Skins News of the Day - Fri, 9/11

[Caliskinsfan]

 

[Stymietee]

The next time we have a HOF QB on the team, I support that 100%.

Maybe that time will come, if the organization creates a blueprint to develop one!

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Maybe that time will come, if the organization creates a blueprint to develop one!

You keep sticking to this theory when the facts just don't support it which is puzzling. The only reason Rodgers sat so long was a guy named Favre, a very unique situation. When you don't have that you play the QB right away and guys like Luck, Wilson, Rothliberger, Peyton, Ryan, Elway, Aikman etc turned out just fine despite starting their rookie season.

 

[j_y19]

You keep sticking to this theory when the facts just don't support it which is puzzling. The only reason Rodgers sat so long was a guy named Favre, a very unique situation. When you don't have that you play the QB right away and guys like Luck, Wilson, Rothliberger, Peyton, Ryan, Elway, Aikman etc turned out just fine despite starting their rookie season.

Unfortunately the league has changed. There is such a dearth of good NFL caliber QBs, that rookies drafted as franchise QBs are expected to play immediately. What is ironic is that the college ranks are producing less and less NFL trained prospects who are ready so failure is a self fulfilling prophecy. I see where stymiee is coming from. You have to wonder how many young QBs failed in the NFL because they were thrown into the fire way before they were ready whereas if they were given the opportunity to learn they might have succeeded.

This is why I hope for KC to succeed, if just to become average. It will give us a chance to draft his replacement and actually mold him for a few years. Of course that will never work here. For once KC has his first bad game, the press and the fans will be crying for the young guy.

 

[Sportster 72]

sty is not wrong but things are not about to change soon. I have mentioned this before so at the risk of repeating myself I will say it again. College coaches care little about training QBs for the NFL. It is much easier for them to succeed running a spread offense. I watch a lot of college football becaue of my nephews. Almost all of the teams are running the spread, no huddle, no play calling, no play book etc. The QB at Glenville State a D II school completes most passes etc. He is just one of many.

In the old days you drafted a QB and he learned while backing up for 2-4 years. Except for the rare situation where Rodgers was behind Favre these kids play right away now. They make a lot of money, the expectations from everyone is high.

It is a shame for many of these kids. They never learn to play in a pro style offense. I was against drafting Griffin for this reason. Then add that you traded multiple high picks for him and the expectations were much higher. Meanwhile guys like Luck, Wilson and Cousins had played in a pro style offense. Griffin did need to sit and learn or at the least what I thought might happen as 2012 developed was learn to play the drop back while also using an offense similar to what he played in college.

The mistake was drafting the kid so high. But it happens every year. The Shanahan's had the kid started in the right direction but then he got hurt and decided he didn't want to play that style anymore. You can blame the Shanhan's but it was Robert here turned back into the field and Ngata instead of sliding that got him injured.

The moral of my story is ... especially since the Redskins maybe drafting a QB again next year is to draft one who has played in a pro style offense. It isn't a guarantee he will succeed but his chances will be much better than anyone who played in a spread offense.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Trying to decide which trade was worse I went back to see just what the Vikes gave up. I learned in my research that ESPN lists it as only the 8th worst trade in sports history, 5 spots behind Dr. J to the Sixers. I'm not kidding.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Trying to decide which trade was worse I went back to see just what the Vikes gave up. I learned in my research that ESPN lists it as only the 8th worst trade in sports history, 5 spots behind Dr. J to the Sixers. I'm not kidding.

OK tried to post this on another board, too many windows open. LOL

Back on topic I understand that most QBs are not as ready as in the past but I still think it's a convenient excuse for a guy who just couldn't play. David Carr or Brady Quinn didn't fail because they played too early any more than Aaron Rogers was only successful because they waited. The result were that way because Aaron Rogers is Aaron Rodgers and David Carr and Brady Quinn weren't. Did Cam Newton or Russell Wilson come in built for the NFL game? No they didn't but they have been relatively successful despite starting very early in their careers. I'm not a big Andy Daulton fan but he was hardly ruined by starting right away despite coming from a college system that was not pro ready. Andy Daulton has topped out at about where his ability says he should have and obviousy he didn't get ruined by playing early.

It's simply not true that you need to sit a QB for years before he can start or he will be ruined.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

With all that said I totally agree that a qb from a pro style system in college increases your odds dramatically. I have no idea why a star high school player would ever go to a spread when every one has the dream to play professionally.

 

[Stymietee]

You keep sticking to this theory when the facts just don't support it which is puzzling. The only reason Rodgers sat so long was a guy named Favre, a very unique situation. When you don't have that you play the QB right away and guys like Luck, Wilson, Rothliberger, Peyton, Ryan, Elway, Aikman etc turned out just fine despite starting their rookie season.

There's ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence to support your notion that the ONLY reason he sat was because of Favre. There were plenty of times that GB could have substituted him in and in fact Rogers was often talked about as the future there but they wouldn't play him until they thought him ready.

I really don't know how old you are, but up to one point sitting a young QB and grooming him was standard practice. Don't believe me? read it for yourself.

When to Start Your Rookie Quarterback | FOX Sports
www.foxsports.com/...football/.../when-to-start-your-rookie-q...

To start or to sit: Which is better for NFL franchise QB ...
www.sportingnews.com/.../4643460-nfl-rookie-quarterba.

Further to make my point clear about young QB's entering the NFL without any pro style/ conventional experience.

How college spread offenses are making it tougher to ...
www.cleveland.com/.../how_college_spread_offenses_a...

 

[Stymietee]

OK tried to post this on another board, too many windows open. LOL

It's simply not true that you need to sit a QB for years before he can start or he will be ruined.

.......But you do increase his odds of success if he more readily prepared.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

There's ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence to support your notion that the ONLY reason he sat was because of Favre. There were plenty of times that GB could have substituted him in and in fact Rogers was often talked about as the future there but they wouldn't play him until they thought him ready.

So being drafted by a team with a Hall of Fame QB who still had plenty left and no desire to quit is zero evidence? Child please.The Pack was in a unique position of being able to spend 2 years grooming their QB of the future because they already had a stud in place. This would not have happened in SF where they were forced to play Alex Smith right away.

Yes I' m old enough to remember the way it was. I also clearly remember Troy Aikman and John Elway starting game 1 of their rookie seasons and Dan Marino coming in halfway through his rookie season. Add those to the growing list I have already provided of QBs who started immediately and were not ruined because of it.

 

[Stymietee]

So being drafted by a team with a Hall of Fame QB who still had plenty left and no desire to quit is zero evidence? Child please.The Pack was in a unique position of being able to spend 2 years grooming their QB of the future because they already had a stud in place. This would not have happened in SF where they were forced to play Alex Smith right away.

Yes I' m old enough to remember the way it was. I also clearly remember Troy Aikman and John Elway starting game 1 of their rookie seasons and Dan Marino coming in halfway through his rookie season. Add those to the growing list I have already provided of QBs who started immediately and were not ruined because of it.

If you're going to continue to argue a bad point at least make some sense. Having a HOF QB is not evidence that this is the reason for not playing the face of the future...... it is circumstance. In fact to further my point, take arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game Joe Montana who himself was replaced by Steve Young. You argue that the only reason the younger man doesn't play is because there is a HOF, I'll even give you competent QB ahead of him. Well if your truth held to form Steve Young would not have replaced Montana until Joe retired, seeing that no one trades a HOF QB, which by request SF did. That's below you. We both could go through history and pick and choose circumstances (notice my use of the word circumstances) where situations called for this move or that one, that is not evidence......that's choice young man, and Washington made the wrong one.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

If you're going to continue to argue a bad point at least make some sense. Having a HOF QB is not evidence that this is the reason for not playing the face of the future...... it is circumstance. In fact to further my point, take arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game Joe Montana who himself was replaced by Steve Young. You argue that the only reason the younger man doesn't play is because there is a HOF, I'll even give you competent QB ahead of him. Well if your truth held to form Steve Young would not have replaced Montana until Joe retired, seeing that no one trades a HOF QB, which by request SF did. That's below you. We both could go through history and pick and choose circumstances (notice my use of the word circumstances) where situations called for this move or that one, that is not evidence......that's choice young man, and Washington made the wrong one.

LOL Did I not say the same thing? Again the Pack had a HOF QB. As I said they were in a unique position, you call it circumstance but it's the exact same thing, that allowed them to wait. Your point earlier was he needed the time and that's why they waited, he clearly wasn't ready or they would have used him for a series or two. Yeah like that ever happens. "Hey Brady, have a seat big boy. We want to give this young guy a few snaps" Again you said he wasn't ready so that's why he didn't play. My point all along was circimstances allowed them this opportunity.

In conclussion yes I agree that ideally you bring along a QB slowly. Wouldnhave been great if they had a HOFQB with tread on the tires already in place as they developed Robert. But obviously that was not realistic so just like so many other teams that have done this with success they put Robert out there right away and he set rookie passing records. But you act like it is absolutely necessary to sit a player and that is nonsense as the many examples I have provided have shown.