Manziel and the Patriots

[IllegalContact]

The rule of thumb used to be 5 years to develop a starting qb. Now teams like Cleveland and many more use up top ten draft picks like toilet paper.It's ridiculous. Some eventually thrive after being forced in, while many don't. That's whythe patriots have groomed many QBs who have started elsewhere despite not having very high picks [and bottom 2nd isn't very high].

Just follow the teams who never seem to have a good QB despite high picks and it should be obvious. Let them learn without the pressure and they'll be ready once the pressure is on.

when was that?

 

[RayClay]

when was that?

Way back, like 60s 70s. Back then salaries made grooming a quarterback feasible and that was something pundits said [and an exaggeration at that]. They didn't mean sit for five years,but an estimate of when an average QB has grasped everything, top of their game.

 

[Ring 6]

And nobody waits anywhere near the amount of time some pundits many years ago considered ideal. These days having one year holding the clipboard is a lot and QBs who weren't thrown in right away seem to do better, although you couldn't prove it, obviously. Peyton Manning was thrown right in and improved steadily and he's not the only one, for sure.

My point was more that I think it’s about the Qb not the amount of seasoning.
Guys like Blaine gabbart or Mark Sanchez who got thrown in early and failed would have failed with seasoning also. Giys who learned from the bench and ended up good would have figured it out from the field.
I don’t see any real consistent causation of playing early or waiting.

 

[IllegalContact]

Way back, like 60s 70s. Back then salaries made grooming a quarterback feasible and that was something pundits said [and an exaggeration at that]. They didn't mean sit for five years,but an estimate of when an average QB has grasped everything, top of their game.

I went through pro football reference........almost all of the ones who turned into anything started 1st or 2nd year

NFL Passing Yards Career Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If it was 30 years ago Madden would be champing at the bit to turn him into a legend.

30 years ago Madden had been out of coaching for 10 years...

 

[fnordcircle]

30 years ago Madden had been out of coaching for 10 years...

I meant as an announcer, because I think his color commentary is half the reason Favre is overrated.

Can see why you thought I meant Stabler, though...

 

[RayClay]

My point was more that I think it’s about the Qb not the amount of seasoning.
Guys like Blaine gabbart or Mark Sanchez who got thrown in early and failed would have failed with seasoning also. Giys who learned from the bench and ended up good would have figured it out from the field.
I don’t see any real consistent causation of playing early or waiting.

Forgetting my above post, my point was, a great quarterback would be at least as great with a year of seasoning, while many highly regarded college players might turn into good or great quarterbacks given a year to learn before playing under pressure.

There's no definitive way to prove that, of course, but their is an alarming amount of "can't miss" high 1st round prospects who were thrown right in and never made it, or played well at first then deteriorated.

It does depend on the player, but then you are stuck with analyzing which players will rise to the occasion in the NFL.

 

[RayClay]

I went through pro football reference........almost all of the ones who turned into anything started 1st or 2nd year

NFL Passing Yards Career Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Second year means they had a year they didn't have to start. I'm not proposing prolonged instances of two expensive qbs, it isn't feasible today.

 

[Ring 6]

Forgetting my above post, my point was, a great quarterback would be at least as great with a year of seasoning, while many highly regarded college players might turn into good or great quarterbacks given a year to learn before playing under pressure.

There's no definitive way to prove that, of course, but their is an alarming amount of "can't miss" high 1st round prospects who were thrown right in and never made it, or played well at first then deteriorated.

It does depend on the player, but then you are stuck with analyzing which players will rise to the occasion in the NFL.

There have also been just ad high a percentage of first round picks who sat at first and busted but the number isn’t as high because teams rush them in most often.

I don’t think there is a data or analysis that would answer the question because there is no way of knowing if the bust wouldn’t have busted under different circumstances.

 

[RayClay]

There have also been just ad high a percentage of first round picks who sat at first and busted but the number isn’t as high because teams rush them in most often.

I don’t think there is a data or analysis that would answer the question because there is no way of knowing if the bust wouldn’t have busted under different circumstances.

That's right, there's no way of knowing. Teams sure do burn a lot of very high picks on QBs who aren't nearly worth it, though.

 

[Joker]

That's right, there's no way of knowing. Teams sure do burn a lot of very high picks on QBs who aren't nearly worth it, though.

They have to though...the QB spot is THE most important piece on any team. Teams must keep wasting high picks until they strike it rich...or else play the Denver stratagem and employ seasoned vets at the end of their careers ala Peytoonie

 

[NormZauchin]

Way back, like 60s 70s. Back then salaries made grooming a quarterback feasible and that was something pundits said [and an exaggeration at that]. They didn't mean sit for five years,but an estimate of when an average QB has grasped everything, top of their game.

I remember a guy out of Stanford who immediately started at QB for the early 70s Pats.

 

[Joker]

wasn't Plunkett the top pick that year?

 

[IcyPatriot]

I remember a guy out of Stanford who immediately started at QB for the early 70s Pats.

He got the snot beat out of him ... I was happy for him that he survived to play many more years.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

Serious question: Is Manziel better than Hoyer?

 

[ausbacker]

Serious question: Is Manziel better than Hoyer?

I've come full circle on Manziel. I don't mind the Pats offering him the vet minimum and in the flesh, seeing what he can do in the Pats system it's more I'm not sure he's a fit for the system. If he's truly reformed and now understands the value of loving something and having it taken away, that's a strong motivator.

As for Manziel over Hoyer, Hoyer is OK but he's not someone who will go out and win you a game.

 

[Brewskies]

Pats can look I just don't see him fitting in with the Pats way.

 

[NormZauchin]

wasn't Plunkett the top pick that year?

You nailed it. Plunkett and Bledsoe were both number ones in the entire draft. Both ended up with Super Bowl rings, but neither in the fashion a Pats fan would have expected.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Serious question: Is Manziel better than Hoyer?

Physical talent is Manziel.

Actual quarterbacking tbd

 

[RayClay]

I remember a guy out of Stanford who immediately started at QB for the early 70s Pats.

Seemed like he didn't have a good experience. Unlike others, he came back.