It's not just the Panthers... the NFL sucks at developing young QBs "it's a systemic problem"

[LinvilleGorge]

Some of this also falls on football geek coaches who pride themselves on the complexity of their systems. It's like a badge of honor to be running the most complex, hard to grasp system. Why? Your job isn't to put more bullshit on the plate of your players it's to help put them in the best situation to succeed. Instead of sitting around trying to figure out how to add additional layers of complexity they should be sitting around trying to figure out how can I accomplish the same thing more simply? Do I really need all this verbiage or can I accomplish the same thing with less? The simpler you can make it for the players on the field the higher the chances are for success.

[Tr3ach]

All that said, qb in the NFL is a very hard job.   Some guys who were good in college just won't make it in the NFL no matter how much "development" you put in to them.   I don't think there will ever be a time in the NFL where 32 teams have a really good qb.  If you can't find 32 really good ones in the world then there is a really good chance that a lot of qbs coming from college just won't pan out.

[Waldo]

The college level is no longer producing to the standards that makes it worth calling it a feeder league anymore. Just make an NFL developmental league for guys below the 3 year HS cutoff and tell the NCAA to kick rocks. The QBs that are good enough for that level vs the NFL is getting comically bad. If the NFL can't develop guys who played at that level for 3 years in less than 2 years then it's just a failed system at this point. Pay everyone a minimum and the schools couldn't compete, guys would have plenty of money to pay for their own tuition. 

[Brooklyn 3.0]

Haven't watched the video (I will). Haven't read the thread yet (I will).

But if you think about it, soccer has youth camps and leagues. Baseball has little league all the way up to the minors. Basketball has summer leagues and the G League. I'm sure hockey has camps. All football really has for serious training is high school ball. The in college, the "best" QBs come from stacked teams. I get that football is a physical game and you can't have kids out there after school every day. It just seems the nature of the beast. We can count on just two hands the truly without a shadow of a doubt elite QBs in the entire history of the NFL. IMO it's not an NFL problem ... to quote John Fox, it is what it is.

[rayzor]

Some will be good and even great. Most will not, regardless of where they are drafted.

You really can't tell how good or bad a QB is until you've given them a chance to develop. 

I say i don't think Bryce will ever be a good one, but he hasn't had a good chance to develop so while it's unlikely he will ever be good until he has a chance to sit back and learn and be mentored we won't know 100%.

 

[strato]

It's the chicken of the egg with him. Or maybe the chicken with no eggs. 

[L-TownCat]

1 hour ago, strato said:

It takes time. Brady was talking about the colleges dropping the ball.

NFL has too long relied on college. MLB has the minors, and college. In the minors the organization can set up a consistent approach at each level which you don't get in college.

The push for athletic QBs has really changed things too. If a guy can run around and over people and throw a decent pass then you want him to touch the ball every play even if he can't read coverages.

Each part of this is interesting.

1) College has adapted to simplifying the game to accommodate the athletes cycling thru without needing to teach them basically anything.  The NFL has not adjusted to this nor do they have the ability.

2) I’ve often thought a D-league equivalent would boost the quality of the product on the field.  Just not sure how the NFL can make it an “earner” and if it don’t make dollars it don’t make sense.

3) The QB evolution has had a profound impact on the game.  Gone are the days of statuesque QBs standing in the pocket reading coverages.  It’s now more about either one read and go, or keep the play alive until coverage breaks down.

[HardcoreHokie]

1 hour ago, Newtcase said:

It has to start with being an outlier athlete first though.  You can’t coach size and speed into someone.

 

 

This.

When did the NFL start letting guys just pass on the combine tests?

If they forced Bryce to run the 40, bench press, vertical jump, etc there’s no way he goes #1.

Seeing him get buried benching 135 and running a 5.1 forty would kill that idea.

[CRA]

I think the Cam-ish window is where so many teams just started pulling from college and letting these guys do what they like and are good at.  Because if you take a lot of the talented guys.....they can help a NFL team pretty quick if you cater do what they do well. 

The RPO/zone read/etc.   Heck, you even see the impact in non-youngsters.....a lot of talk of why Massage Watson went from good to garbage as a QB.  Well, Houston literally went to Clemson and learned the Clemson O.  And now at the Browns, he was asked to do something else.  

[strato]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Brady is wrong. College coaches' jobs are to win college football games not develop NFL players. For the past couple of decades the college game has been the driver of innovation in the game. The new "pro style offense" is basically a college offense with additional layers of complexity. It's a lot more similar to a college offense than the traditional pro style offense.

They want the easy path. That's what this stuff is. No one is placing enough of a premium on traditional QB play, so they don't worry about it.

'This play is designed to go to this guy. If he isn't open run around until he is, or just take off and get what you can.' sums it up.

[strato]

3 minutes ago, L-TownCat said:

Each part of this is interesting.

1) College has adapted to simplifying the game to accommodate the athletes cycling thru without needing to teach them basically anything.  The NFL has not adjusted to this nor do they have the ability.

2) I’ve often thought a D-league equivalent would boost the quality of the product on the field.  Just not sure how the NFL can make it an “earner” and if it don’t make dollars it don’t make sense.

3) The QB evolution has had a profound impact on the game.  Gone are the days of statuesque QBs standing in the pocket reading coverages.  It’s now more about either one read and go, or keep the play alive until coverage breaks down.

Great minds.... I just basically posted that same thing.

And yeah. I think NFL Europe was what they should have kept going. Warner, Jake, and probably others came through those teams. 

It gives them the global presence they have such a hard on for but keeps the talent here where it belongs.

Edited November 1 by strato

[Tbe]

Brady is right about college not developing players the same way anymore.

The nfl won’t really develop players until they stop firing coaches after one or two bad seasons (talking to you Tepper).

As long as coaches are losing their jobs when they don’t ’win now’, player development will never happen.

[L-TownCat]

2 minutes ago, strato said:

Great minds.... I just basically posted that same thing.

And yeah. I think NFL Europe was what they should have kept going. Warner, Jake, and probably others came through those teams. 

It gives them the global presence they have such a hard on for but keeps the talent here where it belongs.

Yeah I was going off of your post.

[LinvilleGorge]

18 minutes ago, strato said:

They want the easy path. That's what this stuff is. No one is placing enough of a premium on traditional QB play, so they don't worry about it.

'This play is designed to go to this guy. If he isn't open run around until he is, or just take off and get what you can.' sums it up.

Is it working on the college field? If yes, then that's the extent of the responsibility of the college coach. Period. Putting NFL development on college football coaches is lazy. That's not their job. You have to develop your own players or you have to adapt your systems to work with the talent you're getting. We're seeing more and more of the latter and less and less of the former.