College QBs Are Being Unprepared for the NFL

[muggins]

Quote: Originally Posted by kingkilla56

two points No team has the luxury of sitting a top pick QB. Except for the teams who have 5 star Qbs on their team already. Jacksonville cant Sit Blake Bortles behind Brett Farve for 12 years until hes ready like Aaron Rodgers did. Too many jobs are at risk to just let the losses mount up for those franchises. So that shiny savior of the franchise will have to play. You cant call out the "gimmick offenses" without calling out the "pro style" offenses in college as well. If its so simple as to just teach a pro style offense in college, why arent USC, Alabama, Georgia, Stanford, Penn State, Michigan State, Oklahoma, Cal etc spitting out NFL stars or even starters on a yearly basis? Maybe its just that Qb is a hard *** position to play in the NFL and getting 1-3 legit starters per draft is a miracle in itself?

You're totally right on the first point. On the second, I think we can agree that only a certain percentage of qbs are ever going to be draftable; by turning the ratio down because so many teams have adopted gimmick offenses, the percentage is so much lower.

[AUChase]

What constitutes a "gimmick" offense ? I see that phrase thrown around a lot.

There are some offenses in CFB that are often labled as a gimmick when in reality they require a lot of intelligence and physical ability to run. At the root of a lot of these are the same principles as offensees such as the Wing T offense that's been around College Football for a long, long time.. didn't stop some NFL greats from coming from the same time period that these offenses were being run

There was even a time before the blow up of up tempo/read option offenses that quarterbacks like Sam Bradford were questioned by some simply because the offense they were in in college (Oklahoma for Bradford) was primarily run from the shotgun.

If someone can make the throws and has the intelligence, regardless of what offense they come from, they can can succeed in the NFL.

I think it's a serious cop out to place blame on college coaches for not conforming to what NFL coaching staffs want to do. These schools that are being labled as "gimmick offenses" are still drawing in elite talent with the promise that they can and will play in the NFL.. because they can.

I'll get off my soap box now. There are some great points in this thread and it's a very good subject to debate and talk about. I'm all ready seeing opinions I never considered.

[muggins]

Quote: Originally Posted by AUChase

What constitutes a "gimmick" offense ? I see that phrase thrown around a lot.

Any offense that soley relies on the use of athletes to make plays while the coach makes pretty much every decision on the sideline, or offenses that rely on tricks like speed no huddle, spread mis-matches etc. that really takes no quarterbacking skill to play in

Quote:

I think it's a serious cop out to place blame on college coaches for not conforming to what NFL coaching staffs want to do. These schools that are being labled as "gimmick offenses" are still drawing in elite talent with the promise that they can and will play in the NFL.. because they can.

It hasn't really been shown to happen, though. The quotes from the GMs and coaches are pretty damning - these kids are coming in and getting paid millions to basically re-learn football. It'd be sweet if the GMs just stopped drafting any spread-option-no-huddle-Little Giants play-QBs so the kids with legit NFL dreams wouldn't go to those schools, but that wouldn't happen

[Bmore Irish]

I think the whole situation is a bit of a catch 22. With so many college teams running spread, 1-read offenses, there's fewer QBs familiar with reading defenses or playing in a pro offense. But a lot of the top talent is playing in this style offense, so a lot of the pro prospects are a step behind.

If a bad team needs a QB, they're going to draft one and play him immediately. But the spread QBs realistically need more time to learn the game, so getting thrown into the fire early can result in a lot of mistakes. A guy is going to struggle to learn if he doesn't even know what it is he's looking at, but coaches on these teams can't afford to sit and develop the young QB, or they won't be around to see it through. So the QB flames out and the coach gets fired, not necessarily in that order. And the cycle continues.

I was talking with a guy I work with yesterday about the time it takes to rebuild a team, college or pro, and how the pressure is so high and expectations are so unrealistic, that it's become exponentially more difficult to get done.

When you have the level of turnover that you do today in NFL front offices/coaching staffs, it's going to make things that much more difficult on the young QBs, or any QB for that matter. It's the most difficult position in the game to play, and now you have guys who have to know literally everything going on on the field who are coming into the league and don't even fully understand their own jobs.

So it's no wonder that the only guys succeeding are the once-in-a-generation talents like Andrew Luck, or the guys who land in the perfect situation, and even they often take a few years to put it all together.

[slickdtc]

When do we blame the scouts/GM for not working these guys out in realistic football situations?

Gruden's QB camp series on ESPN put these guys in realistic scenarios. If they do that in the combine or pro days, I haven't seen it. It's all the sexy measurable numbers, not actual football playing ability.

All they do at pro days and the combine is do the eye test. Oh he can throw the ball 70 yards on the run! Oh his hands are 10 feet in diameter! It bothers me that some guys are pegged as top prospects just based off physique while players with less desirable measurables slip despite showing they can actually play the game.

They draft projects, then bitch when they run out a half *** project and he flames out.

Also, teams need to think ahead farther then they do. If your QB is getting up there in age or his contract is gonna hamstring your team for years to come, you need to draft a top QB now, not wait until your team collapses then think a hotshot rookie can step in and bring you back to greatness. They take flyers on guys in the middle rounds, but no team ever goes that high for a QB unless they don't have one already.

Seems like it would work out well. Yes, you'll be spending a valuable 1st or 2nd round pick that will be stockpiled 3 years, but it'll give your team a chance to transition from today's QB to the next era. And think, you won't have to pay your rookie QB as much if he's only got a year or two of game experience when his 4 year contract is up.

A big problem I see is GM's and coaches don't think about the longevity of a team. Only for how long they'll be. That's a natural thought (why take your lumps now, get fired, and your successor benefit from your long term plan?), but if you're worth your salt, you will assemble a roster that won't get you canned.

They all want instant gratification, and point the finger at college coaching/spread offenses when it doesn't work out that way.

[NYJets]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bmore Irish

So it's no wonder that the only guys succeeding are the once-in-a-generation talents like Andrew Luck, or the guys who land in the perfect situation, and even they often take a few years to put it all together.

Yea but isn't that how it's always been? It used to be that when you drafted a QB, you either sat them for a year or 2 so they can learn, or you threw them into the fire, knowing that you were basically punting the season. But then a couple QB's had early success and suddenly the expectation is that a rookie QB should be good right away, and should be able to win right away.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Quote: Originally Posted by muggins

Any offense that soley relies on the use of athletes to make plays while the coach makes pretty much every decision on the sideline, or offenses that rely on tricks like speed no huddle, spread mis-matches etc. that really takes no quarterbacking skill to play in

This is not at all the definition of the word gimmick. A gimmick is something implemented for the sole purpose of entertainment. If you think football coaches care one bit about entertaining fans, you've never met a football coach. These offenses have proven to be successful over a large sample size, the term gimmick just doesn't fit anymore.


Tons, TONS of "pro-style" offenses are 100% controlled by a coach, by the way. Off the top of my head, Andy Reid, Chip Kelly, Norv Turner don't really allow audibles at the line of scrimmage. A QB might go to the line with 2 plays he can check to but he doesn't have audible authority. I'm sure I could find more if I dug into it.


How can you say that these offenses don't require QB skill? Who defines what's a skill? Some of these QBs have the rushing load of a back up RB, in addition to their QB responsibilities. Rushing isn't a skill? Do those yards not count? Just because it isn't something you're used to seeing doesn't mean it doesn't require skill.

[Bmore Irish]

Quote: Originally Posted by NYJets

Yea but isn't that how it's always been? It used to be that when you drafted a QB, you either sat them for a year or 2 so they can learn, or you threw them into the fire, knowing that you were basically punting the season. But then a couple QB's had early success and suddenly the expectation is that a rookie QB should be good right away, and should be able to win right away.

Perhaps, but I think there's a difference between a player just not having the skill and talent to cut it in the league, and a player not being able to succeed because he doesn't understand the game at the prerequisite level. That's not to say that both haven't always happened, it just seems like the latter is happening disproportionately more, and as a direct result of the topic at hand.