Zerovoltz Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 Not sure how anyone wants to define "bridge" but I posted about this here a few days ago. Using as a basis all QB's who have started in a superbowl in the last 20 years....these would generally be considered good, great, successful QB's by just about any metric.....when you split those guys up into two groups....those who started from day1 and those who sat for a while (half a season or longer) ....you find that the QB rating in each of those groups first 16 NFL starts is THE SAME. .....IF there were some advantage to be gained by sitting and learning it should show up for the QB's who sat and learned by getting on the field and being more ready, and therefore having better stats.....but it simply DOES NOT play out that way at all. TALENT is the determining factor on the QB being worth a damn or not...and getting those first 16 games under your belt should happen sooner, not later....as there is ZERO data suggesting sitting is a benefit. Lot's of people like to make genreal statements....sit and learn...watch how things are done, study film. and so he won't get "thrwon to the wolves and have his confidence ruined. THE DATA SUGGESTS that is all bull mess. Get on the field...in game action. That is where the learning happens.
Doc Brown Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 Drew Bledsoe to Tom Brady Drew Bledsoe to Tony Romo Drew Bledsoe to JP....nevermind
Thurman#1 Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zerovotlz said: Not sure how anyone wants to define "bridge" but I posted about this here a few days ago. Using as a basis all QB's who have started in a superbowl in the last 20 years....these would generally be considered good, great, successful QB's by just about any metric.....when you split those guys up into two groups....those who started from day1 and those who sat for a while (half a season or longer) ....you find that the QB rating in each of those groups first 16 NFL starts is THE SAME. .....IF there were some advantage to be gained by sitting and learning it should show up for the QB's who sat and learned by getting on the field and being more ready, and therefore having better stats.....but it simply DOES NOT play out that way at all. TALENT is the determining factor on the QB being worth a damn or not...and getting those first 16 games under your belt should happen sooner, not later....as there is ZERO data suggesting sitting is a benefit. Lot's of people like to make genreal statements....sit and learn...watch how things are done, study film. and so he won't get "thrwon to the wolves and have his confidence ruined. THE DATA SUGGESTS that is all bull mess. Get on the field...in game action. That is where the learning happens. Dude, it's absolute nonsense that there's "ZERO data suggesting sitting is a benefit." In actuality, there's tons of data, and it's wildly mixed. Which is as it should be because the whole point of this is that some guys need it and some guys don't. Just as reasonable/true to say there's ZERO data suggesting sitting is NOT a benefit. You can't prove it either way. Your data on Super Bowl QBs is a good example. Of course the data is about the same. You're looking at guys who have been successful, as shown by the fact that they're Super Bowl quarterbacks. Could some of the ones who started right away have been better if they'd sat? No way to know. Could some of the ones who were in west coast offences have been better if they'd been in vertical offences? No way to know. Some might have and some might not have. Each guy is different and needs different things to maximize him. Maybe all of those SB quarterbacks were handled correctly. Maybe the ones who didn't need time didn't get it and the ones who did need time got it. There is no data that proves anything about this either way. Some guys need it and some guys don't. What we do know, for instance, is that Aaron Rodgers was really bad in preseason his first three years or so and when he got a chance in games too. And then after his motion had been changed and he'd gone to "Camp QB" under his head coach, when he finally got the chance to start he looked totally different. He'd simply improved a great deal with the chance to sit and learn. Whereas Dan Marino appears to have been ready the moment he got out of his car at his first training camp. Different guys have different needs. Edited March 17, 2018 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 On 3/15/2018 at 1:47 AM, PetermanThrew5Picks said: That's not too specific. But this is what I'm driving at. I think we can list more situations where this was a bad idea than a good one. Tom Savage over Deshaun Watson?!? I wouldn't call Tom Savage over DeShaun Watson a bad idea. They spent almost no money on him and ended up needing someone when Watson was injured. If anything it's a bit of a happy ending if the rookie ends up beating out your bridge guy.
Thurman#1 Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 On 3/14/2018 at 11:53 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said: Rodgers probably benefited from sitting, but not from sitting behind Favre - more from working with Mike McCarthy, Joe Philbin, and Tom Clements and building some rappore with the WR. Ironically, McCarthy probably also revived Favre enough to keep Rodgers on the bench 2 more years. He absolutely benefitted from sitting. Which is the point. Not all guys hired as bridge guys are expected to be good at being mentors. Some of them simply help by keeping the young guy on the bench where he can learn. Here's an excerpt from an excellent interview with Bob McGinn, the guy who was the Packers beat writer for 38 years on the occasion of his retirement. He talks about Rodgers sitting. The MMQB: "You documented how fortunate it was that Aaron Rodgers didn’t have to play the first couple of years—he just wasn’t ready. McGinn: “He was a very poor player here for his first two summers and regular-season practices. Fortunately for him, and he knows that down deep, he didn’t have to play early. His delivery was a mess, bad body language, he didn’t know how to deal with teammates. He learned so much from Brett Favre on how to in some ways be one of the guys and relate, and he became much more of a leader. He was really poor and how many great players have ever had a start like that? Not that many. A lot of scouts look at that exhibition tape those first two years and he was a little bit better the third year, but not to any degree, and then he just really developed. He lost a lot of close games in ’08, but by ’09 he was playing great and by 2010 he was maybe the best in the business. And then there have been a lot of playoff disappointments and poor performances. It’s a quarterback league and all the rules are designed for that quarterback to dominate, and he hasn’t done it in the most important times since 2010." https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/13/themmqb-exit-interview-bob-mcginn-green-bay-packers-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-nfl-beat-writer
greeneblitz Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 As far as I'm concerned we have no bridge QB, we have a backup QB competition, none of them have any actual experience, "bridge QBs" are Josh McCowns of the world, the rookie should start unless he's a disaster.
Recommended Posts