2020 NFL Offseason Thread?

[stevew]

Now that Winston is signed, the Steelers should pick up Cam Newton. I preferred that we draft Hurts. Both of our backups are utter trash and have no future value whatsoever. Continuing to pump 30m+ cap hits into Ben is unwise when we aren't making the playoffs and are tight against the cap.

I feel like this should be Ben's last season without several playoff wins, and someone like Newton would be a good hedge against injury for this year.

[BishopMVP]

Btw, I saw that the Patriots trade of Jimmy G has finally fully played out... after all the trades the Pats ended up with Jarrett Stidham, Joejuan Williams, Damien Harris, Yodney Cajuste, Dalton Keene and Justin Herron. (As well as Brian Hoyer if you count that.) We'll see how players look this season and next (I think Joejuan Williams can be safely placed in the failed 2nd round DB pile with Ras-I Dowling, Tavon Wilson & Cyrus Jones that I really hope Kyle Dugger doesn't end up in!), but Stidham & Keene in particular seem promising.

[stevew]

Brady’s gone. Hey, let’s draft a racist kicker to placate the fans!

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by stevew

Now that Winston is signed, the Steelers should pick up Cam Newton. I preferred that we draft Hurts. Both of our backups are utter trash and have no future value whatsoever. Continuing to pump 30m+ cap hits into Ben is unwise when we aren't making the playoffs and are tight against the cap.

I feel like this should be Ben's last season without several playoff wins, and someone like Newton would be a good hedge against injury for this year.

Any chance we could swing a trade for Fournette? Would they take a 2021 2nd or 3rd (maybe with a conditional 2022 pick tacked on based on reaching goals)?

This seems like a chance to have a Bettis-like situation all over again.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by stevew

Brady’s gone. Hey, let’s draft a racist kicker to placate the fans!

Yes, because Massachusetts is such a hotbed for right wing anti-government/pro-2nd amendment sentiment.

But yes, easily avoidable & probably not worth the hassle for an unproven rookie kicker. Though if he's as good as Vinatieri & Gostkowsk & able to coexist in the locker room (and why not, he's a kicker) I wouldn't care less if he kept that tattoo.

[JPhillips]

It's well deserved karma for drafting a kicker in the fifth round.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Any chance we could swing a trade for Fournette? Would they take a 2021 2nd or 3rd (maybe with a conditional 2022 pick tacked on based on reaching goals)?

This seems like a chance to have a Bettis-like situation all over again.

Yeah I would be in on that for a 2 or 3 for sure. I think it might be lower than that even. They’re looking to probably decline his 5th year option so it could be a 4th.

[cuervo72]

Googles "last MLB team to integrate"

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Googles "last MLB team to integrate"

You don't think this is kind of shitty?

If you met someone in real life from Massachusetts, would you start attacking them for being racist because of stuff the Red Sox did before they were born, or because of someone the Patriots drafted?

I did know a couple of people who did that here. It was actually pretty awful how much they dug in. I started avoiding events where they'd be. It just got too exhausting. One of them basically got ghosted by my friends. There's a couple of people on this board like that, I just wonder if they're like that in real life too.

I'll never understand sports ball hate, I'll never understand why it makes people so shitty, but when it crosses into stuff like this, it crosses a line IMO.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah I would be in on that for a 2 or 3 for sure. I think it might be lower than that even. They’re looking to probably decline his 5th year option so it could be a 4th.

It just seems like it would make sense to go all in on Ben’s last year or two. And, Fournette should be motivated to get a big 2nd contract. And, if Ben retires and he does well, we should have some room available.

After I originally posted, I saw that they’d offered him to a team this weekend for a 3rd. That’d be a no braine r for me, unless he’s a horrible teammate or something.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't think this is kind of shitty?

If you met someone in real life from Massachusetts, would you start attacking them for being racist because of stuff the Red Sox did before they were born, or because of someone the Patriots drafted?

I did know a couple of people who did that here. It was actually pretty awful how much they dug in. I started avoiding events where they'd be. It just got too exhausting. One of them basically got ghosted by my friends. There's a couple of people on this board like that, I just wonder if they're like that in real life too.

I'll never understand sports ball hate, I'll never understand why it makes people so shitty, but when it crosses into stuff like this, it crosses a line IMO.

No, I don't think it's particularly shitty. No, Mass isn't "a hotbed for right wing anti-government/pro-2nd amendment sentiment." But it isn't like it hasn't had its issues. (Hell, this is from 2018.) But it's not alone, can say the same thing for Philly, Baltimore, or DC.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

No, I don't think it's particularly shitty. No, Mass isn't "a hotbed for right wing anti-government/pro-2nd amendment sentiment." But it isn't like it hasn't had its issues. (Hell, this is from 2018.) But it's not alone, can say the same thing for Philly, Baltimore, or DC.

What state are you from?

[molson]

There's racism in every state. But that's not your point. Your point is that people are racist because of where they're from. Or based on what sports team they root for. And that you're morally superior based on where you're from and what teams you root for.

And you didn't answer my question about whether you would attack people in that way in real life.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

What state are you from?

From outside Philly, went to school in Baltimore, live a stone's throw from DC.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

From outside Philly, went to school in Baltimore, live a stone's throw from DC.

No racism in those places for sure.

I just don't get it then, but whatever.

[cuervo72]

My point isn't that people are racist based on where they're from. My point is it's perhaps a bad look to draft a kicker with racially-tinged tattoos in a city looking to shake a long-held view that eh, it may have racial issues. No, maybe it's not viewed quite in the way Bishop described it (or stevew, I guess) but no, I'm not surprised the pick generates comments.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

No racism in those places for sure.

I just don't get it then, but whatever.

I listed those places specifically because they have had issues.

(speaking Greek, I guess)

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

My point isn't that people are racist based on where they're from. My point is it's perhaps a bad look to draft a kicker with racially-tinged tattoos in a city looking to shake a long-held view that eh, it may have racial issues. No, maybe it's not viewed quite in the way Bishop described it (or stevew, I guess) but no, I'm not surprised the pick generates comments.

Stevew said that the Patriots drafted a racist kicker to appease the fanbase . Bishop pointed out that that was silly. You responded and doubled down, by connecting the Red Sox racist' past with current Boston fans, whom you implied, share those views.

I get criticizing the Red Sox, or the Patriots. I don't get why it's our fault personally. I had nothing to do with either.

[cuervo72]

You have way too much guilt, dude. Was mostly a flippant comment (with a kernel of truth). No need to go all white-knighting for an entire city.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

You have way too much guilt, dude. Was mostly a flippant comment (with a kernel of truth). No need to go all white-knighting for an entire city.

stevew's? It was a dumb rimshot comment (which is fine, I make plenty too!), and I guess I also found it ironic that a guy from Pittsburgh would say that since there's probably an order of magnitude more 3 percenter tattoos or bumper stickers within 100 miles of Pittsburgh or among the Steelers fanbase than in New England. (And I actually liked Pittsburgh when I visited and I like Steve.)

Make fun of the Patriots drafting a kicker apparently nobody had heard of at all or not doing a quick social media background check all you want, but trying to tie it to some sort of fanbase appeasement when I think barely anyone up there even knew what a 3 percenter was is dumb. (Plus honestly I haven't gotten the sense there is a ton of anguish over letting Brady leave. Plenty of fans who wanted to keep him as a lifetime Patriot & thought he'd give us a better shot than Stidham this year, but even those who argue to what degree will admit he's declining & it might be better to have his Montana Chiefs years in TB instead of watching the decline while in a Patriots uniform and having it end in an ugly fashion via injury or Belichick actually benching Brady for Stidham at some point if he did hit that cliff. Maybe that'll change if/when there is actual football this fall, it would certainly go up a notch if the Bucs make the playoffs and the Patriots don't, but I don't see that happening,\ because we have the core of a very good defense returning & it was the worst offense in a decade or more and most of the non-Brady parts should be improved (or at least can't get any worse!)

[RendeR]

Having lived there for a long period in my life I can definitely support the underlying racism all over the Boston area. Its real and its ugly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

You have way too much guilt, dude. Was mostly a flippant comment (with a kernel of truth). No need to go all white-knighting for an entire city.

Guilt about what?

I just get annoyed by people who use sportsball hate to be dicks. I've gotten mostly used to it, but when it goes into racial stuff, like I said, it crosses a line, IMO. Yes, I know you were flippant and don't care how it comes across. That's my point. You don't give a shit. That's why I was curious if you were like this in real life. When it happens in real life, it's super-confrontational. It can get really hostile.

Edit: I watch a lot of football over beers and breakfast at a bar Sunday mornings in Idaho, it's a thing. Big group, a few friends, mostly friends of friends. I am the quietest Patriots fan in the world and I never wear any Patriots stuff so most people leave me alone. But it's kind of funny that I've heard way more of those kinds of racial accusations based on having some association with the Patriots or Massachusetts than I ever do from being from Idaho - where the 3 percenters are pretty much based. If we had to rank states by 3 percenter population per capita, I'd bet Idaho is #1 and Massachusetts is #50. (As Bishop pointed out, people accusing New Englanders of being racist are inevitably from a more racist state. And white people characterizing racism as a problem that exists only in other states, and is a problem for only other white people, is kind of the epitome of white privilege.) But wherever I go, being from Massachusetts or being a Boston sports fan - which has waned over the years, I don't care much anymore - provoke people so much more than anything else. And it's hurtful when it comes from people you liked or were friends with. So ya, if I'm sensitive about it, it's coming from a place of social PTSD.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

You responded and doubled down, by connecting the Red Sox racist' past with current Boston fans, whom you implied, share those views.

I get criticizing the Red Sox, or the Patriots. I don't get why it's our fault personally. I had nothing to do with either.

Please be to tell me how I did all that with:

Googles "last MLB team to integrate"

The fact that you took it so darned personally, THAT is why you come off to me as carrying guilt about it.

(Also, as completely humorless.)

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Please be to tell me how I did all that with:

Googles "last MLB team to integrate"

The fact that you took it so darned personally, THAT is why you come off to me as carrying guilt about it.

(Also, as completely humorless.)

Please tell me what other relevance your comment was to the exchange about whether the Patriots drafted a racist kicker to appease a racist fanbase.

Sensitive, sure, because like I said, I think it crosses a line, and I think it's shitty, and I've had a lot of bad personal experiences over this. Guilt, no, I don't think that's fair.

[cuervo72]

Regarding how I would interact face-to-face, first I wouldn't be in a bar. I seldom drink in public, and certainly don't go to bars to watch sports. (Or, really, for any other purpose.)

At work I might get in a poke about a team. Might make a joke about how there are so many Cowboys fans in DC.

I might expect a reaction akin to "heh yeah, we have some shitty things in our history."

The thing with Boston fans is that a bunch of you have SUCH A FUCKING COMPLEX about how OH POOR US, WE ARE SO PUT UPON.

Just let it slide off your backs for once and maybe the rest of us will shut up. You know, like we Philly fans try to do with Santa and drunks and jails in the Vet and throwing up on kids. We suck! I don't personally do these things, but yeah, I can smile a little at our shitty fans!

But no, y'all persist in being so bloody defensive time after time. Ignore us! We'll stop saying shit!

[Arles]

Question for you guys. When the did the goal change from:

"I'd love to have an above average QB every year"
to
"I'd love to have a talented, inexperience QB on a rookie deal!"

Look at the Bears (Mitch), Browns (Baker), Jets (Darnold), Bills (Allen), Bucs (Jameis), Titans (Mariota), Ravens (Carr), Redskins (Haskins) and Broncos (Lynch) - all those teams had the great advantage of building their roster around a rookie QB. But, guess what, they all stunk. Even the better situations in guys like Watson, Dak and Goff - they still weren't ready in their early big games and cost their team when they first played (because they were still raw). I get the value in a situation like Mahomes, Lamar or Wilson when he was drafted, but that's like banking on getting Tom Brady in the 6th round - those guys aren't normal. Plus, all these teams had high priced guys when they drafted in Smith, Flacco and Matt Flynn. So, it's not like they saved a ton at first.

It just seems to me that it is better try to get your starter when you current good QB still has a few years left than to panic and draft the best rookie you can find once he is done. I know you lose the "cheap rookie contract", but isn't it better to have a higher chance at a good QB? By handpicking the guy you want when you don't need him and letting him groom for 1-2 years, you set yourself up for a much better chance at a future good QB than drafting Dwayne Haskins, Paxton Lynch or Josh Rosen once your main guy is gone because they are the best for that moment.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Regarding how I would interact face-to-face, first I wouldn't be in a bar. I seldom drink in public, and certainly don't go to bars to watch sports. (Or, really, for any other purpose.)

At work I might get in a poke about a team. Might make a joke about how there are so many Cowboys fans in DC.

I might expect a reaction akin to "heh yeah, we have some shitty things in our history."

The thing with Boston fans is that a bunch of you have SUCH A FUCKING COMPLEX about how OH POOR US, WE ARE SO PUT UPON.

Just let it slide off your backs for once and maybe the rest of us will shut up. You know, like we Philly fans try to do with Santa and drunks and jails in the Vet and throwing up on kids. We suck! I don't personally do these things, but yeah, I can smile a little at our shitty fans!

But no, y'all persist in being so bloody defensive time after time. Ignore us! We'll stop saying shit!

Ignoring is the best policy, I do that most of the time. I also have some shtick I use to diffuse situations. But, every so often, it builds up and I say my piece. I'm allowed to do that. It makes people upset and they pile on and attack more, but, I'm allowed to do that.

I have friends that give me shit for fun, and acquaintances and strangers that have wanted to harass or start a fight. You can tell the difference when you experience both.

I think some of my friends here used to be skeptical about how mean people can be until they saw it first hand. I'm telling you, I don't think you're as bad as them, but it gets fucking weird sometimes. I don't know if the Philly sports hate bleeds into politics and racism as much, but it's like a triple threat of provocation, and when its mixed with alcohol, yes, walking way is the best option. But on a message board, I'm going to speak up once in a while. I can walk away and not have to stress about dealing with it at the next football bar brunch or party.

Edit: But this new angle that we're now all 3 percenters lusting after a kicker from upstate New York is amusing. I don't think I knew a single person who owned a gun growing up. Everyone does where I live now - the state where the 3 percenters started - but it's being from New England that makes me a 3 percenter. Wild. I mean, what is that?

[cuervo72]

It was mostly meant tongue-in-cheek. I'm sorry if it hit a nerve or pushed things over that build-up point.

[BishopMVP]

Ah jeez, we're actually going to yell past each other about this again?

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Googles "last MLB team to integrate"

That seems as relevant as "first NHL team to integrate" and "first NBA team to hire a black coach", and less relevant than "City of Boston went out of their way to change the street name because they're ashamed of that owner's racism" (and unlike a lot of Southern places when old Confederate monuments are torn down or places renamed there was no groundswell of support against renaming it.)

Originally Posted by RendeR

Having lived there for a long period in my life I can definitely support the underlying racism all over the Boston area. Its real and its ugly.

No place is without racism or racists, I think Massachusetts is well below the average there (though no place is without it's idiots, even Upstate New York where that kicker is from...), but Massachusetts is certainly among the lowest for the 3 percenter/MAGA/pro gun militia type racism implied.

Originally Posted by molson

As Bishop pointed out, people accusing New Englanders of being racist are inevitably from a more racist state.

Now, I won't quite say that. I just think that a lot more of the racism end up being limousine liberal prejudice type racism and is based more on ignorance because black people make up a very small portion of the populace & it's a highly segragated state by wealth. Racism really only gets virulent and violent when the minority is strong enough to threaten the majority, which is why the states with the highest percentage of black people had the bloodiest Civil Rights Eras while northern states just segregated them into ghettoes, and why the only racist violence people remember from Boston happened in one of the few places poor white people & black people competed for jobs/housing/etc, though it happened to be Hollywood's favorite part of Boston, Southie.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Just let it slide off your backs for once and maybe the rest of us will shut up. You know, like we Philly fans try to do with Santa and drunks and jails in the Vet and throwing up on kids. We suck! I don't personally do these things, but yeah, I can smile a little at our shitty fans!

But no, y'all persist in being so bloody defensive time after time. Ignore us! We'll stop saying shit!

Oh please. You're right that ignoring it is probably for the best, but the idea that that will make people stop saying it is ludicrous. Just like people will be making Santa Claus and D battery jokes about Philly fans, or murder jokes about Baltimore, or pedophile jokes about Penn State forever. Time is a flat circle with this argument, and we're doomed to repeat it over. And over.

[thesloppy]

Interesting that Jameis Winston got signed to a deal before Cam Newton. Is Cam going to Vince Young/Colin Kaepernick himself out of the league by demanding $20MM to start now, rather than getting $12MM for the next 10 years as a starter-in-waiting...or is he just straight-up less desirable than Jameis Winston?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Interesting that Jameis Winston got signed to a deal before Cam Newton. Is Cam going to Vince Young/Colin Kaepernick himself out of the league by demanding $20MM to start now, rather than getting $12MM for the next 10 years as a starter-in-waiting...or is he just straight-up less desirable than Jameis Winston?

Is Cam Newton healthy?

[thesloppy]

Legit question. He "passed a physical" last month, for whatever that is worth to you.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Interesting that Jameis Winston got signed to a deal before Cam Newton. Is Cam going to Vince Young/Colin Kaepernick himself out of the league by demanding $20MM to start now, rather than getting $12MM for the next 10 years as a starter-in-waiting...or is he just straight-up less desirable than Jameis Winston?

Teams aren't able to bring him in for medicals, which is probably part of it.

But I don't think that he wants the 1 yr below market deal that Jameis took.

He's a former MVP and Super Bowl QB who is coming off an injury. I can see how in his mind he's still a high-end starter and wants a contract that reflects that.

I still think that the Bears should have taken him over Foles.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

Question for you guys. When the did the goal change from:

"I'd love to have an above average QB every year"
to
"I'd love to have a talented, inexperience QB on a rookie deal!"

Look at the Bears (Mitch), Browns (Baker), Jets (Darnold), Bills (Allen), Bucs (Jameis), Titans (Mariota), Ravens (Carr), Redskins (Haskins) and Broncos (Lynch) - all those teams had the great advantage of building their roster around a rookie QB. But, guess what, they all stunk. Even the better situations in guys like Watson, Dak and Goff - they still weren't ready in their early big games and cost their team when they first played (because they were still raw). I get the value in a situation like Mahomes, Lamar or Wilson when he was drafted, but that's like banking on getting Tom Brady in the 6th round - those guys aren't normal. Plus, all these teams had high priced guys when they drafted in Smith, Flacco and Matt Flynn. So, it's not like they saved a ton at first.

It just seems to me that it is better try to get your starter when you current good QB still has a few years left than to panic and draft the best rookie you can find once he is done. I know you lose the "cheap rookie contract", but isn't it better to have a higher chance at a good QB? By handpicking the guy you want when you don't need him and letting him groom for 1-2 years, you set yourself up for a much better chance at a future good QB than drafting Dwayne Haskins, Paxton Lynch or Josh Rosen once your main guy is gone because they are the best for that moment.

It is probably the smart way, but NFL teams like the big splash of a top pick QB. My choice would always be to groom the successor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Even the better situations in guys like Watson, Dak and Goff - they still weren't ready in their early big games and cost their team when they first played (because they were still raw).

Umm ... how much could Dak have cost his team when they went 13-3 in his first season?

For that matter, DeShaun was 3-3 before season ending injury - and with a QBR that would have been 3rd best in the league that season if he maintained it - on a team that went 1-9 in his absence.

You may have a case, but neither of those guys belong anywhere near making that case.

edit to add: As to the "when did it change" question, that's probably answered "once QBs began taking up crippling amounts of cap space".

Right now, essentially half (15 of 32) the teams in the NFL have a QB taking up at least 10% of their cap.
In 2000, only 4 QBs accounted for 10% of cap.
By 2013, that had climbed to 10 QBs.

If you're looking for where the thinking changed, the answer is probably found in there somewhere.

[albionmoonlight]

Winston's deal with the Saints is for $1.1 million.

Clearly, he just wanted a chance to rehabilitate his image.

Hard to make a comparison for Cam.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Winston's deal with the Saints is for $1.1 million.

Clearly, he just wanted a chance to rehabilitate his image.

Hard to make a comparison for Cam.

That is truly chump change.

[QuikSand]

How awesome would it be if a contending team has a key injury, and suddenly there's a hot market for a one-year-rental at QB, and the Saints get to flip him for a 3rd round pick or whatnot? Like, a 4-2 Steelers team watches Big Ben go down, and figures they can't let this season just slip away... or same for the Vikings or any of a half dozen teams. Not absurdly far-fetched.

Geez, this is like one of those head-scratching just-fill-the-roster AI moves in FOF.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... how much could Dak have cost his team when they went 13-3 in his first season?

For that matter, DeShaun was 3-3 before season ending injury - and with a QBR that would have been 3rd best in the league that season if he maintained it - on a team that went 1-9 in his absence.

I was looking at their first playoff games. Watson had 235 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT (21-7 L), Goff had 259 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT (26-13 L), Lamar went 194 yards (55 rushing), 2 TD, 2 TO (23-17 L) and Dak played well in a loss (302, 3-1). So, it's probably not fair to include him. But, the point was most of these QBs would have probably done better if they had 1-2 years to groom instead of being forced into early playoff games. And these are the best examples. Remember, Mahomes played one game in his first season and was able to learn from Andy Reid before he started. Plus, he's the best QB in the league (not exactly a normal example). There are dozens of examples of a team panicking and drafting the best QB for that year (when they pick) and rushing him to start after their current QB retired/left with awful results.

Right now, essentially half (15 of 32) the teams in the NFL have a QB taking up at least 10% of their cap.
In 2000, only 4 QBs accounted for 10% of cap.
By 2013, that had climbed to 10 QBs.

If you're looking for where the thinking changed, the answer is probably found in there somewhere.

That sounds about right. But if you have a $200 million cap and your starter makes 12.5% (25 mil) and is over 35, isn't it smart to draft a good backup (esp in the first where you get 5 years of control)? The salary for a 1st rounder between 20 and 30 (where you probably pick) is about 1.5% of the cap.

I think the issue is teams are usually trying to make one more run with the old QB and don't want to "waste a pick" on a young QB to groom. The problem is the bust rate on first picks is pretty close to 50-50, so there's a coin flip chance you waste the pick anyway. And the value of having a "good starter" level QB by drafting and grooming seems much higher than a 50-50 chance at a starting DT, WR or CB.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the issue is teams are usually trying to make one more run with the old QB and don't want to "waste a pick" on a young QB to groom. The problem is the bust rate on first picks is pretty close to 50-50, so there's a coin flip chance you waste the pick anyway. And the value of having a "good starter" level QB by drafting and grooming seems much higher than a 50-50 chance at a starting DT, WR or CB.

I think the larger issue here is most teams don't want "dead" money invested in a guy you are grooming, when you can take a portion of that and upgrade another position. The opportunity cost in a high pick for a guy that needs to sit 2-3 years vs. a guy that could be an immediate starter.

[JPhillips]

Is there any data to suggest that sitting for a year or two leads to greater development outcomes? That used to be the thinking within the NFL, but I haven't seen any data showing that could be true.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is there any data to suggest that sitting for a year or two leads to greater development outcomes? That used to be the thinking within the NFL, but I haven't seen any data showing that could be true.

I am not sure how you would gather data on something like that. Seems like too many variables in play. IMO Mahomes would have been fine to play right away however Trubinsky could have been ruined by playing right away. Proof? I dunno.

I would think there is some truth to being better prepared sitting a year or two and coming in confident. I am sure going into games unprepared has just destroyed a few young QBs confidence over the years.

Todays environment being cap restricted they just dont want fork out a huge hit on the cap providing no immediate results so they force the QBs in there.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I am not sure how you would gather data on something like that. Seems like too many variables in play. IMO Mahomes would have been fine to play right away however Trubinsky could have been ruined by playing right away. Proof? I dunno.

I would think there is some truth to being better prepared sitting a year or two and coming in confident. I am sure going into games unprepared has just destroyed a few young QBs confidence over the years.

Todays environment being cap restricted they just dont want fork out a huge hit on the cap providing no immediate results so they force the QBs in there.

I get the cap implications, but I also don't personally feel like players that start after sitting a year or more are obviously better than those that don't. It would be hard to come to clear conclusions, but some study of QB performance should at least be able to show an advantage to sitting or playing if that advantage is large enough to matter.

[bhlloy]

Also worth pointing out that practice time is down based on the latest CBA and obviously this year Love is going to lose basically all of the camp work that rookies usually get, so he’s even further behind from a developmental standpoint.

I tend to agree - obviously it can be good for a rookie to not start Week 1, get used to a playbook and an NFL system, but is it obviously good for them to sit for 2-3 years? Feels like majorly diminishing returns at some point and the data is small sample size and examples both ways. A lot of developmental guys sit for a season or two and are never heard of again, and I don’t think the 50/50 odds that a first rounder is a bust are massively changed just because he sat for a couple years.

[albionmoonlight]

It would be hard to control for causation.

Sometimes a guy starts early because the coaches see him in practice and realize he's awesome.

Sometimes a guy sits because the coaches see him in practice and realize he sucks.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is there any data to suggest that sitting for a year or two leads to greater development outcomes? That used to be the thinking within the NFL, but I haven't seen any data showing that could be true.

I think the advantage is two-fold:

1. You aren't stuck with QBs in a certain draft class or spot. So, if you start the process in 2019 with a 35-year old QB, you could decide you don't like the options in 2019 or 2020 - but really love a QB available in 2021. Then, you groom him for 1-2 seasons from that point. The big problem is a team like Minnesota (Ponder), Denver (Lynch) or Washington (Haskins) has to panic and draft the best QB available in the year you need one. That may not be the one they preferred over a 3-4 year period if they took a longer view.

2. The QBs plays when he either beats out the "good" starter or enough time passes for the good QB to be expendable/retire. Instead of just handing a rookie the job in week 2-3 because your fans are restless, you can let the play determine that (and let him learn)

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I am not sure how you would gather data on something like that. Seems like too many variables in play. IMO Mahomes would have been fine to play right away however Trubinsky could have been ruined by playing right away. Proof? I dunno.

There could be a world where Mahomes get drafted by the Bills or Jets with their crappy OL/skilled guys/coaches and gets beaten up for two years. We will never know how many bad habits he lost/didn't make and how much progression he gained by sitting next to Andy Reid and learning for a full season. If you go back to the reports about Aaron Rodgers, he was pretty rough in year 1. Held the ball too high, had a slower release and not nearly as accurate. By working with McCarthy for a couple seasons, he was able to clean a lot of that up.

Who knows, if Trubisky could have sat in KC with Reid for a year, he might be a decent starter right now. You just don't know but there is information that shows QBs who sit a season or two with a good QB coach can be in a much better spot when they end up playing.

Todays environment being cap restricted they just dont want fork out a huge hit on the cap providing no immediate results so they force the QBs in there.

Yeah, but a pick in the 20s is only going to be about $3 mil per (or 1.5% of the cap). If you are OK paying 12.5% of the cap to a Brees/Rodgers/Ben, why not pay another 1.5% to have a guy you control for 5 years and can groom into a capable backup and eventual starter? To me it is more the draft pick cost than the cap cost for these teams. And again, a guy taken in the 20s is a 50-50 bet at best to be a quality starter.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

You just don't know but there is information that shows QBs who sit a season or two with a good QB coach can be in a much better spot when they end up playing.

But is there, though? Looking at anecdotes doesn't prove anything.

I think the real issues are whether or not you draft a QB capable of being an above-average starter and surround him with talented players of the offense. I'm open to the idea that QBs can improve without playing, but the contention that this happens regularly enough to be the best manner of development acks any supporting data.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This also kinda seems to beg the question of whether there's a QB believed to be any better available 2-3 years out than whatever will fall from the sky when you "have" to draft one.

Also, is the potential turmoil created by drafting one (see Packers, Green Bay) worth whatever undefined benefits having them around early provides. Their presence doesn't take place in a vacuum, there are non-financial costs associated with those moves.

[JPhillips]

In the specific case of the Packers, I've already been clear that I think using a pick on a QB rather than maximizing the talent around a HOF QB is a mistake.

But, in general, I'm really not trying to debate as much as just see if there is any data to support what used to be standard practice in the NFL and on the other side whether playing QBs immediately has any data to support as a better or at least equal approach. Nobody said much of anything when Carson Palmer was drafted 1.1 and sat for a year behind Jon Kitna, but I can't imagine a world where Joe Burrow sits for a year behind Dalton even though that seems like the absolutely perfect scenario for a new QB to learn without playing.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In the specific case of the Packers, I've already been clear that I think using a pick on a QB rather than maximizing the talent around a HOF QB is a mistake.

But, in general, I'm really not trying to debate as much as just see if there is any data to support what used to be standard practice in the NFL and on the other side whether playing QBs immediately has any data to support as a better or at least equal approach. Nobody said much of anything when Carson Palmer was drafted 1.1 and sat for a year behind Jon Kitna, but I can't imagine a world where Joe Burrow sits for a year behind Dalton even though that seems like the absolutely perfect scenario for a new QB to learn without playing.

Agreed, not only that, but if Joe competes and beats Dalton and starts say mid-year, there is a lot more cohesion down the road than if he is just awarded the job.