"Ruining" a QB by starting him too soon

[billsfan89]

On 7/30/2018 at 10:12 PM, jrober38 said:

 

Now put together a list of all the guys who sat and never amounted to anything.

 

* Hint: it's 10 times longer than your list. 

 

** Big Ben, Brees, Manning, Goff, Cousins and Stafford all played as rookies, learning on the field. 

 

 

Brees threw 27 passes his rookie year, they sat him behind Flutie, the Chargers also sat Rivers for his first year. I don't think anyone is dogmatic about a rookie playing in his rookie year. If the Bills are sitting at 2-10 with AJ then they probably should start Allen those last 4 games (And probably sooner than that.) The point is that each QB has a plan of development that suits them and a guy like Allen probably would be negatively impacted development wise starting the season. 

 

A lot of people point out that Allen based off his game tape has 2 major flaws in his game that impact his accuracy. 1- Footwork 2- Reading a defense. Now you could argue that reading a defense will be improved by playing but if Allen is playing behind a suspect O-line then that's the last thing you want for a player needing to work on footwork. Consistent pressure means you won't have time to develop your footwork habits and lots of pressure will more than likely lead to you developing bad habits. 

 

There is also the issue of confidence. If you toss Allen in with 4-6 games remaining in a lost season then his confidence is impacted less not feeling the pressure of the season. But if he starts at 0-0 then the whole fortunes of the season and the locker room are on him. 

1 hour ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

EJ Manuel probably didn't pan out because his mentor was the kind of guy that slips on a mat and ends his career. If he had Joe Montana in front of him he would have learned all the tricks Joe passed down to Steve Young. 

 

Really makes ya think, Young needed Montana to learn his scrambling, Rodgers needed Favre for his side arm delivery. These guys are really taking a page from a vets book.

 

I wonder just how much more successful QB's who sat at least one year were. Carson Palmer said he learned a lot sitting behind Kitna that first year. Rivers said similar things about Brees. I wonder if there is a higher level of success attributed to a player sitting his first year or at least a good portion of a rookie season?

[reddogblitz]

7 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

How about when people don't know the difference between 'their' and 'they're'? 

 

to and too is my favorite.

6 hours ago, Tyrod's friend said:

He just went on to win 5 Super Bowls.

 

 He just went on to "win" 5 Super Bowls.

[Thurman#1]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 9:54 AM, Buffalo86 said:

 

I do believe a QB who's ruined by starting too soon probably wasn't going to amount to much anyway.  At the same time, I can't think of any QBs who were ruined by NOT starting in year one.  Would Losman, Brohm, and Locker have been stars, if only they'd started during their rookie seasons?  It seems pretty unlikely.  

 

 

 

Not everyone needs development. But most of the pros, pundits, front offices, etc, will make it clear they believe in it for some guys. And that it is possible to ruin a guy who might otherwise have had a chance. But most often the pressure comes and the guys who need the development get thrown in early. It's not a mistake that it's FOs with job security like Andy Reed and McCarthy with the Packers, FOs with a decent alternative (Jon Kitna keeping Carson Palmer off the field under Marvin Lewis, for example) that takes away the urgency to put the new guy in, those are the FOs who develop guys.

 

Look at Mayock and what he said about Allen. Mayock has tons of contacts in personnel departments and scouting departments around the league and he often says that you shouldn't draft one guy or another unless you're willing to sit him and develop him for a year or two. (Exactly what he said about Allen.) He wouldn't be saying guys can be ruined if he wasn't hearing it from the personnel guys. 

 

It's the accepted wisdom from the guys who make their living at this.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and as for pros who think being thrown in too early can hurt guys, throw in one more:

 

"... sometimes quarterbacks can get thrown in there too early and that can have a snowball effect on them during your career. So coach is going to do the smart thing." - Josh Allen

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2018-nfl-training-camps-bills-wont-rush-josh-allen-into-starting-qb-role/

 

 

 

 

[jrober38]

10 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Brees threw 27 passes his rookie year, they sat him behind Flutie, the Chargers also sat Rivers for his first year. I don't think anyone is dogmatic about a rookie playing in his rookie year. If the Bills are sitting at 2-10 with AJ then they probably should start Allen those last 4 games (And probably sooner than that.) The point is that each QB has a plan of development that suits them and a guy like Allen probably would be negatively impacted development wise starting the season. 

 

A lot of people point out that Allen based off his game tape has 2 major flaws in his game that impact his accuracy. 1- Footwork 2- Reading a defense. Now you could argue that reading a defense will be improved by playing but if Allen is playing behind a suspect O-line then that's the last thing you want for a player needing to work on footwork. Consistent pressure means you won't have time to develop your footwork habits and lots of pressure will more than likely lead to you developing bad habits. 

 

There is also the issue of confidence. If you toss Allen in with 4-6 games remaining in a lost season then his confidence is impacted less not feeling the pressure of the season. But if he starts at 0-0 then the whole fortunes of the season and the locker room are on him. 

 

I'm just pointing out that in the past 20 years, very few QBs benefited from sitting on the bench. Most good 1st round QBs started as rookies, with maybe a handful of 1st round guys over that span who sat behind an incumbent starter. 

 

Ultimately we're talking about a position where fewer than 50% of the QBs picked in round 1 become successful. If you take away the guys who went #1 overall, that figure drops to a success rate of about 30%. That's the reality we accepted when we picked Josh Allen. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by jrober38

[GunnerBill]

The mistake the Bills made with EJ and his development wasn't starting him as a rookie. Some of his best Bills games came those first 5 or 6 weeks.  

 

The mistakes were: 

- not having a dedicated QB coach while starting a rookie (this was nonsensical)

- having no vet in the room from who he could learn how to watch tape, how to see things and correct them based on that (it didn't need to be someone good who started... just someone who knew how to study)

- rushing him back after this knee injury at Cleveland when he was clearly not ready to play

- the constant "we are expanding the playbook", "we are scaling things back", "we are giving him more" that Nate Hackett did.  

 

Don't think ultimately any of that would have made EJ a franchise guy.  But could he have been the serviceable bottom end starter he was his rookie year for longer? Possibly. His rookie year really was not awful. By year 2 he looked confused, mentally drained and lacking in confidence.  

[Big Turk]

In life most people who are successful get thrown into the deep end of the pool and either sink or swim. 

 

In general people typically dont fail  because it was too early they fail because they weren't good enough or weren't dedicated enough.

Edited August 2, 2018 by matter2003

[jrober38]

27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The mistake the Bills made with EJ and his development wasn't starting him as a rookie. Some of his best Bills games came those first 5 or 6 weeks.  

 

The mistakes were: 

- not having a dedicated QB coach while starting a rookie (this was nonsensical)

- having no vet in the room from who he could learn how to watch tape, how to see things and correct them based on that (it didn't need to be someone good who started... just someone who knew how to study)

- rushing him back after this knee injury at Cleveland when he was clearly not ready to play

- the constant "we are expanding the playbook", "we are scaling things back", "we are giving him more" that Nate Hackett did.  

 

Don't think ultimately any of that would have made EJ a franchise guy.  But could he have been the serviceable bottom end starter he was his rookie year for longer? Possibly. His rookie year really was not awful. By year 2 he looked confused, mentally drained and lacking in confidence.  

 

EJ was a guy many scouts had as a 4th round prospect whose career has looked like someone who should have been picked in the 4th round.

 

None of the things you mentioned helped, but there's no chance EJ was ever going to become a starting QB in the NFL. His accuracy will never be good enough, and he doesn't have enough feel for the game. 

 

Accuracy isn't something that can be learned in the NFL. You can refine it slightly, but rarely do inaccurate college QBs become accurate NFL QBs. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

EJ was a guy many scouts had as a 4th round prospect whose career has looked like someone who should have been picked in the 4th round.

 

None of the things you mentioned helped, but there's no chance EJ was ever going to become a starting QB in the NFL. His accuracy will never be good enough, and he doesn't have enough feel for the game. 

 

Accuracy isn't something that can be learned in the NFL. You can refine it slightly, but rarely do inaccurate college QBs become accurate NFL QBs. 

 

I agree accuracy is rarely correctable unless there is a single technical fault that is apparent.  But he got worse through his career with the Bills which isn't a great testament to their development plan. I think his ceiling was quite low anyway but they still made a mess of it.  The mess was not starting him too early mind you.  

[GoBills808]

4 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm just pointing out that in the past 20 years, very few QBs benefited from sitting on the bench. Most good 1st round QBs started as rookies, with maybe a handful of 1st round guys over that span who sat behind an incumbent starter. 

 

Ultimately we're talking about a position where fewer than 50% of the QBs picked in round 1 become successful. If you take away the guys who went #1 overall, that figure drops to a success rate of about 30%. That's the reality we accepted when we picked Josh Allen. 

I think the sitting/not sitting debate says more about the team a young QB happens to find himself on than it does as a predictor of that QB's success. It's not very indicative of anything other than the shape of the team and the thinking of the FO at that given moment.