General News and Notes

[Charles]

I think all of this is more about motivating the rest of the qb room.   Competition for qb2 looks close to me.  

[Tugboat]

14 hours ago, pwny said:

I wrote up this long reply and then the site crashed for a couple minutes and I lost it. So instead, you get a really condensed version of what I had intended to say.

I think the competition is a multipronged thing, where you’re measuring

• Who the better player is - Trevor is dominating here. 
• Who understands and can efficiently run enough of the offense to not need to condense the playbook - Minshew is reportedly a little ahead here; as he’s had two years of NFL experience and had access to the playbook longer
• Is your franchise guy at a point that you can stop 100% focusing on development and instead shift his focus to weekly game planning without it stunting necessary development

I get the feeling with how Urban handled Tebow, Cam, Burrow and Haskins that the third one (which I’ve harped on as important since Gabbert was a rookie) is more important to him than it is for the majority of coaches out there.

I get the general notion of making sure the "future of your franchise" is truly ready, up to speed, and not going to be swamped, before you throw them into the fire.  But to me, it's really more about whether they're ready with the tools to rise to the challenge.  And in that...i haven't seen anything in this "competition" to indicate Trevor isn't already well past that threshold.

Other than that, if the guy has a grasp on the offense and looks like they have the confidence in themselves and their place within the system to rise up to the moment...there's not much reason for a "competition" anymore.  It really doesn't matter if you have a guy who can execute a wider range of the "limited scope" version of the playbook with more nuance...compared to a guy who may not be able to execute quite the same breadth conceptually, initially, but can make so much more with what's there, and operate in a scope that is outside the range of possibility for the other guy.  One set of limitations, you can easily "scheme around" in the short term.  The other is quite simply a guy flirting with their absolute "ceiling", and you just cannot scheme much beyond that when the limitations are so apparent and known.

 

The thing with Gabbert, is that he was thrown in there and it wasn't hard to see that he shrank away from the moment.  It was more a situation of having set an insanely low bar to hop over to get into the starting gig.  He never looked "ready".  He had the "talent ceiling" advantage, but never the apparent level of comfort in executing the concepts he was responsible for.  That's where having a "competition" shaped up with a guy like Minshew that you could conceivably start for a while if you had to, is very much a positive thing with a rookie QB.  It takes that pressure off, giving them a few weeks to get to where they need to be to step in, and sets them up for a bit of a "gimme" when they can match or surpass that bar in their eventual first start.  But this is a very different situation, with a very different caliber of player in Trevor here.

 

At some point, it's really on the coach (if they're any good), to take what that far better impact player has a firm and confident grasp on conceptually and can handle in a weekly workload...and weave it into a winning gameplan overall.  And over the weeks of doing that, the breadth of concepts and nuance will come naturally.

 

 

I don't have a problem with splitting reps through camp as they have.  While building up that base of confidence for Lawrence.  Let Minshew get out there, by all means.

1)Showcase him for potential value. 

and maybe more importantly

2)If he's got the superior command of the details right now, that is the guy you want playing a lot of 1st team reps through practice and preseason.  That's going to give you a better read on exactly how those other players are going to perform in their own details of the breadth of the playbook, adjustments, reads, etc that are eventually where you're going to take the offense with Lawrence.  Let Minshew stand in there and be that "technical executor", so you can see how everyone else handles that nuance and detail that's eventually going to be part of what Lawrence is asked to do.

 

But calling it a "competition" is just facile.  That's not what it is.

[.Buzz]

I think Jenkins may end up being a pretty damn good player for us long term tbh. 

[pwny]

50 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

I think Jenkins may end up being a pretty damn good player for us long term tbh. 

Yeah, but they gave him $10M.

[.Buzz]

If Chaisson can just figure out how to counter after someone gets their hands on him…

Literally put that sack on a platter for Haddy.

[pwny]

On 8/17/2021 at 2:46 AM, Tugboat said:

I get the general notion of making sure the "future of your franchise" is truly ready, up to speed, and not going to be swamped, before you throw them into the fire.  But to me, it's really more about whether they're ready with the tools to rise to the challenge.  And in that...i haven't seen anything in this "competition" to indicate Trevor isn't already well past that threshold.

Other than that, if the guy has a grasp on the offense and looks like they have the confidence in themselves and their place within the system to rise up to the moment...there's not much reason for a "competition" anymore.  It really doesn't matter if you have a guy who can execute a wider range of the "limited scope" version of the playbook with more nuance...compared to a guy who may not be able to execute quite the same breadth conceptually, initially, but can make so much more with what's there, and operate in a scope that is outside the range of possibility for the other guy.  One set of limitations, you can easily "scheme around" in the short term.  The other is quite simply a guy flirting with their absolute "ceiling", and you just cannot scheme much beyond that when the limitations are so apparent and known.

 

The thing with Gabbert, is that he was thrown in there and it wasn't hard to see that he shrank away from the moment.  It was more a situation of having set an insanely low bar to hop over to get into the starting gig.  He never looked "ready".  He had the "talent ceiling" advantage, but never the apparent level of comfort in executing the concepts he was responsible for.  That's where having a "competition" shaped up with a guy like Minshew that you could conceivably start for a while if you had to, is very much a positive thing with a rookie QB.  It takes that pressure off, giving them a few weeks to get to where they need to be to step in, and sets them up for a bit of a "gimme" when they can match or surpass that bar in their eventual first start.  But this is a very different situation, with a very different caliber of player in Trevor here.

 

At some point, it's really on the coach (if they're any good), to take what that far better impact player has a firm and confident grasp on conceptually and can handle in a weekly workload...and weave it into a winning gameplan overall.  And over the weeks of doing that, the breadth of concepts and nuance will come naturally.

 

 

I don't have a problem with splitting reps through camp as they have.  While building up that base of confidence for Lawrence.  Let Minshew get out there, by all means.

1)Showcase him for potential value. 

and maybe more importantly

2)If he's got the superior command of the details right now, that is the guy you want playing a lot of 1st team reps through practice and preseason.  That's going to give you a better read on exactly how those other players are going to perform in their own details of the breadth of the playbook, adjustments, reads, etc that are eventually where you're going to take the offense with Lawrence.  Let Minshew stand in there and be that "technical executor", so you can see how everyone else handles that nuance and detail that's eventually going to be part of what Lawrence is asked to do.

 

But calling it a "competition" is just facile.  That's not what it is.

I thought I replied to this.

I’ve always been a fan of the threshold marker for when you start a QB. I think you have to hit a point that the QB’s growth isn’t hampered in any way by becoming the guy, and only then do you start them.

If your QB needs more time to refine mechanics? Is he taking a little longer to grasp the play book? Is there defensive schemes he’s still struggling with? Are there concepts he still needs to figure out? If it was me running a team, a lot of times I’d sit the player, even if I think he is better than the incumbent.

Once you make the new guy a starter, you shrink down the amount of stuff you have time to do with him from a development state. You can’t spend a Tuesday practice working with the QB coach on their mechanics anymore. You can’t put him in a side drill working on his touch and timing on a route that he’s struggling with. If he comes to understand a new section of the playbook mentally, you can’t devote a practice session to having him run those plays exclusively to see how he does on them.

You can’t spend time as much time doing a deep dive into the player specifically, because everything they have to work on in practice has to be with the first team offense, in preparation for the next and future opponents. If the QB is struggling on a route, you have to eliminate the route from the playbook. If the mechanics are breaking down, you have to try to work in fixing that while it’s not the focus of what you’re working on. If The QB is only starting to learn a section of the play book, you have to slowly implement them and hope the limited reps translate to the game. 

Especially when you’re a first time coach, in your first season, with a brand new QB, you have the longest leash you’ll ever have until you prove you’re a winner. So I think it’s important to use that to your advantage. In the long term, I don’t think it’ll much matter whether Trevor starts and the team goes 9-8, or Minshew starts and they’re 2-15. So I think like the biggest thing is making sure you’ve done everything you can to insure that the QB has developed to a point that all the constrictions and focus shift that you have to make as the starting QB doesn’t in any way slow the development of the QB at all. If I can get 100% ready Trevor for 14 weeks, I’d take that over 17 weeks of 85-95% ready. 
 

But whatever threshold they set for him, he was able to clear. So at this point it’s all philosophical discussion.

[Tugboat]

3 hours ago, pwny said:

I thought I replied to this.

I’ve always been a fan of the threshold marker for when you start a QB. I think you have to hit a point that the QB’s growth isn’t hampered in any way by becoming the guy, and only then do you start them.

If your QB needs more time to refine mechanics? Is he taking a little longer to grasp the play book? Is there defensive schemes he’s still struggling with? Are there concepts he still needs to figure out? If it was me running a team, a lot of times I’d sit the player, even if I think he is better than the incumbent.

Once you make the new guy a starter, you shrink down the amount of stuff you have time to do with him from a development state. You can’t spend a Tuesday practice working with the QB coach on their mechanics anymore. You can’t put him in a side drill working on his touch and timing on a route that he’s struggling with. If he comes to understand a new section of the playbook mentally, you can’t devote a practice session to having him run those plays exclusively to see how he does on them.

You can’t spend time as much time doing a deep dive into the player specifically, because everything they have to work on in practice has to be with the first team offense, in preparation for the next and future opponents. If the QB is struggling on a route, you have to eliminate the route from the playbook. If the mechanics are breaking down, you have to try to work in fixing that while it’s not the focus of what you’re working on. If The QB is only starting to learn a section of the play book, you have to slowly implement them and hope the limited reps translate to the game. 

Especially when you’re a first time coach, in your first season, with a brand new QB, you have the longest leash you’ll ever have until you prove you’re a winner. So I think it’s important to use that to your advantage. In the long term, I don’t think it’ll much matter whether Trevor starts and the team goes 9-8, or Minshew starts and they’re 2-15. So I think like the biggest thing is making sure you’ve done everything you can to insure that the QB has developed to a point that all the constrictions and focus shift that you have to make as the starting QB doesn’t in any way slow the development of the QB at all. If I can get 100% ready Trevor for 14 weeks, I’d take that over 17 weeks of 85-95% ready. 
 

But whatever threshold they set for him, he was able to clear. So at this point it’s all philosophical discussion.

That's a fair, and reasonable way of looking at it.  I just think it's hard to specifically pin down where that "threshold" is these days.

The reality is, so much of "learning to be an NFL QB" these days, is just a matter of building a core of competency, and then compiling details and ideas from specific gameplans, week after week.  Expanding that "bag of tricks" so to speak.  To where they're cultivating new developments and capabilities each week, but hopefully learn the things well enough to be able to quickly draw on those things down the road, pulling them out of storage when needed again.  Until they eventually have that savvy veteran archive of skills and concepts to rely on in quickly assimilating other new and similar concepts and execution details.

But even when you look at the perennial "top QBs", guys like Brady, Rodgers, Brees, et al...at the end of the day, they each ultimately have certain things that they will favor, where concepts, play design, reads, etc will tailor to their strengths, skillset, and the way they like to process the game.  Weekly gameplans will change, new wrinkles come and go...but fundamentally, under good coaching, a Tom Brady game is still going to look, and be designed, called, and executed very much similarly to most any other Tom Brady game.  There's always a fairly simple "core" that they come back to every week.

 

That's where, to me at least...once a QB has demonstrated an ability to handle those "core basics", you might as well just run them and let them learn in the saddle.  Learn what is really going to work in-game, and what isn't.  That refinement and nuanced tweaking is what it really comes down to, long-term.  You don't have to be reinventing the playbook every week, and frankly...probably shouldn't be.  Overcomplication is just going to get you execution errors, not just from the QB...but more likely, from the various other position players who also have to handle all of those aspects, on top of their own development as a player.

 

Which i suppose is really none too different from the idea of a "threshold".  I just think of that threshold a little bit differently i guess.  It's not a hugely high bar.  Essentially just boils down to basic competence, and a reasonable command of the field.  If they look confident in handling one weeks worth of plays and "options" while managing the game on the field...go with it, and just build from there.

 

Of course, the caveat to that...is that you sort of have to make sure that what you're preparing that rookie QB for Week1, is at least generally within the wheelhouse and "comfort zone" of the young QB.  A lot of the "core" stuff that they're probably going to keep coming back to in some fashion, through the rest of their career.  Which...based on preseason, there's some reason to question if that's what's happening here.  But nonetheless, Lawrence doesn't look at all "in over his head" or anything.  So i'm not really worried in that regard.  The only real concern, is potentially reinforcing some bad habits, or a focus on doing things that are less about flattering what the QB is good at, but rather, more about trying to cover up for some critical deficiencies elsewhere in the roster.  That's partially just a reality of being a "top pick" rookie QB though.  Pretty much universally, they're going to be stepping into a messy situation with serious holes to work around.  The good ones do find a way to rise above that.

[LinderFournette]

On 8/25/2021 at 12:53 PM, pwny said:

Yeah, but they gave him $10M.

10 million for a safety is a lot of money. 

Based on this year's tag numbers he makes more then the average of the top 10 salaries (transition tag) and just under the top 5(franchise tag) and granted next year's tags are going up but that seems like alot of money for a guy who's only made 5 ints in his career. 

[pwny]

2 hours ago, Tugboat said:

That's a fair, and reasonable way of looking at it.  I just think it's hard to specifically pin down where that "threshold" is these days.

The reality is, so much of "learning to be an NFL QB" these days, is just a matter of building a core of competency, and then compiling details and ideas from specific gameplans, week after week.  Expanding that "bag of tricks" so to speak.  To where they're cultivating new developments and capabilities each week, but hopefully learn the things well enough to be able to quickly draw on those things down the road, pulling them out of storage when needed again.  Until they eventually have that savvy veteran archive of skills and concepts to rely on in quickly assimilating other new and similar concepts and execution details.

But even when you look at the perennial "top QBs", guys like Brady, Rodgers, Brees, et al...at the end of the day, they each ultimately have certain things that they will favor, where concepts, play design, reads, etc will tailor to their strengths, skillset, and the way they like to process the game.  Weekly gameplans will change, new wrinkles come and go...but fundamentally, under good coaching, a Tom Brady game is still going to look, and be designed, called, and executed very much similarly to most any other Tom Brady game.  There's always a fairly simple "core" that they come back to every week.

 

That's where, to me at least...once a QB has demonstrated an ability to handle those "core basics", you might as well just run them and let them learn in the saddle.  Learn what is really going to work in-game, and what isn't.  That refinement and nuanced tweaking is what it really comes down to, long-term.  You don't have to be reinventing the playbook every week, and frankly...probably shouldn't be.  Overcomplication is just going to get you execution errors, not just from the QB...but more likely, from the various other position players who also have to handle all of those aspects, on top of their own development as a player.

 

Which i suppose is really none too different from the idea of a "threshold".  I just think of that threshold a little bit differently i guess.  It's not a hugely high bar.  Essentially just boils down to basic competence, and a reasonable command of the field.  If they look confident in handling one weeks worth of plays and "options" while managing the game on the field...go with it, and just build from there.

 

Of course, the caveat to that...is that you sort of have to make sure that what you're preparing that rookie QB for Week1, is at least generally within the wheelhouse and "comfort zone" of the young QB.  A lot of the "core" stuff that they're probably going to keep coming back to in some fashion, through the rest of their career.  Which...based on preseason, there's some reason to question if that's what's happening here.  But nonetheless, Lawrence doesn't look at all "in over his head" or anything.  So i'm not really worried in that regard.  The only real concern, is potentially reinforcing some bad habits, or a focus on doing things that are less about flattering what the QB is good at, but rather, more about trying to cover up for some critical deficiencies elsewhere in the roster.  That's partially just a reality of being a "top pick" rookie QB though.  Pretty much universally, they're going to be stepping into a messy situation with serious holes to work around.  The good ones do find a way to rise above that.

I think your first paragraph, you’re right on because there isn’t this threshold that anyone holds a QB to. Gabbert never hit a threshold that deemed him worthy of starting. Blake’s mechanics weren’t where they needed to be for him to step in.

Instead, we just throw these top picks into the thick of it right away and immediately try to figure out if they’re going to sink or swim. And because a number of guys have found success doing that, the new rule is that everyone needs to do it. Cam Newton had a good rookie year with awful mechanics, so Bortles should be able to do it. A lot of these guys get fed to the wolves before they’re ready, and it screws with any potential they had. And I’m not about to sit here and say all of them would have been great players if they had been given more time, but some of these players getting thrown in when they are is just plain malpractice.

You cannot tell me that anyone actually looked at Josh Rosen in practice and how he was screwing around in meetings and thought “this guy should be starting right now.” But he did anyway, because he was an early pick and early picks have to start. And clearly he just doesn’t have what it takes to be a QB in this league, but like what in the world possesses these teams to make these decisions? A lot of that is the *you have to satiate the fans right now or you could be gone come Monday* mentality, but it’s just so antithetical to just the idea of intelligent management practices. 

 

And I guess when someone like Urban does something like this and carries on a QB competition well past when it seems the rookie has won the job, I’d like to think that he’s bucking the trend of just handing over the team to a guy before he’s ready simply because he was picked high. And if that’s the case, it’s worthy of some credit, because it’s not easy to treat a situation like that correctly. 

[.Buzz]

Watch this imo.

[Tugboat]

On 8/26/2021 at 3:35 PM, pwny said:

I think your first paragraph, you’re right on because there isn’t this threshold that anyone holds a QB to. Gabbert never hit a threshold that deemed him worthy of starting. Blake’s mechanics weren’t where they needed to be for him to step in.

Instead, we just throw these top picks into the thick of it right away and immediately try to figure out if they’re going to sink or swim. And because a number of guys have found success doing that, the new rule is that everyone needs to do it. Cam Newton had a good rookie year with awful mechanics, so Bortles should be able to do it. A lot of these guys get fed to the wolves before they’re ready, and it screws with any potential they had. And I’m not about to sit here and say all of them would have been great players if they had been given more time, but some of these players getting thrown in when they are is just plain malpractice.

You cannot tell me that anyone actually looked at Josh Rosen in practice and how he was screwing around in meetings and thought “this guy should be starting right now.” But he did anyway, because he was an early pick and early picks have to start. And clearly he just doesn’t have what it takes to be a QB in this league, but like what in the world possesses these teams to make these decisions? A lot of that is the *you have to satiate the fans right now or you could be gone come Monday* mentality, but it’s just so antithetical to just the idea of intelligent management practices. 

 

And I guess when someone like Urban does something like this and carries on a QB competition well past when it seems the rookie has won the job, I’d like to think that he’s bucking the trend of just handing over the team to a guy before he’s ready simply because he was picked high. And if that’s the case, it’s worthy of some credit, because it’s not easy to treat a situation like that correctly. 

I guess for me, a lot of it just comes down to whether you think those guys were ever really going to "get it" either way.

Like, Bortles mechanics were naturally trash.  That was always going to be a continuing struggle, whether he got thrown in there early or not.  He could've spent all the time in the world "perfecting" his mechanics as best as possible in practice, but i firmly believe that in a game, in the heat of the moment, especially as the season and pitch count tallies up...Bortles mechanics were always going to backslide into garbage mode.

 

There's a validity to what you're saying, in terms of not throwing a guy in too early, in such as way as to reinforce and encourage "bad habits".  That to me, is where the "threshold" really lands.  And part of that can honestly be about the team around them, as much as the QB themselves.  But ultimately, there are some "flaws" that are just innate to a particular quarterback.  They're either going to have to learn how to survive and thrive with those issues, building coping strategies to overcome.  Or they're going to always be held back by those limitations.  It's not all issues.  But with so many of these guys that "bust" because they may have been thrown in too early...looking back, there tends to be an underlying issue that is of a likely uncorrectable nature.

[.Buzz]

 

[KhanYouDigIt]

1 minute ago, .Buzz said:

 

Pretty cool.

[.Buzz]

Just now, KhanYouDigIt said:

Pretty cool.

Yeah I’m here for it. Definitely makes sense geographically.

[Tugboat]

5 hours ago, .Buzz said:

 

Weird.  But it makes sense, given the circumstances.

How is that likely to work, in terms of any fees/revenue collected by the stadium in all this?