Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Thank you. And I totally agree with the highlighted point there. Unfortunately these statements come from coaches who lost. Look at Alex Smith at San Fran for example. Mike Nolan and Mike Singletary both spent years with Alex Smith, with Singletary even saying on record referring to Alex Smith "You just can't win without a good quarterback". Whats funny is that I've never seen Mike Nolan or Mike Singletary hold another head coach position in the league. Meanwhile, Jim Harbaugh came in and had 2 productive years with Smith, traded him, then had productive years with Kaepernick after him. Since Smith was coached by Harbaugh he's never had a year where he's thrown more than 7 INT's and completed less than 60% of his passes in a season. Thats a 4 year stretch from a guy labeled a bust by head coaches that have not found another head coaching job since. Mind you, Alex Smith's current coach Andy Reid is another guy who has found success with pretty much every QB he's had. (McNabb, Vick, Foles, Garcia, Kolb and now Smith) Seems to be a trend here. Yes and no. Smith is yet another great example of how a player - who has the ability to be good - isn't permanently ruined by starting him too soon,by putting him in a bad situation too early, or perhaps by receiving poor QB training upon coming into the league. He got better with better coaching, but he was already a non-bust before Harbaugh got there. To suggest otherwise is akin to believing there's no such thing as player busts at QB and there are only coaching busts at QB. Sometimes a QB is just Ryan Lindley. Or Brady Quinn, Matt Flynn, Chad Henne, Brian Brohm, and any number of guys who were once thought to have a far higher ceiling. They can get somewhat better or worse in ideal vs terrible conditions, but they're just never going to be good starters no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 This is precisely what he's doing and saying. That the awful Ryan Lindley was a better QB who gave them a better chance of winning. aye, yet the thread was started to bash rex.. the t0mshane effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 aye, yet the thread was started to bash rex.. the t0mshane effect Rex bashing stuff is fine and doesn't bother me. He's the Bills HC. With any luck he goes 0-16 with a player revolt, and Buffalo still has to keep him on because of that contract. But the idea is fine - if not necessary - for some players but not with others. But in this thread Arians is already getting credit in advance for developing Thomas when he's done nothing of the sort. What he did was bench a terrible QB and dress it up as something more. In the future he may or may not develop. But we didn't throw Kevin O'Connell in there as soon as he was acquired, and he wasn't thrown in there right away in NE before that either. It's being portrayed as some fail-proof formula when it's nothing of the sort. There have been a bunch of QBs mentioned in this thread already that - inadvertently - show that a QB isn't permanently damaged by being used too early. I'm sympathetic to Villain's POV that teams give up on players too early now, but I think that's as much a function of roster size and makeup as impatience. When a team drafts a QB high, they don't typically have a good starter on the roster already. A situation like the Packers drafting Rodgers in round 1 when Favre still had multiple pro bowl years left in him is almost never done. First round picks are where you hope to get an instant-starter, not a project to ride the pine for years. In the face of team failure, such a draft pick (in the short term) gets a GM fired and his coaches with him. If you have a good QB situation you're not likely to draft a QB high. If you have a bad one, you're more likely to draft one VERY high and have few (if any) options at your disposal other than using him right away. It's why I thought Fitzpatrick was such a good pickup. Worst case scenario, he can be used all season long and there's no pressure to force-feed another unready or sucky QB onto the team. A rookie (or Geno) beating him means an actual current NFL starter was beaten out, not Kellen Clemens, Mark Brunell, Tim Tebow, Greg McElroy, Matt Simms, Brady Quinn... But permanently ruining? It could happen I'm sure, particularly if one's unready and develops bad habits because of a very poor OL, but it's not the norm. Meanwhile Alex Smith was beaten to sh*t and had his own coach dump on him publicly. He ended up fine, and started to become so even under that lousy, soon-fired coach who did that public badmouthing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Yes and no. Smith is yet another great example of how a player - who has the ability to be good - isn't permanently ruined by starting him too soon,by putting him in a bad situation too early, or perhaps by receiving poor QB training upon coming into the league. He got better with better coaching, but he was already a non-bust before Harbaugh got there. To suggest otherwise is akin to believing there's no such thing as player busts at QB and there are only coaching busts at QB. Sometimes a QB is just Ryan Lindley. Or Brady Quinn, Matt Flynn, Chad Henne, Brian Brohm, and any number of guys who were once thought to have a far higher ceiling. They can get somewhat better or worse in ideal vs terrible conditions, but they're just never going to be good starters no matter what. This is true, but at the same time you have to believe that there have been QB's that have either fell through the cracks or even some current QB's that are riding the bench that would win football games and be solid. More often than not many QB's are just thrown into the Brady Quinn, Brian Brohm category when alot of times they simply had poor coaching or was simply in a bad system. I watched Kurt Warner light up the league for years with the Rams, then go to the Giants in a system that didnt compliment him and people thought that the guy was washed up and done, only for him to land in Arizona and prove that though he may be a system QB, but man how good could he be in the right system. Honestly, this is why I thought that Bowles was so smart hiring a guy like Chan Gailey given his history. Yes, I may contradict myself screaming for Mike Glennon all the time, but if we stick with Geno Smith I believe it will be the coaching and system that will bring out the most in Geno and he could establish a career. My point with Alex Smith was that he simply needed a Jim Harbaugh. He may have removed the "bust" label from his name before Harbaugh got there but all of his professional accolades/achievements only came after he got with Harbaugh. I honestly believe that there's something to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't disagree at all. I just think that Arians is getting extra smarts credit for his wording of why Thomas wasn't used rather than the true reason. It's his candy-coated way of saying Thomas was even worse than Ryan Lindley. If he thought Thomas could even be as good as rookie-Sanchez or rookie-Geno level he'd have used him over Lindley. They were the #1 seed and he isn't a favorite to be so again. If he pissed away the #1 seed in mid-December just in case an otherwise useful Thomas might get shellshocked, by starting as little as 1 football game, then it speaks to more than just some philosophy about using young QBs. It means his decision was easy because Thomas was just that bad, not because he didn't want to risk ruining him by letting him start a game in either week 16 or 17. Also there's a good chance the whole Cardinals team (not just Arians and the coaches) knew Thomas wasn't ready/worthy of the starting job. Though the specifics are different, it's a little like the Jets with Tebow when it was obvious Sanchez needed to be pulled. Sure, Arians didn't want an 11-3 team to blame Thomas for ruining their season, but he also didn't want them to blame him for using his pet QB. There's no reason to doubt he made the right decision (even though they failed with Lindley), but the way he put it is as much PR as it is coaching and developing. This is probably true. I'll go as far to say that its most likely true. However, I did say that Logan Thomas was a TE just 5 years ago. He's very much the developmental project. My point here is the fact that he protected that talent. Yes, his excuse could very well be what you assume, but its also based on the fact that he is a project. Logan isn't ready yet. I'll totally give kudos to a guy who doesnt wish upon a star but instead will put his best option on the field, albeit not the most popular one. No matter the reason, the guy did something that alot of coaches wont do, but when he does it the excuses come around. And I'm not saying that some of the excuses dont have some merit. I think your reasoning is sound, but sometimes the best thing you can say to that is "okay". In a day and age where coaches will play anyone the media/fans cry for, to have a guy willing to proceed with a process and not interrupt it for whatever reason is refreshing. And maybe its because I liked Logan Thomas and David Fales coming out of college, but to see what Arians has done the past couple years, I dont think Logan Thomas could even ask for a better situation. And as a side note, David Fales should be starting over Jay Cutler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Rex bashing stuff is fine and doesn't bother me. He's the Bills HC. With any luck he goes 0-16 with a player revolt, and Buffalo still has to keep him on because of that contract. But the idea is fine - if not necessary - for some players but not with others. But in this thread Arians is already getting credit in advance for developing Thomas when he's done nothing of the sort. What he did was bench a terrible QB and dress it up as something more. In the future he may or may not develop. But we didn't throw Kevin O'Connell in there as soon as he was acquired, and he wasn't thrown in there right away in NE before that either. It's being portrayed as some fail-proof formula when it's nothing of the sort. Yeah, I agree with that as well. Just thought it was funny someone took something out of context and used it as a leaping point to bash rex for ruining sanchez and geno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Rex bashing stuff is fine and doesn't bother me. He's the Bills HC. With any luck he goes 0-16 with a player revolt, and Buffalo still has to keep him on because of that contract. But the idea is fine - if not necessary - for some players but not with others. But in this thread Arians is already getting credit in advance for developing Thomas when he's done nothing of the sort. What he did was bench a terrible QB and dress it up as something more. In the future he may or may not develop. But we didn't throw Kevin O'Connell in there as soon as he was acquired, and he wasn't thrown in there right away in NE before that either. It's being portrayed as some fail-proof formula when it's nothing of the sort. There have been a bunch of QBs mentioned in this thread already that - inadvertently - show that a QB isn't permanently damaged by being used too early. I'm sympathetic to Villain's POV that teams give up on players too early now, but I think that's as much a function of roster size and makeup as impatience. When a team drafts a QB high, they don't typically have a good starter on the roster already. A situation like the Packers drafting Rodgers in round 1 when Favre still had multiple pro bowl years left in him is almost never done. First round picks are where you hope to get an instant-starter, not a project to ride the pine for years. In the face of team failure, such a draft pick (in the short term) gets a GM fired and his coaches with him. If you have a good QB situation you're not likely to draft a QB high. If you have a bad one, you're more likely to draft one VERY high and have few (if any) options at your disposal other than using him right away. It's why I thought Fitzpatrick was such a good pickup. Worst case scenario, he can be used all season long and there's no pressure to force-feed another unready or sucky QB onto the team. A rookie (or Geno) beating him means an actual current NFL starter was beaten out, not Kellen Clemens, Mark Brunell, Tim Tebow, Greg McElroy, Matt Simms, Brady Quinn... But permanently ruining? It could happen I'm sure, particularly if one's unready and develops bad habits because of a very poor OL, but it's not the norm. Meanwhile Alex Smith was beaten to sh*t and had his own coach dump on him publicly. He ended up fine, and started to become so even under that lousy, soon-fired coach who did that public badmouthing. I think it depends as much as mental makeup as anything. resilient guys will weather the growing pains. more immature players will wither and die. personally do you want a QB that can't handle some adversity? i don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 This is true, but at the same time you have to believe that there have been QB's that have either fell through the cracks or even some current QB's that are riding the bench that would win football games and be solid. More often than not many QB's are just thrown into the Brady Quinn, Brian Brohm category when alot of times they simply had poor coaching or was simply in a bad system. I watched Kurt Warner light up the league for years with the Rams, then go to the Giants in a system that didnt compliment him and people thought that the guy was washed up and done, only for him to land in Arizona and prove that though he may be a system QB, but man how good could he be in the right system. Honestly, this is why I thought that Bowles was so smart hiring a guy like Chan Gailey given his history. Yes, I may contradict myself screaming for Mike Glennon all the time, but if we stick with Geno Smith I believe it will be the coaching and system that will bring out the most in Geno and he could establish a career. My point with Alex Smith was that he simply needed a Jim Harbaugh. He may have removed the "bust" label from his name before Harbaugh got there but all of his professional accolades/achievements only came after he got with Harbaugh. I honestly believe that there's something to that. Warner had an injury and wasn't right physically when he was with the Giants. It wasn't poor coaching or a poor system. And Smith didn't simply need Jim Harbaugh. He needed time (and he needed to stay on the field). His most recent football he was riding an 8:1 TD:INT ratio over his last half dozen games the year before. Would have been more if he wasn't injured. And no one is accusing Mike Singletary or Jimmy Raye of being a QB Whisperer. I have little doubt Harbaugh was a HUGE positive influence, but part of those accolades and achievements were because the rest of the team was good as well. And to your original point (or what I thought was your original point), some guys just need more time to develop. For some it's 1-3 years. For others it can take longer. When one falls into the latter category, it's understandable when a team moves on. Because most of the time they're right to have moved on. If it was all about patience and taking time and learning under a good QB then why wasn't Jim Sorgi an eventual success? It's because he isn't good enough. He sucks because he sucks. Some players are like that. Many players, in fact. But it's not all or none, as there are degrees of sucking. Some give you just enough of a tease to make you waste more time on them. Some will eventually get it after a long time but most won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I think it depends as much as mental makeup as anything. resilient guys will weather the growing pains. more immature players will wither and die. personally do you want a QB that can't handle some adversity? i don't think so. Couldn't agree more. Gannon is a great example. Warner is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 This is probably true. I'll go as far to say that its most likely true. However, I did say that Logan Thomas was a TE just 5 years ago. He's very much the developmental project. My point here is the fact that he protected that talent. Yes, his excuse could very well be what you assume, but its also based on the fact that he is a project. Logan isn't ready yet. I'll totally give kudos to a guy who doesnt wish upon a star but instead will put his best option on the field, albeit not the most popular one. No matter the reason, the guy did something that alot of coaches wont do, but when he does it the excuses come around. And I'm not saying that some of the excuses dont have some merit. I think your reasoning is sound, but sometimes the best thing you can say to that is "okay". In a day and age where coaches will play anyone the media/fans cry for, to have a guy willing to proceed with a process and not interrupt it for whatever reason is refreshing. And maybe its because I liked Logan Thomas and David Fales coming out of college, but to see what Arians has done the past couple years, I dont think Logan Thomas could even ask for a better situation. And as a side note, David Fales should be starting over Jay Cutler. His neck of the woods doesn't exactly have our media frenzy either. Their beat writers actually like the team. This fluff piece is a prime example of it. Here he'd have gotten slaughtered for throwing an 11-3 season down the drain for his precious pet QB. Never mind they know perfectly well it means as a rookie - even late in his rookie season - Thomas was likely worse than Tim Tebow. Like I mentioned, Arians DID try out Thomas earlier in the season. He probably considered it a success that he didn't get his head separated from his body. Smith and Sanchez were FAR superior QBs as rookies, unready as each was in his own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Yeah, I agree with that as well. Just thought it was funny someone took something out of context and used it as a leaping point to bash rex for ruining sanchez and geno How come Jets QBs can apparently get ruined so quickly/easily, but Alex Smith, Kurt Warner, and others couldn't? Those guys had a LOT more reason to claim being permanently ruined. I mean the level of adversity and the poor foundation wasn't even close. Sanchez in particular, since he was on a team that could have (and perhaps should have) been a superbowl winner - or even a superbowl loser - with a better QB. His presence required perfection from all other units (not unlike Pennington in this regard). He still made some great throws here and there --it's not like he had no physical talent or couldn't throw a football. He seems too stupid and just has poor instincts, but if he isn't, and it's just immaturity and that he needs more than 5 years not 1-2, he might be the type that gets it in his early 30s if his body holds up (which it should, on the bench lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.