The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
x1,000YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 12:49This is definitively not a thread about Rashaan Gary and don't you dare make it one
YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 12:49This is definitively not a thread about Rashaan Gary and don't you dare make it one
How dare you besmirch the name of the great Chad Pennington with Rex Grossman.
I don't know what, exactly, you are going for, but when I think bust, at the QB position, if you bust out on the team that drafted you, you are a bust, with very few exceptions. I know you are trying to stay away from additional categories, but this seems like the clear definition of the NFL journeyman. A few good seasons, but a lot of inconsistency.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:30but he also played for 11 years and had a W/L record approaching .500, so it's tough to say he's a "bust" in the normal sense of the word.
Yeah, I prefer to think of it this way as well, I guess. But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?NCF wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:35I don't know what, exactly, you are going for, but when I think bust, at the QB position, if you bust out on the team that drafted you, you are a bust, with very few exceptions. I know you are trying to stay away from additional categories, but this seems like the clear definition of the NFL journeyman. A few good seasons, but a lot of inconsistency.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:30but he also played for 11 years and had a W/L record approaching .500, so it's tough to say he's a "bust" in the normal sense of the word.
Yep. I agree. I think Bridgewater is the exception to the rule.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:39But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?
God, I loved Byron Leftwich. Like, LOVED him. Leftwich is the cautionary tale that led me to value release times over "long wind-up" QBs. I thought with his moxie and arm strength and mastery over the field he couldn't fail. But it turns out that in the NFL, the time you have to go from "made the correct decision" to "the ball is out" is a LOT smaller than in college. Lesson learned.Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:55Thanks to this thread, I learned that Byron Leftwich was a lot worse than I remembered.
Checkdown Tiny Hands Teddy!NCF wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:58Yep. I agree. I think Bridgewater is the exception to the rule.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:39But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?
Are we going by what a guy got paid or what they did on the field?YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:39Yeah, I prefer to think of it this way as well, I guess. But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?NCF wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:35I don't know what, exactly, you are going for, but when I think bust, at the QB position, if you bust out on the team that drafted you, you are a bust, with very few exceptions. I know you are trying to stay away from additional categories, but this seems like the clear definition of the NFL journeyman. A few good seasons, but a lot of inconsistency.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 13:30but he also played for 11 years and had a W/L record approaching .500, so it's tough to say he's a "bust" in the normal sense of the word.
I think I should move Rexy to bust; but I'm satisfied with Winston as "starter" for a bit and Mariota as "bust" for now.
The 2nd part if very important for a team to achieve success past the QB.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑06 May 2020 07:20I don’t have a problem with one year sitting. Get your mechanics right. Learn the playbook. Get some work in with receivers to get down timing and tendencies.
Any more time than that and you’re wasting your rookie contract window IMO. Gotta get your 1st round picks in the field to play.
I agree with the main point, but not the Kizer comparison.Labrev wrote: ↑06 May 2020 16:59Some QBs are ready enough that I would just throw them out there.
Otherwise, I definitely do not want to throw them to the wolves. I think that's how a lot of QB that had a chance end up getting ruined. Jordan Love is pretty much Deshone Kizer as a prospect, but I don't think Kizer was a bust due to talent limitations, just being forced into starting when he wasn't ready.
This is very interesting indeed. I think this is the most interesting way to view the data out of anything I have seen on this.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑06 May 2020 11:43I was playing around with my filters to try to get a feel for whether/where there are any apparent groupings or cutoffs in terms of the # of games played.
I found, interestingly, that the BEST performing group is if you look at guys with either 0 or 16 starts. This group has 16 players in it, with only four busts, 10 starters, and 2 HoF(?)ers. In other words, not starting at all? Appears to correlate with good results. Starting every game? Appears to be correlated with good results. Everything in between? Appears, at the very least, not to correlate with good results.
This may indicate that teams who start their rookies from Day 1 and those rookies stay healthy and remain in the starting line-up have been properly-evaluated by their teams to be Pro-Ready. Where as guys who take over midway through or only pay partial seasons may be accurately gauged to be unready initially, but circumstances push them into the fire and either expose that inability or actually have a causal relationship to stunting the development.
This really plays into Salmar's point that finding an "all" solution is highly unlikely. The 16-game starters seem to be players that are very unlikely to bust. I'll have to look more into which guys started the season and didn't finish it (indicating poor play, but less common--but helps explain this specific grouping) and which guys were inserted into the lineup later and kept the job, which shouldn't impact this specific group
I also agree theres no substitute for game reps. Playing on the field is more important than playing on the bench for any player IMO.bud fox wrote: ↑06 May 2020 16:24The 2nd part if very important for a team to achieve success past the QB.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑06 May 2020 07:20I don’t have a problem with one year sitting. Get your mechanics right. Learn the playbook. Get some work in with receivers to get down timing and tendencies.
Any more time than that and you’re wasting your rookie contract window IMO. Gotta get your 1st round picks in the field to play.
There is no doubt a QB will be better in there 'first year' of playing if they sit for a year - a year of experience. But for me a year of experience playing is more valuable than sitting. Nothing compares to in game experience and having those reps. Therefore a 2nd year player that played should develop faster than a 2nd year player who didn't play. I believe most would say this is obvious for every other position - I don't understand why people think it differs for QB.
A player has no excuse not getting better from year 1 to year 2. If they are playing they have even more reason to succeed because they are doing everything a back up rookie would be doing plus playing. The only reason for failure in these players is that they were never going to succeed. They weren't good enough - mentally, physically, scheme etc.