AR vs Young vs Stroud vs Levis

[Nickster]

19 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Isn't that the test that CJ Stroud bombed? I've watched some of Bryce Young, I think he's overwhelmed by the speed, and is gunshy. And I don't think Reich has the touch to help him in this situation.

 

I'm not super concerned with AR's ability to avoid hits and stay healthy. Either he'll learn his lesson, or he won't. We watched how it went with Luck, and we even saw Wentz up close and personal for a season; some guys just don't know how to give up on a play, to their own detriment. It's also probably why the 2012 Colts were able to win all those close games, and why Richardson is able to make plays to crawl back from a three TD deficit. So we take the good with the bad, and hold our breath on every play.

 

But unlike the Colts with Luck, this team is being coached in a way that doesn't require the QB to stand in the pocket and get battered. They're emphasizing the quick passing game, calling screens, using play action, and RPOs. They're also using Richardson's athleticism in a way that allows him to be a weapon, which takes some pressure off the OL to protect all game, and allows Richardson to get in the open field and protect himself by getting down or out of bounds. It's up to him to pull the cord, though. 

 

And I think there's reason to be hopeful that he'll grow from some of the beatings he's taking right now. He has to learn that these NFL guys are just as big and fast as he is, he can't let his guard down, and he has to respect his opponents at all times. And I think the coaching staff is stressing that to him every chance they get. But there will still be some adventures, based on both the situation and his awareness.

 

I think you are right about CJ's test if I recall.  The thing about QBing is that it's possible for a guy to be so studied up before hand, knowing what the progressions are and having that kind of reading and progressions done before hand rather than processing it all.  I don't know if this is understandable.  But CJ might have a more like If A then B, If not A then  etc. and have that simplified rather than thinking about cover 2 safety with a TE clearing out with downfield and a option route depending on the depth of the LB etc.  Don't know if that makes sense and don't know if that is what he's doing.

But the game is too fast for a lot of guys with really good physical skills.

 

I don't know man.  I'm telling you if he keeps bouncing his head he will not be able to do this for long.  I think it's more important for him to learn to protect himself than win games right now.

He doesn't appear to know how to do it.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

This article is simply feeding a bias. It takes a narrative that is accepted fact (Frank sucks) and backs into examples and logic that supports the original narrative.

 

It praises QBs like Rogers and Mahomes for creating plays out of structure....IOW, when the play breaks down, they create on their own.  So, they get praise BECAUSE GB and KC called play that sucked, and they made lemonade out of lemons.

 

But somehow, Reich's sucky play calling is making the play break down in a certain way that Young can't scramble and create.

 

By definition, in all cases, the called play (in structure) MUST break down BEFORE the out of structure success can even happen...so how can a play call be stifling a QBs creativity out of structure?  LOL.

 

I guess Nathaniel Hackett and Eric Bienemy should be praised for "allowing" Rogers and Mahomes to take off and make something when their original play call failed.....and since AR and PM do that a lot, a lot of plays Hackett and Bienemy called must have sucked.

 

Sometimes you just get stuck in a logic loop...

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the premise of the article, but you're drawing some faulty conclusions. For example, the idea that if a QB has to create off structure it must mean the play call was bad is your own interpretation, and it seems to be rooted in some bias itself. There can be a lot of reasons for a QB to be called on to make a play outside of the structure of the play call -- poor protection, receivers not coming open, disguised coverages, etc. That's not specific to the Panthers offense, it's a general truth. But if you have underwhelming OL and receiver play, like the Panthers, the QB is going to have to handle some pressure and improvise. That's not necessarily an indication that the play call was bad.

 

And that's not what the article is saying, either. They're saying Bryce Young is good at improvising, which might help make up for the OL and WR shortcomings, but Reich's play calling is restricting Young's ability to improvise. They use screen plays as an example. There's little room for improvisation, a screen is usually a single option pass play, and if it isn't working, the QB just has to get rid of the ball. The Panthers called 11 screen passes in the last game, with little success (eight of them to the right side). That's 28% of their called pass plays (including sacks and scrambles), where the QB is being told what to do with the ball before the play even starts. 

 

If you have a QB who can't improvise and doesn't handle pressure well, then that would make sense. Call screens for Jacoby Brissett all game long. But if your QB can actually create, maybe don't limit him that much. Or maybe call some more modern screen RPO concepts, which Reich isn't using. 

 

Also, it's very possible that Bienemy and Hackett are bad play callers. Let's see if either of them can have any success without their star QBs. But no, Rodgers and Mahomes being good off structure isn't evidence that the OCs are bad play callers. You've just decided to frame the conversation that way.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I think you are right about CJ's test if I recall.  The thing about QBing is that it's possible for a guy to be so studied up before hand, knowing what the progressions are and having that kind of reading and progressions done before hand rather than processing it all.  I don't know if this is understandable.  But CJ might have a more like If A then B, If not A then  etc. and have that simplified rather than thinking about cover 2 safety with a TE clearing out with downfield and a option route depending on the depth of the LB etc.  Don't know if that makes sense and don't know if that is what he's doing.

But the game is too fast for a lot of guys with really good physical skills.

 

I agree with all of this. But it seems like CJ's success would call into question the legitimacy of the S2 test, not validate it. I think there's some value in the cognitive stuff, but I also think it gets overblown during draft season. It's just a piece of the puzzle. It's also possible that the leaked scores were inaccurate or incomplete, in which case we don't really know anything... 

 

Quote

 

I don't know man.  I'm telling you if he keeps bouncing his head he will not be able to do this for long.  I think it's more important for him to learn to protect himself than win games right now.

He doesn't appear to know how to do it.

 

 

I'm not arguing that he can continue to take abuse, and it will be fine. I'm saying some guys just have to learn their lessons, and Richardson's competitive spirit probably requires him to learn those lessons directly. End of the day, either he makes some adjustments and protects himself, or he continues throwing his body around and will pay for it. But unlike previous coaching staffs, I think what Steichen is doing can help reduce some of the physical punishment within the course of the game. And hopefully, with time, Richardson gets better at choosing when to take risks and when to protect himself.

 

I'm just not ready to freak out because he got a quick, rude welcome to the NFL. I'll wait and see how he applies what he's learned so far. It was good to see some slides last week, but I want to see him strike the right balance over the course of the season.

[Nickster]

5 hours ago, krunk said:

I gotta nitpick a little bit here bc none of the QB you listed when they worked with Reich was a rookie. Actually I will give you Carson Wentz but that team was stacked. Carolinas cupboard on offense is pretty barren, and they have had offensive line problems to go along with that. I think he makes the right reads, but I agree with those who speak about the adjustment to the speed of the game. Particularly these defensive linemen who are running step for step with him. I still maintain he is going to get it figured out at some point during the year. It's probably going to take about 1 good game. I have to be honest and say my doubts about him holding up to the physicality on this level will remain for a while.

Yeah I said that thing about a rookie in another quote.  There might be something to it. That rookies might not develop as quickly under FR. 

 

Or It could be coincidence but for Frank's 1st 4 years here 4 different  QBs had their best year or their best year in years year.  There could be other factors, but it's an unlikely series of happy accidents if that's the case. 

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with all of this. But it seems like CJ's success would call into question the legitimacy of the S2 test, not validate it. I think there's some value in the cognitive stuff, but I also think it gets overblown during draft season. It's just a piece of the puzzle. It's also possible that the leaked scores were inaccurate or incomplete, in which case we don't really know anything... 

 

 

Oh this isn't geometry or engineering.  Certainty isn't possible.

 

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm not arguing that he can continue to take abuse, and it will be fine. I'm saying some guys just have to learn their lessons, and Richardson's competitive spirit probably requires him to learn those lessons directly. End of the day, either he makes some adjustments and protects himself, or he continues throwing his body around and will pay for it. But unlike previous coaching staffs, I think what Steichen is doing can help reduce some of the physical punishment within the course of the game. And hopefully, with time, Richardson gets better at choosing when to take risks and when to protect himself.

 

Young, dumb, and well you know . . . 

 

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm just not ready to freak out because he got a quick, rude welcome to the NFL. I'll wait and see how he applies what he's learned so far. It was good to see some slides last week, but I want to see him strike the right balance over the course of the season.

 

I'd like to see 2 weeks in a row without his head recoiling off the turf.  And like I said in another post, I'd consider load management. 

[Nickster]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm not arguing that he can continue to take abuse, and it will be fine. I'm saying some guys just have to learn their lessons, and Richardson's competitive spirit probably requires him to learn those lessons directly. End of the day, either he makes some adjustments and protects himself, or he continues throwing his body around and will pay for it. But unlike previous coaching staffs, I think what Steichen is doing can help reduce some of the physical punishment within the course of the game. And hopefully, with time, Richardson gets better at choosing when to take risks and when to protect himself.

 

I'm just not ready to freak out because he got a quick, rude welcome to the NFL. I'll wait and see how he applies what he's learned so far. It was good to see some slides last week, but I want to see him strike the right balance over the course of the season.

 

 

And Supe another thing I'm talking about is the technique of getting tackled and there is technique in getting tackled.   Not just when to run OB etc, which is important. 

 

There's a kinda point when you have to surrender your body and not stay rigid and straight.  You kinda let your legs go,  and go a little fetal instead of fighting the inevitiable.

 

[Superman]

42 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I'd like to see 2 weeks in a row without his head recoiling off the turf.  And like I said in another post, I'd consider load management. 

 

I didn't see him hit his head this week, must have missed it. Load management is untenable, though.

 

Quote

 

And Supe another thing I'm talking about is the technique of getting tackled and there is technique in getting tackled.   Not just when to run OB etc, which is important. 

 

There's a kinda point when you have to surrender your body and not stay rigid and straight.  You kinda let your legs go,  and go a little fetal instead of fighting the inevitiable.

 

 

No objection here, but I think that's mostly about fighting to stay up, not necessarily a lack of technique in falling/getting tackled. If you want to send him to Tua's jiu-jitsu guy, that's fine. But I think I'd focus on helping him respect the defenders (don't jog into the end zone), and learn when to let the play be over.

[Nickster]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't see him hit his head this week, must have missed it. Load management is untenable, though.

 

It happened on the play that was posted here to Pierce and it happened on a run that I noted while I was watching.  I know of those two for sure. 

 

Why is it untenable?

 

 

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No objection here, but I think that's mostly about fighting to stay up, not necessarily a lack of technique in falling/getting tackled. If you want to send him to Tua's jiu-jitsu guy, that's fine. But I think I'd focus on helping him respect the defenders (don't jog into the end zone), and learn when to let the play be over.

 

Tua had that rigid problem.  It would be good for AR.

 

Yep don't jog.  

 

Although AR is a stud physically he has to learn that every other player in the league is a bad mo fo too.

 

He's young and competitive.  He'll either learn the easy way or the hard way like all of us 

[Nickster]

@Superman

 

Quick version on AR.  Like a lot of what I see.  The accuracy to the boundary from the pocket is not NFL level.  Guy will be OK at the least while healthy.  Top tier type of guy? Don't know yet.

 

What is your opinion on AR after seeing him this last month?

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Why is it untenable?

 

I guess I should ask you, how would it work?

 

When you say load management, I think of putting the starter on a snap count limit, or sitting him out entire games. I don't think that's a good practice, for lots of reasons. But maybe that's not what you have in mind at all...

[Nickster]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I guess I should ask you, how would it work?

 

When you say load management, I think of putting the starter on a snap count limit, or sitting him out entire games. I don't think that's a good practice, for lots of reasons. But maybe that's not what you have in mind at all...

 

No I'm talking about the possibility of sitting AR from time to time this season.  Before I'd offer my opinions on why I'd consider that, I'd be interested on why you wouldn't consider it in good ole fashioned numbered point @Superman fashion. 

 

 

Keeping in mind Supe that there are many different thngs happening these days that were not thought possible 5-10 years ago including drafting a QB like AR with the 4th pick. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Sometimes you just get stuck in a logic loop...

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the premise of the article, but you're drawing some faulty conclusions. For example, the idea that if a QB has to create off structure it must mean the play call was bad is your own interpretation, and it seems to be rooted in some bias itself. There can be a lot of reasons for a QB to be called on to make a play outside of the structure of the play call -- poor protection, receivers not coming open, disguised coverages, etc. That's not specific to the Panthers offense, it's a general truth. But if you have underwhelming OL and receiver play, like the Panthers, the QB is going to have to handle some pressure and improvise. That's not necessarily an indication that the play call was bad.

 

And that's not what the article is saying, either. They're saying Bryce Young is good at improvising, which might help make up for the OL and WR shortcomings, but Reich's play calling is restricting Young's ability to improvise. They use screen plays as an example. There's little room for improvisation, a screen is usually a single option pass play, and if it isn't working, the QB just has to get rid of the ball. The Panthers called 11 screen passes in the last game, with little success (eight of them to the right side). That's 28% of their called pass plays (including sacks and scrambles), where the QB is being told what to do with the ball before the play even starts. 

 

If you have a QB who can't improvise and doesn't handle pressure well, then that would make sense. Call screens for Jacoby Brissett all game long. But if your QB can actually create, maybe don't limit him that much. Or maybe call some more modern screen RPO concepts, which Reich isn't using. 

 

Also, it's very possible that Bienemy and Hackett are bad play callers. Let's see if either of them can have any success without their star QBs. But no, Rodgers and Mahomes being good off structure isn't evidence that the OCs are bad play callers. You've just decided to frame the conversation that way.

I read the article as the author criticizing the play calling because it limits improvisation.  By definition, a play call is, in itself, structure.  A QB is not supposed to improvise...no player is...within the structure of a play call.  Players are supposed to do their duties.

 

If the author is specifically talking about not calling enough plays that give BY options, like Reich doesn't call enough RPOs to maximize BYs freedom, fine, but he could have said that simply.

 

Its like Young isn't playing in the NFL anywhere close to how he played at Bama...having success improvising at the college level like Mahomes and Rogers do in the NFL......and the author is blaming Reich for it.  

 

By the same logic, I guess Saban is a genius by how well he could get BY to play out of structure during a game.

 

 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

@Superman

 

Quick version on AR.  Like a lot of what I see.  The accuracy to the boundary from the pocket is not NFL level.  Guy will be OK at the least while healthy.  Top tier type of guy? Don't know yet.

 

What is your opinion on AR after seeing him this last month?

 

My fear during draft season is that he would be incapable of executing the offense, and that his functional shortcomings and inaccuracy throwing the ball could potentially undermine the entire operation. But he has a good enough grasp on what they're asking him to do, and he has a good clock in his head which allows him to produce yardage even when the passing options aren't working out. Compared to what I thought when I first watched him back in January or whenever, I'm impressed. 

 

Compared to what he needs to be for the Colts to contend, he has a lot to work on. Accuracy in general, and recklessness. The accuracy is all about timing and footwork, and he'll probably always struggle with it. Josh Allen cleaned up his technical issues, but still regresses at times.

 

We'll also need to see how he does as the playbook opens up over time.

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

My fear during draft season is that he would be incapable of executing the offense, and that his functional shortcomings and inaccuracy throwing the ball could potentially undermine the entire operation. But he has a good enough grasp on what they're asking him to do, and he has a good clock in his head which allows him to produce yardage even when the passing options aren't working out. Compared to what I thought when I first watched him back in January or whenever, I'm impressed. 

 

Compared to what he needs to be for the Colts to contend, he has a lot to work on. Accuracy in general, and recklessness. The accuracy is all about timing and footwork, and he'll probably always struggle with it. Josh Allen cleaned up his technical issues, but still regresses at times.

 

We'll also need to see how he does as the playbook opens up over time.

 

Bout the same as me then.  There is a lot to like.  There is a lot to be skeptical about. 

SS and RPO is easier to learn scheme wise over traditional offenses.  Lots of no read, 1 read, and half field reads.  

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

No I'm talking about the possibility of sitting AR from time to time this season.  Before I'd offer my opinions on why I'd consider that, I'd be interested on why you wouldn't consider it in good ole fashioned numbered point @Superman fashion. 

 

Keeping in mind Supe that there are many different thngs happening these days that were not thought possible 5-10 years ago including drafting a QB like AR with the 4th pick. 

 

The primary thing is that he's the starting QB. We named him the starter, and anything that undermines his standing should be avoided, unless it's absolutely necessary. Once you hand it over to a young guy, you just have to live with the growing pains while he develops.

 

I would have rather had Minshew as the starter, and work Richardson in gradually, than do a version of the opposite. I'm fairly convinced that would be bad for him, and the team.

 

But I will admit that one of my concerns with Richardson was that he wouldn't be able to handle the speed of the NFL from a mental standpoint, and it could make it difficult for him to protect himself. I don't know if that's an issue, but if he's not protecting himself for any reason, then that could be a reason to try alternative methods.

 

Another big reason is that he needs all the reps he can get, both for development and for proper evaluation. And not just evaluating him -- that's the big one, of course -- but evaluating the rest of the offense. The OL protects differently for Richardson than they do for Minshew; do we have the right kind of OL for a player like Richardson? Will our pass catchers work? I feel like any time he's not on the field is a waste.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Richardson gives this team a better chances to win now. No one can watch him play and think we should be starting Minshew.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

25 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

No I'm talking about the possibility of sitting AR from time to time this season.  Before I'd offer my opinions on why I'd consider that, I'd be interested on why you wouldn't consider it in good ole fashioned numbered point @Superman fashion. 

 

 

Keeping in mind Supe that there are many different thngs happening these days that were not thought possible 5-10 years ago including drafting a QB like AR with the 4th pick. 

Why would they do that? You can’t have watched Richardson and think that’s a good idea.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I read the article as the author criticizing the play calling because it limits improvisation. 

 

No, the article gave examples of how some play calling is limiting Young's ability to improvise. Like calling a ton of screen plays, especially when they're not working, and then constantly saying 'we're really close, it's going to click any day now...' 

 

Quote

By definition, a play call is, in itself, structure.  A QB is not supposed to improvise...no player is...within the structure of a play call.  Players are supposed to do their duties.

 

Yeah, that's an unnecessarily rigid view of offensive play calling, and it seems manufactured to allow you to keep advancing your opinion. 

 

If the LT gets beat right away, it's not necessarily a failure of play calling. If the primary read is a shallow crosser and it's open, but the DT is jumping as the QB winds up to throw, that's not a failed play call. And if the QB improvises to escape pressure, or pump fakes to manipulate the DT -- anything that's not part of the play call, but rather part of the QB's ability to create beyond the structure of the play call -- that's not an example of the player not doing his duties.

 

There's a reason offenses practice scramble drills, and it's not because the OC would rather let his QB improvise than improve his play calling.

 

Quote

If the author is specifically talking about not calling enough plays that give BY options, like Reich doesn't call enough RPOs to maximize BYs freedom, fine, but he could have said that simply.

 

Maybe the author is a bad writer. But I feel like the point was obvious, and you're ignoring it for your own reasons.

 

Quote

 

Its like Young isn't playing in the NFL anywhere close to how he played at Bama...having success improvising at the college level like Mahomes and Rogers do in the NFL......and the author is blaming Reich for it.  

 

By the same logic, I guess Saban is a genius by how well he could get BY to play out of structure during a game.

 

 

I think part of coaching involves leaning into the strengths of your players. If Young has a specific strength that's being handicapped by play calling, it's worth investigating. 

[Nickster]

55 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The primary thing is that he's the starting QB. We named him the starter, and anything that undermines his standing should be avoided, unless it's absolutely necessary. Once you hand it over to a young guy, you just have to live with the growing pains while he develops.

 

I would have rather had Minshew as the starter, and work Richardson in gradually, than do a version of the opposite. I'm fairly convinced that would be bad for him, and the team.

 

But I will admit that one of my concerns with Richardson was that he wouldn't be able to handle the speed of the NFL from a mental standpoint, and it could make it difficult for him to protect himself. I don't know if that's an issue, but if he's not protecting himself for any reason, then that could be a reason to try alternative methods.

 

Another big reason is that he needs all the reps he can get, both for development and for proper evaluation. And not just evaluating him -- that's the big one, of course -- but evaluating the rest of the offense. The OL protects differently for Richardson than they do for Minshew; do we have the right kind of OL for a player like Richardson? Will our pass catchers work? I feel like any time he's not on the field is a waste.

 

Not trying to be a (insert here), but you really haven't listed any reasons why not to rest a QB.  You've got some ideas, but no real reasons.  Other than reps.  Which I can understand on some level.

 

But just consider the following.  (To be clear I am suggesting the possibility of healthy scratch a couple few times a year.)

 

1.  Other sports are doing load management in some form or fashion.  I can see someone saying there are 162 baseball games and 82 football and hockey games.  But to me the best comparison is Soccer.  From the MLS to the top of the table in the EPL, teams are resting guys regularly, sometimes even in "big" games.  Club teams usually play between 35-to 40 games a season depending on their performance in cup games and play about a month or so longer of a season.  So about twice the number of games.  But only about .7 more a week.  Soccer is a lot rougher than some Fooball only guys think, but yeah, no it's not American Football rough.  In this league I'd guess players get a game off at a minimum every 2 or 3 weeks and many players get subbed off late, though that is often strategical.  They often try to stagger this rest against weaker opponents or 

 

So if you consider this, then extrapolating over a 40 game season, at a minimum players get 5 or six games of rest.  That would equate to 2 or 3 games a season in football.  Point being, what makes football unique that players don't need rest.  

 

2.  Why does a player need to play all 17 to develop?  Is AR really going to be that much more developed if he plays 17 rather than 14?  It used to be conventional wisdom to sit a QB a whole season or more before he started.  Getting an couple of games off doesn't have to hurt his development IMO.  I still think there may be some value in sitting and watching at the NFL level.  I don't think it has to be an all or nothing.  I know this is the convention but is it necessarily ironclad gospel truth?

 

3.  CTE and other injuries to joints etc. are often chronic not or not only catastrophic in nature.  Achilles were being discussed yesterday.  Seems there are more.  We know that achilles tendonitis makes it more likely to blow an achilles.  It is smart to rest an achilles period let alone if you feel it a little.

The same applies with head injuries.  CTE and recurring concussions are often the result of repeated not necessarily catastrophic blows to the head.  It is also pretty much known a major part of the problem is not allowing it to heal completely.  We also know that we cannot yet detect full recovery or when damage is being done etc.  So why not take the guesswork our a bit and give a guy like ARs head a rest.

 

 

 

You say the goal this year is not necessarily wins but ARs development.  A completely rested body and head would be a good tool for development.  The sideline is a great classroom.  I don't think max games logically always indicates max learning.

 

Just something to think about. 

We've seen all manner of conventional wisdom being ignored in this and other sports.  

[Superman]

@Nickster

 

I initially thought your point was specific to Richardson, as a strategy to protect him from himself and curb his recklessness. Now I see you're thinking much bigger than just one player and scenario. But to address your points...

 

1) Other sports are doing load management, but the physical toll from other sports is different than it is in the NFL. The NFL is very taxing physically, but games are once a week, the offseason is much longer than other sports, and you only play one side of the ball. To this point, load management has not been pioneered in the NFL, and I don't know that it's on the way, given the characteristics of the sport. That's not to say that it's a bad idea, but right now, it would be considered pretty radical.

 

2) I'm not one who thinks a QB must play right away. But I do think that once you hand it over to a young QB, it's likely to be detrimental to pull it away from him, so you don't do it unless it's absolutely necessary. And I think the main consideration about when to play a QB is if he can function in the offense, and protect himself. I don't agree with putting any arbitrary timeframe on his development and playing time, he doesn't have to sit for a year first, I don't care if he's the Week 1 starter or doesn't play until Week 10. Just judge when he's ready to go. But from that point forward, there's so much more to be learned and gained by having him on the field. I think this is true of most young players, but especially at QB.

 

And NFL QB has an outsized impact on the team's ability to win every week, so limiting your performance by benching your best option in the name of load management doesn't seem like a good strategy. I think Richardson's development is the primary factor, not wins, but I'm not interested in undermining the team's ability to compete in each game. (Now, in the Colts case, we can survive a game or two with Minshew, but I still don't think we should just sit our starting QB if he's healthy and ready to play.)

 

3) As for the concussions and other potential injuries, I'm fully in on that point. But that's only relevant if he's trying to recover from an injury. It's probably good practice to just automatically give a player a week off after a diagnosed concussion; I'm not sure we're there just yet, but so far this season, no player has played a game the week after entering concussion protocol. 

 

Same thing with the Achilles. The Bengals should be talking to Kevin Durant about his injury, and should probably have shut Burrow down until he was 100%. I'm fine with erring on the side of caution, even extreme caution, when there's an injury. But load management implies 'we're giving this guy the day off because we don't want to physically tax him too much,' and that's not something that's present in the NFL so far. At least not outside of preseason.

 

Ultimately, if you're talking about a fundamental shift with NFL players, that's an interesting discussion. But it's different from what I thought you were saying about managing Richardson's playing time. 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

No, the article gave examples of how some play calling is limiting Young's ability to improvise. Like calling a ton of screen plays, especially when they're not working, and then constantly saying 'we're really close, it's going to click any day now...' 

 

 

Yeah, that's an unnecessarily rigid view of offensive play calling, and it seems manufactured to allow you to keep advancing your opinion. 

 

If the LT gets beat right away, it's not necessarily a failure of play calling. If the primary read is a shallow crosser and it's open, but the DT is jumping as the QB winds up to throw, that's not a failed play call. And if the QB improvises to escape pressure, or pump fakes to manipulate the DT -- anything that's not part of the play call, but rather part of the QB's ability to create beyond the structure of the play call -- that's not an example of the player not doing his duties.

 

There's a reason offenses practice scramble drills, and it's not because the OC would rather let his QB improvise than improve his play calling.

 

 

Maybe the author is a bad writer. But I feel like the point was obvious, and you're ignoring it for your own reasons.

 

 

I think part of coaching involves leaning into the strengths of your players. If Young has a specific strength that's being handicapped by play calling, it's worth investigating. 

No, I'm not ignoring anything just to see it how I want. 

 

The LT failing is an execution problem.  I get that.  I never said it was the play call that failed.  I said the out of structure improvising is caused by a failed play....not a failed play CALL.  The structured play losing its structure causes the need to improvise.   The out-of-structure improvising is first created by a failed in-structure play...unless possibly the play being a one read and go...about 2.5 seconds worth of structure to the play to begin with..  And NO OC wants or intends a called play to lose its structure. 

 

The only thing you've cited to support the notion that ...play CALLING limits BY's improvisation....is too many screen passes.  I'll wager that if Frank calls 50% fewer screen passes from here on out, it won't impact BY's ability to outrun a sack and fling a strong pass and look like the player the pundits thought they saw in Alabama.  

 

I would say that its BYs current/rookie hesitance, non elite NFL quickness, and non elite NFL arm strength are the reasons why he is looking the way he is looking.  I'm sure that Frank would appreciate BY improvising successfully.  I doubt that Reich is stifling him, as the author suggests.

[krunk]

 

 

 

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

Or It could be coincidence but for Frank's 1st 4 years here 4 different  QBs had their best year or their best year in years year.  There could be other factors, but it's an unlikely series of happy accidents if that's the case. 

Other factors, like his last last three QBs aren't good enough to be in the NFL, and his current QB wasn't any better than Stetson Bennett in college.

[jvan1973]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Other factors, like his last last three QBs aren't good enough to be in the NFL, and his current QB wasn't any better than Stetson Bennett in college.

You actually think stetson bennett was a good as Bryce Young in college.   This may be your coup de grâce of bad takes.   Well done

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The LT failing is an execution problem.  I get that.  I never said it was the play call that failed.  I said the out of structure improvising is caused by a failed play....not a failed play CALL.

 

You actually did.

 

9 hours ago, DougDew said:

...

 

It praises QBs like Rogers and Mahomes for creating plays out of structure....IOW, when the play breaks down, they create on their own.  So, they get praise BECAUSE GB and KC called play that sucked, and they made lemonade out of lemons.

 

...

 

I guess Nathaniel Hackett and Eric Bienemy should be praised for "allowing" Rogers and Mahomes to take off and make something when their original play call failed.....and since AR and PM do that a lot, a lot of plays Hackett and Bienemy called must have sucked.

 

 

Quote

 

The structured play losing its structure causes the need to improvise.   The out-of-structure improvising is first created by a failed in-structure play...unless possibly the play being a one read and go...about 2.5 seconds worth of structure to the play to begin with..  And NO OC wants or intends a called play to lose its structure. 

 

 

This is getting pretty circular. The point is that a QB improvising doesn't mean there's a flaw in the play call or the offense. As stated earlier, there are a lots of reasons a QB might improvise on a given play, and some of them are unavoidable.

 

Quote

The only thing you've cited to support the notion that ...play CALLING limits BY's improvisation....is too many screen passes.  I'll wager that if Frank calls 50% fewer screen passes from here on out, it won't impact BY's ability to outrun a sack and fling a strong pass and look like the player the pundits thought they saw in Alabama.  

 

It wasn't meant to be comprehensive. The screen plays are an example of how play calling could be limited what's supposed to be one of Young's best traits. I focused on it because it's pretty obvious, especially since the link between play calling and improvisation seemed to be underappreciated in your initial analysis. There are lots of other ways that specific play calls can limit a QB's ability to improvise, but the screen plays should jump out at anyone. 

 

Quote

I would say that its BYs current/rookie hesitance, non elite NFL quickness, and non elite NFL arm strength are the reasons why he is looking the way he is looking.  I'm sure that Frank would appreciate BY improvising successfully.  I doubt that Reich is stifling him, as the author suggests.

 

This is where you clearly have made up your mind already, and I say that as someone who doesn't think Young has elite quickness or arm strength, and who thinks he looks hesitant on the field. But it seems to be important to you for Young to be the problem, and for Reich to be seen as doing a good job.

 

I think Young has some serious limitations, and it's not my argument that he should be allowed to improvise significantly more than he is so far. But I understand the logic of the article we're discussing. I also think Reich has tendencies that can be stifling to a QB. I also think he's mishandling the situation in Carolina, and the Thielen play call last week is just one glaring example. 

[DougDew]

41 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You actually did.

 

 

 

 

This is getting pretty circular. The point is that a QB improvising doesn't mean there's a flaw in the play call or the offense. As stated earlier, there are a lots of reasons a QB might improvise on a given play, and some of them are unavoidable.

 

 

It wasn't meant to be comprehensive. The screen plays are an example of how play calling could be limited what's supposed to be one of Young's best traits. I focused on it because it's pretty obvious, especially since the link between play calling and improvisation seemed to be underappreciated in your initial analysis. There are lots of other ways that specific play calls can limit a QB's ability to improvise, but the screen plays should jump out at anyone. 

 

 

This is where you clearly have made up your mind already, and I say that as someone who doesn't think Young has elite quickness or arm strength, and who thinks he looks hesitant on the field. But it seems to be important to you for Young to be the problem, and for Reich to be seen as doing a good job.

 

I think Young has some serious limitations, and it's not my argument that he should be allowed to improvise significantly more than he is so far. But I understand the logic of the article we're discussing. I also think Reich has tendencies that can be stifling to a QB. I also think he's mishandling the situation in Carolina, and the Thielen play call last week is just one glaring example. 

This isn't that complicated.  The author is wrong.  Frank's play calling cannot stifle BYs improvisation.

 

The definition of improvisation is when the performer doesn't have a script, or throws away the script.  What's in the script doesn't matter at that point.  The script is irrelevant.

 

The stifling of the improvisation is due to the performers own hesitance, confidence, talents, experience, etc.  Its dumb to blame it on the script writer.   

 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Frank's play calling cannot stifle BYs improvisation.

 

Yeah, hard disagree. See above.

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

Not trying to be a (insert here), but you really haven't listed any reasons why not to rest a QB.  You've got some ideas, but no real reasons.  Other than reps.  Which I can understand on some level.

 

But just consider the following.  (To be clear I am suggesting the possibility of healthy scratch a couple few times a year.)

 

1.  Other sports are doing load management in some form or fashion.  I can see someone saying there are 162 baseball games and 82 football and hockey games.  But to me the best comparison is Soccer.  From the MLS to the top of the table in the EPL, teams are resting guys regularly, sometimes even in "big" games.  Club teams usually play between 35-to 40 games a season depending on their performance in cup games and play about a month or so longer of a season.  So about twice the number of games.  But only about .7 more a week.  Soccer is a lot rougher than some Fooball only guys think, but yeah, no it's not American Football rough.  In this league I'd guess players get a game off at a minimum every 2 or 3 weeks and many players get subbed off late, though that is often strategical.  They often try to stagger this rest against weaker opponents or 

 

So if you consider this, then extrapolating over a 40 game season, at a minimum players get 5 or six games of rest.  That would equate to 2 or 3 games a season in football.  Point being, what makes football unique that players don't need rest.  

 

2.  Why does a player need to play all 17 to develop?  Is AR really going to be that much more developed if he plays 17 rather than 14?  It used to be conventional wisdom to sit a QB a whole season or more before he started.  Getting an couple of games off doesn't have to hurt his development IMO.  I still think there may be some value in sitting and watching at the NFL level.  I don't think it has to be an all or nothing.  I know this is the convention but is it necessarily ironclad gospel truth?

 

3.  CTE and other injuries to joints etc. are often chronic not or not only catastrophic in nature.  Achilles were being discussed yesterday.  Seems there are more.  We know that achilles tendonitis makes it more likely to blow an achilles.  It is smart to rest an achilles period let alone if you feel it a little.

The same applies with head injuries.  CTE and recurring concussions are often the result of repeated not necessarily catastrophic blows to the head.  It is also pretty much known a major part of the problem is not allowing it to heal completely.  We also know that we cannot yet detect full recovery or when damage is being done etc.  So why not take the guesswork our a bit and give a guy like ARs head a rest.

 

 

 

You say the goal this year is not necessarily wins but ARs development.  A completely rested body and head would be a good tool for development.  The sideline is a great classroom.  I don't think max games logically always indicates max learning.

 

Just something to think about. 

We've seen all manner of conventional wisdom being ignored in this and other sports.  

Experience  is the best teacher. It helps him get used to the wear and tear of a full season  while also learning  from how defenses play him. Can't learn that sitting. Ar's potential  is going to be dependent  on explosive  plays. 

[DougDew]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, hard disagree. See above.

I think BY is allowed to improvise if he quickly sees the called play isn't working.  In fact, that was his main attributes qualifying him as an NFL QB. 

 

Maybe the author is complaining about scheme:  That Frank doesn't have enough plays in his playbook that......by design, have only a 1.5 to 2 second structure after snap, and then its up to the QB to make something happen.  

 

That a modern day OC designs the structure of a play to simply get the play structure to end as soon as possible so the QB can improvise as soon as possible.   Yeah, call more of those plays I guess. 

 

 But, IMO, those "designed Improv plays".....the one-readers....., only work consistently when the QB has some sort of gifted athletic traits.

  

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 10/3/2023 at 11:13 AM, Indyfan4life said:

The fact we’re getting national media attention and Richardson is being praised constantly says something about the kid. Get JT back and another WR that can consistently get open, and this team is gonna be damn good on offense. 

ballard likes our wrs

[Nickster]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

@Nickster

 

I initially thought your point was specific to Richardson, as a strategy to protect him from himself and curb his recklessness. Now I see you're thinking much bigger than just one player and scenario. But to address your points...

 

1) Other sports are doing load management, but the physical toll from other sports is different than it is in the NFL. The NFL is very taxing physically, but games are once a week, the offseason is much longer than other sports, and you only play one side of the ball. To this point, load management has not been pioneered in the NFL, and I don't know that it's on the way, given the characteristics of the sport. That's not to say that it's a bad idea, but right now, it would be considered pretty radical.

 

2) I'm not one who thinks a QB must play right away. But I do think that once you hand it over to a young QB, it's likely to be detrimental to pull it away from him, so you don't do it unless it's absolutely necessary. And I think the main consideration about when to play a QB is if he can function in the offense, and protect himself. I don't agree with putting any arbitrary timeframe on his development and playing time, he doesn't have to sit for a year first, I don't care if he's the Week 1 starter or doesn't play until Week 10. Just judge when he's ready to go. But from that point forward, there's so much more to be learned and gained by having him on the field. I think this is true of most young players, but especially at QB.

 

And NFL QB has an outsized impact on the team's ability to win every week, so limiting your performance by benching your best option in the name of load management doesn't seem like a good strategy. I think Richardson's development is the primary factor, not wins, but I'm not interested in undermining the team's ability to compete in each game. (Now, in the Colts case, we can survive a game or two with Minshew, but I still don't think we should just sit our starting QB if he's healthy and ready to play.)

 

3) As for the concussions and other potential injuries, I'm fully in on that point. But that's only relevant if he's trying to recover from an injury. It's probably good practice to just automatically give a player a week off after a diagnosed concussion; I'm not sure we're there just yet, but so far this season, no player has played a game the week after entering concussion protocol. 

 

Same thing with the Achilles. The Bengals should be talking to Kevin Durant about his injury, and should probably have shut Burrow down until he was 100%. I'm fine with erring on the side of caution, even extreme caution, when there's an injury. But load management implies 'we're giving this guy the day off because we don't want to physically tax him too much,' and that's not something that's present in the NFL so far. At least not outside of preseason.

 

Ultimately, if you're talking about a fundamental shift with NFL players, that's an interesting discussion. But it's different from what I thought you were saying about managing Richardson's playing time. 

I part a little company on 3.  It’s pretty much accepted that CTe is repetition not necessarily injury injury.

 

sports are evolving.  I’d be surprised if within a few years if there aren’t guys taking healthy weeks off.  soccer plays once a week most weeks and they rotate out.

 

just cause it ain’t happened before doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.

 

also the trend in sports is headed in that direction.

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, Stephen said:

Experience  is the best teacher. It helps him get used to the wear and tear of a full season  while also learning  from how defenses play him. Can't learn that sitting. Ar's potential  is going to be dependent  on explosive  plays. 

Why can’t you learn from sitting?

[Stephen]

2 hours ago, Nickster said:

Why can’t you learn from sitting?

Because  he needs experience.  Can't  get that from sitting. Nobody learns from sitting. Rodgers and mahomes  were still working out on the side. In Richardson  case he looks good enough  to start and start he shall.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

I part a little company on 3.  It’s pretty much accepted that CTe is repetition not necessarily injury injury.

 

sports are evolving.  I’d be surprised if within a few years if there aren’t guys taking healthy weeks off.  soccer plays once a week most weeks and they rotate out.

 

just cause it ain’t happened before doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.

 

also the trend in sports is headed in that direction.

 

I'm not dismissing it because it hasn't happened before. But I do think it would be a radical and fundamental shift. And I don't see a team voluntarily "resting" their franchise level QB any time soon. I also don't see it as a developmental advantage.

[BeanDiasucci]

5 hours ago, Stephen said:

Because  he needs experience.  Can't  get that from sitting. Nobody learns from sitting.

Everybody learns from a combination of experience, studying (sitting), and observing others. Think of how education works and the training for almost any complicated job.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 hours ago, Stephen said:

Because  he needs experience.  Can't  get that from sitting. Nobody learns from sitting. Rodgers and mahomes  were still working out on the side. In Richardson  case he looks good enough  to start and start he shall.

I agree 100%. All sitting him would have done is set us back another year. You draft a QB 4th, you start him. It will make him better next season because of the experiences of playing in different situations. I never got the concept for a second he should not have started.

[Stephen]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree 100%. All sitting him would have done is set us back another year. You draft a QB 4th, you start him. It will make him better next season because of the experiences of playing in different situations. I never got the concept for a second he should not have started.

I agree only way he should  ride bench is if he looked like Curtis painter.

[Stephen]

47 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Everybody learns from a combination of experience, studying (sitting), and observing others. Think of how education works and the training for almost any complicated job.

 

The qbs that sit are usually  because  they can't  handle  the adversity  of being  in the fire right away. Richardson  has shown he can handle  adversity. You don't  sit a guy that shows that.

[BeanDiasucci]

37 minutes ago, Stephen said:

The qbs that sit are usually  because  they can't  handle  the adversity  of being  in the fire right away. Richardson  has shown he can handle  adversity. You don't  sit a guy that shows that.

OK. I don't think anybody is saying at this point that he shouldn't be playing. I just disagree with the argument that he can't learn anything outside of actually playing in a game. Richardson is learning all week every week. If the Colts were to reduce his playing time (I'm not saying they should), he would still keep learning and developing. 

[Stephen]

8 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

OK. I don't think anybody is saying at this point that he shouldn't be playing. I just disagree with the argument that he can't learn anything outside of actually playing in a game. Richardson is learning all week every week. If the Colts were to reduce his playing time (I'm not saying they should), he would still keep learning and developing. 

Mentally yes, but some guys that sit regress physically  as they don't  get any reps. Now if they are working  with somebody off to the side to improve  their flaws that is different. I think there advantages to playing them early so you know if you have the right guy or not and can cut your losses  if they aren't, but if they are sitting  most of rookie contract you run the risk of having to pay them a second contract  without  knowing  if they can play.