The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[zCommander]

32 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Just think if Gibbs took Big Ben instead of Sean Taylor; would things have gone differently?

 

10 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Or if the Packers decided not to pick Rodgers when they still had Favre, and let him slip 1 more pick to us, and Gibbs WAS going to pick Rodgers if he was there.  Then they traded for JC.

 

The one thing we'll never know about Rodgers, though: Would he have had the success he had if he had to start right away.  He had literally 4 off-seasons to learn the offense, practice, and watch Favre.  I have to think that was beneficial to him.

 

If he gets thrown in here into the Gibbs offense, pressed to start early, would he have developed the same way?  Unclear.  Maybe.  But maybe not.  

 

The environment (coaching staff, culture, philosophy, etc.) really does have a lot to do with developing players.  If it was Gibbs 1.0, I'd say they would have become the Patriots. Maybe it works really well, and Gibbs sticks around and doesn't retire, and Zorn never happens.  Gibbs II?  Eh... I'm not so sure.  And I don't think even Rodgers could have saved Zorn.  Though a Rodgers/Shanahan pairing ... I mean, he's got Shanny light with LaFleur now, and it's working pretty well.  

 

Gibbs had a chance to get Rodgers instead of Rogers. He could have gotten the CB with the later pick and should have went for a QB with our higher pick instead. 

Maybe it made Rodgers better by sitting for so long or he could have been fine out the gate too We shall never know. 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, method man said:

It’s been reported that Gruden overrode Mayock a lot regarding the draft and made a number of these choices

 

I haven't seen a specific that he overrode Mayock where he wanted this player but Mayock wanted another.  I've seen Mayock publicly pretty heavy handed defend some of his funkier picks like Ferrell.  I've read that they've duked it out, like Jay and Bruce did about who actually makes the roster.

 

Not saying Gruden didn't override Mayock but I'd like to see an example of it to buy into that's what happened, or do you recall one?   If certainly escaped a lot of Raider fans who have wanted Mayock's head so I am curious.

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

I’ve been more in question form and haven’t engaged with anyone on the guy from Liberty. I too can careless if the dude matches up with another guy, it’s the idea of the level of runner the individual is. Similar to one thinking one passer throws with anticipation versus another who doesn’t, or one with an elite arm versus average etc..

 

OK.  So on what level running I think he is, I said weeks back, elite, Michael Vick level, I got mocked from someone for saying it.  But I am sticking to it. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

OK.  So on what level running I think he is, I said weeks back, elite, Michael Vick level, I got mocked from someone for saying it.  But I am sticking to it. 

Ya man, I was wanting your read on him on a runner is all. You saying he’s Mike Vick level increases my intrigue a great deal. Will continue to look at videos myself, but curious to get an idea from a few of the posters here. I saw something he’s ran in the 4.3s, wasn’t sure I saw that kind of speed in the one highlight cut up. Is it pretty much known he’s a 4.3 type guy?

[mistertim]

I'm sort of at the place where I don't really want a running QB at all. I don't really care if he's Vick level or Lamar Jackson level. Running QBs aren't going to last long unless they learn to become great QBs first and runners when necessary. As I said earlier, IMO with an elite running QB and the right OC/system/supporting cast in place for him you probably get a 5-6 year SB window before the tread on the tires wears off and he loses that ability (or he gets injured doing it, which will probably happen eventually). With an elite passing QB (ideally with the legs and athleticism to extend plays and pick up yards as needed) you probably get a 10-15 year SB window.

Edited November 8, 2021 by mistertim

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, zskins said:

 

 

Gibbs had a chance to get Rodgers instead of Rogers. He could have gotten the CB with the later pick and should have went for a QB with our higher pick instead. 

Maybe it made Rodgers better by sitting for so long or he could have been fine out the gate too We shall never know. 

That’s somewhat hindsight though.  20 teams passed on Rodgers and Alex Smith went #1 overall.  
 

It’s crazy to think now, but Rogers was not a terrible pick at that spot.  Though what is unfortunate is they kindof needed a CB because Champ Bailey wanted out.  

[Skinsinparadise]

 

[Warhead36]

29 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I'm sort of at the place where I don't really want a running QB at all. I don't really care if he's Vick level or Lamar Jackson level. Running QBs aren't going to last long unless they learn to become great QBs first and runners when necessary. As I said earlier, IMO with an elite running QB and the right OC/system/supporting cast in place for him you probably get a 5-6 year SB window before the tread on the tires wears off and he loses that ability (or he gets injured doing it, which will probably happen eventually). With an elite passing QB (ideally with the legs and athleticism to extend plays and pick up yards as needed) you probably get a 10-15 year SB window.

Sure but beggars can't be choosers. And the best QBs for the most part tend to have at least some mobility.

[zCommander]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That’s somewhat hindsight though.  20 teams passed on Rodgers and Alex Smith went #1 overall.  
 

It’s crazy to think now, but Rogers was not a terrible pick at that spot.  Though what is unfortunate is they kindof needed a CB because Champ Bailey wanted out.  

 

Not talking about hindsight. Talking about making the right decision to go QB at the higher pick and getting a CB later instead. We could have done the same in 2020 but already had Haskins so went Chase instead. Two times we went D and no QB. This is why we haven't had a franchise QB in a long time. Not making the hard decisions but only the easy ones. Gibbs failed. Rivera failed. 

 

AZ knew they made a mistake and went QB again the following year. Sometime you got to put your pride aside for betterment of the team. 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by zskins

[Warhead36]

I'm just glad we didn't trade up for Bustin Fields. Good lord that guy stinks. He's basically Haskins with a little more mobility and not a complete dbag personality.

[kingdaddy]

10 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

By "follow the Titans script" do you mean find a borderline top 10 QB and an unstoppable All Pro running back?

 

I know that nobody here is going to convince you. You miss the 70s and 80s "pound the rock, control the clock and have a stingy defense" style of football, but it's not the way the game is today. It's an offense-centric pass-happy QB driven league. And pretty much every single coach and team knows and admits this.

 

These games you cite are fine and all. So are the others that people might bring up. But the point is that over time the teams that are going to be perennial contenders have top QBs. Sure, you can put together a stacked defense with a good supporting case and mediocre QB on offense and win for a little while. But it's not sustainable. Nowadays you're simply not going to be able to keep dominant units together over time. We've seen this over and over. The only exception seems to be the Steelers and maybe Ravens.

 

The QB absolutely has to come first. Not realizing that is simply not living in reality. And if you fail when you draft one high, you turn around keep trying until you find one. An elite QB gives you a good 10-15 year window for SB wins so you can rebuild around him multiple times (on offense and defense). A dominant defense and decent offense with a decent QB will possibly give you a 2-3 year window.

We had a borderline top 10 QB in Cousins and it got us nowhere. If you are dead set on the QB having to come first then you will have a long wait. The Detroit Lions had the QB, Stafford, for years, he came first for them and they sucked. Coaching comes first, roster 2nd and QB is right up there at the top of building a good roster. Tannehill is not a top 10 QB in the league but he is part of a very well coached, very well rounded team. Joe Gibbs built great teams and found QB's to win with....it started in the trenches then and that's still the way it is. 

BTW, franchise QB's are few and far between, if you're holding your breath to find one without paying attention to building your roster then you're in for a long wait, as we're all living through now. 

Miami drafted their franchise QB in Tua and they have 2 wins. They had as much promise as we did coming into this season but everything has fallen apart. 

I agree that a franchise QB is a game-changer, but you'll be hard pressed to find one anytime soon so you may as well try and win other ways until you find that guy. That's how Joe Gibbs did it...and don't tell me the NFL is so different now then it was back then. Football is won in the trenches, Tennessee is proving that this season....they are kicking ass across the board and Tannehill is reaping the benefits. Look at his numbers, he's not a top 10 QB, he's being managed so he doesn't have to do too much and it's working because of their running game and game planning.

It's all good, I want a QB as much as you do but I was psyched at how we were winning games last year with our dominating defense. 

I'll be pulling for whichever QB we draft high in the draft but whoever it is will likely need a lot of talent around him to succeed. 

[mistertim]

11 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

We had a borderline top 10 QB in Cousins and it got us nowhere. If you are dead set on the QB having to come first then you will have a long wait. The Detroit Lions had the QB, Stafford, for years, he came first for them and they sucked. Coaching comes first, roster 2nd and QB is right up there at the top of building a good roster. Tannehill is not a top 10 QB in the league but he is part of a very well coached, very well rounded team. Joe Gibbs built great teams and found QB's to win with....it started in the trenches then and that's still the way it is. 

BTW, franchise QB's are few and far between, if you're holding your breath to find one without paying attention to building your roster then you're in for a long wait, as we're all living through now. 

Miami drafted their franchise QB in Tua and they have 2 wins. They had as much promise as we did coming into this season but everything has fallen apart. 

I agree that a franchise QB is a game-changer, but you'll be hard pressed to find one anytime soon so you may as well try and win other ways until you find that guy. That's how Joe Gibbs did it...and don't tell me the NFL is so different now then it was back then. Football is won in the trenches, Tennessee is proving that this season....they are kicking ass across the board and Tannehill is reaping the benefits. Look at his numbers, he's not a top 10 QB, he's being managed so he doesn't have to do too much and it's working because of their running game and game planning.

It's all good, I want a QB as much as you do but I was psyched at how we were winning games last year with our dominating defense. 

I'll be pulling for whichever QB we draft high in the draft but whoever it is will likely need a lot of talent around him to succeed. 

 

The NFL is absolutely so different now. I seriously doubt you'll find any NFL coach who would say differently. It doesn't matter what Gibbs did in the 80s. That was the 80s, this is today, and the game has shifted towards high powered pass-heavy offenses where the QB is absolutely the key and most importat piece and you're basically lost without one.

 

As far as coaching, as has been pointed out in this thread by others, we've had good coaches. But they didn't have good QBs, and a good coach can only do so much without a good QB. Gibbs 2, the Shannahans, Gruden is actually a good play designer and OC (though a lousy HC), Rivera now. All good coaches who are all facing the same problem: no franchise QB. And they knew it. And Rivera knows it. Hell, he's been completely open about knowing it.

 

And yes we might be waiting a while. And that's how it is. Miami swung with Tua and they missed. We swung with Ramsey, Campbell, RG3, Haskins, and missed. What does that mean? It means you try again.

 

As far as winning games with defense sure, it can help. But it's only going to go so far nowadays. It's not the long term answer to a SB (outside of Denver's one-off) or being a perennial contender. A top QB is.

[KDawg]

8 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

I'm just glad we didn't trade up for Bustin Fields. Good lord that guy stinks. He's basically Haskins with a little more mobility and not a complete dbag personality.

 

Another example of why a rookie developmental QB is DOA here.

[profusion]

It bears repeating: the SB-winning franchise QBs in this century all came into situations where the team was already good or at least on the way and well-managed. Churning through 1st round QBs until we find "the one" would turn us into the Jets, basically. 

 

None of this matters until the team is a solid organization capable of fielding a respectable team from top to bottom. As long as Snyder's in the picture, it's unlikely that'll happen. I'm less worried about the "who" and more interested in the "how"--how is the team analyzing/rating QB prospects, how they developing their guy, and how they are building a team to put around that young man.

Edited November 9, 2021 by profusion

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, profusion said:

It bears repeating: the SB-winning franchise QBs in this century all came into situations where the team was already good or at least on the way and well-managed. Churning through 1st round QBs until we find "the one" would turn us into the Jets, basically. 

 

None of this matters until the team is a solid organization capable of fielding a respectable team from top to bottom. As long as Snyder's in the picture, it's unlikely that'll happen. I'm less worried about the "who" and more interested in the "how"--how is the team analyzing/rating QB prospects, how they developing their guy, and how they are building a team to put around that young man.

 

I think the only shot to win with a dysfunctional owner is to find a good QB.

 

There is evidence that even in this rat hole when you have a good QB or even good leadership at the QB spot, you can win here.  And this is without the Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers level elite QB, just talking good QB.

 

2012

2015-2015 -- the only back to back winning seasons here -- granted just barely

 

And when we got good leadership out of the spot, Mark Brunell (playoffs), Alex Smith, 6-3, 4-1, they've won.

 

The idea of mediocre QB play with a Dan run organization has mostly been a disaster.

 

We've had at times good supporting casts for the QB.  Good O lines.  Big name offensive coordinators.  The problem at QB has been the same with the rest of the crap that has happened to this team, Dan Snyder. 

 

Dan pushing Haskins, Ramsey, McNabb.  Dan dumping Brad Johnson for Jeff George.  Dan interjecting with RG3. 

 

The only odd thing I'll give Dan is with Kirk supposedly he wasn't the issue but Bruce Allen was.  I heard another story about that in a podcast the other day from a reporter.

 

But if we got the owner from Hell.  It's hard enough as is to win in the league without a QB but its clearly double hard to do it with Dan.  The only rays of sunshine was with above average play at QB and yeah it did happen in spite of Dan. 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Conn]

Fields is finding his confidence and flashing despite extremely poor coaching and playcalling, weird example for a “bust”, whoever said that. We’d be lucky to have him developing here. The Bears right now might be an even worse (coaching and scheming) situation than us. 

[88Comrade2000]

11 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

We had a borderline top 10 QB in Cousins and it got us nowhere. If you are dead set on the QB having to come first then you will have a long wait. The Detroit Lions had the QB, Stafford, for years, he came first for them and they sucked. Coaching comes first, roster 2nd and QB is right up there at the top of building a good roster. Tannehill is not a top 10 QB in the league but he is part of a very well coached, very well rounded team. Joe Gibbs built great teams and found QB's to win with....it started in the trenches then and that's still the way it is. 

BTW, franchise QB's are few and far between, if you're holding your breath to find one without paying attention to building your roster then you're in for a long wait, as we're all living through now. 

Miami drafted their franchise QB in Tua and they have 2 wins. They had as much promise as we did coming into this season but everything has fallen apart. 

I agree that a franchise QB is a game-changer, but you'll be hard pressed to find one anytime soon so you may as well try and win other ways until you find that guy. That's how Joe Gibbs did it...and don't tell me the NFL is so different now then it was back then. Football is won in the trenches, Tennessee is proving that this season....they are kicking ass across the board and Tannehill is reaping the benefits. Look at his numbers, he's not a top 10 QB, he's being managed so he doesn't have to do too much and it's working because of their running game and game planning.

It's all good, I want a QB as much as you do but I was psyched at how we were winning games last year with our dominating defense. 

I'll be pulling for whichever QB we draft high in the draft but whoever it is will likely need a lot of talent around him to succeed. 

That are so called dominating defense was done against mostly inferior opponents and many were using backup qbs.  When they faced a superior opponent in the Bucs, the Bucs tore right thru that defense and we’ve seen that this year. That defense wasn’t as good as advertised and top that with our offense; it’s obvious this team has a long way to go.

[88Comrade2000]

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

Another example of why a rookie developmental QB is DOA here.

Makes a strong case for a developmental league where young qbs can develop before starting in the nfl. I know that will never happen but it seems like you need a step between college and the nfl.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Makes a strong case for a developmental league where young qbs can develop before starting in the nfl. I know that will never happen but it seems like you need a step between college and the nfl.

 

I'd completely re-write the practice squad rules.

 

A league probably won't happen, but a larger practice squad where those players can get more opportunities to develop is necessary at this stage.

 

QBs should have 2 protected slots on the squad. And you can stash more but unprotected. If you have 2 active, 2 stashed and 1 unprotected you give these guys a shot. Part of the problem with QBs is the constant shuffling. Guys get signed, last a year, get replaced by a shiny new rookie. They get replaced the next year... and there is no development. 4-5 QBs per roster allows for a LOT more development. 

[skinny21]

36 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I'd completely re-write the practice squad rules.

 

A league probably won't happen, but a larger practice squad where those players can get more opportunities to develop is necessary at this stage.

 

QBs should have 2 protected slots on the squad. And you can stash more but unprotected. If you have 2 active, 2 stashed and 1 unprotected you give these guys a shot. Part of the problem with QBs is the constant shuffling. Guys get signed, last a year, get replaced by a shiny new rookie. They get replaced the next year... and there is no development. 4-5 QBs per roster allows for a LOT more development. 

Tied to that, increasing rosters to allow your other qbs to get more reps would be a big benefit as well, IMO.  Backups are usually experienced guys, whereas the developmental 3rd stringers are getting scraps (in terms of reps), making it that much harder to actually develop.  I’ve said it before, but this is one thing I love (in theory anyway) about the uptempo practices.  Increasing reps by 1/3 or more can really help new guys - whether young guys or FAs added, especially the more raw prospects.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I'm not sure what Justin Fields ever did to anybody, but I've noticed folks can't wait to call this dude a bust.  Not just by folks on this forum, but elsewhere as well.  However, i've seen more than one poster here claim to be happy we have Heineke instead of Fields, and I'm over here like What in the entire F are they smoking?

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Tied to that, increasing rosters to allow your other qbs to get more reps would be a big benefit as well, IMO.  Backups are usually experienced guys, whereas the developmental 3rd stringers are getting scraps (in terms of reps), making it that much harder to actually develop.  I’ve said it before, but this is one thing I love (in theory anyway) about the uptempo practices.  Increasing reps by 1/3 or more can really help new guys - whether young guys or FAs added, especially the more raw prospects.

 

Increased practice squad in general is smart. I'd add protected spots for every position, personally. They don't count against the main cap but they do count against the "Squad Cap". Can really get some meaningful practice reps with that. 

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not sure what Justin Fields ever did to anybody, but I've noticed folks can't wait to call this dude a bust.  Not just by folks on this forum, but elsewhere as well.  However, i've seen more than one poster here claim to be happy we have Heineke instead of Fields, and I'm over here like What in the entire F are they smoking?

 

They just want to look correct. *shrug*

[Koolblue13]

I didn't want to draft fields and even I think he looks like he'll be good now.

[Voice_of_Reason]

14 hours ago, zskins said:

 

Not talking about hindsight. Talking about making the right decision to go QB at the higher pick and getting a CB later instead. We could have done the same in 2020 but already had Haskins so went Chase instead. Two times we went D and no QB. This is why we haven't had a franchise QB in a long time. Not making the hard decisions but only the easy ones. Gibbs failed. Rivera failed. 

 

AZ knew they made a mistake and went QB again the following year. Sometime you got to put your pride aside for betterment of the team. 

 

Sure we could have, but again, 20 teams passed on Rodgers.  There wasn't a consensus he was the guy coming out of college.  After he got past SF at #1, he dropped.  I seem to remember ESPN actually escorting him out of the green room so it wouldn't be so publicly painful.  

 

And the guy who we most likely would have picked at #2 over Chase would have been Tua.  Not Herbert.  But Chase was higher on the board than Tua, probably due to injury concerns.

 

Herbert was the 3rd QB taken.  There were a lot of questions whether he would translate to the NFL.  He just has answered all of them.  

[KDawg]

I’m not huge on PFF grades but for those that are… Fields was apparently graded the highest of all QBs in week 9. 
 

Sometimes posting something tremendously silly before you let things play out really can put things in perspective. We’ve all been there. Hopefully this is a case where sometimes perspective wins over emotion.

 

But, even as someone who was all about Fields it’s still too early to even deem that he has “arrived”. It’s just a positive step in his development.

[Warhead36]

I was trolling calling him Bustin Fields but he did look a lot better at the end of last night's game.

 

I have a feeling he'll end up not working out only because the Bears will probably fire Nagy and he'll have to learn a new offense and that kinda stuff always messes with young QB development.