Jump to content

Ex-Bucs GM on How To Manage Rookie QB's


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Stonehands said:

David Carr is also an example of "you either got it or you don't" because he has spent more time in his career sitting than anyone in history and has gotten no better.   Or, is sitting only the magic elixir if you do it at the very beginning of your career?  Just silly.  You need to play.

He was ruined before he did any "sitting."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

NY isn't Tampa. 2 people cover Tampa. A lot more goes into being a NFL QB than the onfield stuff. 

I think it's very dependent on mechanics and the system that is being run.  For example, the transition from the Air Raid to the West Coast to a drastic change because one system relies heavily on tim

Every player is different, and requires a different approach. It's stupid to suggest there's just one way, no matter which way you advocate for. Mark Dominik is stupid.

5 hours ago, dbatesman said:

The primary benefit of sitting a QB is that it provides an evidentiary vacuum that the fanbase can fill with hope that the guy will be good someday. Every week Hackenberg holds a clipboard is another week Maccagnan is guaranteed to have a job.

Worked with Glennon.  Let him start enough in place of Freeman to give people hope and then bench him for McCown so that people are so filled with hope they are mad that we didn't trade a second for him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Of course this is self-evidently true. People act like 'let him sit for a year' is a Plan A and that starting right away or not is somehow a matter of philosophy with regard to development or such nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that the guy holding the clipboard is way behind the guy who's playing and falling even farther back. It's like the ridiculous idea that Sanchez was somehow going to catch up after starting far fewer games in college than the quarterbacks who turned out to be successful did. 

my classic line  Clippy's are for skippy's lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

Mark Dominik, representing an organization that let Doug Williams walk,  traded Steve Young and is currently letting Glennon ride the bench. 

None of which Dominik was responsible for if I recall.  What he was responsible for was drafting future all-pro Mike Glennon, might want to show a little respect one might think...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

None of which Dominik was responsible for if I recall.  What he was responsible for was drafting future all-pro Mike Glennon, might want to show a little respect one might think...

Its not hard to recall that. I said "representing an organization that...", not that he was responsible for it. I think you just didnt properly comprehend what I was saying. Trust me, I respect Dominik. He's the GM that Glennon actually got to played under his rookie season and wasnt bullsh*tted out of playing time because of politics like: "he's not my guy" and "I didnt bring him in or draft him" (Lovie "Jackass" Smith). 

Thats why I left the "Glennon on the bench" part for last. Not only do I respect Dominik, but I was indirectly giving him props based on the fact that the guy he allowed Glennon to play and show promise. Yet this "organization" still has Glennon on the bench...even when they could have traded him in order to get another possible weapon for their current starter. So you can even see the stupidity in how they're currently dealing with the QB roster. 

 

He represented the team that did that nonsense, not that he was responsible for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Its not hard to recall that. I said "representing an organization that...", not that he was responsible for it. I think you just didnt properly comprehend what I was saying. 

No, what you said was simply irrelevant.  Akin to saying "Macc, who represents a team who traded away Namath".  Yeah, and?

50 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Trust me, I respect Dominik. He's the GM that Glennon actually got to played under his rookie season and wasnt bullsh*tted out of playing time because of politics like: "he's not my guy" and "I didnt bring him in or draft him" (Lovie "Jackass" Smith). 

So do you agree with him that rookie QB's should sit only briefly (if at all) then play, i.e. should Hack start Game 4 this year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Warfish said:

No, what you said was simply irrelevant.  Akin to saying "Macc, who represents a team who traded away Namath".  Yeah, and?

So do you agree with him that rookie QB's should sit only briefly (if at all) then play, i.e. should Hack start Game 4 this year?

The Jets got a SB first and then traded Namath after his knees were finished. And I dont "recall" Namath getting rings anywhere else as well as going into the HOF representing the team that he was traded to. So how the hell is that Akin? 

But anyway, it could just be Irrelevant to you. Then again...who are you to me? (Then I proceed to shrug my shoulders.)

 

Nope, I dont fully agree with him. Kirk Cousins is a good example of this. Kirk has the talent, but at the time he was a 4th round pick for a reason. He needed multiple years AND half of last season before he got it going. Scouts dont get it wrong all the time. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Warfish said:

Mark Dominik, who famously drafted Mike Glennon amongst others, said today on NFL radio that he thinks rookie QB's can play right away, and they "either have it or they don't".  he likes the idea of sitting QB's for "a few weeks" then playing them, and they'll either sink or swim, but not be "ruined' by being started sooner rather than later.  Made arguments related to the 4-5 year rookie contracts, and the "clock ticking" on these picks.  Said this worked with Glennon.

Thoughts?

He famously drafted Glennon? The dude was a 3rd round pick. It was pretty under the radar

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

David Carr is the perfect example of drafting a QB in the 1st round and then not building around him. Charley Casserly totally neglected the OLine for the next 3 years.

At the other end of the spectrum, look what the Raiders are doing with his brother. Solidifying the OLine and giving him weapons to throw to.

Raiders will be the surprise team in the AFC this year and then for years to come. They are building a very solid football team.

Everybody and their mother is saying the Raiders will be the surprise team of the AFC.  To me that means they're not a surprise

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Warfish said:

No, what you said was simply irrelevant.  Akin to saying "Macc, who represents a team who traded away Namath".  Yeah, and?

So do you agree with him that rookie QB's should sit only briefly (if at all) then play, i.e. should Hack start Game 4 this year?

Why do we assume all QBs fit a cookie cutter mold?  Why can't one QB need 4 weeks, another 10 weeks, another can start from day 1????

What's the point in any of this when it comes to Hackenberg?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Dominik, who famously drafted Mike Glennon amongst others, said today on NFL radio that he thinks rookie QB's can play right away, and they "either have it or they don't".  he likes the idea of sitting QB's for "a few weeks" then playing them, and they'll either sink or swim, but not be "ruined' by being started sooner rather than later.  Made arguments related to the 4-5 year rookie contracts, and the "clock ticking" on these picks.  Said this worked with Glennon.

Thoughts?

I heard the show, admittedly while working, I thought he attributed the 'either have it or they don't' comment/mentality to someone else, no? Anyway, I think his point was that a QB that has it will play through the bad times and emerge OK, but as others said I don't thonk you can make a blanket statement. It depends on the QB and his mental makeup. The point I think that needs to be added to all of these QB conversations is that there are really 2 types of 1st round QBs - there isn't a Manning, Luck, etc. every year. Those guys are different. They're going to be who they are no matter what. I think some round 1 QBs need more grooming to maximize and speed their maturation.

Warfish if these young QB's have the right pieces in place there's no reason they can't step in if they have a good grasp of the play book and the smarts to learn NFL defenses on the fly.
David Carr went to a team with a horrid O-Line and a crappy offense over all. In that case NO you don't bring him in but if you bring in a Rookie on an established offense that's well balanced I see no reason why you can't bring them in.

Look at the Denver Broncos they have a lot of talent on offense no reason a rookie cant come in and grow with that team if you ease them in. The Defense will keep them in games so its probably the perfect place to do it. Will be interesting to see if they Go with Sanchez or Lynch

I think it depends on what's around them.  If they have no talent around them, and they are going to take a beating, they can be ruined.

David Carr.  No O line, took a beating and was ruined.   Tim Couch possibly the same thing.

Put them in a situation like Big Ben, or even Sanchez.   Good running game, good D.  Peyton Manning had Marvin Harrison and Marshal Faulk.   They don't have to try to carry the load.

 

Dominik was actually making a different point - he was saying, you get the QB first, throw him in there and build around him - he takes his lumps year 1 but is improving as the team is improving around him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Anyone can play worse in a bad system and then fail to get better until entering one better suited for his success. It is not limited to rookies. 

Even if it could somewhat ruin someone, the rate of incidence is negligible. The only ones who get truly ruined are those who get the piss beat out of them so much that they hear footsteps that aren't there and it becomes psychological like any phobia.

Anyway I think it appears this way a lot just simply because most QB prospects were going to be bad anyway, and allegedly rushing them onto the field early provides a nice scapegoat reason.

It's hard to tell because in most cases head coaches and OC are tied to their QBs for so long that they go down together.  And it's such a QB league that if a QB does well, it's rare for the system to be changed  to find out if he would do good or not.  And if a QB struggles for 3 years, it's rare for them to get an opportunity.

For example, I think someone like Brady was helped out a lot by sitting the first year, because he wasn't ready to be an NFL QB.  But he mastered the system and got stronger.  

I think the biggest building block for QBs are talent around them.  If they have studs to throw to (Cooper in Oakland, Robinson with Jags, Hilton with Luck, or even Watkins with Tyrod) then their jobs become so much easier.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SayNoToDMC said:

Mark Dominik? John Idzik and Mike Tannenbaum are still working in the NFL.

My thoughts are who gives a sh*t what Mark Dominik thinks?

Dominick has been awesome on Sirius NFL.  Gm's live or die based on the QB's they draft. Josh Freeman was the nail in his coffin. I believe he will get another shot at GM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next we need to hear from Matt Millen on building a team and WR drafting strategy

Even Joe Montana was groomed, he played early but sparingly, as Walsh built his confidence, putting him in situations to succeed, Montana's book provides a good read on this subject, I think it was just a chapter but it was insightfull

They all have the physical skills (hence getting drafted),  I think it comes down to decision making and confidence, some start out with better vision and more confidence and start right away (agree that is preferred) but some need time and that's ok too since once they start to doubt themselves, it's over.  (I think teams/coaches can ruin careers by putting these kids in no-win situations and breaking their confidence)

I also think the new CBA has ruined camp and the preseason, does not seem like  there is enough working time to get the players ready

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, win4ever said:

It's hard to tell because in most cases head coaches and OC are tied to their QBs for so long that they go down together.  And it's such a QB league that if a QB does well, it's rare for the system to be changed  to find out if he would do good or not.  And if a QB struggles for 3 years, it's rare for them to get an opportunity.

For example, I think someone like Brady was helped out a lot by sitting the first year, because he wasn't ready to be an NFL QB.  But he mastered the system and got stronger.  

I think the biggest building block for QBs are talent around them.  If they have studs to throw to (Cooper in Oakland, Robinson with Jags, Hilton with Luck, or even Watkins with Tyrod) then their jobs become so much easier.  

No doubt, and further if a QB is taken late (or later), he gets 1 shot only & then they usually dump him & move on (unless they literally have no other warm bodies to use). 

I'm not saying sitting has no benefit. I just don't think it ruins a QB forever unless he gets totally screwed up psychologically (Carr being the example everyone uses, where he just couldn't stand in the pocket comfortably anymore, and can you even blame him?). But other than that, bad habits can get unlearned. It's just easier to unlearn them without a live pass rush or game pressure.

Totally agree on wepponz making the transition so much easier. They won't make him into a good QB in actuality, but it can help mask a lot of things, and they get so many more do-overs without the team, coaches, media, and fans getting on their cases. In fact, many fans will interpret these bailouts and preferential settings as good QB play (like with recent Jets QBs, Sanchez and Fitzpatrick), to the extent they get on the rest of the team for any situation less than ideal (i.e. the defense let up 25 points -- how's anyone expected to dig out of that hole?).

I think we have such a favorable surrounding for a young QB in the upcoming season or two at least. Even if we're not winning the games, what an edge for a young QB to have Marshall-Decker as the 1-2 punch at receiver, plus whoever else steps up around them at WR or TE/H-back, plus a QB-friendly RB like Forte/Powell back there to block or be a reliable checkdown outlet, plus an OL that should be at least average. Win or lose - but especially if we lose - I'd hate to waste that on a "bridge" QB for more than a month or two.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

I can see this being the case if Hackenberg was a top 5 pick but he wasnt

I'm in favor of having him sit for at least 4 weeks of the season. However, if he balls out in camp and in pre-season I can see him getting the start over Smith if Fitz is not back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Why do we assume all QBs fit a cookie cutter mold?

Who is "we"?  I'm not assuming that.  Nor did Dominik.

9 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

 Why can't one QB need 4 weeks, another 10 weeks, another can start from day 1????

They can.

9 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

What's the point in any of this when it comes to Hackenberg?

The discussion on NFL Network was about high-draft Rookie QB's on teams with QB needs and when the right time is for them to play.

Hack is a high-draft Rookie QB on a team with QB needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, afosomf said:

Dominick has been awesome on Sirius NFL.  Gm's live or die based on the QB's they draft. Josh Freeman was the nail in his coffin. I believe he will get another shot at GM

I'm sure another owner would be simply delighted to have Mark Dominik trade away a 1st and a 4th (potentially a 1st and a 3rd)  for a one-year rental of an expensive Cornerback.  

Dominik was a bad GM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Stonehands said:

To think, the next Johnny Unitas was probably frittered away when he was forced to play too soon.....just silly.

Johnny Unitas failed in his first attempts.  Was on Pittsburg and was cut.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, afosomf said:

Dominick has been awesome on Sirius NFL.  Gm's live or die based on the QB's they draft. Josh Freeman was the nail in his coffin. I believe he will get another shot at GM

As we can see by the dominant roster he assembled in TB.  If only he hadnt picked Freeman. :rolleyes:

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how some justify that because he did a lackluster job as GM, that means his take on anything football is invalid compared to yours. Because following up your high school football stint with a career working for Bridgestone Tires makes you way more qualified given all the draft blogs you read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

According to many here, Fitzpatrick is about as bad of a QB as you can have, and he threw 33, so I see no reason why Geno won't throw at least 40 this year, with a much improved receiving running game, and anything at the TE position, the huge upgrade that is Geno over Fitz that we are going to get is going to translate to at least 40 TD's this year, with last years schedule and this team, might have been 60.

I've literally never see anyone say this.  I think you're exaggerating a bit. But if you did extrapolate Geno's #'s from the Raiders game:

4,240 yards, 32 TD's, 16 INT's, 63.4 completion %.  Which is better than Fitz and would have been good for a top 10 finish and the Jets probably make the playoffs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I love how some justify that because he did a lackluster job as GM, that means his take on anything football is invalid compared to yours. Because following up your high school football stint with a career working for Bridgestone Tires makes you way more qualified. 

There really is no such thing as all season tires, Geno sucks, you really need to be buying 'all weather' fires Hackenburg is already shot, or winter tires.  Make sure you rotate and balance as well.  Geno sucks.  To test your tire tread Darron Lee is a lilliputian, make sure you insert a dime into the tread, Lynch will be dynamite in Denver, if the dime is above the tread you need new tire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

The discussion on NFL Network was about high-draft Rookie QB's on teams with QB needs and when the right time is for them to play.

Hack is a high-draft Rookie QB on a team with QB needs.

This would've been more relevant if the Jets took Lynch at #20, even if he's seen as a project of sorts, too. 

Taking Hackenberg at #51 gives them a lot more leeway. This is a kid who really did not put up good numbers in school, with his band of excuse makers blaming his coaching and the talent around him. Maybe there's some validity to that, too. I certainly hope so. This is also a kid who's been sacked 100 times. Just seems like the exact type of project that you wrap up in bubble-wrap. Correct his bad habits, immerse him in the offense, and let him marinate for a while off the field. I'd prefer that be a whole year, but could understand if they gave him some live action towards the end of the season if the playoffs are out of reach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

There really is no such thing as all season tires, Geno sucks, you really need to be buying 'all weather' fires Hackenburg is already shot, or winter tires.  Make sure you rotate and balance as well.  Geno sucks.  To test your tire tread Darron Lee is a lilliputian, make sure you insert a dime into the tread, Lynch will be dynamite in Denver, if the dime is above the tread you need new tire.

Walterfootball agrees with me! Take that mathletes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JiF said:

I've literally never see anyone say this.  I think you're exaggerating a bit. But if you did extrapolate Geno's #'s from the Raiders game:

4,240 yards, 32 TD's, 16 INT's, 63.4 completion %.  Which is better than Fitz and would have been good for a top 10 finish and the Jets probably make the playoffs. 

48 sacks for 304 yards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JiF said:

I've literally never see anyone say this.  I think you're exaggerating a bit. But if you did extrapolate Geno's #'s from the Raiders game:

4,240 yards, 32 TD's, 16 INT's, 63.4 completion %.  Which is better than Fitz and would have been good for a top 10 finish and the Jets probably make the playoffs. 

Seems very reasonable, I think Geno should do that or better this year now that he is matured, and we having RB receiving threats and another year in the system. I think we should start discussing the contract we have to offer Geno next offseason because he will be a free agent after this year, and when he puts up numbers like that, he is going to want a lot of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JiF said:

If you extrapolate Geno's #'s from the Raiders game:

4,240 yards, 32 TD's, 16 INT's, 63.4 completion %.  Which is better than Fitz and would have been good for a top 10 finish and the Jets probably make the playoffs. 

Totally legit.  Greatest single season in Jets history was a lock.

Probably not just the playoffs too, but a Super Bowl Title.  What was Bowles thinking, right?

Well, at least we've set our expectations floor for 2016 now, thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No doubt, and further if a QB is taken late (or later), he gets 1 shot only & then they usually dump him & move on (unless they literally have no other warm bodies to use). 

I'm not saying sitting has no benefit. I just don't think it ruins a QB forever unless he gets totally screwed up psychologically (Carr being the example everyone uses, where he just couldn't stand in the pocket comfortably anymore, and can you even blame him?). But other than that, bad habits can get unlearned. It's just easier to unlearn them without a live pass rush or game pressure.

Totally agree on wepponz making the transition so much easier. They won't make him into a good QB in actuality, but it can help mask a lot of things, and they get so many more do-overs without the team, coaches, media, and fans getting on their cases. In fact, many fans will interpret these bailouts and preferential settings as good QB play (like with recent Jets QBs, Sanchez and Fitzpatrick), to the extent they get on the rest of the team for any situation less than ideal (i.e. the defense let up 25 points -- how's anyone expected to dig out of that hole?).

I think we have such a favorable surrounding for a young QB in the upcoming season or two at least. Even if we're not winning the games, what an edge for a young QB to have Marshall-Decker as the 1-2 punch at receiver, plus whoever else steps up around them at WR or TE/H-back, plus a QB-friendly RB like Forte/Powell back there to block or be a reliable checkdown outlet, plus an OL that should be at least average. Win or lose - but especially if we lose - I'd hate to waste that on a "bridge" QB for more than a month or two.

Yeah, and after the first failure, it's usually a team with no support system and a dearth of talent at QB that picks up the player, so the same thing repeats itself most times.  

I think QBs can be saved, but it's seldom we see it happen.  If a team has a good team around the QB position, they usually go for more certain options instead of the risks (ala why both Denver and Jets passed on RGIII even though he offered the most upside) because they would rather be good than take the chance of being great at the risk of being horrible.  I think in most cases, guys sitting have to do with adjustments and learning the systems because all the way down to high school level, these kids are running spread offenses.  And these offenses are based on mismatches.   All these spread teams recruit high speed guys, and bet that their 4 or 5 speedy WRs can beat the defense's 4 or 5 speedy CBs because the offense has the advantage in knowing where the ball is going.  It doesn't work quite as well in the NFL because you can't just recruit like that, and the defense is just as fast anyway.   So they have to rely on more time proved strategies to learn QB skills, read defenses, get the timing down, etc

I don't want to equate it to Madden, but I think the transitional level thinking applies.  Playing beginners and people that aren't that good, you ca go 5 wide, shotgun, spread out the offense and call similar plays and get away with it.  You can run a very limited playbook based on spread formations that the defense can't adjust to, rinse and repeat.  As the players you face get tougher, you can't do this anymore, and now you have to see how the defense is shading, if the guy blitzes on certain downs from certain spots, different coverage packages, where the LBs are going, etc.  It's obviously not the same as the NFL, but there is a change in philosophy.  Although, I hate using Madden examples because it's a video game, and people find loopholes in the system, like putting Dez Bryant at TE a few years ago, or going with a Wide 9 defense that blitzes everyone with man coverage on the outside.   I just think the idea of having easy repeatable play-calling to actually thinking out there is a drastic change that mirrors real life in some cases.   

Yeah, weapons are always the best for a QB because it completely changes the way a defense approaches the game.  If they know there is Brandon Marshall out there, they are going out of their way to focus attention on him, leaving Decker with a good matchup or the TE or the 3rd WR.  Getting Cooper was probably the best thing that happened to Derrick Carr in Oakland, since he's a match-up nightmare.  So is Allen Robinson, just opens up so many different avenues.  The Jets went completely away from protecting their QBs with talent, and once Holmes got injured, we were basically running guys who were couch potatoes the week before.  I think that's what they are trying to do with the Browns now, just draft as many WRs as possible, hope 1 or 2 hit, and then have those weapons for a QB they pick in the future (although I have no idea why they didn't pick Doctson).   

I think we were an ideal situation for a QB to come and revive his career.  I actually thought we would sign RGIII because there is a decent line (The line is susceptible, but Ferguson was horrible last year, so as long as Clady stays healthy, it should be an upgrade), very good WR core, good RB that can catch out of the backfield.  

Link to post
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.




×
×
  • Create New...