A Thought on QB Development

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
1,385
Which the awesome thing is if we stash Love while Rodgers continues dominating - his second contract is gonna get cheaper with every year he isn't putting up stats :D

Could happen!

Given how Rodgers is executing the offense, I think you just keep going with him indefinitely and lets the chips fall where they may.
 

pacmaniac

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
104
Without having researched it, I think a lot of this has to do with the 1st QB taken off the board going to a pretty crappy organization with very little structure. As a QB, you obviously have to have talent, but the support level around that QB I would argue is of equal importance.

As a quick example, Baker nearly looked like a complete bust in Cleveland. But they finally got a solid infrastructure around him with a solid head coach, running game, offensive line, etc.

Think about Mahomes. He got to sit behind Alex Smith for a year and gets to learn from Andy Reid, has an elite support system around him, great players, etc. Imagine if he would've went to say, the Jets.

It's interesting to think about what the perception of him would be at this point if that were to have happened.

I remember seeing some Bears fans say that if they had drafted Rodgers back in 2005, they would have failed to develop him, and he woulda been out of the league after a few years.
 

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
118
I remember seeing some Bears fans say that if they had drafted Rodgers back in 2005, they would have failed to develop him, and he woulda been out of the league after a few years.

Definitely could have fizzled out, he would have been another "Tedford bust" and nobody would have been surprised.

IMO the right combo of qb talent, motivation, intelligence, organizational structure, system, offensive talent and "gelling" makes for a successful QB. Easy hey?
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,058
Reaction score
825
It is rare for a guys' talent to excel in a poor situation, system or team...which is why I still say Stafford is a MUCH BETTER quarterback than folks appreciate him for.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,043
Reaction score
1,542
A ton? You don’t watch very much college football, do you?

There have been 62 quarterbacks drafted over the past five years. It seems NFL personnel disagrees with you about there not being a lot of talent at the position in college.

Which the awesome thing is if we stash Love while Rodgers continues dominating - his second contract is gonna get cheaper with every year he isn't putting up stats :D

Unfortunately you ignore that the Packers miss out on benefitting by having a starting quarterback on a cheap rookie deal though.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
1,385
There have been 62 quarterbacks drafted over the past five years. It seems NFL personnel disagrees with you about there not being a lot of talent at the position in college.

Your argument for why there are a ton of QB's with the kind of traits I'm talking about is that the position gets drafted? Are you serious?

That's like me saying that Derrick Henry or D.K. Metcalf or Travis Kelce aren't rare because RB's, WR's, and TE's get drafted every year.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
359
I remember seeing some Bears fans say that if they had drafted Rodgers back in 2005, they would have failed to develop him, and he woulda been out of the league after a few years.
Very possibly true. Still very funny. I must admit to reveling in the Bears and Vikings misery.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,932
Reaction score
447
There have been 62 quarterbacks drafted over the past five years. It seems NFL personnel disagrees with you about there not being a lot of talent at the position in college.

.

So yeah, you don’t watch much college football. And that’s okay!

Take Tua for example, he’s not a traits based QB. Not fast, not big, doesn’t have a strong arm, adequately mobile but not overly so.

There aren’t a lot of QB prospects with multiple good physical traits. 62 QB’s being drafted doesn’t change that.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
There have been 62 quarterbacks drafted over the past five years. It seems NFL personnel disagrees with you about there not being a lot of talent at the position in college.

How many of those 62 are playing? 34 of them were chosen in the 4th round or later, so I doubt many and those that are, probably are 1 of the 18 picked in the 1st round. So 62 drafted QB's over 5 years doesn't surprise me at all. I also don't think its a complete reflection of the talent level of college QB's, more than it is a reflection of just how valuable the position is in the NFL. Many teams are searching for that diamond in the rough. College QB's are often described as "projects with potential". The few that are NFL ready go top 10 and many of them fail. So throwing a 4th round or later pick on a developmental QB, that if he pans out, is what I would call a small swing at a homerun and not a reflection of the abundance of NFL talented QB's in college football right now.
 
Last edited:

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
118
How many of those 62 are playing? 34 of them were chosen in the 4th round or later, so I doubt many and those that are, probably are 1 of the 18 picked in the 1st round. So 62 drafted QB's over 5 years doesn't surprise me at all. I also don't think its a complete reflection of the talent level of college QB's, more than it is a reflection of just how valuable the position is in the NFL. Many teams are searching for that diamond in the rough. College QB's are often described as "projects with potential". The few that are NFL ready go top 10 and many of them fail. So throwing a 4th round or later pick on a developmental QB, that if he pans out, is what I would call a small swing at a homerun and not a reflection of the abundance of NFL talented QB's in college football right now.

You also need players throwing balls at practice that aren't the coaches. After the 2nd round IMO these guys are being drafted to be projects, camp arms and backups. Obviously cream rises to the top, so guys like Fitzmagic, Brady, etc. will probably impress sooner or later and earn more opportunity.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,043
Reaction score
1,542
Your argument for why there are a ton of QB's with the kind of traits I'm talking about is that the position gets drafted? Are you serious?

There aren’t a lot of QB prospects with multiple good physical traits.

I'm quite sure the quarterbacks drafted all have some traits teams hope to be able to develop in the long haul. Mostly it doesn't work out that way though.

How many of those 62 are playing? 34 of them were chosen in the 4th round or later, so I doubt many and those that are, probably are 1 of the 18 picked in the 1st round. So 62 drafted QB's over 5 years doesn't surprise me at all. I also don't think its a complete reflection of the talent level of college QB's, more than it is a reflection of just how valuable the position is in the NFL. Many teams are searching for that diamond in the rough. College QB's are often described as "projects with potential". The few that are NFL ready go top 10 and many of them fail. So throwing a 4th round or later pick on a developmental QB, that if he pans out, is what I would call a small swing at a homerun and not a reflection of the abundance of NFL talented QB's in college football right now.

45 quarterbacks drafted in the last five years have at least attempted a pass in an NFL game.

My point was that there's not a formula to which traits to look for in a quarterback to draft an elite one as Dantes seems to believe to have figured out.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
1,385
I'm quite sure the quarterbacks drafted all have some traits teams hope to be able to develop in the long haul. Mostly it doesn't work out that way though.

45 quarterbacks drafted in the last five years have at least attempted a pass in an NFL game.

My point was that there's not a formula to which traits to look for in a quarterback to draft an elite one as Dantes seems to believe to have figured out.

So salty... my goodness.

1-- I don't think I've "figured it out" as though QB drafting is now simple and easy. I said in the OP that this isn't even an original observation. I'm just pointing out a recent trend. Why that upsets you so much, I don't quite understand.

2-- I'm sure that every player that gets drafted every year, and a lot more that go undrafted, have something that teams feel they can try and develop. What that adds to this discussion, I don't know (I take that back; I do know-- the answer is nothing).

3-- The point is very simple: in recent seasons, QB prospects with rare traits (e.g. arm talent, mobility, and/or overall athleticism) have generally gone behind QB prospects with lesser traits who are more pro ready. The trend has been that the guys with rare traits who go later (e.g. Mahomes, Allen, Watson, Herbert) are outperforming the higher floor prospects that get taken before them (e.g. Goff, Mayfield, Burrow, Trubisky).

The theory is also very simple: maybe in an era where any QB better than average is going to eat a huge portion of your cap on a second contract, the most efficient avenue for sustained success is to favor development of the guys with traits, and not the high floor guys, especially if you have the personnel to effectively develop QB's. Because even when the high floor guys "hit," the value they offer once they get paid is minimal. Look at the buyer's remorse going on right now in LA with the Rams.

And then you think about guys going back a bit further who did go #1 overall, or who were the 1st QB in their draft classes and were the right choice, and high ceiling traits are in evidence: Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford.

Traits guys do not always work out-- of course not. There are Blake Bortles and Jake Lockers in the mix as well. But you have to go back to 2007 to find the last time a high floor/low ceiling QB prospect was the first guy off the board and it actually worked out.
 

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
A lot of ARs tangible things like accuracy and arm strength and mobility have returned and been evident this year Things where if you see, you know he's a future HOFer

I'm still not sold on Love though, I still think if there's any chance at getting Drew Lock, he could be the guy


There are just things you see, but MLF has a great system and scheme, which will undoubtedly be copied and "old" in 5 years lol, but its working very well today
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
22,445
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Milwaukee
A lot of ARs tangible things like accuracy and arm strength and mobility have returned and been evident this year Things where if you see, you know he's a future HOFer

I'm still not sold on Love though, I still think if there's any chance at getting Drew Lock, he could be the guy


There are just things you see, but MLF has a great system and scheme, which will undoubtedly be copied and "old" in 5 years lol, but its working very well today

Can you truly say not sold on Love even tho he hasn’t taken a snap? Other than college tape there is 0 evidence on how he is as an nfl qb

what do you see in practice ? In class room?

You could say a gut feeling, I would buy that
 

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
Can you truly say not sold on Love even tho he hasn’t taken a snap? Other than college tape there is 0 evidence on how he is as an nfl qb

what do you see in practice ? In class room?

You could say a gut feeling, I would buy that

Really just college tape to be honest. Just threw way too many interceptions his last year and he wasn't playing against top competition.

The talent and arm strength I get that but you can say that for many

Lock played in the SEC and improved his TD:INT ratio and completion % YoY

I see a more athletic and better version of Matt Stafford
 
Last edited:

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
  1. It is rare for a guys' talent to excel in a poor situation, system or team...which is why I still say Stafford is a MUCH BETTER quarterback than folks appreciate him for.
I think you're right but I'm sure others are aware with Stafford. He plays on a bad team with a horrible scheme

The years when he had Calvin Johnson and he was healthy his numbers were INSANE and thats just where you could let their combined talent basically win games and put up monster stats

So I don't think anyone should/does underrated his talent level
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
22,445
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Milwaukee
Really just college tape to be honest. Just threw way too many interceptions his last year
This has been brought up numerous times. But I case you hadn’t heard or read.

he had an outstanding season in 18 (32 touchdowns, six interceptions and 8.6 yards per attempt) then his hc and oc left and he regressed in 2019

By no means do I crown him anything, but sometimes a young kids needs a little more coaching to succeed..

He showed he can do it with proper teaching .

Farve could be a similar argument. 1st rd and was raw but needed Mooch , and Holmgren to help
 

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
This has been brought up numerous times. But I case you hadn’t heard or read.

he had an outstanding season in 18 (32 touchdowns, six interceptions and 8.6 yards per attempt) then his hc and oc left and he regressed in 2019

By no means do I crown him anything, but sometimes a young kids needs a little more coaching to succeed..

He showed he can do it with proper teaching .

Farve could be a similar argument. 1st rd and was raw but needed Mooch , and Holmgren to help

Regression is fine. But that doesn't explain all those interceptions... what was it? 17 interceptions?

That was in COLLEGE by the way for a smaller conference , not the SEC or the NFL.
 

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
Favre regressed badly in his 2nd year with the Packers but that was in the NFL, in 93(?l where rules were catered to defenses

Completely different story
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
22,445
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Milwaukee
Regression is fine. But that doesn't explain all those interceptions... what was it? 17 interceptions?

That was in COLLEGE by the way for a smaller conference , not the SEC or the NFL.
He had one great season then a bad one. Why do people only look at the bad one? Which btw happened when his OC left

for me that points to he needed more coaching and with right one can be good

but just my opinion
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
22,445
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Milwaukee
Favre regressed badly in his 2nd year with the Packers but that was in the NFL, in 93(?l where rules were catered to defenses

Completely different story
I don’t care if college or nfl. If a player gets better because of a coach then that matters .. that as my point . A coach can make a player better

I can find numerous college examples if you wish. I only used Brett as it was packer related
 

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
He had one great season then a bad one. Why do people only look at the bad one? Which btw happened when his OC left

for me that points to he needed more coaching and with right one can be good

but just my opinion

Bc the bad season was his most recent one lol
 
Top