Sitting a rookie QB down a few weeks doesn't matter.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

Not going to get into our usual back and forth about things that we kind of agree on.  Just pointing out the one thing I do not agree with.  

You have a QB signed for 4 years.   The 5th year option is around $20M.  You have to lock yourself in for that after the 3rd season.  Meaning the Jets have to decide now about whether to lock up Wilson.  Not that hard, but have him sit his first season and it becomes quite a bit murkier. 

The alternative is the Giants way.  Decline the option and see how he does.  At that point, if he is decent, you have to decide between a huge extension or the tag.  The tag is sub-optimal because it is only for one year and you get into that whole Kirk Cousins/Washington thing.  

The real monkey wrench is the constant changes in coaching.  It is fairly easy with someone established - like Pittsburgh, Baltimore or Green Bay.  With places like NY, Cleveland and Arizona you are evaluating guys who are trying to learn while the coaching carousel spins madly around them

The QB is being paid regardless... There is no reason to rush development because of some perceived deadline. 

Love just disproved this idea

 

[#27TheDominator]

8 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I think the Giants are a bad example, because literally only they thought that Jones extension deal was a good deal.  No one outside their building thought that was the way to handle things lol.  Don't rely on extreme outliers when forming general policy IMO.

 

I don't agree.  They aren't an extreme outlier.  They declined his option and figured at a minimum they could franchise him.  Then they were damned by their own success, making the playoffs and being forced to lock up both Barkley and Jones which was like 70% of their offense.  It was worst case.  Do well in contract year, get hurt/blow the following year.  That being said, IMO as GM, my job is to plan for worst case scenarios.

[Warfish]

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Not going to get into our usual back and forth about things that we kind of agree on.  Just pointing out the one thing I do not agree with.

Understood 👍

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You have a QB signed for 4 years.   The 5th year option is around $20M.  You have to lock yourself in for that after the 3rd season.  Meaning the Jets have to decide now about whether to lock up Wilson.  Not that hard, but have him sit his first season and it becomes quite a bit murkier.

The alternative is the Giants way.  Decline the option and see how he does.  At that point, if he is decent, you have to decide between a huge extension or the tag.  The tag is sub-optimal because it is only for one year and you get into that whole Kirk Cousins/Washington thing.  

Hmmm, maybe.  Honestly, if by the end of year 3 you don't think the guy is legit....he almost assuredly isn't.  Sitting year 1, in some cases, I don't think meaningfully changes that, you'd still have all of years 2 and 3 to see him play.  More than enough time.  Part of the problem is too many people fall to hopes and dreams instead of cold hard results, and think "their guy" can still come around if they suck years 1, 2 and/or 3.

But if a GM is truly on the fence after 3 years, spending $20 mil. for a 5th year might be worth it in those rare truly unsure cases, gives you two more years to see.  You still have the tag to keep that guy while you negotiate as needed, but really you should know before the end of year 5 one way or the other.  If you're being smart and not failing to fantasy what if's and misguided hopes.

The Cousins thing is a bit more complex that that.

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

The real monkey wrench is the constant changes in coaching.  It is fairly easy with someone established - like Pittsburgh, Baltimore or Green Bay.  With places like NY, Cleveland and Arizona you are evaluating guys who are trying to learn while the coaching carousel spins madly around them.

Agreed, evaluation of a young QB over say, 3 years, if you have 3 different Coaches and two different GM's becomes vastly harder, but if that's the case, your franchise also has much bigger problems lol.  I'd go you one further, far too many teams get cute with O-Co's and change them, often trying to suit the young QB, but I think that's also a mistake.  Org. should aim for consistency in GM, Head Coach, O-Co and top-draft-pick QB over those first three seasons as much as possible.    

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

The QB is being paid regardless... There is no reason to rush development because of some perceived deadline. 

Love just disproved this idea

 

I will believe what Love proved in another couple of seasons.  It is fine to say that "it worked" because you have a pick sitting behind a HOF QB that had an MVP season one of those years.  Sit him behind a 2021 Flacco or 2018 Josh McCown and tell me "it worked."  Having a QB is easy.  When you have a QB.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I don't agree.  They aren't an extreme outlier.  They declined his option and figured at a minimum they could franchise him.  Then they were damned by their own success, making the playoffs and being forced to lock up both Barkley and Jones which was like 70% of their offense.  It was worst case.  Do well in contract year, get hurt/blow the following year.  That being said, IMO as GM, my job is to plan for worst case scenarios.

Daniel Jones is not the Packers methodology

 

Daniel Jones played right away

They changed gms and the head coach during his development window

They changed the offensive coordinator/ philosophy 4 times in his first 4 years. 

Daniel Jones was very pedestrian in year 4. There was no reason to lock yourself in which was self inflicted by rushing the process 

 

 

 

 

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Understood 👍

Hmmm, maybe.  Honestly, if by the end of year 3 you don't think the guy is legit....he almost assuredly isn't.  Sitting year 1, in some cases, I don't think meaningfully changes that, you'd still have all of years 2 and 3 to see him play.  More than enough time.

But if it isn't, spending $20 mil. for a 5th year might be worth it in those rare truly unsure cases.  You still have the tag to keep that guy while you negotiate as needed, but really you should know before the end of year 5 one way or the other.  If you're being smart and not failing to fantasy what if's and misguided hopes.

The Cousins thing is a bit more complex that that.

Agreed, evaluation of a young QB over say, 3 years, if you have 3 different Coaches and two different GM's becomes vastly harder, but if that's the case, your franchise also has much bigger problems lol.  I'd go you one further, far too many teams get cute with O-Co's and change them, often trying to suit the young QB, but I think that's also a mistake.  Org. should aim for consistency in GM, Head Coach, O-Co and top-draft-pick QB over those first three seasons as much as possible.    

A lot I agree with here and some minor things that disagree with me that I could quibble with.  That juice isn't worth the squeeze, but I will say this...

The one thing to truly wonder about is what they learn about these kids in practice.  Teams should have a pretty good idea what they have.  Much more than the fans do.  I think that in the past some of these starts were handed out in an attempt to appease the fans that the young QB is coming along and best option over the aging squid.  Thing is with the new practice rules and all the red jersey sh*t I am not so sure that teams can be as sure about these kids as they used to be without seeing them in actual game action.  It is something I truly wonder about.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I will believe what Love proved in another couple of seasons.  It is fine to say that "it worked" because you have a pick sitting behind a HOF QB that had an MVP season one of those years.  Sit him behind a 2021 Flacco or 2018 Josh McCown and tell me "it worked."  Having a QB is easy.  When you have a QB.

The point is that the Packers still have him under a cost control contract because they didn't rush the process because of a perceived deadline 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

Love is getting paid 13 million this year. He's ufa in 25. Even then they could still franchise him for one more year if they still weren't sure. Hes wouldn't be ufa until 2026

Its a self inflicted pressure to rush the QB development process because of an arbitrary timeline that is self imposed. Its a weird philosophy regardless because generally speaking the QB is getting paid a lot no matter the context 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

14 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I will believe what Love proved in another couple of seasons.  It is fine to say that "it worked" because you have a pick sitting behind a HOF QB that had an MVP season one of those years.  Sit him behind a 2021 Flacco or 2018 Josh McCown and tell me "it worked."  Having a QB is easy.  When you have a QB.

The jets have a great QB. They also have a window to take a great prospect and do exactly what the Packers did. That's my idea of a great long term plan

I understand what you're saying. There is more outside pressure to play the top pick because of the mediocre QB starting. I still think this is also about ownership ignoring the whims of the fans and doing the right thing 

[peebag]

One thing is for certain, no one on the Jets know what to do w/ a qb prospect.

[JetPotato]

Depends entirely on the player. There aren't one-size-fits-all recipes for this kind of thing, no matter how easy people desire to make things.

[slimjasi]

Although I think you are correct that, in general, there is no clear link between sitting first and having long term success, I suspect that it's case by case. I suspect there are some guys who have benefited greatly from sitting (and guys who would have benefited greatly from sitting). 

But I think you nailed the key point with your last sentence: You can't use a premium draft pick on a QB and then not play him. Premium draft picks have to be year 1 (and usually day 1) contributors (this is the issue so many had with the Will McDonald pick). It makes no sense to use a premium draft pick on a guy who isn't going to help you for 2 or 3 years. The whole benefit to having a highly drafted QB on a rookie deal is that you get a good QB for cheap and can afford to put a very strong team around him and be competitive right away. 

Hence, even if a guy like Zach Wilson needed a year or two on the bench to reach his full potential, that STILL means he was a bad pick at #2 overall. 

[#27TheDominator]

28 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Daniel Jones is not the Packers methodology

 

Daniel Jones played right away

They changed gms and the head coach during his development window

They changed the offensive coordinator/ philosophy 4 times in his first 4 years. 

Daniel Jones was very pedestrian in year 4. There was no reason to lock yourself in which was self inflicted by rushing the process 

 

 

 

 

Got it:

Successful methodology = Good, stable coaching and HOF veteran QB playing at an MVP level. 

No sh*t. 

There was a reason to lock up Daniel Jones.  You had a playoff team and needed the tag for Barkley.  Otherwise, what are you going to do?  Start Tyrod Taylor?  Jump in on the Garoppolo, Carr, Rodgers "sweepstakes?"  Draft Will Levis or Herndon Hooker and pray?  Which one of those would be the "Packers methodology?"

I repeat.  It is easy to find a QB when you have a QB.  When you need a QB things are tough.

[UntouchableCrew]

I think it's all relative. The player, the org, the offense, etc. I do believe situation is important to success.

In a vacuum, if you can afford it, it's great for a guy to "redshirt" for a year simply to give him a better chance to hit the ground running. Getting a year to learn anything before being asked to step in and run it at a high level is obviously an advantage.

That said, a QB on a cheap deal is a commodity and pretty much all of these guys play at some point in year one because as soon as you draft him the clock is ticking on maximizing his rookie deal or moving on. The world isn't always an ideal world and guys need to perform.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

1 minute ago, slimjasi said:

Although I think you are correct that, in general, there is no clear link between sitting first and having long term success, I suspect that it's case by case. I suspect there are some guys who have benefited greatly from sitting (and guys who would have benefited greatly from sitting). 

But I think you nailed the key point with your last sentence: You can't use a premium draft pick on a QB and then not play him. Premium draft picks have to be year 1 (and usually day 1) contributors (this is the issue so many had with the Will McDonald pick). It makes no sense to use a premium draft pick on a guy who isn't going to help you for 2 or 3 years. The whole benefit to having a highly drafted QB on a rookie deal is that you get a good QB for cheap and can afford to put a very strong team around him and be competitive right away. 

Hence, even if a guy like Zach Wilson needed a year or two on the bench to reach his full potential, that STILL means he was a bad pick at #2 overall. 

I generally agree with this about playing right away if you're a first round pick. I don't with the QB position

 

Outside Marino, Luck and Stroud maybe a couple others in different situations has a QB played right away and been competent to very good

 

I also think because more and more juniors are coming out, more and more patience will be needed for other positions.  Although i agree with most of what you're saying outside the QB position. 

 

[UntouchableCrew]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Got it:

Successful methodology = Good, stable coaching and HOF veteran QB playing at an MVP level. 

No sh*t. 

There was a reason to lock up Daniel Jones.  You had a playoff team and needed the tag for Barkley.  Otherwise, what are you going to do?  Start Tyrod Taylor?  Jump in on the Garoppolo, Carr, Rodgers "sweepstakes?"  Draft Will Levis or Herndon Hooker and pray?  Which one of those would be the "Packers methodology?"

I repeat.  It is easy to find a QB when you have a QB.  When you need a QB things are tough.

What basis is there to believe the bolded? 

Seems far more likely that 1) teams that are good at identifying QB talent remain good at identifying QB talent and 2) teams that have quality coaching staffs and organizational stability are better at developing the QB talent that they do have.

Jets have consistently sucked at both.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Got it:

Successful methodology = Good, stable coaching and HOF veteran QB playing at an MVP level. 

No sh*t. 

There was a reason to lock up Daniel Jones.  You had a playoff team and needed the tag for Barkley.  Otherwise, what are you going to do?  Start Tyrod Taylor?  Jump in on the Garoppolo, Carr, Rodgers "sweepstakes?"  Draft Will Levis or Herndon Hooker and pray?  Which one of those would be the "Packers methodology?"

I repeat.  It is easy to find a QB when you have a QB.  When you need a QB things are tough.

Why wouldn't this apply to a team that signed Kirk cousins , Ryan Tannehill  or Fitzpatrick in his prime. 

 

Why can't I have Fitz as my QB for 2-4 years depending on how my first rd QB develops? 

 

Didn't the jets do this exact scenario with Pennington and Vinny. The only reason it didn't work is because Pennington hurt his shoulder. Which was terrible luck because he was going to be frickin great 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

5 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

What basis is there to believe the bolded? 

Seems far more likely that 1) teams that are good at identifying QB talent remain good at identifying QB talent and 2) teams that have quality coaching staffs and organizational stability are better at developing the QB talent that they do have.

Jets have consistently sucked at both.

There is no basis. Its just dogma to say a QB drafted high must play right away. Only a few in NFL history hit the ground running. 

[#27TheDominator]

29 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

What basis is there to believe the bolded? 

Seems far more likely that 1) teams that are good at identifying QB talent remain good at identifying QB talent and 2) teams that have quality coaching staffs and organizational stability are better at developing the QB talent that they do have.

Jets have consistently sucked at both.

That was kind of my point.  In like my first point in the thread I think I said that the most important thing is being able to identify good QBs.  That is why it is easy to find one when you have one.  That and that there is no emergency to locate another.  

 

29 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Why wouldn't this apply to a team that signed Kirk cousins , Ryan Tannehill  or Fitzpatrick in his prime. 

 

Why can't I have Fitz as my QB for 2-4 years depending on how my first rd QB develops? 

 

Didn't the jets do this exact scenario with Pennington and Vinny. The only reason it didn't work is because Pennington hurt his shoulder. Which was terrible luck because he was going to be frickin great 

The reason that it doesn't apply to signing Cousins is that signing him for $30M means that you are trying to win with him and burning your high #1 on a QB is probably not the best way to win a super bowl.  You can pick a guy late and sit/develop him, but even less of those guys have the talent to succeed than the high ones rushed to start that we are complaining about.  There are just more of them, but there is more opportunity for other teams to take them.

[slimjasi]

40 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

I generally agree with this about playing right away if you're a first round pick. I don't with the QB position

 

Outside Marino, Luck and Stroud maybe a couple others in different situations has a QB played right away and been competent to very good

 

I also think because more and more juniors are coming out, more and more patience will be needed for other positions.  Although i agree with most of what you're saying outside the QB position. 

 

Fine, but what I'm saying is, if you don't think a QB is ready to play in year 1, I'm just not sure how you devote a top ten draft pick to him. Those picks are too valuable. 

if you want to take a guy to sit for a year, take him in round 3 (maaaaybe 2) or lower. 

[jeremy2020]

2 hours ago, bonkertons said:

I will say though, there is very little downside to sitting a QB for a year outside of burning a year of his rookie contract.  I get why people prefer this route.  Personally I could go either way.  Like if somehow Maye or Daniels slip to 10 and we take them - let's say Rodgers gets hurt and we replace him with Tannehill.  Tannehill ends up looking pretty bad and we're going nowhere...I'd have no problem giving the kid a chance.  I don't think there should be some "do not play under any circumstances" mandate attached to a rookie.  

Depends on who you are.. if you have a 1st round QB.. most of the time the guy playing for you isn't going to be very good. If you're a coach who came in.. tanked 1st year, drafted rookie QB and he's sitting for a year.. now his "rookie" year is year 3 for the coach and playoffs are probably the expectation.

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

There’s also plenty of highly drafted QBs who sat for a while and still sucked.  Cade McNown, Marques Tuiasosopo, J.P. Losman, Jason Campbell, JaMarcus Russell, Kevin Kolb, Brian Brohm, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Johnny Manziel, Paxton Lynch, Christian Hackenberg, Dwayne Haskins, Drew Lock and Trey Lance are on that list.

Christian Hackenberg never played a down .

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, Dunnie said:

Redshirting a year running the practice squad under a stellar coaching regime and behind a HOF QB absolutely matters .. denying that is fodder.

No one ever does this dude.  Thus, it’s moot.

[Smashmouth]

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I've previously started topics on this.  It's still a prevailing thought on JN and I do not understand it.

For every good/great QB out there who sat for a while there are just as many who played right away (somewhere in the Week 1-4 range of their rookie years):  Peyton, Donovan McNabb, Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Tannehill, Burrow, Herbert, Lawrence, Stroud just to name a few.  

There’s also plenty of highly drafted QBs who sat for a while and still sucked.  Cade McNown, Marques Tuiasosopo, J.P. Losman, Jason Campbell, JaMarcus Russell, Kevin Kolb, Brian Brohm, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Johnny Manziel, Paxton Lynch, Christian Hackenberg, Dwayne Haskins, Drew Lock and Trey Lance are on that list.

I think we can all agree that, while there’s no way to prove it, bust QBs would still have sucked a$$ even if they sat a year and a half.  There's no fixing a slow processing brain.

Peyton Manning agrees with me on this.  The data agrees with me on this.  Sitting is basically meaningless.  And no one outside of the Packers goes a full season without starting a guy.  It just doesn't happen.

These young guys need to arrive in the league mostly ready out of the box.  And it's not exactly an unreasonable ask when nearly every rule change since 2005 has been made to benefit QB's.  

Want to sit a guy 3-4 weeks his rookie year?  Fine.  Just don't expect it to make much difference.  

If you DO plan to sit a QB for a full year, he had better not be a guy for which you're using a 1st or early 2nd round pick.

Everyone's Brain Processes information at different speeds unfortunately as an NFL QB your Brain needs to do it in under 2 seconds and there is no arguing that point . If you don't have it upstairs you will never have it upstairs.

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, JustInFudge said:

This isnt black and white and there is not a right wrong or answer.  Every player is different.

 

Kinda is black and white when you consider there’s no correlation whatsoever with sitting and success.  If it works for some guys but not for others, that would probably show up somewhere in the analysis, yet it doesn’t.  So I’ll trust that over the confirmation bias being demonstrated by others in this thread (not you).

[Larz]

At some point you have to realize that the jets aren’t “picking the wrong guy “ time after time 

the franchise is incapable of creating a successful environment for a rookie QB. 

[Smashmouth]

22 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No one ever does this dude.  Thus, it’s moot.

The only reason why the Packers did what they did With Rodgers and Love was because they had HOF QB's still playing at a high level. Otherwise you're right no one does that .

[The Crusher]

5 minutes ago, SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN said:

Christian Hackenberg never played a down .

YET!

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Larz said:

At some point you have to realize that the jets aren’t “picking the wrong guy “ time after time 

the franchise is incapable of creating a successful environment for a rookie QB. 

You’re saying 2 different things here.  They picking em wrong or developing em wrong?

My take:  It’s 90/10 the former.  Nature over nurture by far.

[Smashmouth]

Just now, Larz said:

At some point you have to realize that the jets aren’t “picking the wrong guy “ time after time 

the franchise is incapable of creating a successful environment for a rookie QB. 

Only 1 QB the Jets have tried to develop has turned out good and that's Geno Smith and it took him what 9 years .l

[Jetsfan80]

15 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Only 1 QB the Jets have tried to develop has turned out good and that's Geno Smith and it took him what 9 years .l

Guess the Giants and Chargers are bad at developing too because they gave up on Geno as well.

And even with Seattle, he didn't truly get his shot until Week 5 of his third season there.

Totally a repeatable situation!

[JustInFudge]

19 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Kinda is black and white when you consider there’s no correlation whatsoever with sitting and success.  If it works for some guys but not for others, that would probably show up somewhere in the analysis, yet it doesn’t.  So I’ll trust that over the confirmation bias being demonstrated by others in this thread (not you).

I think the 2 best QB's in NFL history sat first, Mahomes and Rodgers.  Many think the GOAT is Brady, who sat.  Could you not correlate that to success?  Idk, the whole argument is just silly because it's definitely not, black and white.  

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

I think the 2 best QB's in NFL history sat first, Mahomes and Rodgers.  Many think the GOAT is Brady, who sat.  Could you not correlate that to success?  Idk, the whole argument is just silly because it's definitely not, black and white.  

OK.  Now do Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Joe Burrow, Justin Herbert and CJ Stroud.  At least 2 HOFers on that list + 3 guys you'd have to consider elite or close to it currently.  All of them were NFL starters no later than Week 4 of their rookie years.

And while Cam's career obviously finished with a whimper, he did win an MVP and lead the Panthers to a 15-1 season and NFC title that one time.  Donovan McNabb had a pretty successful career, too.

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

This was the way it worked for a looong time and the "hit rate" on QBs wasn't any higher. 

Exactly.  QBs used to sit a while.  Yet the game didn't have any higher % of great QBs as it does now.  The game has gotten easier for QBs, certainly, so it makes much less sense to sit them.  And that's kinda the point.  It doesn't really make any sense to do it for long.  

Sit em a few weeks?  Fine.  A full year?  No.  

[JustInFudge]

6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

OK.  Now do Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Joe Burrow, Justin Herbert and CJ Stroud.  At least 2 HOFers on that list + 3 guys you'd have to consider elite or close to it currently.  All of them were NFL starters no later than Week 4 of their rookie years.

And while Cam's career obviously finished with a whimper, he did win an MVP and lead the Panthers to a 15-1 season and NFC title that one time.  Donovan McNabb had a pretty successful career, too.

I dont care about them because they're not the best I've ever seen.  The best I've ever seen, sat before they started.