Sitting rookies is good for the long term because there is at least some evidence that there is a developmental benefit to the young QB's eventual ceiling. The very best QB careers in the game these days, and most of the very best QBs in the modern era (just take out Peyton Manning pretty much) were benched early. Why WOULDN'T teams mimic that?

Yeah i get it. Sitting a guy a year cant hurt in most cases. But I dont buy Mahommes career would have been sabotaged if they had started him with that roster and coach in year one. Its all about the situation, which is why their is no uniform consensus on the topic. I feel QBs come out of college more prepared to play than they did 20 years ago, which is the time period 3 of your 4 examples are from.

[YoHoChecko]

Yeah i get it. Sitting a guy a year cant hurt in most cases. But I dont buy Mahommes career would have been sabotaged if they had started him with that roster and coach in year one. Its all about the situation, which is why their is no uniform consensus on the topic. I feel QBs come out of college more prepared to play than they did 20 years ago, which is the time period 3 of your 4 examples are from.

Look, I'm just citing obvious first ballot hall of famers in the game these days. Russell Wilson can push against that narrative, sure; he's definitely the next in line and started right away. But the narrative that QBs are coming to the NFL more ready than before is not bolstered much by rookie struggles of the QB classes of the past few years.

Josh Allen stunk early on and what he did in terms of completion percentage development is VERY rare (accuracy usually does not improve that drastically for anyone)

Daniel Jones? Dwayne Haskins? Tua? What we saw of Love?
Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, and Jones?

If these guys count as the "more prepared for the NFL" generation, you're doing more to hurt your point than help it.


We've basically got Kyler Murray, Justin Herbert, and to an extent Burrow playing well as rookies from the past three draft classes. Josh Allen looks to be the only one who has taken the next step early in his career the way Mahomes and Jackson did in their second years.

To me it looks like rookie QBs are getting worse in more recent years, not better.

[Drj820]

Yeah i get it. Sitting a guy a year cant hurt in most cases. But I dont buy Mahommes career would have been sabotaged if they had started him with that roster and coach in year one. Its all about the situation, which is why their is no uniform consensus on the topic. I feel QBs come out of college more prepared to play than they did 20 years ago, which is the time period 3 of your 4 examples are from.

Look, I'm just citing obvious first ballot hall of famers in the game these days. Russell Wilson can push against that narrative, sure; he's definitely the next in line and started right away. But the narrative that QBs are coming to the NFL more ready than before is not bolstered much by rookie struggles of the QB classes of the past few years.

Josh Allen stunk early on and what he did in terms of completion percentage development is VERY rare (accuracy usually does not improve that drastically for anyone)

Daniel Jones? Dwayne Haskins? Tua? What we saw of Love?
Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, and Jones?

If these guys count as the "more prepared for the NFL" generation, you're doing more to hurt your point than help it.


We've basically got Kyler Murray, Justin Herbert, and to an extent Burrow playing well as rookies from the past three draft classes. Josh Allen looks to be the only one who has taken the next step early in his career the way Mahomes and Jackson did in their second years.

To me it looks like rookie QBs are getting worse in more recent years, not better.

Is Josh Allen stinking year one and then improving throughout his career a negative for starting a guy in year one? Im sure the Bills would have loved to have a veteran that Allen could sit behind and learn from for a year and then come in. But I still think he would have struggled that first year starting, then he would start to get adjusted to game speed and start to improve. I am not saying I am for throwing every rookie in a starting role. I am saying teams are in different situations and the science is not settled on what works and what sabotages a draft pick. I think whether the kid is in year one or year two the top things that matter are the coach, org stability, and the OL they have in front of him. I think that matters more than whether they start year one or year two. I think Brady with Belichik, Rodgers with Prime McCarthy, and Mahommes with Reid would have worked out just fine whether they started in year one, two, or three. All those teams had the building blocks to a team the promotes QB success. Just like Russ Wilson had the building blocks going into his rookie year. Starting Rookie year wasnt the determining factor for him...going to Pete Carrol and the Seahawks with that defense over going to the New York Jets was the determining factor.

[YoHoChecko]

Is Josh Allen stinking year one and then improving throughout his career a negative for starting a guy in year one? Im sure the Bills would have loved to have a veteran that Allen could sit behind and learn from for a year and then come in. But I still think he would have struggled that first year starting, then he would start to get adjusted to game speed and start to improve. I am not saying I am for throwing every rookie in a starting role.

No, Josh Allen is a positive for QBs who start in year one, definitely. But he is a negative for the narrative that QBs are coming into the league more ready to play, which is what I was specifically addressing there.

I am saying teams are in different situations and the science is not settled on what works and what sabotages a draft pick. I think whether the kid is in year one or year two the top things that matter are the coach, org stability, and the OL they have in front of him. I think that matters more than whether they start year one or year two. I think Brady with Belichik, Rodgers with Prime McCarthy, and Mahommes with Reid would have worked out just fine whether they started in year one, two, or three. All those teams had the building blocks to a team the promotes QB success. Just like Russ Wilson had the building blocks going into his rookie year. Starting Rookie year wasnt the determining factor for him...going to Pete Carrol and the Seahawks with that defense over going to the New York Jets was the determining factor.

Obviously teams are in different situations. What I am advocating for is that to improve your chances of developing a successful QB, you should not try to put the cart (the QB) before the horse (the team's situation). When you get the QB, you should try to build a situation worthy of winning before putting a QB put there to fend for himself. If you have no OLine to speak of, put a veteran out there. If you have no reliable weapons to throw to, put a veteran out there. Those reps, full of pressures, hits, improvising, regressing to instinct and talent over fundamentals--those are not valuable reps. When people say players need game reps to really improve, of course!. But not all game reps are created equally. Game reps before the QB is ready aren't very useful if he's just improvising back there. Game reps before the team can support a structure around the QB are not useful because you can't evaluate or get mental reps of how the system and scheme should run.

So both things have to come together; a QB that has really good fundamentals and processing right out of college and a team that can support an offense well enough for the reps to be valuable. If you are lacking in either, it is better to wait on playing that QB. MOST team-QB combinations who have just drafted that rookie QB will find themselves lacking in at least one.

[lupedafiasco]

Is Josh Allen stinking year one and then improving throughout his career a negative for starting a guy in year one? Im sure the Bills would have loved to have a veteran that Allen could sit behind and learn from for a year and then come in. But I still think he would have struggled that first year starting, then he would start to get adjusted to game speed and start to improve. I am not saying I am for throwing every rookie in a starting role.

No, Josh Allen is a positive for QBs who start in year one, definitely. But he is a negative for the narrative that QBs are coming into the league more ready to play, which is what I was specifically addressing there.

I would argue Josh Allens first season was valuable game experience for not only himself but his coaches.

They got to see in an NFL game what he needs to work on and what they can scheme for him in the offseason to help him succeed the following year. Same thing happened with Lamar. It was Aaron Kampman who used to say, "There is no substitute for game reps" ....or something like that.

You look at other QBs that went to some bad organizations, Kyler, Stafford, Baker, Luck, or Watson off the top of my head. Theyre just good players. They succeeded with poor surrounding talent. 4 of which played/are playing at a HOF. Mayfield is solid. For the guys that sit, I still think had they not sat they would still be good players. I dont think we would see any difference between Mahomes, Rodgers, or Brady had they just started as rookies but we will never know. Just matter of opinion there.

Then youve got guys who just go to bad organizations. Tannenhill and Darnold are two that come to mind. They should have been starting. Clearly they are good enough but they played for perpetually &%$@ franchises. Are they just going to sit them 3 years before they get the talent around them, if ever? I dont blame the QBs starting early for their failures in those situations.

[YoHoChecko]

Then youve got guys who just go to bad organizations. Tannenhill and Darnold are two that come to mind. They should have been starting. Clearly they are good enough but they played for perpetually &%$@ franchises. Are they just going to sit them 3 years before they get the talent around them, if ever? I dont blame the QBs starting early for their failures in those situations.

If you KNOW you ain't got it? Yeah, one or two years to buy an OL and build some franchise continuity would probably benefit everyone mutually. I mean, we waited 3 years, worked out. I just don't buy that there's any sort of big downside to a young QB learning on the bench for a year or two before playing fulltime? How does your organization suffer from that? We didn't suffer from it in terms of team success.

I think the right move is almost always to wait. There are exceptions. Of course there are exceptions. We can all point out guys who are just ready and perform from Day One. But they are by FAR the exception among rookie QBs. By FAR. So that creates the problem that everyone thinks their rookie can be an exception, their coach can get the best out of them... but not everyone can be the exception.

So you wind up in a world where most rookie QBs aren't ready to play at the next level, most teams who drafted rookie QBs aren't ready to support a QB who is learning on the job... but most teams are incentivized to act the opposite because they believe that they can be the exception. It mostly doesn't work out.

[JKB]

Then youve got guys who just go to bad organizations. Tannenhill and Darnold are two that come to mind. They should have been starting. Clearly they are good enough but they played for perpetually &%$@ franchises. Are they just going to sit them 3 years before they get the talent around them, if ever? I dont blame the QBs starting early for their failures in those situations.

If you KNOW you ain't got it? Yeah, one or two years to buy an OL and build some franchise continuity would probably benefit everyone mutually. I mean, we waited 3 years, worked out. I just don't buy that there's any sort of big downside to a young QB learning on the bench for a year or two before playing fulltime? How does your organization suffer from that? We didn't suffer from it in terms of team success.

I think the right move is almost always to wait. There are exceptions. Of course there are exceptions. We can all point out guys who are just ready and perform from Day One. But they are by FAR the exception among rookie QBs. By FAR. So that creates the problem that everyone thinks their rookie can be an exception, their coach can get the best out of them... but not everyone can be the exception.

So you wind up in a world where most rookie QBs aren't ready to play at the next level, most teams who drafted rookie QBs aren't ready to support a QB who is learning on the job... but most teams are incentivized to act the opposite because they believe that they can be the exception. It mostly doesn't work out.

This

[Drj820]

Is Josh Allen stinking year one and then improving throughout his career a negative for starting a guy in year one? Im sure the Bills would have loved to have a veteran that Allen could sit behind and learn from for a year and then come in. But I still think he would have struggled that first year starting, then he would start to get adjusted to game speed and start to improve. I am not saying I am for throwing every rookie in a starting role.

No, Josh Allen is a positive for QBs who start in year one, definitely. But he is a negative for the narrative that QBs are coming into the league more ready to play, which is what I was specifically addressing there.

I would argue Josh Allens first season was valuable game experience for not only himself but his coaches.

They got to see in an NFL game what he needs to work on and what they can scheme for him in the offseason to help him succeed the following year. Same thing happened with Lamar. It was Aaron Kampman who used to say, "There is no substitute for game reps" ....or something like that.

You look at other QBs that went to some bad organizations, Kyler, Stafford, Baker, Luck, or Watson off the top of my head. Theyre just good players. They succeeded with poor surrounding talent. 4 of which played/are playing at a HOF. Mayfield is solid. For the guys that sit, I still think had they not sat they would still be good players. I dont think we would see any difference between Mahomes, Rodgers, or Brady had they just started as rookies but we will never know. Just matter of opinion there.

Then youve got guys who just go to bad organizations. Tannenhill and Darnold are two that come to mind. They should have been starting. Clearly they are good enough but they played for perpetually &%$@ franchises. Are they just going to sit them 3 years before they get the talent around them, if ever? I dont blame the QBs starting early for their failures in those situations.

Yeah Im pretty much with Lupe on this. I think its a nice luxary to be able to red shirt a year, but that is far less of a determining factor on a QBs future success than the Coach, Org, and OL the QB is surrounded with. Start as a rookie or start in year 2, if you have those things...you can make it if you are good. Start in year one or year two and never get a good coach (darnold, Tannehill), never have a steady org (any bears, Jets, Jax qb etc), and never have protection..you are against the 8 ball.

This convo started because it was seen as evidence that starting rookies is damnable to the QBs future due to the current crop of rookies slow start, and I believe it is more because Mac Jones is the only rookie in a somewhat stable situation...the rest are struggling as they burn along with their dumpster fire organizations.

[YoHoChecko]

[mention]Drj820[/mention] and [mention]lupedafiasco[/mention] if the steadiness and strength of the organization is the key to whether or not a good QB succeeds (like Darnold and Tannehill), while a potentially great QB (like Watson or Mayfield) can arrive in a bad organization and succeed regardless....

How do you go from being a bad organization to being a good one? You guys seem to be discussing the incentives almost from the QB's point of view. Like "Darnold just needed the right situation." Ok, so if you are a team and you know that you are not "the right situation" for a young QB, what do you do? Just not take a good QB until you build up the rest of the organization? Wait until you no longer have a top five or ten pick and draft a guy in two or three years in the mid twenties because you've got a solid OL, some weapons, and the same head coach for a couple years now?

That doesn't make sense either.

If you know you have a bad organization, you can start the learning and development of a coach-QB combination that you intend to ride into the future by drafting a QB high... and then waiting a year or two until the rest of the team can better support a QB who is now more comfortable with the scheme, fundamentals, and speed of the league.

If you ARE the organization, you can't look and say "well the problem here is us" and sit happily having properly assigned "blame" for the team and QB's joint failures. You have to fix that stuff; that's the job.

[Drj820]

@Drj820 and @lupedafiasco if the steadiness and strength of the organization is the key to whether or not a good QB succeeds (like Darnold and Tannehill), while a potentially great QB (like Watson or Mayfield) can arrive in a bad organization and succeed regardless....

How do you go from being a bad organization to being a good one? You guys seem to be discussing the incentives almost from the QB's point of view. Like "Darnold just needed the right situation." Ok, so if you are a team and you know that you are not "the right situation" for a young QB, what do you do? Just not take a good QB until you build up the rest of the organization? Wait until you no longer have a top five or ten pick and draft a guy in two or three years in the mid twenties because you've got a solid OL, some weapons, and the same head coach for a couple years now?

That doesn't make sense either.

If you know you have a bad organization, you can start the learning and development of a coach-QB combination that you intend to ride into the future by drafting a QB high... and then waiting a year or two until the rest of the team can better support a QB who is now more comfortable with the scheme, fundamentals, and speed of the league.

If you ARE the organization, you can't look and say "well the problem here is us" and sit happily having properly assigned "blame" for the team and QB's joint failures. You have to fix that stuff; that's the job.

I would say you have to get the GM right and the Coach right, and you need an owner that will let the football people do football things. The continuously trash orgs have owners that cant stay out of the way, or make bad hire after bad hire. Example: Adam Gase ruined Tannahill and Darnold, both became competent after they left him. I believe Mike Lafleur and Salah and the current GM are the right hires to foster a good situation, thus I think in a year or two Zach Wilson is going to work out.

Baker was on his way to bustville with the atrocious hire of Freddie Kitchens, yet suddenly got competent with the good hire of Kevin Stefanski.

Also, obviously the meddling owner that hires bad coaches and bad GMs will also have a good chance of drafting a QB too high that would never be good. Word is Jerry Jones had to be physically restrained to not draft Johnny Football. The Bad org of the Browns then made that decision for themselves.

So if you cant hire at coach or gm, you probably cant draft a QB. That said, once you get the right coach...you have a chance to develop a QB no matter when he starts. Lamar probably is a bust away from Harbough and Greg Roman. Good chance Josh Allen never progresses without Mcdermont and Dabol. The Bills saved themselves because they stabalized themselves with the coach, then made a good choice at QB.

Even Deshaun had a decent chance at success due to Billy O being a competent offensive mind, even tho he was an awful GM.

Thus, I rank getting the coach and the pieces around the QB as more important than whether a QB starts year one or year two. And I think it probably is "preferable" to let any QB have a redshirt year...I just dont see that as the catalyst for success.

Another example...Jalen Hurts is probably a rock star on the Niners, Packers, or Ravens. I feel this new coach isnt going to set him up for success and he will be replaced eventually.

[Pckfn23]

Hurts just got sacked around the chest/neck and guess what, no penalty!

[YoHoChecko]

I'm so sad that the week we had this epic win that makes me want to live, breathe, and sleep football coverage... is also the week that the media explodes as Tom Brady's return to New England approaches.