The "draft and groom future QB, sign a vet to start for 2 yrs" plan

[rayzor]

when was the last time it worked for a team that was in our current situation?

seriously think of an example of a team that had a horrible QB situation with a new head coach rebuild quickly by signing a vet at the same time as drafting a QB (in any round), sat that QB for two years while they made the playoffs with the vet they signed, and then enjoyed consistent success when their rookie QB was "groomed" enough to play up to an acceptable standard.

agreed. we'd be seeing it a lot more if the plan was worth a crap, but we aren't because it is.

only way we should be sitting an early draft pick is if there is an old starter already entrenched in the role (like favre/rodgers), but that isn't our situation.

Anyway Philip Rivers probably qualifies

Miami made the playoffs following 1-15 with Pennington.

this kind of shows the fail of the plan. they might just be going with henne again next year and ideally they would have had pennington finish his second season there, but he got hurt in that 3rd game and missed the rest of the season...not that he was doing all that great prior to that game. still...if they are going after another QB next season, then that means it took 3 years to find out that the QB they had didn't work and it could have taken four and might end up taking four if they try him out again. now they have to start all over again. so what are they going to do? bring in another vet QB and draft another project, sit the draftee while letting the vet play 1-2 more years and then give the draftee another 2-3 years to figure out if he can't do the job. and if he can't do the job, then they have to start the whole process all over resulting in what could be 9 years of futility and not getting any closer to your franchise QB.

sorry, but i fail to see much benefit from this.

if your serious about getting a franchise, you draft him where most of them are found....in the first round...and then you get him in the game as early as possible. you put in a safe game plan/offense for him (lots of running, 35+ times per game, lots of safe high percentage throws) and let your QB learn how to play the game at it's highest level while playing. trust your coaches do their job and coach and help him improve each week, letting him learn from his mistakes and letting him put what he learns to correct those mistakes into practice each week.

let him build chemistry with the guys he's supposed to be playing with and the Oline that's supposed to be blocking for him for years.

drafting a QB in the first round that is a bust only puts you behind 1-2 years, where as doing it the way the dolphins did puts you behind 5-6 years at least.

Their "QB of the future" didn't exactly work out but then again every QB from that draft was basically useless crap.

like matt ryan and joe flacco are crap? lol. you might be thinking about '07 or '02. every year has a chance of being a bust year or a goldmine like '04. you don't actually know until you see how they play, though. you aren't going to know ahead of time who is going to bust or blow up.

here's a similar plan from the vikings to the one i described

in 2006 new head coach Brad Childress and the Vikings drafted a marginally talented prospect in Tarvaris Jackson and kept Brad Johnson who was signed a year earlier to start as the "proven vet" while Jackson learned all the complexities of the NFL

Johnson didn't get them to the playoffs, Jackson started as a rookie, and never really looked like a franchise QB until they said fug it, signed Brett Favre, made it to the NFCC in 2009, and then half a season later Childress was fired and now QB is arguably the Vikings' biggest need

sounds like a great 5 year plan you guys have

good example.

So if you draft a terrible QB to be your future starter then eventually you'll realize that he is actually indeed terrible and have to get someone else?

I know there's a point to this thread I'm just not sure what it is.

it's the whole idea of drafting a 2-3 year project who will sit behind a older vet that you bring in while the project QB learns the ropes from the sidelines. it doesn't work. we should be avoiding that, but it keeps on getting discussed like its somekind of tried and true plan..

Why are you guys so confused? What's so hard to understand? He's against the complete packaged deal of signing a vet, pick a QB at 1 and then sitting the first overall pick. I agree, the plan is outdated. If we draft a QB at 1, we'll start him.

agreed. get him in the game as soon as possible.

[frash.exe]

The point is simple and kind of dumb. we get it.

I would be shocked if we didn't sign a veteran QB

why is it kind of dumb

explain, consider the counterpoints to your argument, provide concrete evidence to support your points or gtfo of this thread

[frash.exe]

He's saying don't draft Cam, a taller version of Tarvaris Jackson?

Tyrod Taylor is this year's Tarvaris Jackson

[frash.exe]

- Hype Cam Newton

- Trade Down

- Draft BPA

- Sign Vet QB

So if Von Miller's the BPA do we take him?

[mav1234]

So if Von Miller's the BPA do we take him?

will make it easier when we won't pay TD or JA!

[frash.exe]

yet alotta posters reference Rodgers as reason to have our rookie QB sit despite more evidence of the contrary in recent years.

Aaron Rodgers was drafted by GB the year after Favre posted a >90 QB rating. Now i'm sure they had some more pressing needs at the time where I don't have to go back and look at who else they could've been scouting

but if you suggested when Jake was here and the QB position was somewhat stable to draft a QB early you would've gotten ridiculed here

The packers kept rodgers on the bench because they had the luxury that Brett could still play at a high level and had his iconic reputation in Green Bay. that was the only reason Rodgers sat on the bench. At some point we had that luxury, but now we don't. If Favre retired after the 2005 draft because he's just been oh so distraught after throwing 4 picks against the Vikings in the playoffs guess who's much more likely to start as a rookie

[Snake]

Aaron Rodgers was drafted by GB the year after Favre posted a >90 QB rating. Now i'm sure they had some more pressing needs at the time where I don't have to go back and look at who else they could've been scouting

but if you suggested when Jake was here and the QB position was somewhat stable to draft a QB early you would've gotten ridiculed here

The packers kept rodgers on the bench because they had the luxury that Brett could still play at a high level and had his iconic reputation in Green Bay. that was the only reason Rodgers sat on the bench. At some point we had that luxury, but now we don't. If Favre retired after the 2005 draft because he's just been oh so distraught after throwing 4 picks against the Vikings in the playoffs guess who's much more likely to start as a rookie

I agree. Seems people liked Fox more then they let on because they want to do exactly what he did. My question is what QB did we ever develope under Fox using that method?

The cream always rises to the top no matter what situation there in.

[Happy Panther]

why is it kind of dumb

explain, consider the counterpoints to your argument, provide concrete evidence to support your points or gtfo of this thread

Well its dumb, first of all, because its so specific

seriously think of an example of a team that had a horrible QB situation with a new head coach rebuild quickly by signing a vet at the same time as drafting a QB

How many teams over the past decade have had a QB as bad as Clausen with an exiting head coach. Any? If none then there couldn't be any examples you are looking for.

However, I gave you one example of Rivers who sat behind Brees (a veteran) for exactly 2 years and is now top 5 QBs in the league if not the best.

The idea that a QB can develop on the bench is obvious and simple.

So yeah your whole argument is dumb.

[Happy Panther]

Why are you guys so confused? What's so hard to understand? He's against the complete packaged deal of signing a vet, pick a QB at 1 and then sitting the first overall pick. I agree, the plan is outdated. If we draft a QB at 1, we'll start him.

We are unique in that we really have 0 starting QBs right now. So just drafting Cam newton and starting him day 1 (or even worse he can't beat out Clausen!) could be disastrous.

We know Clausen isn't ready, and Newton is the wildcard.

You don't identify QB as your biggest need and then just hope the next rookie can handle it, especially when that rookie might be a spread QB who needs months if not a season to transition to the NFL pocket game.

If we don't have a veteran on the roster get ready for another season of suck

[frash.exe]

Well its dumb, first of all, because its so specific

However, I gave you one example of Rivers who sat behind Brees (a veteran) for exactly 2 years and is now top 5 QBs in the league if not the best.

So yeah your whole argument is dumb.

happy panther, like every single fuging year there's at least one team that hires a new head coach and has no QBs that played good the year before. The fact that most of them to begin with don't follow your completely simple 2 point plan to try to fix a complex problem should nudge you in the right direction, and how you're sticking by this example that doesn't even meet the whole criteria shows how desperate you are just to hold on to this stupid point. Fine, your stupid example is valid. It's still one fuging successful example so far in the last ten years. Your perspective on this is 2% less myopic, and anybody who's logically sound and has been a fan of the NFL for more than 6 months can see the transparency behind your freshman philosophy

The idea that a QB can develop on the bench is obvious and simple

it's a general idea with no practical application in our situation. these are complex situations. you just think getting an older player you think is going to just waltz right in and give you an automatic 3000 yards while a younger QB you want to start a few years down the road learns the playbook is the perfect solution. This is pretty much the layman's go-to solution. Most NFL fans think the same way when they consider a situation like this. It's the most tangibly sensible approach. that doesn't make it the right approach.

How many teams over the past decade have had a QB as bad as Clausen with an exiting head coach. Any? If none then there couldn't be any examples you are looking for.

i didn't say they had to be as bad as clausen i said they had to walk in to a horrible situation at the QB position. Walking into a HC job with Troy Smith and Kyle Boller as your two options is pretty horrible, and if you're going to argue the opposite you're a dumb motherfuger. So is going into a job with Chris Redman, DJ Shockley, Byron Leftwich, and Joey Harrington. Brett Ratliff, Kellen Clemens and Erik Ainge were terrible options for Rex Ryan. By the time Spags came into St Louis, Bulger was pretty much worthless and there was nothing beside him. Still Spags retained him and went 1-15 so how much does having a vet really help? Sam Bradford outperformed him and gave the Rams more stability as a rookie than Bulger could offer a year prior. They could be a force for years to come, but Bulger couldn't get them to win immediately just like any mediocre free agent QB you can think of probably won't do the same for us.

If we don't have a veteran on the roster get ready for another season of suck

with or without a veteran QB there's a good chance we're going to suck this year

[panthers55]

Why would I be in favor of acquiring a vet and Newton in the draft. Injuries. Especially if we go to an 18 game season. In 2008 Jake stayed relatively healthy but before that it was 2005 and no quarterback has started all 16 games since 2008. We need 2 starters who can both play so when the inevitable injuries hit we won't take a nosedive like we did with Weinke in 2006 and in 2007 when Jake got hurt.

I don't ascribe to the idea that the vet should start while the young guys sit unless he is the best of the 3. I say bring in as many guys as we can to fix the problem and let the chips fall where they may.

[The Saltman]

lol @ people thinking if we sign a vet we will all of a sudden be good. We are in rebuilding mode and anybody can say what they want but we are rebuilding. We are just lucky to not have as many holes as most rebuilding teams do.

[Happy Panther]

happy panther, like every single fuging year there's at least one team that hires a new head coach and has no QBs that played good the year before. The fact that most of them to begin with don't follow your completely simple 2 point plan to try to fix a complex problem should nudge you in the right direction, and how you're sticking by this example that doesn't even meet the whole criteria shows how desperate you are just to hold on to this stupid point. Fine, your stupid example is valid. It's still one fuging successful example so far in the last ten years. Your perspective on this is 2% less myopic, and anybody who's logically sound and has been a fan of the NFL for more than 6 months can see the transparency behind your freshman philosophy

it's a general idea with no practical application in our situation. these are complex situations. you just think getting an older player you think is going to just waltz right in and give you an automatic 3000 yards while a younger QB you want to start a few years down the road learns the playbook is the perfect solution. This is pretty much the layman's go-to solution. Most NFL fans think the same way when they consider a situation like this. It's the most tangibly sensible approach. that doesn't make it the right approach.

i didn't say they had to be as bad as clausen i said they had to walk in to a horrible situation at the QB position. Walking into a HC job with Troy Smith and Kyle Boller as your two options is pretty horrible, and if you're going to argue the opposite you're a dumb motherfuger. So is going into a job with Chris Redman, DJ Shockley, Byron Leftwich, and Joey Harrington. Brett Ratliff, Kellen Clemens and Erik Ainge were terrible options for Rex Ryan. By the time Spags came into St Louis, Bulger was pretty much worthless and there was nothing beside him. Still Spags retained him and went 1-15 so how much does having a vet really help? Sam Bradford outperformed him and gave the Rams more stability as a rookie than Bulger could offer a year prior. They could be a force for years to come, but Bulger couldn't get them to win immediately just like any mediocre free agent QB you can think of probably won't do the same for us.

with or without a veteran QB there's a good chance we're going to suck this year

you have gone from dumb to aggressively dumb

[Happy Panther]

Why would I be in favor of acquiring a vet and Newton in the draft. Injuries. Especially if we go to an 18 game season. In 2008 Jake stayed relatively healthy but before that it was 2005 and no quarterback has started all 16 games since 2008. We need 2 starters who can both play so when the inevitable injuries hit we won't take a nosedive like we did with Weinke in 2006 and in 2007 when Jake got hurt.

I don't ascribe to the idea that the vet should start while the young guys sit unless he is the best of the 3. I say bring in as many guys as we can to fix the problem and let the chips fall where they may.

Exactly. We gotta have 2 NFL QBs and right now we have 0.

Unless we are going after a superstar vet, which we aren't, we need to find a way to get at least 2 more QBs on the roster who have a legitimate shot at competing for a job.