Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hey RF
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2, 3
nephillymike
He holds out and then what?

Does he hold out just until June 7th mandatory and incur some fines?

Till July's camp and incur bigger fines, as you say up to $3M?

Throughout the entire year?

At some point, doing so will harm his chance to be the starter of a new offense.

Do you agree he should come in before it harms his starting chances?

If he isn't the starter, do you think that hurts him in future marketability?

What is your recommended game plan for the hold out?
Reality Fan
I don't care what he does. I really don't.
'
Now I want Wentz in there from day 1. They spent for it...he should be like over a third of the successful QBs in this league......He was the number 2 pick and he should play like it.

Sammy can try to get on tour. He can help the Eagles by getting them to unfuck the situation they created....

But please explain how you trade so much to draft a guy number 2 and people want to give him a year or 2 on the fucking bench? This place has lost it's fucking mind....


And I forgot about Luck....that is 11 guys who started right away.

Here you go:
Roethlesberger, Wilson, Ryan, Flacco, Tannehill, Carr, Palmer, Bridgewater, Cam Newton, Dalton and Luck
mcnabbulous
Palmer definitely didn't start from day 1. And who is saying 2 years?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 08:29 PM) *
I don't care what he does. I really don't.
'
Now I want Wentz in there from day 1. They spent for it...he should be like over a third of the successful QBs in this league......He was the number 2 pick and he should play like it.

Sammy can try to get on tour. He can help the Eagles by getting them to unfuck the situation they created....

But please explain how you trade so much to draft a guy number 2 and people want to give him a year or 2 on the fucking bench? This place has lost it's fucking mind....


And I forgot about Luck....that is 11 guys who started right away.

Here you go:
Roethlesberger, Wilson, Ryan, Flacco, Tannehill, Carr, Palmer, Bridgewater, Cam Newton, Dalton and Luck


Aside from the SEA who signed Flynn to a nice deal (not near cap %'s of Sam's deal), how many spent a shitload of money on a QB in FA the year they drafted these QB's? Sometimes if you pay $11M for a toy, you have to play with it.

Now getting back to my question, how long would you advise Sam to hold out? What is in his best interests? I think it is easy to see that not doing so hurts his reputation and chance of getting a possible long term "the guy" contract.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 3 2016, 09:41 PM) *
Aside from the SEA who signed Flynn to a nice deal (not near cap %'s of Sam's deal), how many spent a shitload of money on a QB in FA the year they drafted these QB's? Sometimes if you pay $11M for a toy, you have to play with it.

Now getting back to my question, how long would you advise Sam to hold out? What is in his best interests? I think it is easy to see that not doing so hurts his reputation and chance of getting a possible long term "the guy" contract.


I don't care about Bradford anymore..I don't think he is coming back so he is dead to me. This has never been about me liking Bradford. This has always been about what is best for the Eagles. They made their bed so now they need to use it.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2016, 09:39 PM) *
Palmer definitely didn't start from day 1. And who is saying 2 years?


You are correct...so we are down to 10....I will check the rest shortly...
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2016, 09:39 PM) *
Palmer definitely didn't start from day 1. And who is saying 2 years?

Here's a good article from a few years ago:

Are 1st round QB's starting earlier?

Names that jump out from the modern era:
Aaron Rodgers (49)
Philip Rivers (33)
Carson Palmer (17)
Daunte Culpepper (17)
Chad Pennington (37)


Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ May 3 2016, 09:58 PM) *
Here's a good article from a few years ago:

Are 1st round QB's starting earlier?

Names that jump out from the modern era:
Aaron Rodgers (49)
Philip Rivers (33)
Carson Palmer (17)
Daunte Culpepper (17)
Chad Pennington (37)



Rodgers and Rivers were in a unique situations behind Favre and Brees on winning teams.

and I gave you 10 guys who are good and started right away or a majority of their rookie year...many on winning teams.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 08:46 PM) *
I don't care about Bradford anymore..I don't think he is coming back so he is dead to me. This has never been about me liking Bradford. This has always been about what is best for the Eagles. They made their bed so now they need to use it.


But if playing Bradford this year was best for the Eagles, pre draft, then unless the Kid is better than him, then playing Bradford this year is still best FOR THE EAGLES. It's debatable if it is in your clients best interest but I happen to think it is.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 09:04 PM) *
Rodgers and Rivers were in a unique situations behind Favre and Brees on winning teams.

and I gave you 10 guys who are good and started right away or a majority of their rookie year...many on winning teams.

But who cares. If both ways have worked, why does it matter if you can point to 10 guys whom have had varying degrees of success.

I can point to 10 guys who started immediately that shit the bed. What's the point?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 3 2016, 10:11 PM) *
But if playing Bradford this year was best for the Eagles, pre draft, then unless the Kid is better than him, then playing Bradford this year is still best FOR THE EAGLES. It's debatable if it is in your clients best interest but I happen to think it is.


I think it is but the best interest of your team would have been to go to Bradford after you realized you could go to 2 and find out where his head would be and then realizing that he was not on board finding a trading partner while it was quiet....instead Howie could not wait to run in front of the cameras...

That would have been best for the Eagles. People may not like Condon, I am one of them, but he is correct when he says that there is no competition....as several beat writers have now pointed out.

until Condon or Bradford speaks we have no idea who is behind the wheel. That is the answer to if and when he comes back. If it is Condon it is sooner, if it is Bradford then I doubt he ever plays here again.

Have you thought about if and when he comes back? What will that be like? He can say whatever he wants,,,,,there will be no "team" filter.....if I am Pederson I would be terrified. Imagine the first time that clock management comes into play....Sam: "I wanted to go hurry up but apparently the sidelines could not get their shit together" or "I wanted to run this play but he is the coach and wanted this play even though it was a terrible idea" Every loss will be a minefield of QB comments....god, that will be fun.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 09:21 PM) *
I think it is but the best interest of your team would have been to go to Bradford after you realized you could go to 2 and find out where his head would be and then realizing that he was not on board finding a trading partner while it was quiet....instead Howie could not wait to run in front of the cameras...

That would have been best for the Eagles. People may not like Condon, I am one of them, but he is correct when he says that there is no competition....as several beat writers have now pointed out.

until Condon or Bradford speaks we have no idea who is behind the wheel. That is the answer to if and when he comes back. If it is Condon it is sooner, if it is Bradford then I doubt he ever plays here again.

Have you thought about if and when he comes back? What will that be like? He can say whatever he wants,,,,,there will be no "team" filter.....if I am Pederson I would be terrified. Imagine the first time that clock management comes into play....Sam: "I wanted to go hurry up but apparently the sidelines could not get their shit together" or "I wanted to run this play but he is the coach and wanted this play even though it was a terrible idea" Every loss will be a minefield of QB comments....god, that will be fun.



If he is going to come back he needs to be ready.

They are likely going to boo the living shit out of him. The only chance he has at reversing that issue is to have a good returning press conference and to play well early on.

If he is half as horrible as he was early on last year, forget about it. The "We Want Carson" chants will make the "Fi Yer Andy " chants seem like a friendly suggestion.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 3 2016, 10:32 PM) *
If he is going to come back he needs to be ready.

They are likely going to boo the living shit out of him. The only chance he has at reversing that issue is to have a good returning press conference and to play well early on.

If he is half as horrible as he was early on last year, forget about it. The "We Want Carson" chants will make the "Fi Yer Andy " chants seem like a friendly suggestion.


Do you really think he would be...he was coming back off 2 consecutive ACLs...barely participated in OTAs...and he had not played in 18 months..

Somehow I think he will be fine...
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 09:51 PM) *
Do you really think he would be...he was coming back off 2 consecutive ACLs...barely participated in OTAs...and he had not played in 18 months..

Somehow I think he will be fine...



But he'll have many of the same excuses

"barely participate in OTA's (holdout)
New offense
Shitty WR's
etc.
Zero
The bottom line for me remains that Bradford is responsible for where he is. It doesn't matter if the Eagles made ill advised moves and it doesn't matter if Condon gave him bad advice. Bradford needs to be realistic about what he wants and what avenues are available for him to achieve his goals. What are his options now? He can continue to hold out ... for how long and to what result? He can report and deal with fan displeasure. He can retire. What else?

The Eagles are in a similar situation. They are responsible for the problem that exists. They can do nothing and waste time, money and team unity on the situation. They can release him. The can probably trade him for insignificant compensation. Or they can try to mend an injured psych and make an attempt to salvage something from the ordeal.

If I'm Pederson, I'm traveling to OK and buying him lunch. If he doesn't answer his phone, I'll try knocking on the door so I can connect with the guy on a personal, compassionate level. I think this may have been the Eagles biggest mistake, assuming a person was capable of dealing with a situation they obviously were not able to deal with. Is this allowed under the CBA?
nd9kel
I sense panic on the board as the realization that Bradford is serious sinks in.
Reality Fan
Not sure if it is panic or irrationality.

What is ignored is that Bradford has gone through some pretty physically challenged times in his career. If he was thinking of retiring after his 2nd knee surgery what makes you think he is not just thinking "screw this bullshit" He has plenty of money, he can relax and enjoy life.

That is a real possibility.....he may just think he is done with dealing with FOs like the disaster that was the Rams and then this debacle. Remember, there is nothing in Bradford's past that he is a petulant or whiny guy. The fact that he is this pissed off publicly kind of says something. It does not mean he is right but obviously there is something more then a little suspect.

And quite frankly, I don't trust Howie even a little bit...he is a sniveling little bitch and Lurie is his enabler..
D Rock
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 02:29 AM) *
Here you go:
Roethlesberger, Wilson, Ryan, Flacco, Tannehill, Carr, Palmer, Bridgewater, Cam Newton, Dalton and Luck

Winston and Marriota too.

I'm with RF on this. You do NOT get better sitting on the bench. (period)
mcnabbulous
Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers both spent at least their first season on the bench. And they're probably the best two QBs in football.

I don't know why anyone is trying to suggest there is a right or wrong way to do it. Both ways have numerous successes and failures.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 11:53 AM) *
Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers both spent at least their first season on the bench. And they're probably the best two QBs in football.

I don't know why anyone is trying to suggest there is a right or wrong way to do it. Both ways have numerous successes and failures.

This!
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Zero @ May 4 2016, 12:37 PM) *
This!



I am sorry...I did not realize that either team trade a ton to draft either...

oh wait...they didn't

But cute to leave that out of the equation.....on 2 really terrible examples....
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 11:46 AM) *
I am sorry...I did not realize that either team trade a ton to draft either...

oh wait...they didn't

But cute to leave that out of the equation.....on 2 really terrible examples....

What they gave up to acquire the guy is irrelevant to that part of the discussion. It's about the best way to develop a QB.

The best two currently in the game spent the early part of their career learning from the bench.

If you want Wentz to develop into one of the best QB's in the league, there is at least a small amount of evidence to suggest sticking him on the bench for a year is the best way to do it.

If you want to prove he's "ready" and get average to slightly above average production from him while he's on the field, you can play him. But rest assured, you're probably not going to do too much better than "above average" from any rookie QB.

There are exceptions (Wilson, Big Ben, RG3), but in most cases, it's above average at best.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 12:54 PM) *
What they gave up to acquire the guy is irrelevant to that part of the discussion. It's about the best way to develop a QB.

The best two currently in the game spent the early part of their career learning from the bench.

If you want Wentz to develop into one of the best QB's in the league, there is at least a small amount of evidence to suggest sticking him on the bench for a year is the best way to do it.

If you want to prove he's "ready" and get average to slightly above average production from him while he's on the field, you can play him. But rest assured, you're probably not going to do too much better than "above average" from any rookie QB.

There are exceptions (Wilson, Big Ben, RG3), but in most cases, it's above average at best.


and the Manning brothers started from day one.....what you give up certainly matters. It means you think that guy is ready to be the guy or you do not trade away 2 players and 3 picks including another first round pick to get him. The Giants did nearly an identical thing to get Manning who, again, started right away.

In most cases? You keep treating their moves to get him as if he is a 6th round pick like Brady. You can't ignore the price to get him, that is a huge component of his story. The cost, like any other commodity, is reflective of the perceived quality. For the cost he should be ready now.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 01:00 PM) *
and the Manning brothers started from day one.....what you give up certainly matters. It means you think that guy is ready to be the guy or you do not trade away 2 players and 3 picks including another first round pick to get him. The Giants did nearly an identical thing to get Manning who, again, started right away.

In most cases? You keep treating their moves to get him as if he is a 6th round pick like Brady. You can't ignore the price to get him, that is a huge component of his story. The cost, like any other commodity, is reflective of the perceived quality. For the cost he should be ready now.

You keep saying "ready." No rookie QB has ever won a SB. So what does it matter if he plays? We're not going to win this year.

Both Big Ben and Brady won Super Bowls in their second year, following two very different paths. "Ready" in this case, is an arbitrary value. He could be ready, and it could also be in his best interest to sit.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 07:07 PM) *
You keep saying "ready." No rookie QB has ever won a SB. So what does it matter if he plays? We're not going to win this year.

Both Big Ben and Brady won Super Bowls in their second year, following two very different paths. "Ready" in this case, is an arbitrary value. He could be ready, and it could also be in his best interest to sit.

"What does it matter if he plays?" I'll tell you. Nobody gets better riding the pine. They just don't. You delay the inevitable learning curve. If Ben won his super bowl in year 2, what would be the point of sitting him a year? So he could wait to win until year 3? That simply doesn't hold water logically.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ May 4 2016, 01:14 PM) *
"What does it matter if he plays?" I'll tell you. Nobody gets better riding the pine. They just don't. You delay the inevitable learning curve. If Ben won his super bowl in year 2, what would be the point of sitting him a year? So he could wait to win until year 3? That simply doesn't hold water logically.

But Brady won in year 2 while sitting year 1. There is no reason to think that isn't possible.

While they may not get better riding the pine, there are bad habits that come from playing too early.

You act like these guys aren't facing real, NFL defenses in practice. They're getting experience. It may not be as good as the real thing, but practice isn't completely worthless.

If the end goal is developing Wentz into an elite QB, there is evidence to suggest that both approaches work. Whether your perceived stunted development is real or not is hard to say, based on the available evidence.

All I care about is Wentz developing into a star. If Doug believes that a year on the bench or getting eased into things improves the chances of that happening, I'm fine with it. The best QB in Eagles history got that treament, and I believe he was better for it as a result.

Donovan most certainly wasn't ready to be an NFL starter on day 1.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 02:07 PM) *
You keep saying "ready." No rookie QB has ever won a SB. So what does it matter if he plays? We're not going to win this year.

Both Big Ben and Brady won Super Bowls in their second year, following two very different paths. "Ready" in this case, is an arbitrary value. He could be ready, and it could also be in his best interest to sit.


So did Russell Wilson.....and again, you make it seem like the Pats wanted Brady as their future....how much more disingenuous can you be? Ready means able to step on the field and play to a professional level. Why would you equate ready as winning the Super Bowl? How ridiculous is that? If we are not going to win it this year than all the more reason to play him? There is no pressure...if they had a legitimate shot I could almost see sitting him.

It is just more of the same......if he is as good as his cost suggests he should be playing...it really is that simple. You don't think that the cost should reflect expectation....remind me never to take you car or house shopping.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 02:22 PM) *
Donovan most certainly wasn't ready to be an NFL starter on day 1.

Most rookie QBs aren't ready to start. Coaches generally play them early to pacify owners, not necessarily because they are ready.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ May 4 2016, 02:32 PM) *
Most rookie QBs aren't ready to start. Coaches generally play them early to pacify owners, not necessarily because they are ready.


That I agree with......but most rookie QBs do not have 2 players and 3 additional draft picks traded to get them...that means something.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 01:29 PM) *
So did Russell Wilson.....and again, you make it seem like the Pats wanted Brady as their future....how much more disingenuous can you be? Ready means able to step on the field and play to a professional level. Why would you equate ready as winning the Super Bowl? How ridiculous is that? If we are not going to win it this year than all the more reason to play him? There is no pressure...if they had a legitimate shot I could almost see sitting him.


I would think that if you're not capable of winning a Super Bowl, it doesn't matter if you start or not. If there was evidence to support one being better than the other, I would suggest we choose that option. But because there are case studies for both scenarios working, it doesn't matter to me.

QUOTE
It is just more of the same......if he is as good as his cost suggests he should be playing...it really is that simple. You don't think that the cost should reflect expectation....remind me never to take you car or house shopping.

You and I have a different opinion on what the expectation is for rookie QB's. My expectations for Wentz is that he becomes one of the premier QBs in football. What he does his rookie year will likely have no bearing on that either way.

It doesn't matter if we drafted him 1st, 2nd, or 199th. If he is developed appropriately and becomes great, the 2016 season is of no consequence to me.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 01:37 PM) *
That I agree with......but most rookie QBs do not have 2 players and 3 additional draft picks traded to get them...that means something.

I think you need to accept that it means something to you. Not necessarily anyone else.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 02:39 PM) *
I think you need to accept that it means something to you. Not necessarily anyone else.


I think you also have to consider risk.

In the worst case scenario, there is significant evidence that starting him from day one could do irreparable damage to his confidence and cause him to never reach his full potential.

However, sitting him for a year, the worst thing that happens if that you delay him from reaching his full potential. He may never reach his full potential anyways, but it won't be because he sat for a year.

Personally, I'd rather see him start day one, because i'm a bit more of a gambler, and because he's already a little older than I'd like. But I can see sitting him, too, to try to mitigate the risk.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ May 4 2016, 01:48 PM) *
Personally, I'd rather see him start day one, because i'm a bit more of a gambler, and because he's already a little older than I'd like. But I can see sitting him, too, to try to mitigate the risk.

I'd rather him play too, just because it will make 2016 way more interesting to watch. But I don't think there is any proven benefit to having him do so for the long-term.

I'm really not too worried about the risk, either. Because I think our team is solid enough to give him a chance to be moderately successful.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 03:00 PM) *
I'd rather him play too, just because it will make 2016 way more interesting to watch. But I don't think there is any proven benefit to having him do so for the long-term.

I'm really not too worried about the risk, either. Because I think our team is solid enough to give him a chance to be moderately successful.


What would be proof to you? I already provided you 10 examples, most of them top QBs in the league? all but one with Pro Bowls.....what more proof do you need. I even linked and article by a beat writer who did the same research......there is no proof for you.....you choose to ignore the NFL today and try to trot out poor examples from 10-15 years ago.

And another will join those ranks with the Rams this season NS apparently 11 other teams, a few with multiple SBs among them, seem to think the same way...but you are right...the Eagles probably have a smarter way.....maybe they rely on their Super Bowl victory experience.

I think it is 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by QBs who started day one.

But it is good to see all the confidence or lack thereof in our new baby Jesus
xsv
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 03:50 PM) *
What would be proof to you? I already provided you 10 examples, most of them top QBs in the league? all but one with Pro Bowls.....what more proof do you need. I even linked and article by a beat writer who did the same research......there is no proof for you.....you choose to ignore the NFL today and try to trot out poor examples from 10-15 years ago.

And another will join those ranks with the Rams this season NS apparently 11 other teams, a few with multiple SBs among them, seem to think the same way...but you are right...the Eagles probably have a smarter way.....maybe they rely on their Super Bowl victory experience.

I think it is 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by QBs who started day one.

But it is good to see all the confidence or lack thereof in our new baby Jesus



Are you asking if there are examples of QBs that sat for a year and then became very good starting QBs?

I haven't looked yet, but I would imagine there would be a ton of those.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 02:50 PM) *
What would be proof to you? I already provided you 10 examples, most of them top QBs in the league? all but one with Pro Bowls.....what more proof do you need. I even linked and article by a beat writer who did the same research......there is no proof for you.....you choose to ignore the NFL today and try to trot out poor examples from 10-15 years ago.

It's causation vs. correlation.

You're saying that many of the most successful QB's started on day 1. I'm suggesting they would very likely be just as successful had they been eased into things. And in some cases, maybe even more so.

QUOTE
And another will join those ranks with the Rams this season NS apparently 11 other teams, a few with multiple SBs among them, seem to think the same way...but you are right...the Eagles probably have a smarter way.....maybe they rely on their Super Bowl victory experience.

I think it is 7 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by QBs who started day one.

But it is good to see all the confidence or lack thereof in our new baby Jesus

All that does is say that a lot of good QB's started from day one. Which makes sense. It doesn't say that it contributed to them being good.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 4 2016, 04:00 PM) *
It's causation vs. correlation.

You're saying that many of the most successful QB's started on day 1. I'm suggesting they would very likely be just as successful had they been eased into things. And in some cases, maybe even more so.


All that does is say that a lot of good QB's started from day one. Which makes sense. It doesn't say that it contributed to them being good.


But that doesn't work for guys who sat a year? You can say definietively that sitting a year helps them?

I suppose we had very different logic classes.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 03:03 PM) *
But that doesn't work for guys who sat a year? You can say definietively that sitting a year helps them?

I suppose we had very different logic classes.

No, in fact I've reiterated time and time again that there isn't a science behind developing an elite QB. That's literally been my point the whole time. It can work either way and there are examples to support both cases.

I understand the desire to throw them to the wolves, and I've seen examples of the alternative working really well. I'm okay with either approach with regards to Wentz. In fact, my personal preference is that he plays a lot next year. But I can't speculate as to how that will impact his career one way or another.

There have been cases of guys I would have drafted early and sat on the bench for 1-2 years (Geno) and other situations where I would have played the guy immediately (Mariota). It's a case by case situation.

I don't think it's a matter of our FO or coaching staff thinking they're smarter than anyone either way.
xsv
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 04:03 PM) *
But that doesn't work for guys who sat a year? You can say definietively that sitting a year helps them?

I suppose we had very different logic classes.


There isn't conclusive evidence that sitting him would help, but it's certainly isn't going to hurt.

There is certainly more risk in retarding his development by starting him day 1.

Phits
QUOTE (xsv @ May 4 2016, 04:00 PM) *
Are you asking if there are examples of QBs that sat for a year and then became very good starting QBs?

I haven't looked yet, but I would imagine there would be a ton of those.

Only using active QB's so far we have.....
- Aaron Rodgers
- Tom Brady
- Drew Brees
- Philip Rivers
- Carson Palmer
xsv
QUOTE (Phits @ May 4 2016, 04:15 PM) *
Only using active QB's so far we have.....
- Aaron Rodgers
- Tom Brady
- Drew Brees
- Philip Rivers
- Carson Palmer


AJ McCarron
Kirk Cousins

to a lesser degree
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Tyrod Taylor
Reality Fan
QUOTE (xsv @ May 4 2016, 04:14 PM) *
There is much greater risk to a QBs development if he starts day 1.


The numbers simply do not support that. There are too many of the top QBs today that started day 1 and I have not even looked at the 2 tier.
Phits
QUOTE
“Some of these guys who are going to bad teams are expected to play well right away,” Rodgers tells Dan Pompei of Sports on Earth. “It’s hard to do that. I’ve seen a couple guys able to do it. [Ben] Roethlisberger was able to do it. He had a team kind of around him. [Joe] Flacco had some success early but he had a team kind of in place. You go to a place that has some pieces and you can have some success early. But if you go to a team that doesn’t have the pieces . . . it can really mess with your confidence.”


Rodgers says sit and wait

The reality check is that the Eagles are not a very good team....and we seem to have a very tough schedule. We have a new HC and DC. The team is learning a new system in virtually every facet of the game.
Reality Fan
you mean like Bradford? Go figure......
Reality Fan
QUOTE (xsv @ May 4 2016, 04:00 PM) *
Are you asking if there are examples of QBs that sat for a year and then became very good starting QBs?

I haven't looked yet, but I would imagine there would be a ton of those.


I just gave you 10 guys in the league right now who started right away.
D Rock
QUOTE (xsv @ May 4 2016, 09:14 PM) *
There isn't conclusive evidence that sitting him would help, but it's certainly isn't going to hurt.

There is certainly more risk in retarding his development by starting him day 1.

for a 23 year old rookie to waste a year sitting on the bench does nothing to help his development. You just delay the inevitable learning curve. That curve is not somehow shortened by the year watching.

Quarterbacks do NOT develop on the bench.

The starter is going to get 90% of the practice reps, so you can't say "he'll get better at practice" either. No playing time, and few if any practice reps, leads to a wasted year. Next year, he'd be a 24 year old who still has as much (or little) experience as he does today.
Phits
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 4 2016, 04:20 PM) *
I just gave you 10 guys in the league right now who started right away.

How many of them were surrounded by good teams?
Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ May 4 2016, 04:21 PM) *
for a 23 year old rookie to waste a year sitting on the bench does nothing to help his development. You just delay the inevitable learning curve. That curve is not somehow shortened by the year watching.

Quarterbacks do NOT develop on the bench.

The starter is going to get 90% of the practice reps, so you can't say "he'll get better at practice" either. No playing time, and few if any practice reps, leads to a wasted year. Next year, he'd be a 24 year old who still has as much (or little) experience as he does today.

Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Carson Palmer discount your claim.
D Rock
QUOTE (Phits @ May 4 2016, 09:23 PM) *
Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Carson Palmer discount your claim.

How so? Are you suggesting that they would have sucked starting day 1? Based on exactly what?

Brady sat a total of 2 games. That's hardly wasting a year on the pine. Who did Brees sit behind? Palmer? Rodgers is the only legit example, and he was an end of round pick sitting behind a first ballot hall of famer. Hardly apples to apples.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ May 4 2016, 03:26 PM) *
How so? Are you suggesting that they would have sucked starting day 1? Based on exactly what?

Brady sat a total of 2 games. That's hardly wasting a year on the pine. Who did Brees sit behind? Palmer? Rodgers is the only legit example, and he was an end of round pick sitting behind a first ballot hall of famer. Hardly apples to apples.

Bro, Brady sat for his entire rookie season (+ 2 games).

Palmer sat behind Kitna, despite being the #1 pick. McNabb sat despite being #2. He immediately had us competing in his second year in the league.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.