A Thought on QB Development

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
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

Not merely his OC, but his HC as well (an offensive HC), his leading rusher, five of his top six pass catchers, and all five of his starters on the offensive line from 2018.

Literally the top pieces from 2018 that Love had back in 2019 were the backup RB and the WR4.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
22,445
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Milwaukee
Not merely his OC, but his HC as well (an offensive HC), his leading rusher, five of his top six pass catchers, and all five of his starters on the offensive line from 2018.

Literally the top pieces from 2018 that Love had back in 2019 were the backup RB and the WR4.
Yup
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
122
Location
N. Fort Myers, FL
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.

You have to wonder how many really good QBs get drafted high by crappy teams and their potential and talents are wasted. I also wonder how someone like David Carr would have played if he wasn't pounded into the turf repeatedly every week.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
You have to wonder how many really good QBs get drafted high by crappy teams and their potential and talents are wasted. I also wonder how someone like David Carr would have played if he wasn't pounded into the turf repeatedly every week.

Yeah, I understand that argument, but I tend to think it's a little overblown.

For instance, Josh Allen and Baker Mayfield have been in pretty similar situations, but one has emerged as clearly superior. We've seen something similar in year one with Joe Burrow and Mitch Herbert.
 

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
You are right and it is probably why he was still on the board when the Packers selected him. Flip the 2 seasons and he might have gone top 10.
.
Definitely. I'm not doubting that


But 17 interceptions in college is a huge red flag and in a small conference too. Did those backups make him throw 17 interceptions?
 

PackinMSP

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
797
Reaction score
56
Yeah, I understand that argument, but I tend to think it's a little overblown.

For instance, Josh Allen and Baker Mayfield have been in pretty similar situations, but one has emerged as clearly superior. We've seen something similar in year one with Joe Burrow and Mitch Herbert.

Probably. Its case by case

I mean the Browns went through Manzell, Weeden, Brady Quinn, etc and they all sucked so Baker Mayfield is already pretty damn good in my book

Not to mention OBJ was injured....
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,932
Reaction score
447
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.

Regarding Love, new coach, new offense, lost almost all the starters from the prior year. He tried to do way too much. He had very small windows to try to complete balls. I’m not kidding when I say he will routinely see larger windows in the NFL than he did his last year of school. He unfortunately developed some bad habits there.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,932
Reaction score
447
.
Definitely. I'm not doubting that


But 17 interceptions in college is a huge red flag and in a small conference too. Did those backups make him throw 17 interceptions?

In a way, yes. He had to force a lot of balls because guys just weren’t open.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,932
Reaction score
447
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

A better Matt Stafford?!

Drew Lock?!

Stafford is so terribly underrated. There aren’t many teams that wouldn’t take him as their QB.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
22,445
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Milwaukee
People were blaming the new system of matt for Rodgers "down year" last year.

If thats true, than a 3rd year college qb who has new system should be able to say same thing
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
Set aside the whole issue of Rodgers still being under contract and all of that, and just consider Love on his own as a prospect for a moment. A few things are true:

1) His performance in 2019 was not commending him to anyone most of the time, both statistically and at times on tape.

2) His 2018 was exciting both in terms of what he showed on film and what he accomplished statistically.

3) His supporting cast completely turned over between those two seasons, and saw a pretty massive downgrade.

4) He possesses a rare combination of abilities for the position, namely a great combination of size and athleticism, as well as plus arm talent.

Taken altogether, it makes sense why he slipped, and it makes sense why he would still be a 1st rounder. There are reasons to be optimistic in his ability to grow, and reasons to be concerned about what he put on tape.

I've been saying this for nearly 8 months now and nothing has changed: if you want to like him, you can find evidence to support that perspective; if you want to dislike him, you can find evidence to support that perspective.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
People were blaming the new system of matt for Rodgers "down year" last year.

If thats true, than a 3rd year college qb who has new system should be able to say same thing

Precisely.

And that's a legit explanation about last year's offensive showing. LaFleur's offense, and similar offenses, have taken a year to click almost anywhere.

What's happened in Green Bay mirrors Shanahan in Atlanta almost exactly.

2015 Falcons (year 1): 1.84 points per drive
2016 Falcons (year 2): 2.90 points per drive

2019 Packers (year 1): 2.11 points per drive
2020 Packers (year 2): 3.08 points per drive
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
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

Drew Lock, among 10+ game starters--

Completion %: 57.3 (32nd)
TD %: 3.6 (26th)
INT%: 3.4 (32nd-- in a bad way)
YPA: 6.6 (28th)
Rating: 75.4 (30th)
QBR: 48.9 (30th)

You can make a stronger case that Lock was the worst starting quarterback in the NFL in 2020 than for anyone else in the league.

How in the world do you see a better version of Matt Stafford?
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,047
Reaction score
1,542
I'm just pointing out a recent trend. Why that upsets you so much, I don't quite understand.

It doesn't upset me at all, I'm just surprised that you believe to have figured out a more successful way to evaluate college quarterbacks than NFL personnel.

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).

The point being that you use some quarterbacks as example for the perfect way to draft players at the position but conveniently ignore the ones that didn't make it while featuring similar traits as it doesn't fit your narrative.

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).

You act like those quarterbacks were selected on day three of the draft when in reality none of them were picked later than 12th overall.

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.

Actually teams would benefit the most of selecting a pro ready quarterback who they can take advantage of while he's still on his rookie deal.

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

Favre never figured out a way to keep those interceptions at a reasonable level afterwards either.

For instance, Josh Allen and Baker Mayfield have been in pretty similar situations, but one has emerged as clearly superior. We've seen something similar in year one with Joe Burrow and Mitch Herbert.

Josh Allen was drafted to a team that made the playoffs the previous season while the Browns didn't win a single game before selecting Mayfield.

While the Chargers were 5-11 in 2019 they were competitive most of the season, finishing with a scoring margin of only minus-8. The Bengals only won two games.

So no, they weren't developed in similar situations.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
It doesn't upset me at all, I'm just surprised that you believe to have figured out a more successful way to evaluate college quarterbacks than NFL personnel.

The point being that you use some quarterbacks as example for the perfect way to draft players at the position but conveniently ignore the ones that didn't make it while featuring similar traits as it doesn't fit your narrative.

You act like those quarterbacks were selected on day three of the draft when in reality none of them were picked later than 12th overall.

I didn't say I've figured out a more successful way to evaluate college quarterbacks; I said that I am pointing out a recent trend that others have identified as well, about which types of QB prospects are hitting at a higher rate.

I literally gave you counter examples in the post you're quoting, both of guys who went #1 overall who were the right choice and of "traits based" QB prospects who busted. So you're claiming that I "conveniently ignored" guys that I brought up.

I acted like they were drafted on day 3? I literally listed their draft positions for everyone to see...

I'll ask you again-- what about this is so upsetting to you? You're obviously up in your feelings on this one. You're purposefully misquoting me. Is it so hard to engage with what I'm actually saying that you have to create this other straw man to distract from the real points?
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,047
Reaction score
1,542
I didn't say I've figured out a more successful way to evaluate college quarterbacks; I said that I am pointing out a recent trend that others have identified as well, about which types of QB prospects are hitting at a higher rate.

I literally gave you counter examples in the post you're quoting, both of guys who went #1 overall who were the right choice and of "traits based" QB prospects who busted. So you're claiming that I "conveniently ignored" guys that I brought up.

I acted like they were drafted on day 3? I literally listed their draft positions for everyone to see...

I'll ask you again-- what about this is so upsetting to you? You're obviously up in your feelings on this one. You're purposefully misquoting me. Is it so hard to engage with what I'm actually saying that you have to create this other straw man to distract from the real points?

In the first post of this thread you literally said the following which you put in bold as well:

Bottom line-- I think the league looks at drafting QB's the wrong way.

So please tell me how am I making it up that you consider to have found a better way to draft quarterbacks than NFL personnel???
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,455
Reaction score
1,387
In the first post of this thread you literally said the following which you put in bold as well:

So please tell me how am I making it up that you consider to have found a better way to draft quarterbacks than NFL personnel???

Okay, so you asked me what I meant, and I said that I think that teams are valuing floor over ceiling, and drafting the high floor guys first, and it's not working out in their favor. I am, explicitly, not claiming to be a better QB evaluator than anyone, much less NFL personnel departments. Also... you do realize that the guys who are working out are also being drafted by NFL personnel departments.

I can see how that was unclear in the first place, but I've already explained this to you a few times. So obviously it's moved past the point of a clarity problem, and it's more about you not wanting to understand because you prefer to pick a fight. Good on you.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
So I got a chuckle out of the placement of these pictures....for 2 separate articles.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 
Top