Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Playoffs2013

"Babying" rookie QBs

Recommended Posts

How long should a team baby their rookie? 1 year? 2 years?

I define baby as in constant check downs, easy throws, and easy reads.

For example Gabbert is "babied" as is Sanchez

Luck I don't believe is

Discuss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Techincally, you can only baby a rookie QB for one year, because he isn't a rookie anymore after that :P

We haven't babied Luck at all, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Techincally, you can only baby a rookie QB for one year, because he isn't a rookie anymore after that :P

We haven't babied Luck at all, though.

you get the idea

But how long do you wait Sanchez has been 3 years and is degressing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its all situational. There is no defined way to handle a rookie QB. Luck doesn't have the team around him that some of the other rookie QBs do, so why not just open up the whole offense for him? HIs ability to absorb the playbook was never in question - just needs to get used to NFL defenses. What better way than to let him have full access to the entire package? On the flip side, take Seattle. Carrol feels he has the team to be competitive and make a push for the playoffs, so he leans on his defense and running game and Wilson is only asked to manage. The same approach was taken with Roethlisberger too during his first couple years. If the team has a realistic shot at making the post-season, its usually done when asking their rookie QB to just manage a game and keep things simple to avoid mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long should a team baby their rookie? 1 year? 2 years?

I define baby as in constant check downs, easy throws, and easy reads.

For example Gabbert is "babied" as is Sanchez

Luck I don't believe is

Discuss

This is a really good question.....

Guys like Sanchez..Big Ben and the Balt QB benefitted by great defenses....they didnt have to do much but avoit mistakes..

I think Cam is an example of why you need time to sit and watch. Cam is not mature enough to be an NFL QB even though he is talented enough.

Matt Ryan had a strong first year..but not so good in yera 2.....Now, he's top notch...

stats is right..its different with al of them....it helps if your team has low expecations

The Seattle kid isnt ready to win, to me....but what were they last year....they dont have playoff expectatons...

Washington missed the playoffs in 2011 so what differebce does it make it they miss them again.

...same, in theory, was true of Indy....but now we're 4-3..

I think you need a guy who is used to a high profile situation....a guy who has a long pedigree...and played at a big time program .(although this didnt work

with Jimmy Claussen)

But he has to have been taught how to lead and how to learn and be the face of a team...

Luck and RG3 clearly have that....there's a maturity there...a lot of time in the spotlight...its hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you toss them overboard and let them tread water until they can swim back to shore. Some obviously don't , but the sooner a team knows that they have a guy that will work out the better off they are, just as the team is better off knowing the sooner that a player doesn't have what it takes.

That team knows whether they need to keep looking for a QB or knowing that they have someone that will work.

There is only so much a player can learn from the sideline. There might be some small benefits to it, but for the most part they will learn more by doing, by seeing various defenses and the speed of an NFL game first hand. This isn't recreated in practice reps or by doing mental reps.

With the advancements of quarterbacks at the college level they are better suited to step in on day 1. They will have some ups and downs as we have witnessed by all 5 rookie quarterbacks, but they will be better off by playing from the start. They either succeed or fade away, and it looks as if all 5 of these are here to stay.

I wouldn't say that Luck or any of the rookies are really being babied. I would say that some seem to have training wheels and and some might have one of those backpack type leash deals that the coaches are holding on to, but I don't think any of them are being coddled. Some are being put in better positions to succeed than others but some have better coaching, so that comes with the territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say that Luck or any of the rookies are really being babied. I would say that some seem to have training wheels and and some might have one of those backpack type leash deals that the coaches are holding on to, but I don't think any of them are being coddled. Some are being put in better positions to succeed than others but some have better coaching, so that comes with the territory.

depends what the OP's definition of "babying" is, but yeah I think you're right. I don't feel any of the starting rookie QBs are being babied per say, but some are definitely asked to do more than others, so the training wheels is a good analogy. I think the QBs mental makeup and maturity dictate whether or not you can just toss them in the deep end right away. You look at a player like Ryan Leaf even....who knows how he would have turned out if he was forced to sit and watch an accomplished veteran for a few years before getting shouldered with the fate of an entire franchise. My point simply being that some QBs learn better if they are eased into it, and some do well with immediate immersion. The only problem is that in today's NFL, you don't always have the time to wait around and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends what the OP's definition of "babying" is, but yeah I think you're right. I don't feel any of the starting rookie QBs are being babied per say, but some are definitely asked to do more than others, so the training wheels is a good analogy. I think the QBs mental makeup and maturity dictate whether or not you can just toss them in the deep end right away. You look at a player like Ryan Leaf even....who knows how he would have turned out if he was forced to sit and watch an accomplished veteran for a few years before getting shouldered with the fate of an entire franchise. My point simply being that some QBs learn better if they are eased into it, and some do well with immediate immersion. The only problem is that in today's NFL, you don't always have the time to wait around and see.

I can see that point for some that could have some fragility to their mental make up, but even then I'm not sure if I want that man leading my team. Cam Newton for example. Heck of an athlete, I like his passion for the game, but he might be emotionally fragile.

Leaf might have been better off and quite possibly still in the league if he had been forced to take the Aaron Rodgers/Philip Rivers approach of sitting for a couple of years. That is hard to say. The same course could have happened, just a few years down the road.

This era of the NFL is far different from even when Manning & Leaf entered the NFL. I remember reading a quote from Manning's OC at UT, and the man he turned to this off-season to lead his rehab about how the quarterbacks he had coming in to Duke had a much better grasp of the game of football than either Manning did & UT or Ole Miss from an x's & o's perspective, just because the changes that have happened over time in the NFL have made it's way down to college and into high schools. He said they didn't have their talent, but from prep work, x's and o's and things of that nature the current group is ahead of previous QB's.

15 years ago most teams were still running the ball in high school, either from an I, a wing-T, or possibly the Veer/Wishbone or some other offense set up to run the ball more. Now a days most are running some form of the spread, and the quarterbacks are coached at a far different level. When I was in high school, my junior/senior year we might have thrown 150 passes over the course of the two seasons or 25 games.

Looking in one of the local papers the top 10 passers are all over 200 attempts in one season with the leader hitting 423, and that is in 10 games since the playoffs are about to start.

The game has changed at all levels and to me it is safer to ask a QB to do more today than it was in 2004 when Eli/Ben/Philip were rookies or when Peyton/Leaf were rookies. They are lauded like they are doing something special, when it's more of an expectation than anything, but some rant and rave about this, that, and the other. If they can't do it something is wrong.

Friday night I went and caught part of the Butler/Independence game in Charlotte, the senior QBing Butler is headed to Tennessee and was running the no-huddle half the time he was on the field. It wasn't the look to the sideline variation like USCarolina & Oregon run, but it seemed like he was calling his own plays. It wasn't a full speed no-huddle but he was calling it off a wrist coach, so maybe certain things were scripted, but you didn't see that 10 years ago.

The game has changed and Quarterbacks are more progressed. Otto Graham and Johnny Unitas would be shocked and surprised and likely salivating to play this game today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quarterbacks in general are babied enough I think, not just rookies. There will always be excuses here and there where ever you look no matter who the QB is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Techincally, you can only baby a rookie QB for one year, because he isn't a rookie anymore after that :P

We haven't babied Luck at all, though.

So true... He is being asked to carry this team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see that point for some that could have some fragility to their mental make up, but even then I'm not sure if I want that man leading my team. Cam Newton for example. Heck of an athlete, I like his passion for the game, but he might be emotionally fragile.

Leaf might have been better off and quite possibly still in the league if he had been forced to take the Aaron Rodgers/Philip Rivers approach of sitting for a couple of years. That is hard to say. The same course could have happened, just a few years down the road.

This era of the NFL is far different from even when Manning & Leaf entered the NFL. I remember reading a quote from Manning's OC at UT, and the man he turned to this off-season to lead his rehab about how the quarterbacks he had coming in to Duke had a much better grasp of the game of football than either Manning did & UT or Ole Miss from an x's & o's perspective, just because the changes that have happened over time in the NFL have made it's way down to college and into high schools. He said they didn't have their talent, but from prep work, x's and o's and things of that nature the current group is ahead of previous QB's.

15 years ago most teams were still running the ball in high school, either from an I, a wing-T, or possibly the Veer/Wishbone or some other offense set up to run the ball more. Now a days most are running some form of the spread, and the quarterbacks are coached at a far different level. When I was in high school, my junior/senior year we might have thrown 150 passes over the course of the two seasons or 25 games.

Looking in one of the local papers the top 10 passers are all over 200 attempts in one season with the leader hitting 423, and that is in 10 games since the playoffs are about to start.

The game has changed at all levels and to me it is safer to ask a QB to do more today than it was in 2004 when Eli/Ben/Philip were rookies or when Peyton/Leaf were rookies. They are lauded like they are doing something special, when it's more of an expectation than anything, but some rant and rave about this, that, and the other. If they can't do it something is wrong.

Friday night I went and caught part of the Butler/Independence game in Charlotte, the senior QBing Butler is headed to Tennessee and was running the no-huddle half the time he was on the field. It wasn't the look to the sideline variation like USCarolina & Oregon run, but it seemed like he was calling his own plays. It wasn't a full speed no-huddle but he was calling it off a wrist coach, so maybe certain things were scripted, but you didn't see that 10 years ago.

The game has changed and Quarterbacks are more progressed. Otto Graham and Johnny Unitas would be shocked and surprised and likely salivating to play this game today.

hmmmm ... nevermind.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont put a rookie QB in there if the vet is just as good and we have playoff expectations..

Its not about HIM..its about the TEAM...

If you realize you are going nowhere with the guy you have even if he's dojng all he can....then you play the rookie...

But just throwing a rookie in there can lose a lot of people their jobs...as it may have in carolina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I would think about giving them the #34 which is a good trade for both teams, then if we do draft a WR at 26 that would make sense.
    • I think you offer them #34 and that's it......  maybe add the compensation 4th rounder.  You'd absolutely have to be happy with netting Q. Nelson, Frank Clark (and a big contract) Braden Smith, and Kemoko Turay and Jordan Willis (last 22 from trading jets #52 pick   All for moving from 3 to 6 last year......   Don't know if someone will beat an offer of #34 and second 4th rounder...... but I'd absolutely throw it on the table and see.  Clark is an awesome talent at a near impossible position to fill via trade.... he's 25, produced at a high level, very healthy over his career.... not a big locker room issue.  Those are the guys you hope to draft so you CAN pay them big money to keep....  so I view the big contract as a given, a necessary evil.  The Colts dream of having a DE that is good enough to necessitate a huge contract, here is one, go get him.
    • Well, I appreciate you straightening out the information.  That still isn't the number of possible schedules, it's just the number they created based on the financial needs mixed with the venue availability issues and other stuff.   There are some horrendous schedules for certain teams out there.  Whatever human intervention took place, they clearly didn't care about screwing teams.  Oakland and Tampa got it the worst and it was needless.  But money is all that matters, not the health of the players or fairness of competition.  That much is clear.  
    • I didn't suggest anything. I'm just saying that by applying you logic to everyone on the roster, we shouldn't need to upgrade anything. Or does that just hold true to WR?
    • Simple.  It means we need to continue to look elsewhere for someone ready to play out of the box.  Someone who shines, even if its just as a rookie.  I would suggest the draft and we hope that Cain's brief spark before injury was more than fools gold.  Johnson and Paschal had brief moments where they appeared capable but certainly were far from Elite talent.  Rogers and the rest of the guys on the roster after Hilton and Funchess seem like cannon fodder for the most part.  We need elite talent.  We need elite speed.  We need elite hands.  We need elite route running.  In essence, we need SOMETHING to be elite about our qualified #2 and #3.  I didn't see anything that suggested "Elite" from any of these guys last year.  Did you? Someone will be #2 even if they're terrible.  There WILL be a #2.  What I think most people hope for is that the #2 has something elite, if not many things elite about their skill set.  Outside of Hilton, that isn't a word that applies to the backups from last year and camp bodies.     Are you going on the record to say we have our full time, long term #2 and eventual #1 when Hilton is gone on the roster?  Who would that be?  And no matter how you answer, using your criteria, what supposed practical value is that supposed to have?     What practical value does my opinion have? At least the same value as any opinion you or anyone else shares.  None of us have power over the team.  The point of a message board is to post opinions and discuss.  You apparently disagree with my statement, so let's hear who our #2 elite talent is among the scrubs? Settling for a #2 without elite talent is what we did last year.  Ryan Grant was devoid of anything elite and it showed.     Questions? 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...