Steelers Could Do Worse Than Landry Jones

[polamalubeast]

Landry Jones is certainly a player that Pittsburgh Steelers fans love to hate. The concept of a young backup quarterback who is not being groomed as a potential future franchise piece is seemingly a foreign concept to some, making it difficult to process Jones’ play through the appropriate lens.

Be that as it may, even his biggest detractors cannot deny that Jones has made progress over the past three seasons in his development, and Sunday’s game may have been his most consistent with respect to the throws that he was able to make, so I wanted to take a look at a number of examples today.


read more

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2018/01/film-room-steelers-worse-landry-jones/

[GoSlash27]

People keep telling me that Landry Jones is limited and can never be more than a decent backup QB. When I ask them *why*, they simply stare at me blankly as if it should be self- evident. I don't see how it's self- evident at all.
We only really have 5 games to examine where he's demonstrating his ability as a starting QB. That's a pretty thin body of work to base a prediction on. When I look at those games, I'm not seeing the problem everybody seems to have with him. Perhaps someone will clue me in...

AFA whether the Steelers can do worse, I say absolutely. It's hard to imagine how they can't do worse. Bringing in an unknown rookie, throwing him to the sharks, and hoping he isn't a bust doesn't seem like a well thought out plan to me. And the FA route isn't even a viable option due to cap space issues. We could release most of our weapons in order to afford a b- list qb, but that would be a recipe for disaster.

No... If Ben retires, I think the starting QB spot is his to lose.

[steelreserve]

You could do worse than diarrhea too, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to stick with diarrhea.

You know how Steelers fans are always bitching about how it took 20 years to find a quarterback between Bradshaw and Ben? Jones is one of those guys between Bradshaw and Ben, and not one of the better ones. He doesn't have "it" and he's not going to. It's unmistakable. Time to get our shit together and have a better plan ready by the time we need our next real QB. Jones had one good game (half a game really), and has generally looked like dogshit otherwise.

You know that Patriots game in the regular season when we had to use Jones at QB? That tells you all you need to know. You don't need a QB where you go "well, it was a pretty close game considering it was the backup." You need a QB who can go and actually win that game. Otherwise you're one of those 9-7 teams scrambling for a wild card one season and missing the playoffs the next, until you get tired of the bullshit and go find a better quarterback.

[Shoes]

People keep telling me that Landry Jones is limited and can never be more than a decent backup QB. When I ask them *why*, they simply stare at me blankly as if it should be self- evident. I don't see how it's self- evident at all.
We only really have 5 games to examine where he's demonstrating his ability as a starting QB. That's a pretty thin body of work to base a prediction on. When I look at those games, I'm not seeing the problem everybody seems to have with him. Perhaps someone will clue me in...

AFA whether the Steelers can do worse, I say absolutely. It's hard to imagine how they can't do worse. Bringing in an unknown rookie, throwing him to the sharks, and hoping he isn't a bust doesn't seem like a well thought out plan to me. And the FA route isn't even a viable option due to cap space issues. We could release most of our weapons in order to afford a b- list qb, but that would be a recipe for disaster.

No... If Ben retires, I think the starting QB spot is his to lose.


I agree. Anyone who thinks Jones hasn't improved as a QB wouldn't like him no matter how many games he won. We can't compare him to Ben, you can't really compare Ben to anyone. I don't see the Steelers stretching for a QB in the draft if Ben retires. Doesn't mean they won't try and pick someone up, but they might not. If Ben doesn't retire they won't pick one at all. There were many ragging on Jones for the pick he threw, but I didn't see it as a bad throw. El explained it best in post 38 here.

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/28261-Ben-On-Landry-‘I-Thought-He-Played-A-Great-Game’?p=628977#post628977

[polamalubeast]

You could do worse than diarrhea too, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to stick with diarrhea.

You know how Steelers fans are always bitching about how it took 20 years to find a quarterback between Bradshaw and Ben? Jones is one of those guys between Bradshaw and Ben, and not one of the better ones. He doesn't have "it" and he's not going to. It's unmistakable. Time to get our shit together and have a better plan ready by the time we need our next real QB. Jones had one good game (half a game really), and has generally looked like dogshit otherwise.

You know that Patriots game in the regular season when we had to use Jones at QB? That tells you all you need to know. You don't need a QB where you go "well, it was a pretty close game considering it was the backup." You need a QB who can go and actually win that game. Otherwise you're one of those 9-7 teams scrambling for a wild card one season and missing the playoffs the next, until you get tired of the bullshit and go find a better quarterback.

this

The steelers have to make a big effort to find a QB if Roethlisberger retire and I am confident that the steelers will make this effort.

Will the steelers find that QB? ... I do not know, but at least they have to make an effort ....We would be mediocre if Jones is our QB ...

[DesertSteel]

I still remember Bill Polian saying that Jones was the best QB coming out, the year he was drafted.

[polamalubeast]

I still remember Bill Polian saying that Jones was the best QB coming out, the year he was drafted.

Because this draft class of QB in 2013 was one of the worst ever.

[DesertSteel]

One good thing about the Ben/Landry relationship is that Ben has never seen him as a threat so hopefully he's mentored Landry and that has contributed to his progress.

- - - Updated - - -


Because this draft class of QB in 2013 was one of the worst ever.

Probably THE WORST! Lol

Top 5 QBs taken in 2013 Draft:


E.J. Manuel (16th overall, 1st round, Bills)
Geno Smith (39th overall, 2nd round, Jets)
Mike Glennon (73rd overall, 3rd round, Bucs)
Matt Barkley (98th overall, 4th round, Eagles)
Ryan Nassib (110th overall, 4th round, Giants)


I'd take Landry over all 5.

[Shoes]

One good thing about the Ben/Landry relationship is that Ben has never seen him as a threat so hopefully he's mentored Landry and that has contributed to his progress.

Good thing T.J. isn't a backup QB, Ben might be leaving the stadium. :chuckle:

[Moose]

I'm not a big Landry lover or 'believer' of him being a great QB. However playing time under his belt will only tell. Don't forget not many of us knew about BEN until that day Maddox went down. I would LOVE to see more of Dobbs playing though, unfortunately it's too late this year to see that happen. Not needed to be said.....it's playoff time and Ben has to be our leader in the next few games. I guess I'll have to have faith in our F.O. figuring out the QB situation here. Hopefully Ben will get us a RING this year and he'll decide to stay around for another year until our F.O. get's their crap together.

[DesertSteel]

I'm not a big Landry lover or 'believer' of him being a great QB. However playing time under his belt will only tell. Don't forget not many of us knew about BEN until that day Maddox went down. I would LOVE to see more of Dobbs playing though, unfortunately it's too late this year to see that happen. Not needed to be said.....it's playoff time and Ben has to be our leader in the next few games. I guess I'll have to have faith in our F.O. figuring out the QB situation here. Hopefully Ben will get us a RING this year and he'll decide to stay around for another year until our F.O. get's their crap together.
What part of their crap isn't together?

[GoSlash27]

He doesn't have "it" and he's not going to. It's unmistakable

See... This is what I'm talking about. What the heck is "it"? The word "it" is meaningless without a definition.

[st33lersguy]

So Landry Jones beats the browns and all of a sudden he's a viable option at qb?

[polamalubeast]

You can win some games with Landry Jones but he's too limited to be a starter

I can not believe that he is in discussion to replace Ben when he retires

Our future QB is not in our roster right now.

[Shoes]

You can win some games with Landry Jones but he's too limited to be a starter

I can not believe that he is in discussion to replace Ben when he retires

Our future QB is not in our roster right now.
Agreed, and I don't think he will be until 2019-2020. (as a drafted player)

[st33lersguy]

You can win some games with Landry Jones but he's too limited to be a starter

I can not believe that he is in discussion to replace Ben when he retires

Our future QB is not in our roster right now.

I can't believe there is this discussion either. Anyone who thinks he is a viable starter, well I'm glad they aren't in charge of the team. Starting Jones is a great way to ensure this team is not a contender. Landry supporters are really overreacting to 2 wins over the worst team in NFL history over a 2 year span

[GoSlash27]

You can win some games with Landry Jones but he's too limited to be a starter
So everybody keeps saying. How, exactly, is he limited? I really need someone to explain this to me.

And to be clear, I'm not a supporter myself. I'm just on the fence, awaiting more info. At most, I see Jones as the least- bad option the Steelers have this year.

[polamalubeast]

So everybody keeps saying. How, exactly, is he limited? I really need someone to explain this to me.

And to be clear, I'm not a supporter myself. I'm just on the fence, awaiting more info. At most, I see Jones as the least- bad option the Steelers have this year.

Landry Jones=Trevor Siemian.....

I mean, I do not want to waste a season on whether Landry Jones is good or not ....

[DesertSteel]

All that really matters is what the FO and Coaches think.

[GoSlash27]

Landry Jones=Trevor Siemian.....
Sorry, I need something more specific than that. What physical and/ or mental attributes does Landry Jones lack, which limit him from ever being a good starter?


I mean, I do not want to waste a season on whether Landry Jones is good or not ....
Okay. Who *do* you want to waste a season on in order to figure out if they're good or not? There are no franchise QBs in this draft, and picking one of the FAs (who scarcely look any better than Jones) means gutting the team. I just don't see how we have much of a choice this season.

[polamalubeast]

Sorry, I need something more specific than that. What physical and/ or mental attributes does Landry Jones lack, which limit him from ever being a good starter?


Okay. Who *do* you want to waste a season on in order to figure out if they're good or not? There are no franchise QBs in this draft, and picking one of the FAs (who scarcely look any better than Jones) means gutting the team. I just don't see how we have much of a choice this season.



I do not know what QB, but the steelers need to make a big effort to find a QB, but this situation is useless at the moment, since I would be very surprised if this is the last year of Roethlisberger.And It's not 2 wins against the browns that I'm going to be too confident about a QB ...Good backup QB but the reward that you can have on Jones is not worth the risk since the reward has a very good chance of being very low ...I'd rather take a chance on a rookie QB than his ceiling can be high than on Jones


The worst thing that Roethlisberger did is to admit that he was thinking about his future last year, since we have this discussion because of that, but I would not be surprised if Ben is still in the nfl in 4 -5 years.It was the same thing with Brett Favre.

[steelreserve]

All that really matters is what the FO and Coaches think.

No, all that matters is whether he's actually any good. If the front office thinks he's good but he's not, then there are shitty times ahead. Which is a shame because everyone else can see it.

[GoSlash27]

I'd rather take a chance on a rookie QB than his ceiling can be high than on Jones
There's not anybody in this draft that fits that description. And even if there was, we'd still have to groom him. You can't just chuck a college QB into the NFL and expect him to be successful. Even in the situation where you have a potential superstar, you still have to start Jones while he gets acclimated.

And we're still throwing around the term "Jones' ceiling" as if it's an established fact, and I have yet to have anyone explain to me exactly what that is.

[polamalubeast]

There's not anybody in this draft that fits that description. And even if there was, we'd still have to groom him. You can't just chuck a college QB into the NFL and expect him to be successful. Even in the situation where you have a potential superstar, you still have to start Jones while he gets acclimated.
.

We have seen a lot of QB rookie have success since 2004.

To Roethlisberger in 2004 to Watson this year and a lot between that.

The key for a rookie QB is to be in a good situation and the steelers would be a great situation for a rookie QB.

I prefer to have a rookie first-round pick as QB that Landry Jones.I know rookies QB will make mistakes, but I can live with mistakes if you have a lot of potential.

For Landry Jones, the last thing I have to say about him is that Jones was a free agent last year and nobody offered Landry Jones to compete for a starting job in the nfl, which is why Jones has been back with us.

[GoSlash27]

We have seen a lot of QB rookie have success since 2004.

To Roethlisberger in 2004 to Watson this year and a lot between that.

They were both first rounders and neither of them started. Tommy Maddox started Ben's rookie season and Tom Savage started for the Texans this year. Just the same as what would happen here if there was a potential franchise rookie: We'd plug him in at backup and Landry Jones would start. And there's not a potential franchise rookie this year anyway, so there's that...

[Mojouw]

They were both first rounders and neither of them started. Tommy Maddox started Ben's rookie season and Tom Savage started for the Texans this year. Just the same as what would happen here if there was a potential franchise rookie: We'd plug him in at backup and Landry Jones would start. And there's not a potential franchise rookie this year anyway, so there's that...
Ummm. There is somewhere between 3 and 6 guys projected as franchise guys. Maybe not the best ceiling but this QB class is one of the deepest in many years.

[polamalubeast]

They were both first rounders and neither of them started. Tommy Maddox started Ben's rookie season and Tom Savage started for the Texans this year. Just the same as what would happen here if there was a potential franchise rookie: We'd plug him in at backup and Landry Jones would start. And there's not a potential franchise rookie this year anyway, so there's that...

It was a huge mistake for the Texans to start Savage instead of Watson to start the season.The Steelers would not have had 15-1 in 2004 and probably not won the Super Bowl in 2005 if Maddox would not have been injured but I'm not blaming Cowher on that since in that time, the rookie QB was almost always on the bench in their rookie season but it has changed since the success of Roethlisberger in 2004.

But the point is that many have had success as rookie season since several years....Dak, Russell Wilson, RGIII, Andrew Luck and even Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco...His QB all started in week 1 and they all made the playoffs.

For the quality of QB for the next draft, I do not know, I have not looked at that yet.

[GoSlash27]

Ummm. There is somewhere between 3 and 6 guys projected as franchise guys. Maybe not the best ceiling but this QB class is one of the deepest in many years.
Yeah, I should be more precise: There are no franchise guys that *we* can get.

[polamalubeast]

Yeah, I should be more precise: There are no franchise guys that *we* can get.

A trade up can be a possibility even if the price is very high

[DesertSteel]

If there are 6 we must be redefining what franchise means since there are only about 10 of them in the entire NFL.

[polamalubeast]

If there are 6 we must be redefining what franchise means since there are only about 10 of them in the entire NFL.

The only thing I want from a QB is that it's realistic to win a super bowl with him.

Of course, if we have a future HOF QB, it's a big bonus, but if you can win a super bowl with this QB when your roster is very good, I'll be happy.

[Shoes]

A trade up can be a possibility even if the price is very high

That isn't going to happen. Many teams ahead of us are going to be shitting the bed over this QB class, like bunch of piranha's.

[polamalubeast]

That isn't going to happen. Many teams ahead of us are going to be shitting the bed over this QB class like bunch of piranha's.

And the steelers are going to be one of his teams if Ben is not back unless they sign a free agent QB.

[Mojouw]

Yeah, I should be more precise: There are no franchise guys that *we* can get.


If there are 6 we must be redefining what franchise means since there are only about 10 of them in the entire NFL.
True, last few picks of a round are not typically where you get a great QB.

Also true, I meant like Prescott/Dalton level or better for my very liberal use of the word “franchise”.

Some draft aft guys are sticking by the idea that Darnold, Rosen, Allen, Jackson, and Mayfield are round 1 picks and franchise cornerstones. That doesn’t even include the next tier of guys like Falk and Rudolph or “sleeper” candidates like Silvers and McSorley. Or what if Stidham from Auburn comes out?

If I’m a playoff team with an aging QB (Steelers, Pats, Saints) or no QB (Jags, Bills) I’m working my scouts hard on about 12 guys at the QB position. That’s a bigger list than most years. Are any of these guys going to any good?who knows.

[Shoes]

And the steelers are going to be one of his teams if Ben is not back unless they sign a free agent QB.

I think this will happen before stretching for a rookie draft pick because with this teams talent, signing a good free agent is the best possible chance of a repeat SB. Why did Ben start all this shit? :chuckle:

[GoSlash27]

But the point is that many have had success as rookie season since several years....Dak, Russell Wilson, RGIII, Andrew Luck and even Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco...His QB all started in week 1 and they all made the playoffs.

I think we may be arguing 2 different things. The only guy on this list who was selected over the existing #2 Qb was RGIII, and he got beat up in the process. All the rest of them started because the QB who *would've* started was injured, or else there simply was no established QB to compete with.

If you're saying that a rookie *can* have success starting, then sure... But what I'm saying is that it's not done that way except out of desperation. If there's an established QB there, coaches prefer to start the season with them.

- - - Updated - - -


And the steelers are going to be one of his teams if Ben is not back unless they sign a free agent QB.
But that's not an option for us due to the salary cap. We'd have to gut the team to make room, and then the FA qb wouldn't have anybody to throw to.

[steelreserve]

A couple things:

Number one, the salary cap thing is not as dire as some may think, since basically all that would happen is Ben's remaining signing bonus would be crammed into next year. But then the next year it goes away and we actually have MORE cap space to work with. So I don't think it would be too difficult to move money around through restructuring existing deals and backloading new ones, and then that all gets sorted out in a year. Maybe we'd have to guarantee a little more money here and there, but it would be possible. Having said that, I don't think signing a big-time free agent QB for $20M+ would be a very wise move. There's nobody out there who's a) a likely franchise quarterback, or b) worth the money.

As far as drafting a rookie and throwing him to the dogs right away - that's exactly what you do. You do not need a veteran "caretaker" to start for a season or two. The guys who become successful NFL quarterbacks, almost 100% of the time have what it takes right out of the gate and just need experience, so the sooner you give them that, the better. Along the same lines, the guys who are not going to be successful NFL quarterbacks generally don't learn how to be successful no matter how much patience you show them, so if they're going to fail, the sooner you find that out, the better.

tl;dr - don't sign a high-priced veteran, draft a rookie and find out what you have right away.

[pczach]

We all know that the best scenario is for Ben to return and to fill the holes in the roster completely in the next offseason. Then if Ben does retire, the roster will be full of talent at all positions and they would be able to package draft picks to move up for a quarterback they think highly of the following year, no matter what round or position they want him.

Even if Ben continues to play for at least 2 more years, they can still use that same approach.

[Born2Steel]

Let's start by asking a question...What is the market value for a veteran QB in today's NFL market? (Please, go look it up. I want everyone to understand this point)

Now, examine Landry Jones signing a 2 year extension for $2Mill/year without even testing the FA waters.

Next question...is this the guy you want as the next starting QB for THIS franchise?

You do not even need to look at his stats, how many games he's played in, how many starts, TDs vs INTs, to understand why he's not the guy. The answer to those 2 questions is all the information needed. NO!

[cubanstogie]

Rosen, darnold, Mason Rudolph could come in day one and be better than Landry. Mayfield as good. I’ve never seen Allen. Landry seems like he is playing in slow motion, with deer in headlights look and doesn’t seem to have command presence. He doesn’t know when to cut loss and throw it away,he holds it til he fumbles. Good backup , could beat .500 teams at best.

[Born2Steel]

All the actual game footage I've seen of Josh Allen was from the Potato Bowl against Central Mich. In that one game I understood the hype. Allen has the arm, the mobility, and understands his role in the offense.(So far as playing that game). I get zero Wyoming games, so I am forced to watch youtube versions of game footage.

Toledo's Logan Woodside(another who's games I don't get here) may very well be the next Drew Brees. Smaller QB with all the tools to be an NFL star. In the right system of course. Could absolutely be available in the 3rd due to where he played.

Jeremiah Briscoe from Sam Houston State was named "TOP PLAYER IN THE FCS". This unknown threw 57TD passes this season.(Yep, that's 57 touchdown passes in a season) FYI/perspective same award Cooper Kupp won just last year. Plus the 2016 Walter Payton Award winner. I recommend looking deeper.

[Moose]

What part of their crap isn't together?

Working on getting a pass rush, secondary, CB's etc.. Problem for year's. I'm tired of opponent having 3rd and 15 and picking up 20 yrds time and time again ! Problem for year's !

[polamalubeast]

Working on getting a pass rush, secondary, CB's etc.. Problem for year's.

56 sacks(steelers record)

It's not perfect, but the steelers are much better on that

For the secondary, they were good for most of the time when Haden was there ... our problem on defense was the blown coverage.

[teegre]

Working on getting a pass rush, secondary, CB's etc.. Problem for year's. I'm tired of opponent having 3rd and 15 and picking up 20 yrds time and time again ! Problem for year's !

This season, the Steelers ranked very high on third-down conversions on defense.

Plays over 50 yards, on the other hand...

[polamalubeast]

I'm tired of opponent having 3rd and 15 and picking up 20 yrds time and time again ! Problem for year's !

It was a problem for only 2 games this year (3rd down and 10 yards or more)...2nd game against the Bengals and browns ..... In other games, the Steelers have been great in this situation, one of the best in the NFL.

[Hawkman]

So glad to see this is still a “Landry Jones” thread.:focus:

[Moose]

So glad to see this is still a “Landry Jones” thread.:focus:

Looks like there is NO answer for Landry problem....LOL.

[teegre]

Landry Jones is better than Blake Bortles.

[cubanstogie]

Landry Jones is better than Blake Bortles.
I think my dislike for Landry may have clouded my vision. During game I said both Bortles and Tyrod better. If I look objectively not really sure. For whatever reason I don't like Landry. I think its lack of emotion and lack of command presence. But putting thins in perspective he is a backup not a leader at this time. I still hope Dobbs or this years draft the answer.

[DesertSteel]

Working on getting a pass rush, secondary, CB's etc.. Problem for year's. I'm tired of opponent having 3rd and 15 and picking up 20 yrds time and time again ! Problem for year's !
While so many other teams are strong in all three phases!

[Moose]

While so many other teams are strong in all three phases!

The real good ones are ! It's not a bad thing to want the best ! And back to the subject, I'm not big on Landry and would like to see what Dobbs can do. Just MY opinion!

[teegre]

I still hope Dobbs or this years draft the answer.

Long-term, yes indeed.

And, my post might not even be applauding Landry, so much as it is lambasting Bortles. :lol:

[JimHarbaugh'ssoakedtissue]

Long-term, yes indeed.

And, my post might not even be applauding Landry, so much as it is lambasting Bortles. :lol: Jax would have still made the playoffs with Landry as their starter. Thank God we don't have to face Landry though!

[polamalubeast]

The real good ones are ! It's not a bad thing to want the best ! And back to the subject, I'm not big on Landry and would like to see what Dobbs can do. Just MY opinion!


Not even true.

[DesertSteel]

Jones likely ain't the guy but he's a good backup and I hope people quit bitching that he's a lousy #2 because it's just not so.

[steelreserve]

Jones likely ain't the guy but he's a good backup and I hope people quit bitching that he's a lousy #2 because it's just not so.

I don't think that was the point of this thread. You can make a case that he's ok for a backup, but some people are saying he should get a shot as the starter if Ben retires. That's just crazy talk. I'd rather not waste a whole season finding out what we already know.

And personally, I don't think we have anything to lose by looking for a better backup. Any random fifth-round draft pick has a chance at being better than Jones. And if not, there's only so much worse you can be.

[DesertSteel]

I don't think that was the point of this thread. You can make a case that he's ok for a backup, but some people are saying he should get a shot as the starter if Ben retires. That's just crazy talk. I'd rather not waste a whole season finding out what we already know.

And personally, I don't think we have anything to lose by looking for a better backup. Any random fifth-round draft pick has a chance at being better than Jones. And if not, there's only so much worse you can be.
I doubt that the Steelers share your view.

[Born2Steel]

EVERY player can be upgraded. Especially your backup QB.

[DesertSteel]

EVERY player can be upgraded. Especially your backup QB.
Are they upgrading Ben and AB next year?

[Shoes]

Are they upgrading Ben and AB next year?

WR are like LB, we draft them every year. :chuckle:

[DesertSteel]

WR are like LB, we draft them every year. :chuckle:
The latter much better than the former!!

[Shoes]

The latter much better than the former!!

Indeed, but that's always necessary. :lol:

[Born2Steel]

Are they upgrading Ben and AB next year?

Can you imagine if they did?

[DesertSteel]

Can you imagine if they did?
Landry Jones and DHB!

:behindsofa:

[Steelerchad]

I don't trust this guy. I can't put my finger on one thing. it's a feeling. It's like every time he drops back I don't trust him. I'm waiting for the pick, fumble, etc.
In a perfect world, Ben gets his 3rd ring, retires, and we use that money to grab a 29 year old Cousins for the next 6 years. AB and Bell will both be gone after that and it will be about time to reload the entire OL. If we grab Cousins, I think we can nab 1 more ring before the core of this team ages out. If we stick with Jones or try a rookie, I'm afraid Jones will never get it done and a rookie will not develop in time.

[JimHarbaugh'ssoakedtissue]

I don't trust this guy. I can't put my finger on one thing. it's a feeling. It's like every time he drops back I don't trust him. I'm waiting for the pick, fumble, etc.
In a perfect world, Ben gets his 3rd ring, retires, and we use that money to grab a 29 year old Cousins for the next 6 years. AB and Bell will both be gone after that and it will be about time to reload the entire OL. If we grab Cousins, I think we can nab 1 more ring before the core of this team ages out. If we stick with Jones or try a rookie, I'm afraid Jones will never get it done and a rookie will not develop in time. Agree with all! Yep that is how most feel about Landry.

[teegre]

I had more confidence in Landry during the Browns game than I did that Bortles would do anything in that Bills game. You can say that that is because it was the Browns. Maybe. But, I would take Landry as my starter over Bortles.

[Born2Steel]

I had more confidence in Landry during the Browns game than I did that Bortles would do anything in that Bills game. You can say that that is because it was the Browns. Maybe. But, I would take Landry as my starter over Bortles.

Jones is better than Bortles? I can agree with that. I still don't want Jones as the Steelers' starting QB. I measure Landry Jones on what Landry Jones has done. He's not the answer.

[Mojouw]

I had more confidence in Landry during the Browns game than I did that Bortles would do anything in that Bills game. You can say that that is because it was the Browns. Maybe. But, I would take Landry as my starter over Bortles.


Jones is better than Bortles? I can agree with that. I still don't want Jones as the Steelers' starting QB. I measure Landry Jones on what Landry Jones has done. He's not the answer.

Both of these are true. In terms of Landry Jones as a "starter", for me it all depends on the larger context. If Jones is the starter and the organization walks away and is like" DONE! Nailed It!". Then that is a bad situation. If they install Landry as the starter and it is because "Draft Prospect X is an amazing talent and we are truly excited to have him as part of our future. However, after a long post-draft evaluation, we honestly believe that he needs time to develop prior to being named an NFL starter. So rather than Kizer the poor kid, we give you Landry Jones!". Then I have no problem with it.

[steelreserve]

Both of these are true. In terms of Landry Jones as a "starter", for me it all depends on the larger context. If Jones is the starter and the organization walks away and is like" DONE! Nailed It!". Then that is a bad situation. If they install Landry as the starter and it is because "Draft Prospect X is an amazing talent and we are truly excited to have him as part of our future. However, after a long post-draft evaluation, we honestly believe that he needs time to develop prior to being named an NFL starter. So rather than Kizer the poor kid, we give you Landry Jones!". Then I have no problem with it.

That's the problem. "Needs time to develop" for a rookie QB usually translates roughly as: "Is going to struggle along for years without ever getting that much better, and we're going to be strung along for that time based on 'potential' and 'this may be the season he finally turns the corner,' which eventually turns into 'this is the year he has to finally show something or GTFO,' and after 3 or 4 seasons of being benched and getting second looks when the other QB is (_________ injured/sucks even worse, choose one) we finally realize he's going to cap out at below-average and trade him for a sixth-round draft pick, and the whole thing is just incredibly frustrating to watch."

Landry Jones is such a quarterback, only we have the good fortune to have a real QB in front of him so we don't have to watch that whole process unfold, so that's kind of beside the point.

The real point is that if you draft or sign someone to be the franchise QB of the future, you'd better have someone who doesn't need a caretaker for a couple seasons, or else you probably fucked up. The only reason that guy should be on the bench is if you had an existing good QB who hasn't left yet. Maybe on a truly awful team you could justify giving the kid time to get his bearings if there are awful receivers and an awful O-line, but that wouldn't be this team. A year with Jones would just be a year of wasted time.

And as far as being the franchise QB going forward, I think Jones has about as much potential as a 35-year-old porn star, but I don't think too many people are arguing otherwise.

[polamalubeast]

In the last 12-15 years, the only QB who became very good, who sat on the bench for more than one season are Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers, but that was because the QB in front of them was Brett Favre and Drew Brees.

If you draft a QB in the first round, I can live if he's behind Roethlisberger for a year or two, but behind Landry Jones, that would be stupid and crazy.

[Mojouw]

That's the problem. "Needs time to develop" for a rookie QB usually translates roughly as: "Is going to struggle along for years without ever getting that much better, and we're going to be strung along for that time based on 'potential' and 'this may be the season he finally turns the corner,' which eventually turns into 'this is the year he has to finally show something or GTFO,' and after 3 or 4 seasons of being benched and getting second looks when the other QB is (_________ injured/sucks even worse, choose one) we finally realize he's going to cap out at below-average and trade him for a sixth-round draft pick, and the whole thing is just incredibly frustrating to watch."

Landry Jones is such a quarterback, only we have the good fortune to have a real QB in front of him so we don't have to watch that whole process unfold, so that's kind of beside the point.

The real point is that if you draft or sign someone to be the franchise QB of the future, you'd better have someone who doesn't need a caretaker for a couple seasons, or else you probably fucked up. The only reason that guy should be on the bench is if you had an existing good QB who hasn't left yet. Maybe on a truly awful team you could justify giving the kid time to get his bearings if there are awful receivers and an awful O-line, but that wouldn't be this team. A year with Jones would just be a year of wasted time.

And as far as being the franchise QB going forward, I think Jones has about as much potential as a 35-year-old porn star, but I don't think too many people are arguing otherwise.

That is certainly the most common version of the story. However, prior to the early 2000's, it was common to sit even heralded rookies for a year or so. Of course, that was because there wasn't a salary cap and all that goes with that...but still.

The way I see it, the Steelers have two choices at this point. They can say "Damn the torpedoes" and exclusively devote draft resources to players that help immediately in getting a Ben R crewed squad over the hump. Or they can sequester a certain amount of draft resources to put an actual QB succession plan in place.

If that means a guy sits for a year or two behind some combination of Ben R/Landry Jones/Dobbs - I'm fine with that. Assuming they get the pick correct. Unfortunately, other than teams that have tanked or had an unintentional down year (the 2017 Giants) almost no teams have been put in great positions to "plan" the transition from one QB to the next. So I guess we can not count on the Steelers being much different!

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

In the last 12-15 years, the only QB who became very good, who sat on the bench for more than one season are Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers, but that was because the QB in front of them was Brett Favre and Drew Brees.

If you draft a QB in the first round, I can live if he's behind Roethlisberger for a year or two, but behind Landry Jones, that would be stupid and crazy.

Do you watch much college football, or even a bit? I might catch one or 2 games on a weekend, but what I often see are college gadget offenses with predetermined misdirection from shotgun, pistol formations, or read option offenses, or offenses that require the entire offense to line up and then look over to the sidelines where multiple sign boards of signals are being shown to call the play.

IMO, when a QB from college comes in to the NFL, there is big learning curve if that is the offensive environment they have been in. So I don't think its that unrealistic to think that a college QB pick would have to sit behind Landry Jones if that was the case. If a QB has spent 2 or 3 seasons in a pro style offense, then it steepens the learning curve and they may get in quicker, but IMO there is a lot to be said for a NFL rookie taking "mental reps" behind an experienced QB.

[steelreserve]

Do you watch much college football, or even a bit? I might catch one or 2 games on a weekend, but what I often see are college gadget offenses with predetermined misdirection from shotgun, pistol formations, or read option offenses, or offenses that require the entire offense to line up and then look over to the sidelines where multiple sign boards of signals are being shown to call the play.

IMO, when a QB from college comes in to the NFL, there is big learning curve if that is the offensive environment they have been in. So I don't think its that unrealistic to think that a college QB pick would have to sit behind Landry Jones if that was the case. If a QB has spent 2 or 3 seasons in a pro style offense, then it steepens the learning curve and they may get in quicker, but IMO there is a lot to be said for a NFL rookie taking "mental reps" behind an experienced QB.

How many of those college QBs from "gadget offenses" ever become successful quarterbacks in the NFL at all, though?

I mean that as a legitimate question since I haven't had time to follow college much the last couple years - but it seems like with very few exceptions you don't see those kinds of players do well in the pros anyway. And the ones who do (Mariota, Netwon maybe?) can step in with about a half season to a full season of on-the-job training like the other successful QBs.

[Born2Steel]

"The Steelers Could Do Worse Than Landry Jones". Yes, they could have Blake Bortles backing up Big Ben. The focus, IMO, should not be on how much worse can this situation get, but rather, how do we secure the position going forward. IF...the draft produces Rookie QB X, to go along with Dobbs and Landry Jones to backup BB, that is a better percentage risk than no Rookie QB X, and heading into a season with what we already know won't work going forward. Whatever your view of Jones as a backup, not many would want to see him as the next starting QB. Is he better than Dobbs at this point? Probably. That still doesn't fix the issue. I think the Steelers must draft a Rookie QB X this draft, AND take a good look at FAs that can immediately upgrade. And yes, it is ALWAYS a gamble, but that's how the system works, no guarantees. But you have to give yourself the best odds.

[Mojouw]

How many of those college QBs from "gadget offenses" ever become successful quarterbacks in the NFL at all, though?

I mean that as a legitimate question since I haven't had time to follow college much the last couple years - but it seems like with very few exceptions you don't see those kinds of players do well in the pros anyway. And the ones who do (Mariota, Netwon maybe?) can step in with about a half season to a full season of on-the-job training like the other successful QBs.

Let's assume the most negative situation possible and say 1 in 10 of "gadget offense" QBs succeed in the NFL. We can use that hypothetical to assume that either gadget QBs are incompatible with the NFL or that NFL coaches suck at adapting.

I gotta figure it is mostly the second one. I think a better question is to position the idea moving forward rather than looking back. Can this kid function in my current system? If not, can the system be readily modified to allow the kid a chance to succeed? Somewhere in the alignment of those two questions is whether or not you draft a guy and where you draft him.

[steelreserve]

That is certainly the most common version of the story. However, prior to the early 2000's, it was common to sit even heralded rookies for a year or so. Of course, that was because there wasn't a salary cap and all that goes with that...but still.

The way I see it, the Steelers have two choices at this point. They can say "Damn the torpedoes" and exclusively devote draft resources to players that help immediately in getting a Ben R crewed squad over the hump. Or they can sequester a certain amount of draft resources to put an actual QB succession plan in place.

If that means a guy sits for a year or two behind some combination of Ben R/Landry Jones/Dobbs - I'm fine with that. Assuming they get the pick correct. Unfortunately, other than teams that have tanked or had an unintentional down year (the 2017 Giants) almost no teams have been put in great positions to "plan" the transition from one QB to the next. So I guess we can not count on the Steelers being much different!

If we managed to nab a good QB prospect this year and had him sit behind BEN for a year or two, that makes perfect sense. If we did the same thing and sat him behind Jones, we're idiots. Basically the guy who's your starting QB has to be the guy you think is going to be your starting QB in the future.

We may be in a pretty fortunate position as far as that goes. Big crop of QB talent that might reach the low first round, a year or two before our own franchise QB might be done. That is super rare. Among teams I can remember having a chance to "plan" their QB succession rather than just getting lucky or tanking (looking at you Indy), it's been Green Bay and that's about it. And actually,that came from unusual luck as well, probably unrepeatable luck as far as the current NFL goes. Unless we think Aaron Rodgers coming out as one of two can't-miss prospects ... and falling to #24 ... while no one made a trade for a QB and the top 5 teams all made their picks straight-up ... and 3 of the top 5 picks were running backs ... and the teams who had the top picks thought it was no biggie to roll with Gus Frerotte or Luke McCown ... is going to be a thing again.

Anyway, yeah, if we get that chance, we should absolutely take it given how rare we know it is, and if that guy has to sit on the bench for a while it's understandable. Otherwise once Ben retires, we WILL be starting Landry Jones or his equivalent, until we lose enough games to get a top QB normally.

[Mojouw]

If we managed to nab a good QB prospect this year and had him sit behind BEN for a year or two, that makes perfect sense. If we did the same thing and sat him behind Jones, we're idiots. Basically the guy who's your starting QB has to be the guy you think is going to be your starting QB in the future.

We may be in a pretty fortunate position as far as that goes. Big crop of QB talent that might reach the low first round, a year or two before our own franchise QB might be done. That is super rare. Among teams I can remember having a chance to "plan" their QB succession rather than just getting lucky or tanking (looking at you Indy), it's been Green Bay and that's about it. And actually,that came from unusual luck as well, probably unrepeatable luck as far as the current NFL goes. Unless we think Aaron Rodgers coming out as one of two can't-miss prospects ... and falling to #24 ... while no one made a trade for a QB and the top 5 teams all made their picks straight-up ... and 3 of the top 5 picks were running backs ... and the teams who had the top picks thought it was no biggie to roll with Gus Frerotte or Luke McCown ... is going to be a thing again.

Anyway, yeah, if we get that chance, we should absolutely take it given how rare we know it is, and if that guy has to sit on the bench for a while it's understandable. Otherwise once Ben retires, we WILL be starting Landry Jones or his equivalent, until we lose enough games to get a top QB normally.

I totally agree with all of this. If someone drops and the Steelers are pretty sure he fits what they want, I don't care about other roster holes or draft plans -- just run the card up to the podium.

[Born2Steel]

I totally agree with all of this. If someone drops and the Steelers are pretty sure he fits what they want, I don't care about other roster holes or draft plans -- just run the card up to the podium.

This sums it up perfectly.

[steelreserve]

Let's assume the most negative situation possible and say 1 in 10 of "gadget offense" QBs succeed in the NFL. We can use that hypothetical to assume that either gadget QBs are incompatible with the NFL or that NFL coaches suck at adapting.

I gotta figure it is mostly the second one. I think a better question is to position the idea moving forward rather than looking back. Can this kid function in my current system? If not, can the system be readily modified to allow the kid a chance to succeed? Somewhere in the alignment of those two questions is whether or not you draft a guy and where you draft him.

I also think there's a third choice, which is that college coaches have figured out certain exploits that will let them get away with stuff that wouldn't fly in the pros. Take Oregon for example. Their entire success was based around the fact that with a gimmick offense, you could inevitably create a mismatch where a slow white linebacker was responsible for containing a track star with 4.3 speed, which was an automatic big play. So they would win 9 out of 10 games with no problem, and whether they won the 10th one and got into national title consideration depended on whether USC had enough athleticism that year to keep up with them. And then none of those guys went on to do anything in the NFL, because everybody had 4.4 speed and you couldn't do that anymore.

I'd say most of the college gimmick offenses are variations on that - use a spread offense, read-option, or quick throws to create a matchup problem that won't exist in the pros where everybody is good. So in that way a lot of mediocre QBs have a lot more success than their skill level in college, because they just have to the be placeholder who the system runs through and not fuck it up too badly. But they aren't actually good QBs with NFL potential if they just get adjusted.

So in those cases (which I would argue are most of them), it's not that the NFL coaches can't adapt to the gadget-offense QB, it's that the thing that the QB thrived on doesn't exist at the pro level. Kind of like the Dri Archer situation on steroids. Actually, taking steroids might not have been a bad idea for him. But you get what I'm saying. It's actually that your first theory is the one that makes more sense to me.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

How many of those college QBs from "gadget offenses" ever become successful quarterbacks in the NFL at all, though?

I mean that as a legitimate question since I haven't had time to follow college much the last couple years - but it seems like with very few exceptions you don't see those kinds of players do well in the pros anyway. And the ones who do (Mariota, Netwon maybe?) can step in with about a half season to a full season of on-the-job training like the other successful QBs.

I agree with you. Mariota is really the only NFL QB that I can think of from one of those college gadget offensive systems that has really had any success. My point is that so many of these college QB's have never even taken a snap from under center and you see that in the Senior Bowl practice week, where they have to work on the footwork, steps and mechanics like that. Its why I think its a good thing for college QB's to get gradually introduced to the NFL behind a veteran and I would think even a highly touted rookie should be behind a guy like Landry Jones for a bit if that had to be the case due to Ben retiring.

I personally think that a season of Landry Jones at QB would be painful in a Mark Malone kind of way, but I think jumping from college QB straight to NFL play is like having a young man learn to drive in Des Moines, then dropping him onto the 405 in LA, during rush hour.

[Mojouw]

I also think there's a third choice, which is that college coaches have figured out certain exploits that will let them get away with stuff that wouldn't fly in the pros. Take Oregon for example. Their entire success was based around the fact that with a gimmick offense, you could inevitably create a mismatch where a slow white linebacker was responsible for containing a track star with 4.3 speed, which was an automatic big play. So they would win 9 out of 10 games with no problem, and whether they won the 10th one and got into national title consideration depended on whether USC had enough athleticism that year to keep up with them. And then none of those guys went on to do anything in the NFL, because everybody had 4.4 speed and you couldn't do that anymore.

I'd say most of the college gimmick offenses are variations on that - use a spread offense, read-option, or quick throws to create a matchup problem that won't exist in the pros where everybody is good. So in that way a lot of mediocre QBs have a lot more success than their skill level in college, because they just have to the be placeholder who the system runs through and not fuck it up too badly. But they aren't actually good QBs with NFL potential if they just get adjusted.

So in those cases (which I would argue are most of them), it's not that the NFL coaches can't adapt to the gadget-offense QB, it's that the thing that the QB thrived on doesn't exist at the pro level. Kind of like the Dri Archer situation on steroids. Actually, taking steroids might not have been a bad idea for him. But you get what I'm saying. It's actually that your first theory is the one that makes more sense to me.

I mean you are not wrong, BUT...

...all gimmick offenses are not created equal. While I fully acknowledge that once the NFL gets more tape on the kid it could fall apart really quick, but Watson seems fine. Dak seems alright. Winston, Newton, Mariota, Alex Smith, Keenum, etc.

Additionally, look at the amount of time "elite franchise" QBs spend in the shotgun. Brady, Roethlisberger, Rodgers are in shotgun a great percentage of the time throwing out of multiple WR sets. Take a look: https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/snap-rates--shotgun-v-under-center--off-.html

Steelers spent roughly 70% of their plays in shotgun this past season according to the above chart (a simplification I know, but just roll with it!) NE ran 8 out of 10 passing plays out of a shotgun.

Point? The "spread" or "gimmicky gadget offenses" are here. So why evaluate QBs on the "old models"? Interesting take from a spread guru here: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/inside-college-football-nfl-proving-it-cant-run-from-spread-offense-qbs-anymore/

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Let's assume the most negative situation possible and say 1 in 10 of "gadget offense" QBs succeed in the NFL. We can use that hypothetical to assume that either gadget QBs are incompatible with the NFL or that NFL coaches suck at adapting.

I gotta figure it is mostly the second one. .

I would disagree that "NFL Coaches Suck at adapting". Do you recall how the "wildcat offense" gave NFL defenses problems for approx. 1 season? They just spoke to friends that are coaching in college and got the answer on how to defend it.

Do you remember when Bob Griffin III ran a read option and was offensive rookie of the year? NFL coaches just asked their friends that coach in college how to defend it and then adapted to shut it down. (BTW, it consists of disguising the read of the end, to make the QB keep the football and getting as many hits on the QB as you can to inflict punishment on your QB)

Most gimmick offenses in college are designed to move laterally and outrun defenders to the edge. In the NFL, the hashmarks are narrower, so you don't often have a long run to the edge (a pronounced "wide side") and everybody has speed. In the NFL you need to get North-South, where college you can run East-West to get to the edge and around the corner.

[steelreserve]

I mean you are not wrong, BUT...

...all gimmick offenses are not created equal. While I fully acknowledge that once the NFL gets more tape on the kid it could fall apart really quick, but Watson seems fine. Dak seems alright. Winston, Newton, Mariota, Alex Smith, Keenum, etc.

Additionally, look at the amount of time "elite franchise" QBs spend in the shotgun. Brady, Roethlisberger, Rodgers are in shotgun a great percentage of the time throwing out of multiple WR sets. Take a look: https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/snap-rates--shotgun-v-under-center--off-.html

Steelers spent roughly 70% of their plays in shotgun this past season according to the above chart (a simplification I know, but just roll with it!) NE ran 8 out of 10 passing plays out of a shotgun.

Point? The "spread" or "gimmicky gadget offenses" are here. So why evaluate QBs on the "old models"? Interesting take from a spread guru here: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/inside-college-football-nfl-proving-it-cant-run-from-spread-offense-qbs-anymore/

And what's the thing all of those guys have in common? Despite being from "gimmick" offenses, they were thrown right into the fire in the NFL and succeeded anyway without riding the bench. (With the exception of Smith, who I don't think was a very good QB to begin with and still isn't and is never going to be.)

It's the player that matters, not what kind of offense they came from in college. In that respect, I think the scouts have done a pretty damn good job at separating the "real" QB prospects in gimmick offenses from the pretenders - most of the guys you mentioned were identified early as highly touted prospects who had something different from the Colt Brennans of the world.

I guess the end result is two things. One, that being from a spread offense doesn't mean you aren't a good QB, but the gimmick offenses create a lot of noise by inflating the performance of other QBs who aren't that good. And the other one being that if you really are a good QB, it doesn't matter whether you came from a spread offense or a "real" offense, if you're good you'll figure out the NFL just the same.

Players always say the biggest thing they had to get used to is "the speed of the NFL," which is why it makes sense to me that some QBs just "get it" and some don't, and it's evident quickly which one it will be. If your awareness and decision-making can keep up with that speed, then great. If it doesn't work that fast, it just doesn't, and all the practice in the world isn't going to make it be fast enough. (side note: I think this is where we are on Landry Jones - he can read plays and make decisions just fast enough to be at the low end of NFL quarterbacks and stick around in the league as a journeyman. But those skills are a tick behind what it takes to be a good starter and I don't see how they get better. It's like trying to teach someone to increase their footspeed, you can't really do it.)

[cubanstogie]

And what's the thing all of those guys have in common? Despite being from "gimmick" offenses, they were thrown right into the fire in the NFL and succeeded anyway without riding the bench. (With the exception of Smith, who I don't think was a very good QB to begin with and still isn't and is never going to be.)

It's the player that matters, not what kind of offense they came from in college. In that respect, I think the scouts have done a pretty damn good job at separating the "real" QB prospects in gimmick offenses from the pretenders - most of the guys you mentioned were identified early as highly touted prospects who had something different from the Colt Brennans of the world.

I guess the end result is two things. One, that being from a spread offense doesn't mean you aren't a good QB, but the gimmick offenses create a lot of noise by inflating the performance of other QBs who aren't that good. And the other one being that if you really are a good QB, it doesn't matter whether you came from a spread offense or a "real" offense, if you're good you'll figure out the NFL just the same.

Players always say the biggest thing they had to get used to is "the speed of the NFL," which is why it makes sense to me that some QBs just "get it" and some don't, and it's evident quickly which one it will be. If your awareness and decision-making can keep up with that speed, then great. If it doesn't work that fast, it just doesn't, and all the practice in the world isn't going to make it be fast enough. (side note: I think this is where we are on Landry Jones - he can read plays and make decisions just fast enough to be at the low end of NFL quarterbacks and stick around in the league as a journeyman. But those skills are a tick behind what it takes to be a good starter and I don't see how they get better. It's like trying to teach someone to increase their footspeed, you can't really do it.)
your bar is set pretty high if you don't think Alex Smith is a good QB. While I wouldn't argue he is a great QB he is pretty damn good in my book.

[teegre]

Some really good posts. Too many to respond to individually.

A few thoughts...

1) With our offensive weapons, I would have ZERO problem throwing a rookie in as a starter.

2) If the right guy is within reasonable reach (20), you trade up... because, well... because, of 1980-2004.

3) If the right guy is gone at 32, and BB does retire, I’d draft Falk at 64 or Lauretta at 96... and have a three-way competition between Landry, Dobbs, & Falk/Lauletta. The floor would be Landry... which is better than Blake Bortles.

[Mojouw]

I would disagree that "NFL Coaches Suck at adapting". Do you recall how the "wildcat offense" gave NFL defenses problems for approx. 1 season? They just spoke to friends that are coaching in college and got the answer on how to defend it.

Do you remember when Bob Griffin III ran a read option and was offensive rookie of the year? NFL coaches just asked their friends that coach in college how to defend it and then adapted to shut it down. (BTW, it consists of disguising the read of the end, to make the QB keep the football and getting as many hits on the QB as you can to inflict punishment on your QB)

Most gimmick offenses in college are designed to move laterally and outrun defenders to the edge. In the NFL, the hashmarks are narrower, so you don't often have a long run to the edge (a pronounced "wide side") and everybody has speed. In the NFL you need to get North-South, where college you can run East-West to get to the edge and around the corner.

I agree that in the NFL you can not just go east west and hope a physical mismatch allows you to win.

I also agree that the NFL figured out various "flavor of the month" type things by adapting.

But what I am getting at is that not enough NFL franchises seem to be flexible at the most important position on the team. When Alex Smith broke into the league, the 49'ers adjusted their offense and slowly introduced Smith to a more traditional NFL style offense while incorporating spread concepts that made him comfortable/successful. In contrast, Jeff Fisher looked at Keenum and decided to just force him into about the most staid and traditional NFL offense not found in a time machine and wondered why he stunk. Now Keenum resurfaces in Minnesota, they incorporate things that make him comfortable and lo and behold Keenum is a pretty viable NFL QB. The coaching staffs in Houston and Dallas did things to make Watson and Prescott comfortable and successful - namely incorporating things from the college style spread systems that CAN work in the NFL. In sharp contrast, Hue Jackson did what to make Kizer comfortable? Look at the marked difference in success between the three.

For me, assuming all the physical tools are there in a draft prospect, my single biggest factor is how quick can they process information and make the proper decision. Even if that is in a one read offense, how quick do they make that read and how much anticipation is there in their throws? Do they throw guys open? Or do they hold the ball until their target is "college open" - which will never happen on Sundays. The hope is that you can build on that strong mental foundation - adding in more reads and more variables to process to gradually transition a "gimmicky east-west guy" to a north-south NFL guy.

[polamalubeast]

It's just that I prefer to have a rookie QB as starter than Landry Jones

Several rookie QB has been successful for 10-15 years...We would have no hope with Jones

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I agree that in the NFL you can not just go east west and hope a physical mismatch allows you to win.

I also agree that the NFL figured out various "flavor of the month" type things by adapting.

But what I am getting at is that not enough NFL franchises seem to be flexible at the most important position on the team. When Alex Smith broke into the league, the 49'ers adjusted their offense and slowly introduced Smith to a more traditional NFL style offense while incorporating spread concepts that made him comfortable/successful. In contrast, Jeff Fisher looked at Keenum and decided to just force him into about the most staid and traditional NFL offense not found in a time machine and wondered why he stunk. Now Keenum resurfaces in Minnesota, they incorporate things that make him comfortable and lo and behold Keenum is a pretty viable NFL QB. The coaching staffs in Houston and Dallas did things to make Watson and Prescott comfortable and successful - namely incorporating things from the college style spread systems that CAN work in the NFL. In sharp contrast, Hue Jackson did what to make Kizer comfortable? Look at the marked difference in success between the three.

For me, assuming all the physical tools are there in a draft prospect, my single biggest factor is how quick can they process information and make the proper decision. Even if that is in a one read offense, how quick do they make that read and how much anticipation is there in their throws? Do they throw guys open? Or do they hold the ball until their target is "college open" - which will never happen on Sundays. The hope is that you can build on that strong mental foundation - adding in more reads and more variables to process to gradually transition a "gimmicky east-west guy" to a north-south NFL guy.

It seems that your are on some level advocating that coaches adapt offensive systems to fit 1 player. Paring down an offense to fit a guy that isn't up to handling the full offense that you have. I think that is OK if you are in the bottom half of the league and have been given a few years as a window by management. Because....how many teams can be playoff contenders with only using 50% of their offensive playbook, or paring down an offense to suit a QB's comfort level?

Shannahan did it in Washington with Bob Griffin and adapted some read option to make him comfortable, but he knew you cant expect to win playoff games with a mainly college offense, so when he tried to expand it...Bobby threw a fit.

Alex Smith was a guy with an OK arm, and better running ability that fit a West Coast offense. Aaron Rodgers was the pro style offense guy with strong arm that can work from the pocket. Who was better?? Green Bay for drafting the QB that fit their offense, or SF for adapting their offense to fit the athletic QB with the reasonable arm?

Prescott benefitted from one of the best RB's in the league and Prescott himself has good mechanics and base of footwork to work from the pocket.

Deshaun Watson also had good fundamentals to work from the pocket and put up 400 yard games against Bama defenses that were full of future NFL players, in consecutive years. IMO, Watson was a no brainer pick and I said it last year.

Case Keenum is a backup game manager that fits the Vikings system, because Sam Bradford and Teddy Bridgewater are guys that benefit from short intermediate routes and timing due to their degree of arm talent and accuracy and team with a strong defense. Basically, Minnesota is build for a mediocre game manager QB and that is who they put on their rosters. (just watch either the Saints or Falcons represent the NFC at the Super Bowl, because they have real QB's)

I think you are asking why teams don't draft OK QB's, because that is what is there and try to adapt their systems to make the most out of it, as opposed to looking for the elusive Franchise QB. Is that correct? If it is, my thought is that its like getting a flat tire and you put that temporary donut spare on the tire to get you 50 miles. It works, but if you really want to keep driving, you need a real tire.

[polamalubeast]

The thing is, if a QB rookie would be our starter next year, he would be in a great situation.

[Mojouw]

It seems that your are on some level advocating that coaches adapt offensive systems to fit 1 player. Paring down an offense to fit a guy that isn't up to handling the full offense that you have. I think that is OK if you are in the bottom half of the league and have been given a few years as a window by management. Because....how many teams can be playoff contenders with only using 50% of their offensive playbook, or paring down an offense to suit a QB's comfort level?

I think you are asking why teams don't draft OK QB's, because that is what is there and try to adapt their systems to make the most out of it, as opposed to looking for the elusive Franchise QB. Is that correct? If it is, my thought is that its like getting a flat tire and you put that temporary donut spare on the tire to get you 50 miles. It works, but if you really want to keep driving, you need a real tire.

I edited the post down when I quoted it and if that causes your point to get obscured, I apologize.

I feel like we are closer together than this discussion seems.

My points are that paring down the offense is not a permanent thing. If you have to pare down the offense for ever and ever - then that is not your guy. But Roethlisberger, Prescott, Smith, etc all played with a significantly simplified playbook until they got "up to speed".

I am by no means arguing that teams accept mediocrity at QB and just make the best of it. I am trying (and clearly not doing a very good job) of arguing that the NFL seems to only "see" one path to success at the QB position. I refuse to believe that is true. At every other level of football there is more than one way to be successful at the QB position.

It is kinda like buying a car. The "best" car or truck depends on how you intend to use it and what you want to do with it. Right now the NFL is basically ONLY looking for one kind of car and any model that shows up differently is heavily modified with after-market add-ons to make it function like the "expected" car as much as possible. (This analogy is getting really strained really quickly!) What I am asking is what about expanding the search parameters and looking at other really high quality well built car models?

To return to QBs - I am taken as a given that good mechanics, sound fundamentals, etc are all there. I think it is highly more likely that there are more than 2 guys coming out of college each year that could handle the NFL but the evaluation and coaching process doesn't "see" them than the reality that only about one franchise QB comes out every 5 years.

A few years ago in the NBA, there was a lack of PGs and everyone said there weren't enough guys available that could play the position well. Then the NBA changed/updated its expectations/coaching for the position and "Voila" the league is lousy with good point guards.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I edited the post down when I quoted it and if that causes your point to get obscured, I apologize.

I feel like we are closer together than this discussion seems.

My points are that paring down the offense is not a permanent thing. If you have to pare down the offense for ever and ever - then that is not your guy. But Roethlisberger, Prescott, Smith, etc all played with a significantly simplified playbook until they got "up to speed".

I am by no means arguing that teams accept mediocrity at QB and just make the best of it. I am trying (and clearly not doing a very good job) of arguing that the NFL seems to only "see" one path to success at the QB position. I refuse to believe that is true. At every other level of football there is more than one way to be successful at the QB position.

It is kinda like buying a car. The "best" car or truck depends on how you intend to use it and what you want to do with it. Right now the NFL is basically ONLY looking for one kind of car and any model that shows up differently is heavily modified with after-market add-ons to make it function like the "expected" car as much as possible. (This analogy is getting really strained really quickly!) What I am asking is what about expanding the search parameters and looking at other really high quality well built car models?

To return to QBs - I am taken as a given that good mechanics, sound fundamentals, etc are all there. I think it is highly more likely that there are more than 2 guys coming out of college each year that could handle the NFL but the evaluation and coaching process doesn't "see" them than the reality that only about one franchise QB comes out every 5 years.

A few years ago in the NBA, there was a lack of PGs and everyone said there weren't enough guys available that could play the position well. Then the NBA changed/updated its expectations/coaching for the position and "Voila" the league is lousy with good point guards.

Just about every college runs some form of spread offense, read option, and even more exotic offenses, while the minority runs a traditional Pro Style. The NFL does not run away from looking at those QB's that play in Cal's "Bear Raid" offense, or Wash St. "air raid", nor did they ever run away from scouting Joe Tillers Purdue QB's that played "basketball on turf". I think some fans believe that NFL scouts and teams only look at pro style offenses and they look at all offenses for QB's who can play in a pro style offense. I don't think the "search parameters" are as narrow as you think.

Sure, if you suck as a team and draft a QB high, then you want to get your QB in playing asap because you don't have better options. So that means paring down the offense until they can handle it, or playing the veteran with no more upside, so that the rookie can see the game unfold, learn weekly in film, take mental reps during games and then more reps in practice until they are ready. Its a case by case decision IMO, based upon the individual and the offense.

BTW, your basketball analogy is somewhat flawed. The advent of talented European players with ball handling skills such as Nowitzki, Kukoc, Divac, Bogdonavich, etc lead to the evolution of the game with "point forwards", "stretch 4" and what is now being referred to as "positionless basketball". You didn't need point guards and post up centers as prominently as the game of the past.

In the NFL, you can go 5 wide, play run and shoot all you want, but still need to run the football effectively at the goal line (or you become Detroit) and from there you need to run play action. So you need QB's that can operate from under center to score TD's. IMO, running read option, shotgun or pistol formation from the 5 yard line in the NFL is something you cant do consistently and be successful.

[Mojouw]

Just about every college runs some form of spread offense, read option, and even more exotic offenses, while the minority runs a traditional Pro Style. The NFL does not run away from looking at those QB's that play in Cal's "Bear Raid" offense, or Wash St. "air raid", nor did they ever run away from scouting Joe Tillers Purdue QB's that played "basketball on turf". I think some fans believe that NFL scouts and teams only look at pro style offenses and they look at all offenses for QB's who can play in a pro style offense. I don't think the "search parameters" are as narrow as you think.

Sure, if you suck as a team and draft a QB high, then you want to get your QB in playing asap because you don't have better options. So that means paring down the offense until they can handle it, or playing the veteran with no more upside, so that the rookie can see the game unfold, learn weekly in film, take mental reps during games and then more reps in practice until they are ready. Its a case by case decision IMO, based upon the individual and the offense.

BTW, your basketball analogy is somewhat flawed. The advent of talented European players with ball handling skills such as Nowitzki, Kukoc, Divac, Bogdonavich, etc lead to the evolution of the game with "point forwards", "stretch 4" and what is now being referred to as "positionless basketball". You didn't need point guards and post up centers as prominently as the game of the past.

In the NFL, you can go 5 wide, play run and shoot all you want, but still need to run the football effectively at the goal line (or you become Detroit) and from there you need to run play action. So you need QB's that can operate from under center to score TD's. IMO, running read option, shotgun or pistol formation from the 5 yard line in the NFL is something you cant do consistently and be successful.

While in NFL offices they may not be, when that "Search" filters out to the message boards, talking heads, sports radio, etc -- the message becomes "spread=not an NFL QB".

The advent of the stretch 4 and the death of the "long 2" in the NBA are not bad parallels in my mind for what is going on in the NFL. In both cases the skill set of the guys being fed into the pro level underwent a significant change. In the NBA, the pro game dramatically altered and adapted. I await the similar adaption and alteration in the NFL.

Look, I am no genius or really insightful when it comes to formations and alignments etc. But I do know that I see things frequently that question the "conventional wisdom". This breakdown says that teams are more successful running short yardage out of shotgun and pistol than they are under center. https://predictivefootball.com/running-from-shotgun-formation-works-even-in-short-yardage/

I am not arguing that we need to reinvent the wheel or anything, but the NFL's steadfast refusal to see anything besides about 3 core offenses as "Pro Ready" is kinda goofy. I mean what do you really have being run consistently in the NFL? Some version of the Air Coryell, some version of the Bill Walsh offense, and variations on the Earhardt-Perkins scheme. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but that seems kinda unreasonable that in the last 7 decades there has emerged as only about a small handful of ways to move a football down the field and score points?

I just don't buy it. I honestly think that it is because NFL teams are about the most risk averse closed system I can think of that innovations and different ideas get stifled.

[DesertSteel]

All I know is that it's crazy to believe that there are only 12-14 high level quarterbacks in the whole world! Something must be very wrong with the system. The guy who figures it out will be very rich. I have a feeling it won't be anybody on this board :).

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

While in NFL offices they may not be, when that "Search" filters out to the message boards, talking heads, sports radio, etc -- the message becomes "spread=not an NFL QB".

The advent of the stretch 4 and the death of the "long 2" in the NBA are not bad parallels in my mind for what is going on in the NFL. In both cases the skill set of the guys being fed into the pro level underwent a significant change. In the NBA, the pro game dramatically altered and adapted. I await the similar adaption and alteration in the NFL.

Look, I am no genius or really insightful when it comes to formations and alignments etc. But I do know that I see things frequently that question the "conventional wisdom". This breakdown says that teams are more successful running short yardage out of shotgun and pistol than they are under center. https://predictivefootball.com/running-from-shotgun-formation-works-even-in-short-yardage/

I am not arguing that we need to reinvent the wheel or anything, but the NFL's steadfast refusal to see anything besides about 3 core offenses as "Pro Ready" is kinda goofy. I mean what do you really have being run consistently in the NFL? Some version of the Air Coryell, some version of the Bill Walsh offense, and variations on the Earhardt-Perkins scheme. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but that seems kinda unreasonable that in the last 7 decades there has emerged as only about a small handful of ways to move a football down the field and score points?

I just don't buy it. I honestly think that it is because NFL teams are about the most risk averse closed system I can think of that innovations and different ideas get stifled.

So NFL front offices scout QB's in all systems, but its the message boards and talking heads assertion that "spread= not NFL QB"......so who really cares what message boards, bloggers and talking heads say??

I agree that short yardage can be run well by spreading the defense out, but on the goal line nobody is backing out their safety(s) to protect against deep pass and they will put more on the line than you can block, so starting your RB 5 yards off the LOS and a longer shotgun snap, with 6 blockers (5 OL, 1FB/TE) vs 7 defenders is just offensive suicide and bad math.

Anyways, the point of this thread is Landry Jones and I think he is nothing more than a backup and yes we could do worse, but will also have to do a lot better when Ben retires. Should the Steelers look at QB's that run spread offenses in college....yes and find ones that have skills that will work in pro style offenses, not a wildcat, single wing, read-option, 5-wide, run and shoot, wishbone, triple option flexbone....because nobody is going to run those in the NFL and win a Super Bowl with it.

[pczach]

While in NFL offices they may not be, when that "Search" filters out to the message boards, talking heads, sports radio, etc -- the message becomes "spread=not an NFL QB".

The advent of the stretch 4 and the death of the "long 2" in the NBA are not bad parallels in my mind for what is going on in the NFL. In both cases the skill set of the guys being fed into the pro level underwent a significant change. In the NBA, the pro game dramatically altered and adapted. I await the similar adaption and alteration in the NFL.

Look, I am no genius or really insightful when it comes to formations and alignments etc. But I do know that I see things frequently that question the "conventional wisdom". This breakdown says that teams are more successful running short yardage out of shotgun and pistol than they are under center. https://predictivefootball.com/running-from-shotgun-formation-works-even-in-short-yardage/

I am not arguing that we need to reinvent the wheel or anything, but the NFL's steadfast refusal to see anything besides about 3 core offenses as "Pro Ready" is kinda goofy. I mean what do you really have being run consistently in the NFL? Some version of the Air Coryell, some version of the Bill Walsh offense, and variations on the Earhardt-Perkins scheme. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but that seems kinda unreasonable that in the last 7 decades there has emerged as only about a small handful of ways to move a football down the field and score points?

I just don't buy it. I honestly think that it is because NFL teams are about the most risk averse closed system I can think of that innovations and different ideas get stifled.



Just because a quarterback operates in a spread offense doesn't mean he's disqualified from consideration to be an NFL quarterback. They're just a more difficult evaluation, and there is a little more that has to be projected because so many that play in that system are reliant on the sideline calls because that's how their coaches want to run the system so they're in control. It doesn't mean that those quarterbacks can't do what is necessary at the pro level. It just means that they haven't done it yet, so it requires a little more faith and projection.

If "Joe message board hero" doesn't want to consider any quarterback from a spread system, what does it matter? There are countless people at message boards, idiot bloggers, etc.., that don't know anything about football. We see this all the time.

Don't let these people get you down about it. They are being evaluated and considered by every NFL team.

[steelreserve]

I don't think the teams are overlooking good QBs just because they play in a spread offense. There are some good ones, but there's a lot of fool's gold too. But it's almost uncanny how the good ones wind up being on people's radar and selected highly, while the crappy ones elevated by their system end up in rounds 6-7 or undrafted. It's almost like the scouts and coaches can tell the difference.

Anyway, the thing is that 9 out of 10 spread-offense QBs are probably not NFL material, just like 9 out of 10 normal-offense QBs are not NFL material. But the spread offense makes some of the other 9 look better than they really are, and you have to weed them out, that's all.

I think the original point of the spread argument is that if you take one of those QBs and just throw them to the wolves as an NFL rookie, they take more time to learn so it's a bad idea ... but actually I think it's the same as with other QBs. The good ones have the awareness and reactions to make it work regardless whether they're from a spread offense or something else.

[teegre]

Lots of good points. My thoughts...

Landry Jones would be a bottom-third starter in this league, which is not good enough to win a championship... and that also sums up Blake Bortles.

[Born2Steel]

Lots of good points. My thoughts...

Landry Jones would be a bottom-third starter in this league, which is not good enough to win a championship... and that also sums up Blake Bortles.

Hey, stop giving Blake Bortles bulletin board material in bunches bro!

[teegre]

Hey, stop giving Blake Bortles bulletin board material in bunches bro!

I want him to throw the ball. :wink02:

[Mojouw]

There are some great things said here and I've spun this thread too far off topic already ranting and raving.

Landry Jones is a bottom 40% starter at best and he will be 29 next year. So, he is what he is.

I also refuse to believe that only 2 guys on average leave college every year that can play QB at a high level. If Roetlisberger had come out of Miami of Ohio in 1994 instead of 2004, he might not have been drafted. In 1984 he almost certainly doesn't.

The NFLs track record of identitying and developing QB talent is fairly poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Just because a quarterback operates in a spread offense doesn't mean he's disqualified from consideration to be an NFL quarterback. They're just a more difficult evaluation, and there is a little more that has to be projected because so many that play in that system are reliant on the sideline calls because that's how their coaches want to run the system so they're in control. It doesn't mean that those quarterbacks can't do what is necessary at the pro level. It just means that they haven't done it yet, so it requires a little more faith and projection.

If "Joe message board hero" doesn't want to consider any quarterback from a spread system, what does it matter? There are countless people at message boards, idiot bloggers, etc.., that don't know anything about football. We see this all the time.

Don't let these people get you down about it. They are being evaluated and considered by every NFL team.

Agreed. Jared Goff played in a spread "Air Raid " offense and was so much not ignored that he was drafted #1 overall.

[Psycho Ward 86]

Agreed. Jared Goff played in a spread "Air Raid " offense and was so much not ignored that he was drafted #1 overall.

But Goff also played for a coach that made the Rams the highest scoring offense in the league a year after it was the lowest scoring offense. Seems to me that McVay works miracles. Imagine if he was our OC

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

But Goff also played for a coach that made the Rams the highest scoring offense in the league a year after it was the lowest scoring offense. Seems to me that McVay works miracles. Imagine if he was our OC
..mmmkay. So what does that have to do with my supporting the comment that just because a QB plays in a college spread offense, doesn't mean he is disqualified from being considered to be drafted as an NFL QB.

I was agreeing with a post by pzach, not lobbying for McVay to quit his HC job to become the Steelers OC. :noidea:

[DesertSteel]

I was agreeing with a post by pzach, not lobbying for McVay to quit his HC job to become the Steelers OC. :noidea:
So are you saying that you prefer Haley as our OC to McVay???

:scared:

[teegre]

Ian Rapoport is tweeting out that Sean McVay is rumored to be the Steelers’ next OC.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

So are you saying that you prefer Haley as our OC to McVay???

:scared:

Yes, I think Haley has the skills to make Josh Dobbs the next Landry Jones. Besides, McVay is 5'10" and played in a spread offense in college, so he doesn't translate to our system.

- - - Updated - - -


Ian Rapoport is tweeting out that Sean McVay is rumored to be the Steelers’ next OC.
Any confirmation from LaCanfora, or at least SteelersDepot?

[Psycho Ward 86]

..mmmkay. So what does that have to do with my supporting the comment that just because a QB plays in a college spread offense, doesn't mean he is disqualified from being considered to be drafted as an NFL QB.

I was agreeing with a post by pzach, not lobbying for McVay to quit his HC job to become the Steelers OC. :noidea:

because Goff is being coached by a guy who has generated an unprecedented amount of improvement in an offense. i credit McVay a lot more than Goff for his turn around. McVay's all around body of work to me suggests that Goff could have easily imploded into yet another air raid QB bust but Goff fell into the hands off the absolute perfect surrounding cast and head coach

[teegre]

Goff fell into the hands off the absolute perfect surrounding cast and head coach

So, this kind of supports mojouw’s thooghts, that there IS indeed talent out there, but that coaches need to do a better job of coaching that talent.

[teegre]

Any confirmation from LaCanfora

My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who saw McVay talking to Colbert at 31 Flavors last night.

[Mojouw]

So, this kind of supports mojouw’s thooghts, that there IS indeed talent out there, but that coaches need to do a better job of coaching that talent.

Precisely. One of the many examples I was thinking of!

Plus when we fans get a bit of the curtain pulled aside and we are relayed "scouting comments" some of them just sound like a bunch of stodgy stubborn old guy group-think. Read something the other day that several scouts are already discarding one of the typical top guys from this year because he has a loop in his wind-up therefore he doesn't fit the "mold".

Leftwhich had a hitch in his delivery and he made it work. Now he isn't a hall of famer or anything, but still...

[pczach]

So, this kind of supports mojouw’s thooghts, that there IS indeed talent out there, but that coaches need to do a better job of coaching that talent.


I don't think there's any question that Mojouw is right about that.

But.....here's the problem.

The time for the development is before they get to the NFL. College coaches that run these schemes want complete control of their offenses. They figure they have a revolving door of players coming through the door, and it is just much easier for them handle everything from the sideline than to train a quarterback everything that goes along with understanding and communicating the verbage in the huddle. They usually run up tempo offenses, so they want their players at the line so the defense can't change personnel and the coaches can make their calls from the sideline. It is much quicker that way, and they can run more plays. It's what they want to do, and is the strategy they use. That's what makes it so difficult. The coaches aren't worried about preparing their quarterbacks for the NFL, they just want to have as much control over the offense as possible, and they want to win.

I just don't see coaches changing their approach with what they teach quarterbacks. They're more worried about winning now so they can keep their jobs or get a better gig.

[Mojouw]

I don't think there's any question that Mojouw is right about that.

But.....here's the problem.

The time for the development is before they get to the NFL. College coaches that run these schemes want complete control of their offenses. They figure they have a revolving door of players coming through the door, and it is just much easier for them handle everything from the sideline than to train a quarterback everything that goes along with understanding and communicating the verbage in the huddle. They usually run up tempo offenses, so they want their players at the line so the defense can't change personnel and the coaches can make their calls from the sideline. It is much quicker that way, and they can run more plays. It's what they want to do, and is the strategy they use. That's what makes it so difficult. The coaches aren't worried about preparing their quarterbacks for the NFL, they just want to have as much control over the offense as possible, and they want to win.

I just don't see coaches changing their approach with what they teach quarterbacks. They're more worried about winning now so they can keep their jobs or get a better gig.

I get all that and it is traditionally how it worked. But I am arguing that those days are gone and are never coming back. Colleges are no longer content to function as a minor league for the NFL and run similar schemes - on either side of the ball. They have decided to incorporate changes and systems that maximize their success and are often not connected to what the NFL would like as fundamental skill sets. You can see this in a number of positions:

1. Offensive lineman are really just not ready for the NFL. Many people smarter than myself have written extensively about this: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/9/13/16299646/bad-offenses-trend and https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/11/2/16596392/offensive-line-crisis-league-midseason are two interesting examples.

2. We have covered the issues with QBs already. They simply are often not given the developmental time in traditional NFL fundamentals. So teams in the NFL either have to coach better, scour lower levels of competition that are running pro style sets for guys like Wentz, or develop different evaluation tools to identify prospects who can be "coached up".

3. WRs - this has been going on for a long time. Guys have to come to the NFL and learn the route tree and actual technique.

We could likely come up with something for every position - another obvious one being TEs who literally do not know how to block. The NFL wants them and the NCAA doesn't really provide them. So NFL teams have chosen to adapt, coach up guys, scheme around it etc.

But with this one position (QB) the NFL seems mired in traditional concepts and ways of thinking. Then when guys like Reid and McVay make adaptations or do something a bit out of the norm, everyone freaks out and is like "Geniuses! By God, these men are geniuses!" Really? Or did they just have the basic good sense to try something "new" (at least for the NFL) when the old-school ways were not working?

[teegre]

I don't think there's any question that Mojouw is right about that.

But.....here's the problem.

The time for the development is before they get to the NFL. College coaches that run these schemes want complete control of their offenses. They figure they have a revolving door of players coming through the door, and it is just much easier for them handle everything from the sideline than to train a quarterback everything that goes along with understanding and communicating the verbage in the huddle. They usually run up tempo offenses, so they want their players at the line so the defense can't change personnel and the coaches can make their calls from the sideline. It is much quicker that way, and they can run more plays. It's what they want to do, and is the strategy they use. That's what makes it so difficult. The coaches aren't worried about preparing their quarterbacks for the NFL, they just want to have as much control over the offense as possible, and they want to win.

I just don't see coaches changing their approach with what they teach quarterbacks. They're more worried about winning now so they can keep their jobs or get a better gig.

I do not blame the college coaches for not developing the QBs. They have few practice hours, and only a few years with these QBs, and considering coaches last about five years, the coaches HAVE to win in any way possible. Player development is a distant second.

What I am saying is that NFL coaches need to start coaching. Look at Norv Turner. Every QB that he has ever coached has had some of his best years when he was their OC. Why?… because Norv actually coaches them on how to play the position.

Of course, NFL coaches have an even shorter leash (than NCAA coaches), and so, most of them need to “win now”... and thus, once again, player development is a distant second.

Tomlin has the luxury of tenure AND an owner who is patient. Tomlin could indeed draft a talented, but flawed, QB (Lamar Jackson) and spend a year or more developing that young player.

[pczach]

I get all that and it is traditionally how it worked. But I am arguing that those days are gone and are never coming back. Colleges are no longer content to function as a minor league for the NFL and run similar schemes - on either side of the ball. They have decided to incorporate changes and systems that maximize their success and are often not connected to what the NFL would like as fundamental skill sets. You can see this in a number of positions:

1. Offensive lineman are really just not ready for the NFL. Many people smarter than myself have written extensively about this: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/9/13/16299646/bad-offenses-trend and https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/11/2/16596392/offensive-line-crisis-league-midseason are two interesting examples.

2. We have covered the issues with QBs already. They simply are often not given the developmental time in traditional NFL fundamentals. So teams in the NFL either have to coach better, scour lower levels of competition that are running pro style sets for guys like Wentz, or develop different evaluation tools to identify prospects who can be "coached up".

3. WRs - this has been going on for a long time. Guys have to come to the NFL and learn the route tree and actual technique.

We could likely come up with something for every position - another obvious one being TEs who literally do not know how to block. The NFL wants them and the NCAA doesn't really provide them. So NFL teams have chosen to adapt, coach up guys, scheme around it etc.

But with this one position (QB) the NFL seems mired in traditional concepts and ways of thinking. Then when guys like Reid and McVay make adaptations or do something a bit out of the norm, everyone freaks out and is like "Geniuses! By God, these men are geniuses!" Really? Or did they just have the basic good sense to try something "new" (at least for the NFL) when the old-school ways were not working?


I agree with everything you said. In my post that you quoted, I stated that there's no question you're right about that.

The problem has always been that much of what they run in college doesn't work in the NFL. At least that has always been the thinking. In recent years, we've seen examples of taking the gifts of college quarterbacks that ran the spread, and implement some of those elements into the offense. The greatest example to look at is what the Texans did with Watson at quarterback. Bill O'Brien did a great job implementing some new elements to the offense, and putting a quarterback in a position to succeed by letting him play to his strengths. The results were ridiculously good.

I still believe that you need a special talent to be able to get results like they did with the Texans, but coaches do sometimes go with what's safe to them. They fight change because they fear the unknown. With that said, I still don't believe there are 15 more quarterbacks that would be lighting in up in the NFL if coaches were doing something different. Talent has a way of rising and is undeniable. Also, NFL defenses are so complex that the quarterback needs to be able to make calls at the LOS and be able to read defenses. They must have the smarts and the physical talent to be able to play. Many have one of those traits, but hardly any have both. That's why they are rare.

Will there come a time when teams are holding up cards on the sideline and the entire offensive unit is looking to the sideline for instruction? I don't know. All I know is that NFL teams need to find a better way to develop and implement talent, and they need to find ways to better project what players are capable of doing at the next level.

[hawaiiansteeler]

McVay is 5'10" and played in a spread offense in college, so he doesn't translate to our system.



McCoy was a WR so he should be able to be our OC and also play slot receiver at the same time.

[Mojouw]

I do not blame the college coaches for not developing the QBs. They have few practice hours, and only a few years with these QBs, and considering coaches last about five years, the coaches HAVE to win in any way possible. Player development is a distant second.

What I am saying is that NFL coaches need to start coaching. Look at Norv Turner. Every QB that he has ever coached has had some of his best years when he was their OC. Why?… because Norv actually coaches them on how to play the position.

Of course, NFL coaches have an even shorter leash (than NCAA coaches), and so, most of them need to “win now”... and thus, once again, player development is a distant second.

Tomlin has the luxury of tenure AND an owner who is patient. Tomlin could indeed draft a talented, but flawed, QB (Lamar Jackson) and spend a year or more developing that young player.

Turner is good example. I'm sure there are others. But too many OCs in the NFL force "their system" onto the players they have. Instead of putting their players in a maximized chance to succeed by playing to their strengths, they force players into a system that is a poor fit for them and end up magnifying their weaknesses.

I know that he has become a polarizing player and while not a "franchise" guy, Kaepernik's early career success was an example of a coaching staff that changed their system and philosophy to maximize the playing ability of their QB. In direct contrast, this year's Bills did not do that with Taylor. They took away all his deep ball receivers and wanted him to play in a high % possession style passing game (@ least from what I saw of the Bills this year) that is not his game. His game is movement and then hitting a big play behind the defense.

An even starker example is the Bears and Trubisky. Here is a kid green as grass and raw as hamburger that has ONE "go to" move - throwing on the run and/or designed roll-outs. The Bears then proceeded to do hardly any of that and just keep trotting out traditional offensive concepts. Then they got frustrated and confused when the kid struggled to execute. I realize they were hamstrung by the lack of weapons on the perimeter, but still their game-plan was hardly innovative. Clearly the coaching staff must have watched tape on Trubisky, they drafted him! It isn't like there was a ton either. Take a look and see what his college offense did to help him produce, then find a way to accomplish something similar in your offense.

Then teams throw up their hands and say "well there just aren't enough good QBs". I counter that there are not enough good coaches!

- - - Updated - - -


I agree with everything you said. In my post that you quoted, I stated that there's no question you're right about that.

The problem has always been that much of what they run in college doesn't work in the NFL. At least that has always been the thinking. In recent years, we've seen examples of taking the gifts of college quarterbacks that ran the spread, and implement some of those elements into the offense. The greatest example to look at is what the Texans did with Watson at quarterback. Bill O'Brien did a great job implementing some new elements to the offense, and putting a quarterback in a position to succeed by letting him play to his strengths. The results were ridiculously good.

I still believe that you need a special talent to be able to get results like they did with the Texans, but coaches do sometimes go with what's safe to them. They fight change because they fear the unknown. With that said, I still don't believe there are 15 more quarterbacks that would be lighting in up in the NFL if coaches were doing something different. Talent has a way of rising and is undeniable. Also, NFL defenses are so complex that the quarterback needs to be able to make calls at the LOS and be able to read defenses. They must have the smarts and the physical talent to be able to play. Many have one of those traits, but hardly any have both. That's why they are rare.

Will there come a time when teams are holding up cards on the sideline and the entire offensive unit is looking to the sideline for instruction? I don't know. All I know is that NFL teams need to find a better way to develop and implement talent, and they need to find ways to better project what players are capable of doing at the next level.

Good thoughts and pretty much sums it up. I think that the NFL needs to figure out how much and how fast these kids can process information. If they can do that at NFL game speed, arrive at the correct decision, and then deliver the ball accurately - most likely they will succeed regardless of what college style they played.

Unfortunately, the NFL seems terrible at assessing that skill.

[polamalubeast]

The Bears offense was so sad to watch .... I mean,the John FoxBall (run, run, pass) not work in the current nfl (unless a team like the steelers in week 3 was not ready for that)

[Born2Steel]

Coaching at the college and NFL level has become a lot more about system over player development. This is more obvious at the NFL level where players are drafted not just for their individual skillset, but also for how they contribute to an established system. When a QB like Cam Newton, who dominated the college game comes to the NFL, he has a much bigger learning curve because his college coaches were more likely to let him do his own thing rather than try to fit him into an established system. When Cam came into the league we all knew his skills, but he was a huge boom or bust prospect because nobody knew if he could fit an NFL system. A QB like Dak Prescott was considered a 'Cam-like' prospect with less 'Cam-like' talent, so not rated as highly by the analysts. However, we learned that Dak fit the Cowboy's system faster than Cam fit into the Panther's system. Less due to individual talent, but more because of being taught to run a system in college. Systems work, with the correct players. The skillset of the college QB does have value, but how that QB's abilities fit the Steeler's system is just as important, if not more important.

[polamalubeast]

Coaching at the college and NFL level has become a lot more about system over player development. This is more obvious at the NFL level where players are drafted not just for their individual skillset, but also for how they contribute to an established system. When a QB like Cam Newton, who dominated the college game comes to the NFL, he has a much bigger learning curve because his college coaches were more likely to let him do his own thing rather than try to fit him into an established system. When Cam came into the league we all knew his skills, but he was a huge boom or bust prospect because nobody knew if he could fit an NFL system. A QB like Dak Prescott was considered a 'Cam-like' prospect with less 'Cam-like' talent, so not rated as highly by the analysts. However, we learned that Dak fit the Cowboy's system faster than Cam fit into the Panther's system. Less due to individual talent, but more because of being taught to run a system in college. Systems work, with the correct players. The skillset of the college QB does have value, but how that QB's abilities fit the Steeler's system is just as important, if not more important.

Good point

[pczach]

I do not blame the college coaches for not developing the QBs. They have few practice hours, and only a few years with these QBs, and considering coaches last about five years, the coaches HAVE to win in any way possible. Player development is a distant second.

What I am saying is that NFL coaches need to start coaching. Look at Norv Turner. Every QB that he has ever coached has had some of his best years when he was their OC. Why?… because Norv actually coaches them on how to play the position.

Of course, NFL coaches have an even shorter leash (than NCAA coaches), and so, most of them need to “win now”... and thus, once again, player development is a distant second.

Tomlin has the luxury of tenure AND an owner who is patient. Tomlin could indeed draft a talented, but flawed, QB (Lamar Jackson) and spend a year or more developing that young player.




NFL teams are constantly trying to develop players. That's what position coaches do.

Quarterbacks are the position that is the most complicated. Deficiencies in any part of their game are amplified and exploited by all defenses they play.

I agree that there are some players that need more special attention and need an entire offense built around them. The problem with that is if the quarterback doesn't work out, the entire team may need to be rebuilt.

As for Lamar Jackson, I love his athleticism and his ability to make plays. I'm concerned with some things about him. He doesn't look like a natural thrower. He has struggled throwing the ball any time he plays better teams. That's never a good sign when a quarterback can't step up throwing the football in big games. He's come up very small more than a few times. He's an intriguing evaluation. At times you see him set his feet and make beautiful throws, and other times he's just improvising. I don't blame him. If I had that much talent, I'd improvise too.

He's going to have to impress in the pre-combine stuff. Pro days and things like that. I'm sure he's getting the best preparation for that as we speak. He'll have to show arm strength, accuracy, and pro-level throws.

The other thing is that we need to find out how things go in the interview process. How smart is this kid. What are his leadership skills. If he's a really bright guy that shows the ability to learn and memorize quickly, that's a huge checkmark in his favor. Then you need to really evaluate how he throws the football. Can he play the game on time? Is he able to read defenses and throw the ball on time based on what his eyes told him. If he can, then the coaches just need to beat that into him about trusting his reads and he has to overcome his instinct to use his superior athletic ability. That's where decision-making comes into play. You see guys like Steve Young, Russell Wilson, John Elway, Deshaun Watson, and Carson Wentz have that sense of when to go outside the structure of the offense. That's a gift unto itself.

The bottom line is that he's a phenomenal talent. He just has to show he's capable of some things before he can be drafted high.

[hawaiiansteeler]

The Bears offense was so sad to watch .... I mean,the John FoxBall (run, run, pass) not work in the current nfl (unless a team like the steelers in week 3 was not ready for that)

and losing to the Bears has ended up costing us home field advantage.

[polamalubeast]

and losing to the Bears has ended up costing us home field advantage.

I take 13-3 every season

The thing I wanted before the season was to have a playoff bye and the steelers got it.

[Mojouw]

Interesting that Pete Carroll is starting to think about the whole college offense thing:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/13/seahawks-may-embrace-a-college-style-offense/

I think the biggest thing the Steelers need to evaluate in a college QB (assuming they want to keep the same skill guys) is their ability to accurately and fearlessly throw the deep ball.

[polamalubeast]

Interesting that Pete Carroll is starting to think about the whole college offense thing:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/13/seahawks-may-embrace-a-college-style-offense/

I think the biggest thing the Steelers need to evaluate in a college QB (assuming they want to keep the same skill guys) is their ability to accurately and fearlessly throw the deep ball.


Agree

That's why I do not want a QB like Alex Smith with the steelers or a QB like Tyrod Taylor who is not very good inside the pocket and takes too many sacks because he's holding the ball too long and that he can not be efficient when he attempts 35-40 per game, which is what the steelers need ....

[Born2Steel]

Agree

That's why I do not want a QB like Alex Smith with the steelers or a QB like Tyrod Taylor who is not very good inside the pocket and takes too many sacks because he's holding the ball too long and that he can not be efficient when he attempts 35-40 per game, which is what the steelers need ....

Dobbs has a beautiful deep ball. It's his underneath stuff that he totally misses on. Could be the 'aiming passes' phenomenon. Smart guy, just not trustworthy enough to hand the keys to yet.

In the FA/trade market there will be several interesting names. The Vikings will have to let somebody go, the Broncos are expected to draft a QB in the 1st and will have to let somebody go, and I think JimmyG is on a 1 year deal as well. Cousins keeps popping up on here as a fan favorite. His price would be higher than we would normally deal with in FA. Signing Cousins would almost assure Bell being allowed to walk.

I would rather sign Bell, or tag him, and keep this offense in tact. Draft another QB in this draft that has the skillset to run the system here. Play the numbers game, we know what we have at our skill positions, bring in QBs under rookie contracts until we get our guy. We have the oline, the RB, the WRs, and defense, to give a young QB a great start, and a pretty efficient offensive system to run and work within. Why risk a multi-year, veteran QB contract, and put all of our eggs in the one basket?

[polamalubeast]

Dobbs has a beautiful deep ball. It's his underneath stuff that he totally misses on. Could be the 'aiming passes' phenomenon. Smart guy, just not trustworthy enough to hand the keys to yet.

In the FA/trade market there will be several interesting names. The Vikings will have to let somebody go, the Broncos are expected to draft a QB in the 1st and will have to let somebody go, and I think JimmyG is on a 1 year deal as well. Cousins keeps popping up on here as a fan favorite. His price would be higher than we would normally deal with in FA. Signing Cousins would almost assure Bell being allowed to walk.

I would rather sign Bell, or tag him, and keep this offense in tact. Draft another QB in this draft that has the skillset to run the system here. Play the numbers game, we know what we have at our skill positions, bring in QBs under rookie contracts until we get our guy. We have the oline, the RB, the WRs, and defense, to give a young QB a great start, and a pretty efficient offensive system to run and work within. Why risk a multi-year, veteran QB contract, and put all of our eggs in the one basket?

It would be more risky to go with Dobbs or Jones since they would have a very good chance that the 2018 season would be a wasted year for the steelers.