FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

I don't think it matters one way or the other. The situation just has to be right. And luck will always play into that decision.  

 

I actually I think I have been typing all these words just to try and say this right here. 

[dballer]

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I knew someone would go here. I almost stated in big letters 80 font  - Do not list the QBs that started day 1 and did OK. I am not saying that QBs have to sit to be successful. That would not make any sense. 

 

BTW: You listed Newton twice - there is no prize for volume... 🙂 Totally kidding. I am the worst at typos - I look back sometimes and wonder how people even get my meaning it's so bad until I fix it. 

 

But since it's here, let's talk though this just a little. First, I would take the first list over the second list every day. There are zero lock HOF QBs on the list of day 1 starters - vs 3 absolute locks in Brees, Brady, and Rogers on the other list. Big Ben is almost a lock. His off the field might hurt him. But he has to be close to a lock. Eli is on the bubble. I look at the second list and I am not sure I even see a bubble player for the HOF. In fairness several have chances depending on what they do from here and they have enough years to build the resume. Wilson and Flacco are probably closest. Luck could get there if he stays healthy and can win a SB or two. The rest? Doubtful but you never know. 

 

But more to your question, couldn't make the argument that the QBs that started day one made it through but could be even better had they waited? That the team in their urgency started them sooner than they should have? 

 

Again, the point of the list was NOT to say only good QBs come from sitting on the bench. Was never my intent nor did I even make that comment. In fact I said if he is ready, start him. My point was quite of a few of the very best QBs did not start their first game as a pro. In fact many of the very best playing right now did not start their first game. So sitting did not hurt their career at all. 

 

One part of this is also about circumstance. Rogers was beind Farve. Brady behind Bledsoe. Brees behind Flutie. So the real issue is how desperate the team is. Those three had very good QBs in front of them - Flutie was weakest. So when they start is more likely dependent on team need than if the player is ready or not...  🤪 

 

Yeh I wasn't trying to say that you were wrong or anything. Just offering the other side of the coin. More my point being, I don't think it really matters, Good QBs will be good. For the most part.

 

Also, I think the trend has gone more towards having Rookies be week 1 starters. Your HOFers, Brady and Brees, almost come from a bygone era. Rodgers really as well. 

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Brees, Brady and Rodgers have been playing longer than anyone else on the list. Same for Ben. Same for Eli.

 

But, to counter your point:

 

Aikman, Elway (played in his first game, didnt necessarily start it), Kelly, Moon, Bradshaw (played in first game).

 

I don't think it matters one way or the other. The situation just has to be right. And luck will always play into that decision.  

 

There goes my trend theory...lol

 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, dballer said:

 

 

There goes my trend theory...lol

 

 

I forgot to add Peyton to the list, too.

[arftech]

Bottom line if the coaches believe he's the best QB during mini and training camp the kid will start.  This ain't hard to see.😉

 

Hail Em Up!

 

 

[goskins10]

10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Brees, Brady and Rodgers have been playing longer than anyone else on the list. Same for Ben. Same for Eli.

 

But, to counter your point:

 

Aikman, Elway (played in his first game, didnt necessarily start it), Kelly, Moon, Bradshaw (played in first game).

 

I don't think it matters one way or the other. The situation just has to be right. And luck will always play into that decision.  

 

That was NEVER my point.  Again, my point was and still is sitting them is not a negative on them. That was the beginning of this whole thing. Again I was NOT saying they had to sit to be good. 

 

Now I wish I had stated that at the beginning I had put that in big neon letters - but alas it probably still would not matter.     This was meant to funny not snarky. I hope you take it that way. 

 

In the end I actually agree that it's less ability that drives when they start, than a function of team need.

 

Again my point was NEVER that they had to sit to be good. But I do think it can help some players. So back to what I already said, and bringing it back to Haskins, if he is ready, start him. But I personally think based his lack of college experience, he could benefit from sitting a year. But if they think he is ready, go for it. 

 

BTW: I was focusing on current players - this is why the others were not on the list. I can find a bunch of players during that era that did not start their first game. Again, I stated that up front. Current players only. The players you listed have been retired for a long time. 

[Art]

How many guys with one year starting experience in college have opened their NFL rookie year on the field as the starter?

 

I really don't know.   I suspect though that's a difference between Haskins and, well, each name I've seen mentioned as having started Game 1.

[KDawg]

Just now, Art said:

How many guys with one year starting experience in college have opened their NFL rookie year on the field as the starter?

 

I really don't know.   I suspect though that's a difference between Haskins and, well, each name I've seen mentioned as having started Game 1.

 

If your hypothesis is correct (I'm not sure and don't have time to look), wouldn't that fall into what I've been saying the last few pages?

 

The QB who sat wasn't the best option for the team, and therefore sat? Best, again, being defined as overall quarterback to include grasp of playbook, personnel, protections, respect of peers, physical tools?

[Art]

9 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

If your hypothesis is correct (I'm not sure and don't have time to look), wouldn't that fall into what I've been saying the last few pages?

 

The QB who sat wasn't the best option for the team, and therefore sat? Best, again, being defined as overall quarterback to include grasp of playbook, personnel, protections, respect of peers, physical tools?

 

No.   And, sure, yes, based on the criteria you set.

 

What you've been saying the last few pages is if he's the best player he should start.   And you have given yourself a perfect out by saying if his inexperience means he's not the best player he shouldn't start.

 

The fact is, he IS our best player, AND he shouldn't start.   The fact he needs time to learn his drops and timing and offense and gain more practice time and adjustment time doesn't negate from the fact he's our best player.   He needs to develop, so he probably does need field time at some point, but the generalized lack of knowledge is what generally makes all rookies kind of struggle.   It would be impossible for Haskins or Keenum to be our "best" player at QB assuming a healthy Colt by the criteria you listed of, "Best, again, being defined as overall quarterback to include grasp of playbook, personnel, protections, respect of peers, physical tools?"   Keenum, having learned offenses and been in the league, could quickly take that from Colt.   But, hell, based on your criteria, Colt should have started for us last year while Alex was growing into the offense.

Haskins will be pretty far ahead on most physical tools, though not his legs, but so dramatically behind on knowledge of the system he'll never get caught up enough there to be anywhere near our best option the bulk of the season, if at all, given he also has to learn how to drop back and learn the vision required of that sort of play.   Haskins is our most skillful QB overall right now, at least with Smith out.   He's played, basically, one year of high level college football.   Almost all of his real negatives aren't related to his physical ability, but his experience.   

My fear is he'll look so good in preseason we'll all want him in.   But, I've said I believe he'll look kind of crappy in the preseason kind of on purpose.   Jay can't give him comfortable stuff in game reps in the preseason.   He can't give him the stuff he already knows.   He has to give him the stuff he doesn't.   And if he does that, as I suspect, you're going to see a pretty sucky player as he won't be playing at all, but thinking each play he plays.   And that's all ok.   So long as they drill into him the things he doesn't yet feel comfortable with so when he gets on the field when it matters it will suck just a hair less.

So, sure, you're right, using your criteria, which means Haskins can't possibly start Day 1.   I just don't think you realize it that way :).

There's also a difference with us and almost each name above.   We're not, not truly, rebuilding.   We were 7-9 due largely to vast injuries.   We ARE a competitive, average team.   We aren't, or shouldn't, be expected to be 4-12, where you throw a rookie out there and hope he develops quickly.   We are a team that has some ability to compete and maybe even surprise.   On such a team you don't throw a guy to the wolves, even if he had multiple years starting in college.   Because you don't have to.

[Riggo#44]

11 minutes ago, Art said:

How many guys with one year starting experience in college have opened their NFL rookie year on the field as the starter?

 

I really don't know.   I suspect though that's a difference between Haskins and, well, each name I've seen mentioned as having started Game 1.

 

I believe the last three 1st round QBs with one year of starting experience are Cam Newton, Mark Sanchez, and Mitchell Trubinsky. Only Trubinsky sat, initially, getting his 1st start in Wk 5 of his rookie year.

 

 

[Art]

Just now, Riggo#44 said:

 

I believe the last three 1st round QBs with one year of starting experience are Cam Newton, Mark Sanchez, and Mitchell Trubinsky. Only Trubinsky sat, initially, getting his 1st start in Wk 5 of his rookie year.

 

 

 

So, Trubinsky didn't start Week 1.   As Haskins shouldn't and Week 5 would be fine presumably.   Cam does fit that, though is a distinctly different player than Haskins in that he can move.   And the Panthers were 2-14 with no one at all proven to be able to play starting QB in the NFL on the roster (Clausen and Moore).   Sanchez is the very interesting one.   Much more like our situation in which we are a reasonably competitive team, not a train wreck like the Panthers.   They were 9-7 before adding Sanchez led by Favre.   But, unlike us, they had no one on their roster who actually could play QB once Favre left.   But, I'll agree this is very much like our situation, save we didn't change coaches and the Jets did, so everyone on the Jets was learning new, so everyone started at the same level.    Here, Haskins is 5 years behind one guy we have and we have another guy who led his team to the NFC Championship two years ago.   

 

 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Art said:

 

No.   And, sure, yes, based on the criteria you set.

 

What you've been saying the last few pages is if he's the best player he should start.   And you have given yourself a perfect out by saying if his inexperience means he's not the best player he shouldn't start.

 

 

 

Yes. To the first sentence and the second one... except for the "given yourself a perfect out".

 

I don't need an out. I'm not making the decision. And my point was relative to all three quarterbacks (four if you count Johnson), not just him. I haven't made a prediction as to whether he'll start or not because I have no idea. And predictions are usually stupid and inherently bias.

 

 

The fact is, he IS our best player,

 

This is hardly fact at this point.

 

   But, hell, based on your criteria, Colt should have started for us last year while Alex was growing into the offense.

 

Maybe. Who's to say if Alex's total package outweighed Colt's total package? Not either of us. Unless you have some Karl Swanson-like sources

So, sure, you're right, using your criteria, which means Haskins can't possibly start Day 1.   I just don't think you realize it that way

:).

 

I'm not sure you have my take correct. I don't care if he starts or not. If he can't run the playbook and still needs reps, he's not the best QB and absolutely should not start. It's hardly a fact, as you put it, that this is going to be the direction. But it's a good educated guess to assume this is the scenario that plays out.

[skinsmania123]

If this is going to be a "true" competition with three QB's in the house then we go with the guy who plays best in the preseason.  Obviously. But I would not be surprised, if he is fully recovered, if it is Colt. And then of course provided he doesn't get hurt in the preseason 🙄 

 

But as an aside I wish Gruden had a bit more Doug Pederson in him.  He used Wentz strengths to get him going well when he entered the league and obviously Foles.  He didn't just impose his playbook version on them.   I think it gives young QB's or QB's with certain limitations some confidence and staying power working to their strengths.

 

I am okay with the Haskin's pick.  Super strong, great arm.  Good accuracy.   Wish we had at least one gifted, seasoned receiver around him to help out a bit.  But geez it is a crap shoot with all rookie QB's.  Plenty of guys i thought would make it over the years just didn't.  I thought Foles was gone after the Rams debacle. But look what a change of scenery and a very flexible coach did for him. 

[Est.1974]

Nobody puts baby in a corner 

 

Aim to start him week one. Who cares what's gone before. It's all subjective when comparing to a future scenario. Get him on the field. I'm sure one of his interceptions looks similar to Colts. 

 

I'm all in on #7 starting from the gun.

 

 

[RandyHolt]

2 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

The difference is the hit rate with top ten picks as opposed to anyone chosen outside of the top ten. Top 5 picks have a hit rate of 78% that they will be at least a long term productive starter. Pick 15 has a 53% hit rate. If Arizona had kept Rosen and drafted Bosa or Williams instead would they be a better football team? That remains to be seen. But what Arizona did is waste a top ten pick last year, a pick that has a very high hit rate, to draft another QB the next year. It is a horrible strategy IMO.

 

Nice rebuttal! But one counter point, the depth of the draft varies year to year, and draft boards reflect need... heavily, I contend. QBs are at the heart of that.

 

At least the Arizona move will never be as horrible a strategy as what we did. Forgo even trying to develop a QB, and then overpaying out of desperation for RG3, and then drafting Cousins for a proper high drama pressure cooker.  That is another whole level of horrible strategic moves, and sets the bar for "going all in" at a level Arizona will struggle to attain anytime soon,  no matter how well Rosen succeeds elsewhere, or how badly Murray struggles.

 

And per usual, time will tell all.  Let's revisit this in 1-10 years!  

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

I forgot to add Peyton to the list, too.

 

And Peyton still holds the record for interceptions in a season as a rookie.

59 minutes ago, skinsmania123 said:

If this is going to be a "true" competition with three QB's in the house then we go with the guy who plays best in the preseason.  Obviously. But I would not be surprised, if he is fully recovered, if it is Colt. And then of course provided he doesn't get hurt in the preseason 🙄 

 

There are not enough snaps in OTAs, camp and preseason for it be a true three way battle. There are not really enough for it be a two way battle.

[Riggo#44]

This is the appropriate response to anything Rick Snider says:

 

[Chachie]

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Nobody puts baby in a corner 

 

Aim to start him week one. Who cares what's gone before. It's all subjective when comparing to a future scenario. Get him on the field. I'm sure one of his interceptions looks similar to Colts. 

 

I'm all in on #7 starting from the gun.

 

 

 

 

I like your style and I can see your reasoning... but I'd personally prefer to see Haskins get some sideline time. For me, an entire season but I could live with getting him on the field after 6 or 8 games. 

 

My heart says "start the man."

My head says "Make this one count for the future. The kid needs time to learn."

 

 

[LD0506]

Ehhhh, I always love that ole kneejerk, "You can't let that kid get any experience, he doesn't have any experience!"

[KillBill26]

3 hours ago, Art said:

 

There's also a difference with us and almost each name above.   We're not, not truly, rebuilding.   We were 7-9 due largely to vast injuries.   We ARE a competitive, average team.   We aren't, or shouldn't, be expected to be 4-12, where you throw a rookie out there and hope he develops quickly.   We are a team that has some ability to compete and maybe even surprise.   On such a team you don't throw a guy to the wolves, even if he had multiple years starting in college.   Because you don't have to.

I like how you mention the team around the QB.  Most if the conversation is centered around Haskins himself, and his inexperience etc.  A huge part of why I want to see Haskins redshirt is due to the team around him.  

 

I agree with you that our record was poor last season due to a high number of injuries.  Same with the season before. 

 

But the reality is: during the off-season, everyone's outlook on the team and the upcoming season is based on best case scenarios. 

 

On paper, we look great, because (mostly) everyone is healthy.  And we were competitive the last couple years while healthy, but then turned into arguably the worst team in the NFL when injuries mounted.

 

And we are expecting best case scenarios for our new guys.  For example, Wes Martin, a guy who came out of nowhere, is expected to come in and solidify the LG position.  And ereck flowers, who has been atrocious, is now assumed to improve bc he is moving to guard.  McLauron, Quinn, doctson, p rich, Reed, these guys are all assumed to remain healthy or show improvement in their game.  

 

And I'm as optimistic as anybody, but I want to see it before I throw an inexperienced rookie QB in to see how it plays out.  The upside isn't worth the downside imo: we can hope he gets an extra year of playing experience to further his development, and he has a successful season. That could happen, and it would be great, but what if we find ourselves in the same exact situation that has happened the last two years: our depth ravaged and we are barely competitive.  The downside is a MAJOR impediment to his confidence / development.  

 

I would rather wait another year, with another draft to improve depth on Oline and pass catchers, and with a year of learning from the sideline, I think Haskins will be in a much better situation to succeed.  I'm not saying it's impossible for him to succeed his rookie year, I'm just saying I don't think the odds are good enough to risk it.

[sportjunkie07]

We were 6-3 before massive injuries derailed last season; the team was competitive. 

 

Haskins needs time. There is a difference in game speed, and haskins will be learning a new system. 

 

Unlike rushing qbs, he doesn't have the mobility to make off schedule plays.. most effective year one starters do.

 

Additionally, haskins has 1 year of college production where his team nearly always had a higher talent level than the opponent. 

 

We currently have weaknesses at key positions that help a young qb succeed. (Wr, oline, te?, rb?)

 

All of this points to it being very beneficial to haskins to sit for a while. Haskins also seems to have an attitude that he is already there talent wise. The fact that he doesn't realize that he has a lot to work on is exactly why he needs to sit. 

 

But all that is OK because we just got a guy who can be a good bridge in case keenum. Once some of our skill positions and oline get worked out and haskins improves his footwork, body control, and understanding of NFL concepts.. then will be a good time to let him play. He would most likely develop bad habits otherwise. 

 

I'd like him to sit for the entire year but week 10 is after our bye and the most logical time to start him in season. 

[Llevron]

28 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Ehhhh, I always love that ole kneejerk, "You can't let that kid get any experience, he doesn't have any experience!"

 

Thats exactly how I got my job lol

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

I’m Ok leaving it in Jay’s hands. He should know what kind of grip he’s got on the O. Also let’s remember we are going to run the ball and play D to win. He won’t be asked to do too much or carry too much. I wouldn’t be shocked either way and am fine giving him some time to get it together.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

8 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 I don't get this hesitant "Don't start him until after the tough games" attitude. WTF? Are we protecting his virginity here? 

 

Well, usually tough defenses are known for their penetration... 

[HTTRDynasty]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, my primary concern with starting Haskins right off the bat is that:

-Due to his lack of experience reading NFL defenses

-Due to his footwork and mechanics still needing some fine-tuning

-Due to his lack of mastery of the playbook...

 

...he will likely develop bad habits/footwork/mechanics in an effort to win.  I would rather have him focus on improving his fundamentals and his weaknesses now, while he's still young and has time to correct bad habits, rather than having him feel like he has to do everything possible to get wins, even if it means relying on bad habits/footwork/mechanics.

 

I think back to the video below, which came out last year, breaking down Mahomes film.  The incredible thing about Mahomes last year wasn't his legs, or even his out-of-this-world arm talent, it was his complete grasp of what NFL defenses were trying to do, both pre- and post-snap, and his prodigy-like understanding of how to counter it.  That's not something I will ever believe he could have done if he had started game 1 his rookie year.  And I believe he likely would have tried to rely on his legs when defenses gave him a confusing look, which would have hampered his development into what he is today. 

 

When you consider Haskins, who doesn't have the legs to rely on, it's even more frightening what bad habits he could develop to compensate for not having the kind of grasp of NFL defenses shown in the video below.  Let the kid sit and develop.  We'll be thanking ourselves this time next year, and for the next decade and a half to come.

 

 

 

[Darth Tater]

If we are a 7-9 or better team that got unlucky due to injury, Haskins should definitely be in the mix.  We should not just sit him but he should not just be handed the job. It is not the bench that would make him ready but the practice days between the games. If we are a bad team that just got lucky, Haskins needs to sit because the new coach will at most want a relatively unmolested QB to mold. Though maybe in that case, the new coach would want tape to find out if he could salvage what he's got (ala Goff) or move on (ala Rosen)