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!

     

If you believe QBs need to sit in order to be successful, you're basically a retard.

SmootsDaddy89

By SmootsDaddy89,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

Our head coach thinks they should.

well, ideally I would like for Carolina to have a Peyton Manning....draft a future stud and hand over the keys when he already has everything down pat after 3 years.....that ain't reality in the NFL though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

No doubt. That is why neither side can say with any certainty that the other is wrong/right.

You just start him when he is ready to go.

There are guys that are ready to start right out of the gate, but any coach who throws a young QB out there is taking a chance. If he's not one of those guys, you've essentially ruined the guy that the team spent a high pick on. And who knows if he might have been successful had you been patient?

The trend these days is to start early, but a lot of those "early starters" that people cite as evidence have been decent to good, but really haven't proven to be elite yet.

Everybody likes to talk Roethlisberger, but they gloss over that Roethlisberger stunk in 2 of 3 Super Bowl appearances (his team won the first, but he was lousy). And of course there's the Mannings, but unless there's another Manning brother out there, I don't really think you want to make that comparison.

I'd always prefer to sit a rookie QB for at least one year just to get him adjusted to the pro game. Beyond that it's the coach's discretion whether he's ready or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

All rookie QBs would benefit from sitting. Not all benefit from playing right away.

you also can also put a pointless delay on their career and impact on your franchise.

What if Atlanta sat Ryan for 2-3 years......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
teeray Rookie

teeray

Posted
Posted

There are guys that are ready to start right out of the gate, but any coach who throws a young QB out there is taking a chance. If he's not one of those guys, you've essentially ruined the guy that the team spent a high pick on. And who knows if he might have been successful had you been patient?

The trend these days is to start early, but a lot of those "early starters" that people cite as evidence have been decent to good, but really haven't proven to be elite yet.

Everybody likes to talk Roethlisberger, but they gloss over that Roethlisberger stunk in 2 of 3 Super Bowl appearances (his team won the first, but he was lousy). And of course there's the Mannings, but unless there's another Manning brother out there, I don't really think you want to make that comparison.

I'd always prefer to sit a rookie QB for at least one year just to get him adjusted to the pro game. Beyond that it's the coach's discretion whether he's ready or not.

And I agree with you Scot.

In regards to Roethlisberger I am a lot less concerned with what he did in the Super Bowl than what he did to get his teams to the Super Bowl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carolina Husker Newbie

Carolina Husker

Posted
Posted

To me, we cannot be worse at QB in 2011 than we were in 2010. If Cam is on the roster, he starts from Day 1. Clausen is the worst QB in the league, and even a rookie QB with no experience, flawed mechanics and running a new system will be better than Clausen in year two.

As long as Cam's psyche isn't shattered in the first year (and he's already proven he's as mentally tough as any QB in this draft), it's better to get those growing pains out of the way as early as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Real Emotional Trash Newbie

Real Emotional Trash

Posted
Posted

I think retard is a strong word to use because of course that isn't true, but I find it hard to deny the benefits of being able to sit and learn. QBs have a 1-3 year window in which to prove themselves. There are exceptions to this rule (Alex Smith), but if enough flashes of brilliance are shown, then you become a regular starting QB for a team for a good chunk of years.

Being able to sit and understand the offense, your teammates, and the speed of the NFL, really benefits more than being a rookie and looking like garbage your first and/or second year. Perception is reality in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperLego5 Newbie

SuperLego5

Posted
Posted

I am just under the personal opinion that great players aren't made from sitting on the bench..they either have it or they don't..no amount of sitting on the bench is going to magically turn them into something they are not. I really don't think QBs sit because they should..they sit because someone better(perceived) is in front of them.

You're right right, great players aren't made sitting on the bench but they can be ruined by playing them before they are ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

And I agree with you Scot.

In regards to Roethlisberger I am a lot less concerned with what he did in the Super Bowl than what he did to get his teams to the Super Bowl

It's the Steelers. They got to the Super Bowl with Neil O'Donnell and made the playoffs with Kordell Stewart. One thing I've learned from experience is that success in Pittsburgh doesn't always translate to success elsewhere (one reason I was never on the Cowher bandwagon).

The thing about Roethlisberger? At heart he's really more of a game manager, which is all you have to be in that system. A good number of plays he makes are essentially attributable to his being hard to bring down and/or lousy tackling (which is sadly rampant today). If teams did a better job tackling him or if DBs would stay on their coverage rather than breaking off when it looked like he was getting sacked, half those plays wouldn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
Posted

I just don't understand how some people think that sitting a rookie QB doesn't help them in the long run at all...

he gets time to adjust to the pro game

he gets to learn the playbook

he isn't getting broken by blitzers every other play.

A franchise QB is a long term investment. Just because you don't see immediate dividends right away by sitting him doesn't mean his stock isn't growing while he is on the bench.

there have only been a handful of QBs that have had success as rookies, and that is only a recent trend. the truth is, the majority of Pro bowl QBs have sat the bench for an extended amount of time before they became starters.

it's science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmootsDaddy89 Enthusiast

SmootsDaddy89

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You post that quarterbacks don't need to sit to be successful, and then support your argument by posting examples of two quarterbacks who were successful after sitting? :sosp:

Wouldn't it have made more sense to cite Flacco, Sanchez or Bradford?

And to be clear, no other position is the same as quarterback. Suggesting that a quarterback can start on day one because runningbacks and defensive ends can imakes no sense at all.

Because my post would have been "because Flacco, Ryan, and Bradford." and that's it.

It's much more effective to dismantle the opposing person's argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...