Bryce Young benched

[iknowcool]

16 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Taking out Patrick Mahomes, all of these current starters in the NFL were drafted because of their ability to create and make plays outside of the pocket and scrambling around.  All of them do it well or were projected to do it very well, sure some in the past were drafted also, got a chance and did not turn out but that skill set is not going away from being wanted in the NFL.

Lamar Jackson
Sam Darnold
Baker Mayfield
Dak Prescott
Jalen Hurts
Kyle Murray
Anthony Richardson
Jayden Daniels
Bo Nix
Josh Allen
Will Levis
Josh Allen
Aaron Rodgers
Justin Herbert
Justin Fields
Caleb Williams
Deshaun Watson

I never said the skill-set is going away, I said I am just going to put less value on it.  And lumping guys like Bo Nix and Justin Fields (among others) in there doesn't show me anything, because those QBs aren't good.

[ronjon1990]

2 hours ago, iknowcool said:

If I learned anything from Bryce Young, it is that I'm going to put a lot less stock on a QBs ability to improvise at the college level.  It is still valuable but I don't think it can be your best trait, especially if you aren't a top athlete or don't have great arm strength.

 

For me, my personal (and admittedly imperfect) rule of thumb has been:

If they're a "play creator", what are their surroundings amd circumstances? 

I hated Zach Wilson because he wasn't very good until he got a SunBelt schedule during the Covid season. He was fun and fancy, but look at the competition. 

I wasn't wild about Tua or Bryce either, as, yeah sure they could improvise....but look at their OL and weapons and the talent disparity to most of their opponents. When they're tearing up all year, nobody is going to remember the meh outings vs a Georgia or LSU at the end of the day (usually). 

Contrast that with a Josh Allen (who I'm not going to take credit for) who improvised and made himself into a top tier graded QB in spite of the surroundings. Ditto for Mahomes. Ditto Jordan Love. 

It's not a perfect formula, but I've often said "Give me the guy on a crap team that looks individually like the best player on the field being let down by his squad over the guy who looks like he's a cog in a wheel racking up the hardware". Every now and then you'll get the random CJ Stroud, but most of the time we're underwhelmed by the powerhouse school QBs who made their mark "making things happen". 

Non-exhaustive list: Mahomes at TTech, Allen at Wyoming, Lamar at Louisville, Goff at Cal, Stafford at Georgia (before Georgia was superb), Purdy at Iowa St, Geno at WV, Carr at Fresno, Kirk at Michigan St, Rodgers at Cal, Dak at Miss St....common thread is none of them were loaded with 4 and 5* talent around them allowing them to improvise, ad lib, and create. One could even argue Herbert wasn't surrounded by great talent at Oregon. 

Meanwhile, how many Bama, Ohio St, and USC etc top 5 bluebloods QBs have we seen over just the last decade come in with high expectations and flop or underwhelm? 

Again, no perfect formula exists, but I think a lot of people tend to underestimate just how much supporting cast at the college level can hyperinflate how good someone looks. Some balk at the idea and want to pound the "It's not a (University) thing!" line...but it really sort of is. Even if your program is just full of future NFL backups and depth guys, that's waaaay more than a vast majority of programs across the country. It's going to make a difference in just how much you can get away with and look good doing so. It doesn't mean every Bama or Ohio St QB automatically sucks, but I definitely look a lot harder at QBs from powerhouse programs and take a little more salt with the serving. 

[Chiefer]

4 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

For me, my personal (and admittedly imperfect) rule of thumb has been:

If they're a "play creator", what are their surroundings amd circumstances? 

I hated Zach Wilson because he wasn't very good until he got a SunBelt schedule during the Covid season. He was fun and fancy, but look at the competition. 

I wasn't wild about Tua or Bryce either, as, yeah sure they could improvise....but look at their OL and weapons and the talent disparity to most of their opponents. When they're tearing up all year, nobody is going to remember the meh outings vs a Georgia or LSU at the end of the day (usually). 

Contrast that with a Josh Allen (who I'm not going to take credit for) who improvised and made himself into a top tier graded QB in spite of the surroundings. Ditto for Mahomes. Ditto Jordan Love. 

It's not a perfect formula, but I've often said "Give me the guy on a crap team that looks individually like the best player on the field being let down by his squad over the guy who looks like he's a cog in a wheel racking up the hardware". Every now and then you'll get the random CJ Stroud, but most of the time we're underwhelmed by the powerhouse school QBs who made their mark "making things happen". 

Non-exhaustive list: Mahomes at TTech, Allen at Wyoming, Lamar at Louisville, Goff at Cal, Stafford at Georgia (before Georgia was superb), Purdy at Iowa St, Geno at WV, Carr at Fresno, Kirk at Michigan St, Rodgers at Cal, Dak at Miss St....common thread is none of them were loaded with 4 and 5* talent around them allowing them to improvise, ad lib, and create. One could even argue Herbert wasn't surrounded by great talent at Oregon. 

Meanwhile, how many Bama, Ohio St, and USC etc top 5 bluebloods QBs have we seen over just the last decade come in with high expectations and flop or underwhelm? 

Again, no perfect formula exists, but I think a lot of people tend to underestimate just how much supporting cast at the college level can hyperinflate how good someone looks. Some balk at the idea and want to pound the "It's not a (University) thing!" line...but it really sort of is. Even if your program is just full of future NFL backups and depth guys, that's waaaay more than a vast majority of programs across the country. It's going to make a difference in just how much you can get away with and look good doing so. It doesn't mean every Bama or Ohio St QB automatically sucks, but I definitely look a lot harder at QBs from powerhouse programs and take a little more salt with the serving. 

I’m trying to think of the “Blue Blood” starters currently starting, or were guys surrounded by talent with a program that was a powerhouse at the time. 

Fields, Burrow, Watson, Lawrence, Stroud, Hurts, JD, Baker, Kyler

I don’t really count the USC guys, they haven’t been a powerhouse school since Pete Carrol left. But if you do that’s 11 total for the league. Not great but not bad either

 

[Ozzy]

8 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

For me, my personal (and admittedly imperfect) rule of thumb has been:

If they're a "play creator", what are their surroundings amd circumstances? 

I hated Zach Wilson because he wasn't very good until he got a SunBelt schedule during the Covid season. He was fun and fancy, but look at the competition. 

I wasn't wild about Tua or Bryce either, as, yeah sure they could improvise....but look at their OL and weapons and the talent disparity to most of their opponents. When they're tearing up all year, nobody is going to remember the meh outings vs a Georgia or LSU at the end of the day (usually). 

Contrast that with a Josh Allen (who I'm not going to take credit for) who improvised and made himself into a top tier graded QB in spite of the surroundings. Ditto for Mahomes. Ditto Jordan Love. 

It's not a perfect formula, but I've often said "Give me the guy on a crap team that looks individually like the best player on the field being let down by his squad over the guy who looks like he's a cog in a wheel racking up the hardware". Every now and then you'll get the random CJ Stroud, but most of the time we're underwhelmed by the powerhouse school QBs who made their mark "making things happen". 

Non-exhaustive list: Mahomes at TTech, Allen at Wyoming, Lamar at Louisville, Goff at Cal, Stafford at Georgia (before Georgia was superb), Purdy at Iowa St, Geno at WV, Carr at Fresno, Kirk at Michigan St, Rodgers at Cal, Dak at Miss St....common thread is none of them were loaded with 4 and 5* talent around them allowing them to improvise, ad lib, and create. One could even argue Herbert wasn't surrounded by great talent at Oregon. 

Meanwhile, how many Bama, Ohio St, and USC etc top 5 bluebloods QBs have we seen over just the last decade come in with high expectations and flop or underwhelm? 

Again, no perfect formula exists, but I think a lot of people tend to underestimate just how much supporting cast at the college level can hyperinflate how good someone looks. Some balk at the idea and want to pound the "It's not a (University) thing!" line...but it really sort of is. Even if your program is just full of future NFL backups and depth guys, that's waaaay more than a vast majority of programs across the country. It's going to make a difference in just how much you can get away with and look good doing so. It doesn't mean every Bama or Ohio St QB automatically sucks, but I definitely look a lot harder at QBs from powerhouse programs and take a little more salt with the serving. 

Not a bad formula for current day, especially with NIL because the best teams have usually got better with NIL because they have better resources and boosters who are willing to straight up by players to help the team win a title.  

 

But based on that formula Peyton Manning sucks on a totally loaded roster on Tennessee?  Or Tom Brady who was on a loaded roster and program for Michigan?  Jim Kelly on loaded Miami?  But those guys were in a different time without NIL so not sure it is the same, back then schools could maybe buy players but if caught got in trouble for it, now not at all.

 

Current day NFL guys, yes that seems like the way to go, but Joe Burrow is one on two very loaded programs at Ohio State and LSU, clearly he turned out just fine.

 

It is nice to have a QB go through some issues and that is why Shedeur Sanders is interesting, dude gets constantly pressured and hit, loses games that are not his fault for the loss.  Interesting mix of stuff with him but when given protection he looks pretty good and will never play on such a bad OL in the NFL as he is playing with at Colorado, especially last year that was historically awful.

 

These guys were all on totally loaded rosters in college and were busts in the NFL.

Matt Leinart
Vince Young
JaMarcus Russell
Mark Sanchez
Tim Tebow
Jameis Winston
Dwayne Haskins

 

 

 

These guys were on loaded rosters also, Bryce Young not sure because offensively especially his last year, his best WR was Jermaine Burton, pretty sure that is a massive difference compared to what Tua and Jalen Hurts had or Mac Jones for that matter.  But will put him on because they had a lot of talent defensively.  Obviously not all of them are failures in the NFL but some are like Mac Jones.

 

Tua Tagovailoa
Jalen Hurts
Trevor Lawrence
Mac Jones
Justin Fields
Bryce Young
JJ McCarthy
CJ Stroud

 

 

Crazy thing is Jalen Hurts is 2-7 in his last 9 games which is kind of shocking, but that Eagles team is so good and really they should have won against the Falcons but Saquon dropped that passes and they went for it on 4th down in the red zone a few times when they should have just kicked it.  

Edited yesterday at 11:39 AM by Ozzy

[sinceAtikevike]

19 hours ago, Soko said:

They represent, what, 10% of the league’s starting QBs?

What does Josh Rosen, EJ Manuel, Johnny Manziel, Jake Locker, Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, Paxton Lynch, and soon to be Mac Jones, Zach Wilson, Trey Lance, Justin Fields, and Desmond Ridder tell us? Those results far outweigh the former’s.

Yes, 3/32 ~ 10%. It's a long read but I find it interesting (and on topic as it talks about the problem of projecting college QBs in the NFL) - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/most-likely-to-succeed-malcolm-gladwell

I am not asserting that every former bust would have worked out had they been given the time to sit and know their scheme inside and out prior to playing. However, If I were an NFL Owner or GM I would certainly spend non-cap dollars on an internal "QB School" (hiring dedicated additional coaches) for which I'd sign some of these busts to team-friendly deals (using some predictive analytics to determine who may/may not be a potential reclamation project - Manziel a no based on non-data observation. Mac Jones maybe a yes if you have data demonstrating an NFL-capable arm but feel his film showed that he just didn't have answers on the field to what the defense was doing).

The value of the position (as a +backup on your own team, as trade bait for mid-round picks, comp picks if/when they leave in free agency, etc) is such that you wouldn't even have to hit very often to make the program worthwhile, IMO.

[ronjon1990]

6 hours ago, Chiefer said:

I’m trying to think of the “Blue Blood” starters currently starting, or were guys surrounded by talent with a program that was a powerhouse at the time. 

Fields, Burrow, Watson, Lawrence, Stroud, Hurts, JD, Baker, Kyler

I don’t really count the USC guys, they haven’t been a powerhouse school since Pete Carrol left. But if you do that’s 11 total for the league. Not great but not bad either

 

The USC guys drop after Sanchez, though I'd be willing to lump Darnold in. The program was on a downturn, but I think the Carroll effect helped buoy them a little. Helton was just trash as a coach and it's anyone's guess how Sark would've done (unfortunately, probably not well given his personal life at the time). 

It's always weird. There was a time not long ago the hands down some of the best QBs in the league that were 1st rounders came from Cal, Boston College, NCState, Miami (OH), Auburn..

Like I said, no perfect formula, but man when a guy works his way into round 1 without a star cast around them, the hit rate feels higher- though they're also just less common. 

[Mox]

12 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

For me, my personal (and admittedly imperfect) rule of thumb has been:

If they're a "play creator", what are their surroundings amd circumstances? 

I hated Zach Wilson because he wasn't very good until he got a SunBelt schedule during the Covid season. He was fun and fancy, but look at the competition. 

I wasn't wild about Tua or Bryce either, as, yeah sure they could improvise....but look at their OL and weapons and the talent disparity to most of their opponents. When they're tearing up all year, nobody is going to remember the meh outings vs a Georgia or LSU at the end of the day (usually). 

Contrast that with a Josh Allen (who I'm not going to take credit for) who improvised and made himself into a top tier graded QB in spite of the surroundings. Ditto for Mahomes. Ditto Jordan Love. 

It's not a perfect formula, but I've often said "Give me the guy on a crap team that looks individually like the best player on the field being let down by his squad over the guy who looks like he's a cog in a wheel racking up the hardware". Every now and then you'll get the random CJ Stroud, but most of the time we're underwhelmed by the powerhouse school QBs who made their mark "making things happen". 

Non-exhaustive list: Mahomes at TTech, Allen at Wyoming, Lamar at Louisville, Goff at Cal, Stafford at Georgia (before Georgia was superb), Purdy at Iowa St, Geno at WV, Carr at Fresno, Kirk at Michigan St, Rodgers at Cal, Dak at Miss St....common thread is none of them were loaded with 4 and 5* talent around them allowing them to improvise, ad lib, and create. One could even argue Herbert wasn't surrounded by great talent at Oregon. 

Meanwhile, how many Bama, Ohio St, and USC etc top 5 bluebloods QBs have we seen over just the last decade come in with high expectations and flop or underwhelm? 

Again, no perfect formula exists, but I think a lot of people tend to underestimate just how much supporting cast at the college level can hyperinflate how good someone looks. Some balk at the idea and want to pound the "It's not a (University) thing!" line...but it really sort of is. Even if your program is just full of future NFL backups and depth guys, that's waaaay more than a vast majority of programs across the country. It's going to make a difference in just how much you can get away with and look good doing so. It doesn't mean every Bama or Ohio St QB automatically sucks, but I definitely look a lot harder at QBs from powerhouse programs and take a little more salt with the serving. 

UGA was literally the preseason #1 his last season and had a loaded offense.

Edited yesterday at 03:54 PM by Mox

[game3525]

15 hours ago, iknowcool said:

If I learned anything from Bryce Young, it is that I'm going to put a lot less stock on a QBs ability to improvise at the college level.  It is still valuable but I don't think it can be your best trait, especially if you aren't a top athlete or don't have great arm strength.

We're kind of seeing it with Caleb Williams now, although I think he'll be fine.  It is hard to win by relying heavily on that style of play. You see the highlight plays that Mahomes pulls off, but he also will kill you from the pocket all game if you let him.  

My big takeaway from Young is that size does matter. Unless you are a freak of nature like Brees, Murray or prime Russ, I want my QB to be at least 6'1. 

[HoboRocket]

8 hours ago, Chiefer said:

I’m trying to think of the “Blue Blood” starters currently starting, or were guys surrounded by talent with a program that was a powerhouse at the time. 

Fields, Burrow, Watson, Lawrence, Stroud, Hurts, JD, Baker, Kyler

I don’t really count the USC guys, they haven’t been a powerhouse school since Pete Carrol left. But if you do that’s 11 total for the league. Not great but not bad either

 

Also Tua. If you count back-ups, you also have Bryce Young and Mac Jones. Honorable mention would also be Dwayne Haskins.

[HoboRocket]

39 minutes ago, game3525 said:

My big takeaway from Young is that size does matter. Unless you are a freak of nature like Brees, Murray or prime Russ, I want my QB to be at least 6'1. 

I think if you are an outlier negatively with your traits, you need to have SOMETHING to compensate and make you a physical outlier in some other way.

Kyler? Small. BUT possibly the quickest QB in the league, incredibly hard to get a hand on, creates throwing lanes for himself and has an absolute cannon for an arm.

Brees? Small. BUT unreal anticipation and accuracy, and some spider-sense like ability to always know where his receivers would be on the field. And fantastic ability to manipulate the pocket kind of like Brady or Manning. 

Wilson? Similar to Kyler. Can extend plays and used to be the hardest person to tackle in the NFL just because he always knew where the defenders were. 

I don't think Young has crazy ability to extend plays. I think he CAN but he always seems disoriented and panicked when he does, where Kyler and Wilson were largely unfazed when they scrambled. I also don't think Young has been able establish that chemistry with his receivers where he can anticipate the way Brees could. And he certainly doesn't have the awareness to move pass rushers in the pocket like Brees could.

[Chiefer]

1 hour ago, HoboRocket said:

Also Tua. If you count back-ups, you also have Bryce Young and Mac Jones. Honorable mention would also be Dwayne Haskins.

I was only listing current starters, not just first round picks 

[Billy86]

On 9/16/2024 at 6:55 PM, NateDawg said:

He is one of the worst young quarterbacks I have ever seen

And they picked him over a guy who has had arguably the best rookie QBseason ever who has only carried on as he left of again this year. 

[HoboRocket]

14 hours ago, Billy86 said:

And they picked him over a guy who has had arguably the best rookie QBseason ever who has only carried on as he left of again this year. 

Eh. Stroud is a great QB. Out of the 4 QBs to win offensive rookie of the year in the past decade, though, he might have had the third best year.

● DEFINITELY better than Kyler Murray's. Stroud was better at avoiding turnovers and was playing with a similarly depleted offense. Stroud also did a better job of elevating his supporting cast than Murray did.

● Justin Herbert is more of a toss-up. Stroud had higher yards per attempt and had a lot more success as far as winning goes. Stroud also had worse receivers on paper. But Herbert also had a much worse OL. Herbert was more accurate, and dwarfed Stroud's touchdown numbers. Stroud had 26 total TDs (23 passing, 3 rushing) while Herbert had 36 total TDs (31 passing, 5 rushing). Herbert was just as effective as a runner. Stroud did take better care of the football. I would give the slight edge to Herbert for the better season, but I could see either side of if Herbert or Stroud had a better rookie season. 

● Dak Prescott had the best rookie QB season of the last decade. His yards per attempt were nearly identical to Stroud, his completion percentage was better, he had more TDs and he threw one less pick. He set several rookie records like most pass attempts to start a career without a pick. Prescott was a more impactful runner. And Prescott had even more team success, finishing with a 13-3 record versus Stroud's 9-6. Yes, he had Zeke. Yes, he had that Dallas OL. But he also had that Dallas defense. And he inherited a team that was also one of the worst in the league the year before, much like Stroud. But yeah. 

 

Anyways, Bryce Young has been very underwhelming so far. We can keep hoping it's a Goff-type thing and Young will get better with a better coach and a different situation, but it's hard to see any upside there with how often he implodes and his underwhelming physical traits.

[lavar703]

On 9/17/2024 at 6:04 PM, Nex_Gen said:

Nah, he is better than Tua before all of that. Doesn't mean he's good. They both suck. Unless they're plugged into a Shanahan offense with Tyreek Hill.

This is absurd.