Jared Goff = #1 overall pick, 3rd string QB

[DriveFor1Outta5]

I keep reading posters who continually mention Aaron Rodgers on this topic. I think it's an extremely outdated idea to think you can destroy a rookie QB by having him start his rookie year. It's equally as outdated to think sitting on the bench helps a QB become a better player. As previously mentioned by another poster, Rodgers was not the 1st overall pick. Late first rounders don't always take over the reigns immediately if the team has a better option. Favre was the Packers starter, and it took the team time to push him out of Green Bay. You don't just bench a guy like Favre for a rookie. That's why Rodgers didn't start immediately. I don't think anyone can definitively say that Rodgers is a better QB from riding the bench for a few years. It has been oft reported that Favre didn't do much to mentor him either. Being thrown into the starting position as a rookie certainly didn't destroy Big Ben, Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, and Russell Wilson. NFL GM's and fans alike often have outdated concepts of the game. I find the idea of siting rookie QB's when you don't have significantly better options to be one of those outdated concepts. This is why I don't see the point of the Rams not throwing Goff out there to see what they have. If he plays horrible, accept the reality that you might have a bust on your hands. I just find the whole idea of sitting a QB to be very old school, and counterproductive.

Edited September 4, 2016 by DriveFor1Outta5

[dayman]

I keep reading posters who continually mention Aaron Rodgers on this topic. I think it's an extremely outdated idea to think you can destroy a rookie QB by having him start his rookie year. It's equally as outdated to think sitting on the bench helps a QB become a better player. As previously mentioned by another poster, Rodgers was not the 1st overall pick. Late first rounders don't always take over the reigns immediately if the team has a better option. Favre was the Packers starter, and it took the team time to push him out of Green Bay. You don't just bench a guy like Favre for a rookie. That's why Rodgers didn't start immediately. I don't think anyone can definitively say that Rodgers is a better QB from riding the bench for a few years. It has been oft reported that Favre didn't do much to mentor him either. Being thrown into the starting position as a rookie certainly didn't destroy Big Ben, Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, and Russell Wilson. NFL GM's and fans alike often have outdated concepts of the game. I find the idea of siting rookie QB's when you don't have significantly better options to be one of those outdated concepts. This is why I see the point of the Rams not throwing Goff out there to see what they have. If he plays horrible, accept the reality that you might have a bust on your hands. I just find the whole idea of sitting a QB to be very old school, and counterproductive.

 

If memory serves, Cam went out there and threw for 400+ yards, 3 TDs, ran all over the place, and generally lit the world on fire.

[GunnerBill]

I am not a huge advocate of the "sit him" theory either. I think you start him (if not straight away then certainly some time his rookie year) and you gameplan to make his transition as smooth as possible.

 

The bad news in Goff's case is I have zero confidence in Fisher, his OC or his QB coach to be able to do that. They are going to suck early season, be pressured into throwing Goff in to try and save a desperate situation and then see the kid battered, bruised and his confidence and belief shook possibly to the extent that it dooms his whole pro career.

[Agent 91]

It's OK for QBs to sit when they're not ready!!!

Unheard of sir... UNHEARD OF

[machine gun kelly]

A few points.irst, it was report on NFLR a long time ago after interviews with the front office of Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers kept falling in the draft, and the Packers finally took him at 24 because they couldn't pass up the value. It wasn't their master plan. They lucked into him. He sat because he was behind a HOF in Favre. It wasn't a grand plan to get him ready.

 

S far as sitting, it's seems more like he just hasn't progressed enough in the OTA's, TC, amd Preseason. I watched two of their games no he looked terrible. It's as much an indictment of Fisher's staff as it is him. Then again, Fisher did a poor job of developing Bradford, who looked much improved in Philly, amd Foles had one great year, and one avg year in Philly. He was horrendous in St. Louis. Fisher has been to the playoffs 6 times of 22 years and a record of 169 W / 156 L.

 

Should Goff maybe sit the first month to get the playbook down and checks, that makes sense, but to sit him for a year or two is silly.

[Mr. WEO]

A few points.irst, it was report on NFLR a long time ago after interviews with the front office of Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers kept falling in the draft, and the Packers finally took him at 24 because they couldn't pass up the value. It wasn't their master plan. They lucked into him. He sat because he was behind a HOF in Favre. It wasn't a grand plan to get him ready.

 

S far as sitting, it's seems more like he just hasn't progressed enough in the OTA's, TC, amd Preseason. I watched two of their games no he looked terrible. It's as much an indictment of Fisher's staff as it is him. Then again, Fisher did a poor job of developing Bradford, who looked much improved in Philly, amd Foles had one great year, and one avg year in Philly. He was horrendous in St. Louis. Fisher has been to the playoffs 6 times of 22 years and a record of 169 W / 156 L.

 

Should Goff maybe sit the first month to get the playbook down and checks, that makes sense, but to sit him for a year or two is silly.

 

 

I agree. This is something posters here got on about over and over but it really isn't how the NFL works or worked. Posters here say it to cover bad Bills QB drafting decisions like EJ and JPL, as in "if only these 1st round QB could have had X years to "develop", they would have become franchise QBs".

 

There's really no reason to believe that's true and that's not why 1st round QBs are drafted in this league.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

He does not look the type nor does he have the demeanor which is #1. On one of the episodes of hard knocks he had his shirt off and it looked like he never worked out a day in his life. He also has stick legs. Chris Weinke seems like a total idiot as a qb coach as well.

Since he was an idiot as a QB, the last bit makes sense. Besides we hate us some FSU qbs around here...

[GunnerBill]

 

 

I agree. This is something posters here got on about over and over but it really isn't how the NFL works or worked. Posters here say it to cover bad Bills QB drafting decisions like EJ and JPL, as in "if only these 1st round QB could have had X years to "develop", they would have become franchise QBs".

 

There's really no reason to believe that's true and that's not why 1st round QBs are drafted in this league.

 

JP did sit and he was still bad. I think it is less about sitting or starting (but forcing them to start when they are clearly not ready is foolish) and more about setting them up for success when they do start. Go and look at the offense Weis ran when Brady first came in for Bledsoe. He only attempted more than 30 passes 5 out of 18 games (and only 3 of them were over 35). His YPA (including play-offs) was about 6.2...... it was few, short, high % throws. They didn't bring him and say "hey throw it 40 times every game and call your own plays in the huddle and run the no huddle offense." Look at what the Shanahan's were able to do with RGIII his rookie year (a QB who doesn't know what he is seeing or how to read defences). Even Cam those first couple of years in Carolina... they let him take off more than has since and because they knew it would help give him some easier throws in the passing game as defences backed off.

 

Getting your young QB early success matters in terms of setting them up for a long term career in the league. Once they fail early it is devilishly hard to rebuild them. Alex Smith is the exception that proves the rule in that case to the same extent that Rodgers is for sitting guys. I refuse to believe that every Quarterback thrown into a bad situation and handled badly early on was simply "bound to be a bust"... a lot yes... but some just have their reputation and at times confidence decimated by idiotic coaching setting them up to fail. This is not me saying JP or EJ would have been good.

[Mr. WEO]

 

JP did sit and he was still bad. I think it is less about sitting or starting (but forcing them to start when they are clearly not ready is foolish) and more about setting them up for success when they do start. Go and look at the offense Weis ran when Brady first came in for Bledsoe. He only attempted more than 30 passes 5 out of 18 games (and only 3 of them were over 35). His YPA (including play-offs) was about 6.2...... it was few, short, high % throws. They didn't bring him and say "hey throw it 40 times every game and call your own plays in the huddle and run the no huddle offense." Look at what the Shanahan's were able to do with RGIII his rookie year (a QB who doesn't know what he is seeing or how to read defences). Even Cam those first couple of years in Carolina... they let him take off more than has since and because they knew it would help give him some easier throws in the passing game as defences backed off.

 

Getting your young QB early success matters in terms of setting them up for a long term career in the league. Once they fail early it is devilishly hard to rebuild them. Alex Smith is the exception that proves the rule in that case to the same extent that Rodgers is for sitting guys. I refuse to believe that every Quarterback thrown into a bad situation and handled badly early on was simply "bound to be a bust"... a lot yes... but some just have their reputation and at times confidence decimated by idiotic coaching setting them up to fail. This is not me saying JP or EJ would have been good.

 

Teams drafting a QB in the top half of the first round are doing so for a reason--desperate need at the position. The era of tender seasoning of a first round QB never really existed in the NFL, yet many here pretend that it did and want to bring it back.

 

Brady was a benchwarmer thrust into the starting job. His baseline gifts were never felt to be those of a first round QB pick. I would think any coaching staff would have to adjust to the skill set of their former 3rd string, now starting QB. But that is not the issue here.

 

RG3 had a unique skill set and game that, in this league, had a shelf life of just under one season. He's been fully recovered from his injury for long time, but the reason he is where he is is not because of bad coaching, but because his game is so one dimensional that coaches can't find use for him as a stater (Browns naturally excluded!).

 

I don't think the college game has anything to do with the number of first round picks succeeding as starters in this league. It's always been boom or bust. If Goff never played anything close to a NFL style game in college, then they shouldn't have picked him there. It's a poor decision on the part of the HC/GM picking a guy like that.

 

Last year's draft produced not one, but 2 (a relatively rarity in any draft) decent NFL starting QBs (maybe throw in Trevor Seimian!). Where were the "college football is ruining rookie NFL QBs" threads? The year before yielded Bortles, Bridgewater and Carr. All starters. EJ's year was a black hole. The year before: Luck and Tannehill.

 

So, in 3 of the past 4 years the first round has yielded a total of 7 starting QB.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[GunnerBill]

 

 

Last year's draft produced not one, but 2 (a relatively rarity in any draft) decent NFL starting QBs (maybe throw in Trevor Seimian!). Where were the "college football is ruining rookie NFL QBs" threads? The year before yielded Bortles, Bridgewater and Carr. All starters. EJ's year was a black hole. The year before: Luck and Tannehill.

 

So, in 3 of the past 4 years the first round has yielded a total of 7 starting QB.

 

To be clear I haven't argued the college game is ruining QBs.... I am only arguing the way a guy is coached and managed early in his NFL career has an impact on the likelihood of him succeeding or failing.

 

You think (and do correct me if I am misrepresenting you I am not being obtuse just trying to understand what you are saying) that Quarterbacks are essentially what they are when they come into the league and by that point they are already formed as QBs who either will succeed or QBs who won't?

[Fan in Chicago]

 

To be clear I haven't argued the college game is ruining QBs.... I am only arguing the way a guy is coached and managed early in his NFL career has an impact on the likelihood of him succeeding or failing.

 

You think (and do correct me if I am misrepresenting you I am not being obtuse just trying to understand what you are saying) that Quarterbacks are essentially what they are when they come into the league and by that point they are already formed as QBs who either will succeed or QBs who won't?

 

You make good arguments. But I also think there is no one theory that fits all cases. No amount of coaching would have helped a Ryan Leaf, Jamarcus Russell or Manziel. There are some inherent traits that a player (esp a QB) needs in addition to natural talent - hard work, demeanor, school and college training (mechanics). Some of this could be re-coached away in the NFL. But hard work and maturity cannot be coached. Also, some QBs may indeed sit and be better (Rodgers, Cousins) whereas others can step in and do well. Several already in the posts before mine. Derek Carr, Bortles seem to be coming along well without the instant smash that Russell Wilson was.

 

Different strokes for different folks is what I am really saying. The problem with the Goff situation is that he is relegated to being the #3 and not the #2. Is this Goff being totally unready or a function of Fisher's 'motivational coaching' ? No one will know for sure. But it is clear that the Rams staff did a poor job of targeting him and giving up a king's ransom. Also could have been a marketing ploy with the move. Would they have been better off keeping the picks and selecting a Paxton Lynch ? Time will tell.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Fan in Chicago

[GunnerBill]

 

You make good arguments. But I also think there is no one theory that fits all cases. No amount of coaching would have helped a Ryan Leaf, Jamarcus Russell or Manziel. There are some inherent traits that a player (esp a QB) needs in addition to natural talent - hard work, demeanor, school and college training (mechanics). Some of this could be re-coached away in the NFL. But hard work and maturity cannot be coached. Also, some QBs may indeed sit and be better (Rodgers, Cousins) whereas others can step in and do well. Several already in the posts before mine. Derek Carr, Bortles seem to be coming along well without the instant smash that Russell Wilson was.

 

Different strokes for different folks is what I am really saying. The problem with the Goff situation is that he is relegated to being the #3 and not the #2. Is this Goff being totally unready or a function of Fisher's 'motivational coaching' ? No one will know for sure. But it is clear that the Rams staff did a poor job of targeting him and giving up a king's ransom. Also could have been a marketing ploy with the move. Would they have been better off keeping the picks and selecting a Paxton Lynch ? Time will tell.

 

 

Of course. I fundamentally believe talent evaluation is what it comes down to first and foremost and I am not arguing all QBs can be franchise guys if they are managed correctly. Some just do not have "it".... but I fail to believe that every highly drafted Quarterback who has failed over the year has failed because he never had a chance in the first place. David Carr for example was just set up to fail in Houston and I don't know that he'd have been good otherwise but I struggle to think of QBs who'd have survived the situation he was thrown into.

[26CornerBlitz]

@AdamSchefter

Hope for underdogs: There are more undrafted free agents on NFL rosters today (481) than 1st- and 2nd-round picks combined (480), per Elias.

Meanwhile in Philly:

 

@caplannfl

Carson Wentz named starter for Week 1 by HC Doug Pederson. So there it is.

[TheFunPolice]

It's just my untrained eye, but at the draft Goff seemed nervous and intimidated by the moment, whereas Wentz seemed like a confident (almost cocky) guy in his interview.

[bacarri and coke]

Of coarse the longer you sit the easier I is.Knowing the play book and it's intricacies is THE biggest advantage.Not many QBS can make the transition from college to pros so easily as a Andrew luck who is just incredibly intelligent and has a Penton for the game.It's akin to learning a new language,could you learn a new language in an off season or would you be more fluent after a year or two?That said everyone is different some guys pick it up quicker like a luck or a Fitzpatrick and some guys need more time.

[mannc]

Of coarse the longer you sit the easier I is. Not many QBS can make the transition from college to pros so easily as a Andrew luck who is just incredibly intelligent and has a Penton for the game.It's akin to learning a new language,could you learn a new language in an off season or would you be more fluent after a year or two?

Hey, some people never achieve literacy even with their first language!

[Mr. WEO]

To be clear I haven't argued the college game is ruining QBs.... I am only arguing the way a guy is coached and managed early in his NFL career has an impact on the likelihood of him succeeding or failing.

 

You think (and do correct me if I am misrepresenting you I am not being obtuse just trying to understand what you are saying) that Quarterbacks are essentially what they are when they come into the league and by that point they are already formed as QBs who either will succeed or QBs who won't?

No they are not already formed. But the argument ( not yours) that the current college game is killing the out coming QBs has little bearing on how formed they are. Guys like Goff may be trick ponies, then don't draft them. What team did not understand how his team played offense in college?

 

Top drafted QBs are not now, nor were the ever, really, drafted to sit the bench to develop. Not every year will produce a certain amount of starters because not every year has those kind of kids in the draft. Has nothing tondo with the spread offense or no huddle or the shotgun, or whatever people are suddenly blaming on the college game (again).

[GunnerBill]

No they are not already formed. But the argument ( not yours) that the current college game is killing the out coming QBs has little bearing on how formed they are. Guys like Goff may be trick ponies, then don't draft them. What team did not understand how his team played offense in college?

 

Top drafted QBs are not now, nor were the ever, really, drafted to sit the bench to develop. Not every year will produce a certain amount of starters because not every year has those kind of kids in the draft. Has nothing tondo with the spread offense or no huddle or the shotgun, or whatever people are suddenly blaming on the college game (again).

 

Fair enough. I agree with the vast majority of that.

[YoloinOhio]

No. 1 pick Jared Goff will be inactive for Rams' regular season opener.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17480315/jared-goff-inactive-los-angeles-rams-week-1?sf35251451=1