Gettleman clarified that the KC model is really the old way of bringing in QBs. Not to long ago every QB sat a year at least behind a vet. That worked back then because the teams could actually practice. There was more opportunity for developing QBs to get reps.
With the current CBA and the strict practice rules, that just doesn't work any more. Once the season starts the limited practice schedule gives teams very little opportunity to do anything else other than prepare for the upcoming opponent.
Sure you have guys like Mahomes and Rodgers whose talent level is so high that hey can come in and succeed right away, but the vast majority of QBs need lots of practice reps and in addition to in game experience to get there.
Compound that with the way player contracts and free agency are today, and you can see why teams no longer follow this model. Its an outdated model that no longer works today.
My point is Rodgers didn't succeed right away once he got to start because he rose the bench. He succeeded right away because he was extremely talented. Same for Mahomes.
Kirk cousins maybe? Think he learned a lot watching RG3?
There are more examples of 1st round QBs picked in last 8 years that have busted than those that flourished since day 1. For every Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Carsten Wentz and Jared Goff that have done reasonably well, there is a Sam Bradford, RG3, Ryan Tannehill, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Paxton Lynch and Blake Bortles to counter the narrative that young QBs need to start right away.
The next Giants QB would probably benefit from sitting in meetings with Eli just to get sense of what defenses are trying to do from film study. Let’s hope they finally give him a chance to mentor some kid.
How do you get used to the speed of the NFL without playing?
Can't learn that in the classroom or on the sideline.
Yes I'm saying it's an outlier.
I'd compare success rates if there were any other teams that used it in the past decade. But there aren't and for the reasons I outlined.
Eli Manning did not sit a full season before he started. A quarterback has to learn a lot at the NFL level and for some it may take awhile before they are ready.
Mahomes isn't the exception because he is the KC model. Rogers had to wait even longer than Mahomes to be the starter. They are the example of the KC model working as neither "came in and started right away".
The teams that didn't follow that model didn't do it that way because it doesn't work. They did it that way because they had no choice but to play the rookie as the alternative was worse or non-existant.
Now, as far as the game speed goes ... Yes, the game can slow down for him by sitting. When players say the game is faster it has more to do with their mentality and processing information than their physical attributes. When players say the game slowed down for them do you think that mean that particular player starts to run faster? Of course not. It means they are processing information faster which allows them to play faster. So, fuck yeah, Mahomes absolutely could have the game slow down by working with Reid and understanding the concepts of the offense. Is there a better coach to learn the QB position from? Mahomes came from a very basic offense. What KC does is totally different. Hell, did he even use a TE in college?
Again, you can argue what would have been better for him whther it was starting as a rookie or waiting a year. The problem is nobody knows that answer. But nobody can argue against the impact of getting mentally prepared by sitting his rookie year. Reid obviously did something right.
Are you referring to what Gettleman believes the KC model is? If yes then yes it has something to do with the current starter has some life left. The current QB has wisdom to pass along as well. It eases the transition of the rookie. To the 2nd part (trade value). No Gettleman isn't thinking that because Eli has a no trade clause in his contract. Are you suggesting they will re-sign Eli and remove that clause or franchise him in 2020 just to trade him?
This
Can you give me some more examples of it working?
I can't think of any, definetly not enough to call it's practice frequent.
The new young QB "model" is just about the same for ALL NFL teams.
1. Draft a young QB in the first round
2. Have an experienced vet the young QB can learn behind
3. Start the VET week 1
4. When the vet gets hurt or your team starts to SUCK, put in the ROOKIE QB.
That is exactly what ALL FIVE Teams did last year that drafted QBs in the first round.
And, it is EXACTLY what KC did. The difference is, in KC's example, the Chiefs didn't suck and Smith didn't break his leg. But, PM still managed to start a game at the end of the year.
So yes, DG would like things to work out like they did in KC, but we all know that isn't likely the case with the Giants for 2019. So if the Giants draft a QB in round 1, they will be starting before the end of the year.
It's not rocket science folks.
Baker came in week three
Josh Allen played week 1 and started week two
Baker came in week three
Josh Allen played week 1 and started week two
The Ravens obliterated the Bills week 1. Peterman had a 0.0 passer rating. The team sucked so they went with Rookie.
Same with the Browns. They were floundering with their vet QB (who many on BBI liked) and went with the rookie.
The Jets just suck. So I guess they didn't go with the plan all the rest of the teams did.
Or, if you strictly follow the Kansas City model, the rookie starts in the last week of the regular season after you are locked into your playoff position.
That's the one I would like to follow.
But that doesn't really fit the model DG is talking about.
I think the ravens are the only team who genuinely expected the rookie to sit, and I guess you could say that worked.
Quote:
That the real model from KC was to draft your next QB while your starter still has some life left and some trade value.
Are you referring to what Gettleman believes the KC model is? If yes then yes it has something to do with the current starter has some life left. The current QB has wisdom to pass along as well. It eases the transition of the rookie. To the 2nd part (trade value). No Gettleman isn't thinking that because Eli has a no trade clause in his contract. Are you suggesting they will re-sign Eli and remove that clause or franchise him in 2020 just to trade him?
I wasn't thinking anything specifically. It is just that people seem to think the KC model was to draft a QB to learn before their starter is put out to pasture. But KC went for the upgrade even though they had a legitimate starter who had trade value.
Quote:
If the Giants draft a QB @ 6, 17 or 37, or they trade for Rosen, that QB will sit next season for as long as the Giants are realistically in contention. That means the new QB will likely take over late in the year instead of waiting until the following season.
Or, if you strictly follow the Kansas City model, the rookie starts in the last week of the regular season after you are locked into your playoff position.
That's the one I would like to follow.
Would be nice
Is your point that a QB would get WORSE by sitting? What if he wasn’t ready to start week 1? Is he better off getting thrown out there when he’s not ready? That developing a young QB is impossible? (except when it happens we dismiss it as he was too good so doesn’t count).
I agree the practice limitations may hinder your ability to develop a QB. But to say it doesn't work is nonsense. Forcing a guy out there when he’s not ready is the worst thing you can do to a young QB.
The new young QB "model" is just about the same for ALL NFL teams.
1. Draft a young QB in the first round
2. Have an experienced vet the young QB can learn behind
3. Start the VET week 1
4. When the vet gets hurt or your team starts to SUCK, put in the ROOKIE QB.
That is exactly what ALL FIVE Teams did last year that drafted QBs in the first round.
And, it is EXACTLY what KC did. The difference is, in KC's example, the Chiefs didn't suck and Smith didn't break his leg. But, PM still managed to start a game at the end of the year.
So yes, DG would like things to work out like they did in KC, but we all know that isn't likely the case with the Giants for 2019. So if the Giants draft a QB in round 1, they will be starting before the end of the year.
It's not rocket science folks.
Perfect post. Thank you sir
Is your point that a QB would get WORSE by sitting? What if he wasn’t ready to start week 1? Is he better off getting thrown out there when he’s not ready? That developing a young QB is impossible? (except when it happens we dismiss it as he was too good so doesn’t count).
I agree the practice limitations may hinder your ability to develop a QB. But to say it doesn't work is nonsense. Forcing a guy out there when he’s not ready is the worst thing you can do to a young QB.
My point is the best way to get a guy ready is practice.
You can't give legitimate practice reps to your QB2 or QB3 with the current practice rules today.
Yes classroom stuff is still important and he should "pass" that portion of the program before moving to playing time.
Aside from whether the guy is good enough:
!) Coaching
2) Whether the style that coaching uses fits your skillset
3) OL
4) The rest of the team
5) Hey the guy matured and improved, look at that
6) Etc
7) Etc
I'd put whether the KC model is used or not pretty far down the bottom of that list of effecting how successful or not a QB is. If you take a QB in the draft, you evaluate them against who else you have on the team and start the one that gives you the best chance of winning at that particular moment in time. Depending on where the guy is in his development, it may benefit him. Pretty simple.
I see posts like the OP's quite often where contracts are referenced. And it is like people forgot why we are at where we are today with the draft slotting and capping. It was because rookie deals were getting out of control.
Where you used to be able to make a reasonable financial argument for not sitting a top drafted QB, that's no longer the case. Of course, you lose a year of cost control, but that's small vs. the old way.
BTW, after reading the thread, and the OP being met with overwhelming opposition, I get the sense he still think there was a fucking point made.
Just don't get it.
Quote:
This makes no sense. The best young QB in the game came in that way.
Is your point that a QB would get WORSE by sitting? What if he wasn’t ready to start week 1? Is he better off getting thrown out there when he’s not ready? That developing a young QB is impossible? (except when it happens we dismiss it as he was too good so doesn’t count).
I agree the practice limitations may hinder your ability to develop a QB. But to say it doesn't work is nonsense. Forcing a guy out there when he’s not ready is the worst thing you can do to a young QB.
My point is the best way to get a guy ready is practice.
You can't give legitimate practice reps to your QB2 or QB3 with the current practice rules today.
Yes classroom stuff is still important and he should "pass" that portion of the program before moving to playing time.
So QB2 and QB3 get no reps during the year? Like the reps they get learning the offense of the opposite team each week? You don't think that is harder while still working on all your mechanics?
I would argue that a young QB who sits has more responsibility to learn then one who starts right away. Not as much pressure on game day but close to the same during the week.
Quote:
This makes no sense. The best young QB in the game came in that way.
Is your point that a QB would get WORSE by sitting? What if he wasn’t ready to start week 1? Is he better off getting thrown out there when he’s not ready? That developing a young QB is impossible? (except when it happens we dismiss it as he was too good so doesn’t count).
I agree the practice limitations may hinder your ability to develop a QB. But to say it doesn't work is nonsense. Forcing a guy out there when he’s not ready is the worst thing you can do to a young QB.
My point is the best way to get a guy ready is practice.
You can't give legitimate practice reps to your QB2 or QB3 with the current practice rules today.
Yes classroom stuff is still important and he should "pass" that portion of the program before moving to playing time.
So QB2 and QB3 get no reps during the year? Like the reps they get learning the offense of the opposite team each week? You don't think that is harder while still working on all your mechanics?
I would argue that a young QB who sits has more responsibility to learn then one who starts right away. Not as much pressure on game day but close to the same during the week.
Hard to duplicate that. Its unrealistic to build a great roster, have a decent QB and then time it all perfectly to pull the trigger on a trade up for a QB and have it all work out.
I give KC props for it all, but a tremendous amount of luck was involved and it isn't something anyone should strive to emulate.
After all, it’s his reps that disappear when practice time is cut short.
“There’s barely enough time for the first-teamers to practice. Which means the only way to evaluate a QB and let him learn kinetically is to put him with your first team. And voila! There’s your new starting quarterback,” Benoit wrote.
Link - ( New Window )
Why You Can’t Let Young QBs Learn from the Bench - ( New Window )
And guess what? It happened.
Is this unintentional comedy?
In my mind, CBA limiting practice reps further promotes sitting and learning. Especially for the most complicated position to grasp.
It's down the list on why QB's don't sit though.
This article and premise is basically talking about high pick QB's. The economics of their rookie contracts are less an issue than it is that the sitting vert is making a lot of money. Most are bad teams that are rebuilding and so they go with the rookie over the vet. Trams that aren't rebuilding can play the vet (like the Chiefs).
But if you break down the actual QB's who have sat it is much broader. Of newer starting QB's, you have immediate starters from top picks. What about other guys? Case Keenum was a former backup. Nick Foles. Jimmy Garrappolo. Kirk Cousins.
What else do those QB's have in common? They weren't top picks.
Ask yourself - who was the last 1st round rookie QB to take over a successful team and keep it going? Those guys don't exist. Why? Because good teams are taking QB's later in the draft. Bad teams are taking them high, can afford another year of struggles and then move on.
In fact, that's what many people advocate the Giants do.
Rookie QB's play to speed a rebuild. Not because of thE practice rules.
Are we dealing in hypotheticals now?
If Lauletta isn't the future, how would that speed a rebuild.
Better yet, do you even know what point you are trying to make?
The point is simple.
Due to the practice rules, there is a limited amount of development that a rookie QB can achieve by watching and participating in meetings.
You made a fairly shitty point and keep standing by it.
it isn't the practice rules that are keeping rookie QB's from sitting.
It is the team situation and fluidity of the NFL where bad teams can become competitive quickly that is more at play in having rookie QB 's play immediately.
But mining that article from last year probably couldn't go to waste??
So you have a bad team and they play the rookie QB sooner to get better quicker...is that what you are saying?
That is basically my whole premise.
I think your "thesis" is fundamentally incorrect in that the reason few team have had success with the KC model is because few teams can take the time to do it. I bet every organization would like to do it, and I bet if you instead looked at the success rate of the QB's on teams that have done it, you'd find it was very high.
That is basically my whole premise.
Your premise is that rookie QB's can't sit and learn due to the practice rules. My point, along with several other posters on this thread, is that it isn't the practice rules that forces it - it is that teams are bad and can start the young QB now.
Teams that are good can afford to wait.
Good teams aren't taking QB's high since they draft low.
You've gotten pushback from several people here saying the premise is flawed. First you stood by it, now it appears you want to change it.
Very confused here.
Its a nice luxury to have, that you point out insn't usually the case with teams that are drafting high.
My point still remains, and hasn't changed from the OP.
There is only so much growth that can happen sitting and watching. Eventually the guy is going to have to start taking reps to develop.
Due to the CBA, The only way to get significant reps in season is to become the starter.