Was listening to ESPN radio over the weekend (I don't know who the hosts and guest were) but they made a very good point about drafting a QB in this day and age. Speaking about Mahomes and Lamar Jackson specifically, the point was made that NFL teams are now adapting aspects of college playbooks, since playbooks like those are what today's college QBs have known throughout their whole lives.
We all know that Eli, being an immobile pocket passer, is not the same type of QB as today's college QBs. But if the Giants draft his heir apparent this year, presumably the playbook will need to be adjusted to fit his strengths - which may not overlap with Eli's, perhaps to a large degree.
So, if Eli's heir apparent is drafted in 2019, I don't think it is necessarily feasible to say that he should sit behind Eli for a year and learn. First, you know that the first time Eli throws a bonehead interception or displays his advancing age in a tangible way, the howls to replace him with the new guy will be extremely loud. And second, whoever they draft will likely not be running the same offense as Eli.
So, in my humble opinion, if in fact this is it for Eli, there should be a clean break. Perhaps sign or trade for a veteran as a backstop or to start the first few games if necessary, but I don't see "sitting and learning under Eli" as a viable option.
you guys suck sometimes.
OP brought up a good point and this better than 99% of the stupid Eli threads.
I think Shurmur's system predicates certain types of receivers and tight ends more than the QB. Obviously, any QB has to learn the system like the back of his hand, but that would be true anywhere under any coach.
I don't think you have to change to accommodate what your QB ran in college at all.
This is a fair point. But should Eli be teaching from the field, or from the bench? Everyone knows Eli's days are numbered; the only question would be when, not if, he would yield to the new guy. Is a hasty benching in, say, week 5 or 6 after a couple of bad Eli performances really the best learning environment for the new guy?
Eli can certainly teach from the field and between series (or in film sessions after) he can explain what his thought process was on a given play and why he made the decision (right or wrong) that he did.
Hopefully the rookie is watching each play from the sideline and trying to read the defense (as best you can from that angle) as well. Then he can compare what he saw to what Eli saw/did and make adjustments/learn. It's not the same as making the reads on the fly, but it should ultimately help shorten the learning curve when the young QB does see the field.
A lot more to being a QB.
I think we can also agree that there is a degree of confirmation bias that creeps in here. Lamar Jackson is basically a running back right now playing the qb position. Baltimore has gotten away with it because of their defense. This is not unprecedented in the NFL. The problem is that they don't last. Eventually, the guy playing the qb spot must prove he can throw the ball down the field and not get himself killed running the ball. RGIII comes to mind. Allen looked better later in the season after he had a few weeks off and he had those weeks off because he got hurt running. Garappolo ruined any promise to the Niners season by getting himself hurt running with the ball.
Neither Trubisky nor Mahomes is a comparison. Mahomes spent spent a year in an apprenticeship behind Smith before being handed the reins. Trubisky spent 4 games on the bench behind Glennon and didn't exactly set the world on fire when he started playing. If anything, they are a walking argument for letting the new guy learn at the master's knee for at least a season.
These offenses don't get reinvented for new QBs. They are fundamentally the same; the difference between success and failure is actually putting in plays that utilize the QBs strengths instead of trying to shoehorn a QB into a different style.
Baltimore is leveraging the plays in their system to complement Jackson's strengths, it would be impossible to implement a new offense mid-season just based on the difference between Flacco and Jackson.
It depends on the player, what type of system he came from, and what is on the current roster when he's drafted. I personally think the ideal way to do it is to have the rookie QB stand on the sidelines for a few weeks and then get into games around the halfway+ point if the team isn't winning with the existing guy.
Basically what we did with Warner is how I'd prefer to handle it.. we actually were winning games with Warner, but Eli was inserted when things looked like they were slipping and it was time to start getting him reps.
Because of the adjustment period, lack of time in training camp, and there only being so many reps, it's tough for a QB to start right at Week 1. Huge learning curve and sometimes it's easier to mentally prepare for some of it from the sideline first.
But in 2019 let the QB give back to the team by holding the fort while the fundamentals are re-established.
The D is more lacking in players than many want to accept.
It's not about the QB or coaching one way or the other.
It's about leveraging a historic D draft matched for an epochally weak D roster.
I think that study probably more reflects that most QBs that come into the league bust, whether they sat or not. Personally, the way I feel is that if you draft a guy in the first round, he should play in his rookie year at some point, but sitting early is probably beneficial, such as how Baker Mayfield sat early.
There's an argument to be made that if the rookie isn't quite ready for NFL speed, playing him too soon before he is really comfortable, can affect his confidence.
He did the same things Coughlin did at the end. He had his whole family there for the last home game. He worked his way into some of those TD celebrations.
His father is openly talking about Eli retiring as a real possibility meaning it's likely they discussed it.
It takes a lot to gear up to play an NFL season, and Eli puts 120% in. Does he really want to do this again?
He gets paid either way at least some of his money, he has more money then he needs anyway.
I think he's just tired of losing. And while it's not his fault, he isn't leading them to winning either.
Quote:
Ran a study that showed there was no statistical benefit to sitting for a year vs starting as a rookie. So you are just delaying the learning and growing process by a year by redshirting
I think that study probably more reflects that most QBs that come into the league bust, whether they sat or not. Personally, the way I feel is that if you draft a guy in the first round, he should play in his rookie year at some point, but sitting early is probably beneficial, such as how Baker Mayfield sat early.
There's an argument to be made that if the rookie isn't quite ready for NFL speed, playing him too soon before he is really comfortable, can affect his confidence.
I don't buy this. If a QB can't recover from some shaky rookie starts, he probably doesn't have the mettle to make it under any conditions. Just my uneducated opinion of course.
Quote:
In comment 14244537 Les in TO said:
Quote:
Ran a study that showed there was no statistical benefit to sitting for a year vs starting as a rookie. So you are just delaying the learning and growing process by a year by redshirting
I think that study probably more reflects that most QBs that come into the league bust, whether they sat or not. Personally, the way I feel is that if you draft a guy in the first round, he should play in his rookie year at some point, but sitting early is probably beneficial, such as how Baker Mayfield sat early.
There's an argument to be made that if the rookie isn't quite ready for NFL speed, playing him too soon before he is really comfortable, can affect his confidence.
I don't buy this. If a QB can't recover from some shaky rookie starts, he probably doesn't have the mettle to make it under any conditions. Just my uneducated opinion of course.
That's fair, but coaches do want to put young QBs in a position to succeed, not get destroyed. You know, I can point to a handful of examples of QBs that I believe had the talent to be very successful in the NFL, but were destroyed and got happy feet because either protection wasn't there and/or they weren't ready for NFL speed and were thrown to the wolves too early.
David Carr and Tim Couch I believe are two such examples. Certainly, they might not have succeeded under the best of conditions, but I believe you give your QB a greater chance to be a long-term franchise QB by allowing them to acclimate before throwing them out there. Yes, at some point they have to sink or swim.
Platos : 12:57 pm : link : reply
all the things Eli has been good at like reading defenses, pre-snap adjustments, etc etc?
If he was good at reading defenses, he would be throwing to the wide open receivers, instead of forcing passes to others, or dumping the ball off so quickly....
I thought Eli would retire last year and from I have been reading last few days I believe he will now.
Quote:
In comment 14244573 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14244537 Les in TO said:
Quote:
Ran a study that showed there was no statistical benefit to sitting for a year vs starting as a rookie. So you are just delaying the learning and growing process by a year by redshirting
I think that study probably more reflects that most QBs that come into the league bust, whether they sat or not. Personally, the way I feel is that if you draft a guy in the first round, he should play in his rookie year at some point, but sitting early is probably beneficial, such as how Baker Mayfield sat early.
There's an argument to be made that if the rookie isn't quite ready for NFL speed, playing him too soon before he is really comfortable, can affect his confidence.
I don't buy this. If a QB can't recover from some shaky rookie starts, he probably doesn't have the mettle to make it under any conditions. Just my uneducated opinion of course.
That's fair, but coaches do want to put young QBs in a position to succeed, not get destroyed. You know, I can point to a handful of examples of QBs that I believe had the talent to be very successful in the NFL, but were destroyed and got happy feet because either protection wasn't there and/or they weren't ready for NFL speed and were thrown to the wolves too early.
David Carr and Tim Couch I believe are two such examples. Certainly, they might not have succeeded under the best of conditions, but I believe you give your QB a greater chance to be a long-term franchise QB by allowing them to acclimate before throwing them out there. Yes, at some point they have to sink or swim.
David Carr and Tim Couch didn't do well because they weren't as good as advertised; it wouldn't have matter if they first started their first or second year.
Mayfield wouldn't have done any worse this year if he would have started from week 1 instead of week 4.
"Redshirting" is overrated. Yes, perhaps you start at a slightly higher point on the learning curve if you don't start until year 2, but every start is a learning experience.
Quote:
In comment 14244678 ron mexico said:
Quote:
In comment 14244573 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14244537 Les in TO said:
Quote:
Ran a study that showed there was no statistical benefit to sitting for a year vs starting as a rookie. So you are just delaying the learning and growing process by a year by redshirting
I think that study probably more reflects that most QBs that come into the league bust, whether they sat or not. Personally, the way I feel is that if you draft a guy in the first round, he should play in his rookie year at some point, but sitting early is probably beneficial, such as how Baker Mayfield sat early.
There's an argument to be made that if the rookie isn't quite ready for NFL speed, playing him too soon before he is really comfortable, can affect his confidence.
I don't buy this. If a QB can't recover from some shaky rookie starts, he probably doesn't have the mettle to make it under any conditions. Just my uneducated opinion of course.
That's fair, but coaches do want to put young QBs in a position to succeed, not get destroyed. You know, I can point to a handful of examples of QBs that I believe had the talent to be very successful in the NFL, but were destroyed and got happy feet because either protection wasn't there and/or they weren't ready for NFL speed and were thrown to the wolves too early.
David Carr and Tim Couch I believe are two such examples. Certainly, they might not have succeeded under the best of conditions, but I believe you give your QB a greater chance to be a long-term franchise QB by allowing them to acclimate before throwing them out there. Yes, at some point they have to sink or swim.
David Carr and Tim Couch didn't do well because they weren't as good as advertised; it wouldn't have matter if they first started their first or second year.
Mayfield wouldn't have done any worse this year if he would have started from week 1 instead of week 4.
"Redshirting" is overrated. Yes, perhaps you start at a slightly higher point on the learning curve if you don't start until year 2, but every start is a learning experience.
I'd argue Tim Couch was more injuries than simply not being good enough. I think he would've been at least as good as the #2 pick in that draft, Donovan McNabb.
But in 2019 let the QB give back to the team by holding the fort while the fundamentals are re-established.
The D is more lacking in players than many want to accept.
It's not about the QB or coaching one way or the other.
It's about leveraging a historic D draft matched for an epochally weak D roster.
Then why not just cut Manning, alocate his $17 million to other areas of need and let Lauletta or whoever else play QB and watch the team lose historically again to set us for a top 3 pick in 2020?
Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I hadn't heard that before.
Link - ( New Window )
Didn't Winston, Mariota,Goff Wentz start from the get go ?
Didn't the QB guys drafted this year all start either from the get go or soon after? If the Giants had drafted any of this years drafted QB's instead of SB odds are these QB's would have been sitting the full year behind Eli and learning. I hate that thinking.
I think the learning curve is better served throwing the guy into action rather then sitting behind Eli.
Even Eli got to start and play quite a few games his rookie year
Mahomes sat a year because Smith was not an old has been QB.He got them to the playoffs for a few years. It took balls to cut bait with him but they did and it looks like a great move
Quote:
Manning balked at coming off the bench this season and rejected the idea of mentoring Kyle Lauletta, saying it wasn't in his job description and his priority was getting himself ready.
Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I hadn't heard that before. Link - ( New Window )
here is the eli article on being a mentor
Link - ( New Window )