Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

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

rayzor

By rayzor,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tr3ach Grand Master

Tr3ach

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waldo Grand Master

Waldo

Posted
Posted

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. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brooklyn 3.0 Grand Master

Brooklyn 3.0

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L-TownCat Grand Master

L-TownCat

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HardcoreHokie Mentor

HardcoreHokie

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
strato Grand Master

strato

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
strato Grand Master

strato

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by strato
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L-TownCat Grand Master

L-TownCat

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • SmokinwithWilly
      Dan Morgan is an awful GM

      By SmokinwithWilly · Posted

      1) Signed 2 high profile guards to big contracts. Did we need guards? Yes. But there's a reason you draft guards and pay tackles. It's easier to find solid guards in the draft. Now we have the most expensive line in the league and still can't get 100 yards passing before halftime.  2) Traded up to get a RB when we didn't really need one. Chuba is one of the better RBs in the league right now and while it is a contract year, we had a crap ton of holes all over. Brooks was a luxury pick we didn't have the luxury to make. 3)Spending a small fortune to build a supporting cast for BY. Bryce didn't even put the work in himself during the offseason by his own admission. We didn't need to build an offense specifically for BY. We brought in DJ and drafted XL. These guys need a QB with a live arm. That's not BY. Speed kills but not when your QB can't legitimately make an accurate, deep ball strike without putting a ton of air under it and floating it.  4. Not looking for a true center. There were several available and it's been a position of need for years. We could have had our choice but we rolled with Corbitt, who did look good at the spot, but had an injury bug that struck again this year.  5) He didn't bring in any serious competition for Bryce. Now you can say that BY needs time to develop and we needed to show we had faith in him, blah blah blah. But the simple matter of fact is Bryce looked like a PS QB last year, Andy has one foot in the QB grave, and there was never an attempt to actually compete for the job. If he genuinely believed that BY was going to magically make it all come together watching YT and chillin for 4 months to unplug, then there's nothing else that needs to be said.  The goal of every GM should be to build a winning team. Players are commodities and loyalty leads you to an early walk out the door. We've tried to build a system to work around the most limited QB in NFL history. 60 years of history should have told him it was never going to work. And benching BY after 2 games is the real truth, he never should have been starting anyway. And either Dan should have known that as the great MLB that he was after watching BY's game tape, or someone else is making the call and Dan is just rubberstamping that decision.  Either way, doesn't matter. We're screwed because we've devoted 2 years of resources to build around a player that didn't put in the work in the off season after one of the worst NFL QB seasons ever. 
    • BrianS
      Offensive Starters (Where are they found in the draft)

      By BrianS · Posted

      Something I find interesting is that you are more likely to find successful players as UDFA's than you are to find them with a single pick in any round past 3.  Those 3rd round compensatory choices?  Largely worthless.  Yes, I get it, there are a lot more UDFA's than there are drafted players in later rounds.  Basically, if you're fishing for starters you are simply not going to find anything in Rounds 4 - 7 with any regularity.
    • CRA
      Dan Morgan is an awful GM

      By CRA · Posted

      the argument that Dan Morgan was assistant GM for years while running counter to everything both his bosses signed off on (who look down at him and his staff for info).....is a tough sell.  I feel we do a variant of this every year.  You aren't this bad...becuase of 1 person.  You are this bad because of LOTS of bad people.  It was never just Joe Brady.  Which is why firing him didn't lead to better offense.  It was never just Matt Rhule.  It was never just Fitterer.    As bad as we are, we need to scorch Earth this puppy and quit letting people who were part of making the mess be the designed folks to lead us out of the mess.  when David Tepper and Jim Caldwell found the answer on the roster......it was clear from the jump nothing had really changed.   
×
×
  • Create New...