2024 NFL Season Thread

[GrantDawg]

Crazy to call a throw, but the play was there.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[sovereignstar v2]

Primetime Kirk about to show up

[GrantDawg]

I did not predict that.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

The NFL is wild man

[GrantDawg]

They can still give up the field goal. This is the Falcons in prime time.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

I must have misunderstood what happened - I thought Philly had it locked so I took the dog out. 5 minutes later I walk in to see the Falcons' TD pass. I are confuzzed.

[GrantDawg]

Jessie f-ing Bates.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

There must have been some magic in that old Falcons helmet Kirk found.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I've seen enough of Cousins.

Philly fan, huh?

I didn't see the game, because cord-cutting saves so much money and I just don't have must-see games.

But, on the road, it looks like Cousins had a fine game against an elite opponent that shut down one of the better young quarterbacks in the game last week.

A big part of that seems to be having a good running game, but you can't do that if no one respects your quarterback.

I hope this takes some of the heat off of Atlanta fans who actually like the idea of a competitive quarterback.

Cousins has never won the big game, and that's a fair criticism, but, like Philip Rivers, he has done some good things over a long career and does not deserve most of the crap he takes.

[Glengoyne]

This was a Kellen Moore special. His defensive counterpart gets an assist.

No awareness of the situation. You can’t throw the ball there. Run it twice and you take a chunk off the clock or end the game if you convert. I guess you could pass on fourth down, because you aren’t losing much clock.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Philly fan, huh?

I didn't see the game, because cord-cutting saves so much money and I just don't have must-see games.

But, on the road, it looks like Cousins had a fine game against an elite opponent that shut down one of the better young quarterbacks in the game last week.

A big part of that seems to be having a good running game, but you can't do that if no one respects your quarterback.

I hope this takes some of the heat off of Atlanta fans who actually like the idea of a competitive quarterback.

Cousins has never won the big game, and that's a fair criticism, but, like Philip Rivers, he has done some good things over a long career and does not deserve most of the crap he takes.

Not at all. I was just sick of watching fairly poor QB play up to that point. I actually picked Atlanta for my salary cap game so I want them to win. I'm just shellshocked as a combo Broncos/FSU fan, I guess.

[cuervo72]

Eh, I don’t know that I’d call this Philly team “elite.” I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I have my doubts.

[GrantDawg]

Kirk got better and better as the game went on. In both this game and last week, you could see he was not trusting putting pressure on that plant leg. That caused him to be slow getting the ball out, second-guessing himself, and double clutching. By the fourth quarter, you could see he was getting more comfortable. The series before that final drive, he made a beautiful throw down the field in the perfect place, and for some dumb reason, Mooney just stopped and gave up on the play. By that final drive, he was out of his head and just let instincts drive him. If he can build on that next week, I think Falcon fans are going to be happy. The Chiefs on Sunday night are a tall order.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The NFL is wild man

not THAT wild. KC refs still own the league

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Philly fan, huh?

I didn't see the game, because cord-cutting saves so much money and I just don't have must-see games.

If you are willing to watch on a phone/tablet, then NFL+ is, like, $100 and lets you stream the games that would be shown in your area.

[albionmoonlight]

That felt like a game from 1988. Two stud RBs, and the game ending with every dad watching at home shaking his head and saying "Prevent defense just prevents winning."

[Kodos]

I almost called it a night with 5 minutes left. Glad I stayed up to witness the improbable comeback win.

[Thomkal]

Yeah I turned off the computer with about 1:30 left

[cuervo72]

I heard SVP say "we'll be joining the locker room of the winners after the game -- which looks like it will be the home team" and thought "well, crap, that doesn't bode well."

[albionmoonlight]

Is anyone else loving the fact that running games seem to matter again?

We'll never go back to three yards and a cloud of dust. But we also seem to be past the era of go empty and drop back 50 times a game.

I'm enjoying it.

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting theory I just saw based on the game last night. No idea if the numbers back it up.

If you are up 3 late and in field goal range, you should almost always go for it on 4th and short/medium instead of kicking the field goal.

The reason is that if you fail and are up three, the other team is likely to play conservative and go for the tie.

But if you make it and go up 6, then you are forcing them into the better strategy--trying to get a TD and win.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Interesting theory I just saw based on the game last night. No idea if the numbers back it up.

If you are up 3 late and in field goal range, you should almost always go for it on 4th and short/medium instead of kicking the field goal.

The reason is that if you fail and are up three, the other team is likely to play conservative and go for the tie.

But if you make it and go up 6, then you are forcing them into the better strategy--trying to get a TD and win.

Football Outsiders (RIP) had been pushing for this for several years for that reason. Down 3 teams will be aggressive up to field goal range. So worst case scenario is you get OT. Put a team down between 4 and 6 and they have to aggressively try to score a TD.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Is anyone else loving the fact that running games seem to matter again?

We'll never go back to three yards and a cloud of dust. But we also seem to be past the era of go empty and drop back 50 times a game.

I'm enjoying it.

To quote the great American philosopher Marshwan Lynch

"Run through a motherfucker's face. Then you don't have to worry about them no more."

[Arles]

I just don't understand why you don't run Saquan on 3rd and 3. Worst case it gets stuffed for a yard or two and takes 40+ seconds. Then, you can do the tush push on 4th and 1/2 and the game is over. Passing made absolutely no sense there for the downside.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If you look at the top QBs in the NFL the vast majority started right away or close to it.

Mahomes didn't, Rodgers didn't, Hurts didn't, Lamar didn't, Purdy didn't, Love didn't, Cousins didn't. The best three cases who started early were Josh Allen, Russell Wilson and Dak. Dak and Wilson had great OLs, strong rosters and the infrastructure. Plus, they were more ready QBs who had "less upside" (why they were 3rd/4th round picks). Allen was a disaster. He had 6 starts and then got hurt and missed 4+ games. In those first 6 games he had 2 TDs and 5 INT passing. He probably would have been better off to sit the first half of the season to learn the NFL.

The sitting a QB thing just isn't going to work for most. He's going to get reps during the preseason and then once the season starts his reps go down significantly and he's mostly watching both practice and games at that point.

I think rookies need to learn how the NFL works. They need to get used to the speed, the schemes, the reads, etc. Let them play in the preaseason and then start hitting the classroom for the first half. If you are a coach, there's no downside to sitting a rookie for the first 6-8 games. If you win, you are a genius and winning with a "backup" QB. If you do poorly, you get to reset the "expectations odometer" in week 8 with your star rookie. It also gives him a month or two to get used to how the NFL works.

The way QBs and the NFL are right now, if you take a QB and he's so far away from playing he doesn't see the field as a starter in year one you most likely took the wrong QB.

And this is why most early pick pick QBs fail. Jordan Love wasn't ready year 1. Hurts and Rodgers weren't ready to start off the bat. Cousins and Mahomes benefited from learning before playing. Guys like Tannehill, Geno Smith and Baker all started too soon and it took another team to really get the best from them. Every now and then you get a guy like Burrow or Stroud who can start on day 1 and be decent. But that is such an exception case that you can't really bank on it. Two of the best examples were guys who weren't expected to start (Dak, Wilson) and ended up just beating out veterans by a mile in camp. Most first round picks don't do that, get handed the job and then fall on their face.

[Atocep]

There's absolutely no way to say conclusively that that's why QBs fail. You don't know that.

Did sitting a few games help Fields or Trubisky? Paxton Lynch? Hackenberg? Rosen? Haskins? Lance? Trask? Any number of other failed QBs?

There's going to be exceptions because there isn't a one sized fits all approach to player development but you have Dak, Allen, Herbert, Tua, Stroud, Lawrence, Burrow, Carr. I don't think sitting a handful of games was what's allowed Lamar and Hurts to succeed. Purdy was the last pick in the draft. Using him as proof of anything is misleading or can we compare him to other lare round qbs that failed to develop and say it was because that sat?

Rodgers and Cousins also both come from a different era of qbs. They weren't playing 7 on 7s all spring and summer, playing in high school offenses that throw the ball 40 times per game, and college offenses throwing it even more often. Cousins led college football in passing attempts in 2011 with a number that wouldn't crack the top 25 in 2013. QBs are far more prepared now than they ever have been to start early in the NFL.

Edit: cousins led the big 10 in attempts that year. Not college football. The point still stands that qbs now get far more reps and attempts now at all levels of play than they did more than a decade ago.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Cousins led college football in passing attempts in 2011 with a number that wouldn't crack the top 25 in 2013.

This seemed so impossible that I had to look it up. It looks like Cousins was #29 in passing attempts in 2011.

EDIT: I see you fixed it, never mind.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

I just don't understand why you don't run Saquan on 3rd and 3. Worst case it gets stuffed for a yard or two and takes 40+ seconds. Then, you can do the tush push on 4th and 1/2 and the game is over. Passing made absolutely no sense there for the downside.

The online answer: it was a good call, he just dropped the ball. The true answer, the coach was trying to out smart the room and got bit. The fact he could drop it is the very reason you don't throw it there. The chances of an incomplete pass is much higher than the chance of a fumble, which is the only real game changing negative that could realistically happen on the run. If the run losses yardage, it is still and easy kick and you have burned 40+ seconds off the clock. If it doesn't make any yardage or gains less than 3, you could run it again and burn 80+ seconds off. And they were running the ball well. He could have likely gotten the first down on a good run call. It was a gist, and suprisgly the Falcons took advantage of it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If you are willing to watch on a phone/tablet, then NFL+ is, like, $100 and lets you stream the games that would be shown in your area.

I have a good antenna. Last weekend there were nine college games and five NFL games available without cost. That works.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

There's absolutely no way to say conclusively that that's why QBs fail. You don't know that.

Did sitting a few games help Fields or Trubisky? Paxton Lynch? Hackenberg? Rosen? Haskins? Lance? Trask? Any number of other failed QBs?

There's going to be exceptions because there isn't a one sized fits all approach to player development but you have Dak, Allen, Herbert, Tua, Stroud, Lawrence, Burrow, Carr. I don't think sitting a handful of games was what's allowed Lamar and Hurts to succeed. Purdy was the last pick in the draft. Using him as proof of anything is misleading or can we compare him to other lare round qbs that failed to develop and say it was because that sat?

Some of those guys just weren't good QBs. Did it help Fields development to get sacked 90+ times in Chicago his first year plus?

I think three things really hurt QBs coming in and playing in week 1 of their rookie seasons:
1. No one starts 4 years anymore. With the portal and NIL, a lot of guys sit in college until their junior year and then play 1-2 years - even the most talented guys like Arch. So rookies have played less football than the guys did 15 years ago.
2. Very few colleges run pro style offenses. It's all one read and run (esp for smaller schools). The idea that a kid can play 1-2 seasons in those systems and be ready for the NFL is crazy.
3. No starters play in the preseason. So, you get a guy like Caleb or Nix and they look great when they face the opponents 2nd-4th stringers running vanilla and people think they are ready. Back in the day, starters played 2-3 games and only sat the last one.

IMO, you are setting 90% of the rookie QBs up for failure if you start them week 1 without factoring in: how ready they are and the state of your offense/team. Maybe 10% of situations would warrant starting a rookie game 1 and those guys will still struggle early.

Rodgers and Cousins also both come from a different era of qbs. They weren't playing 7 on 7s all spring and summer, playing in high school offenses that throw the ball 40 times per game, and college offenses throwing it even more often. Cousins led college football in passing attempts in 2011 with a number that wouldn't crack the top 25 in 2013. QBs are far more prepared now than they ever have been to start early in the NFL.

That's ridiculous. Outside of outliers like Nix, you are lucky if the top guys started 2+ years in the same system. Not 3-4 like the players of before. Plus, these offenses are dumbed down to win college games. Very few programs run pro style offenses and the ones that do usually have blue chip players at OL, RB and WR. The NFL is a massive culture shock to all these rookies.

Edit: cousins led the big 10 in attempts that year. Not college football. The point still stands that qbs now get far more reps and attempts now at all levels of play than they did more than a decade ago.

QBs have less offseason time in both the NFL and college than they did in years past. They have QB coaches and additional trainers, but that doesn't prepare them for NFL defenses and exotic schemes. Now days, offenses are significantly more complex (esp in the Shanahan/McVeigh/LaFleur tree) and defenses have a ton of zone/man wrinkles. For most rookies, sitting for the first two months (or more) sets them up in a much better position to succeed. Having them run out and get sacked 60+ times because they can't play at NFL speed isn't helping them long term.

[Solecismic]

There's the argument that starting an NFL quarterback before he's ready can damage him.

It used to be a more controversial topic, because it was often assumed that a quarterback shouldn't start in his rookie year.

If you look at Peyton Manning's rookie year, he struggled. That certainly didn't damage him. Or Drew Brees, who sat a year, was lousy early in his career and then became the future Hall of Famer we know in his fourth year.

Dropback quarterbacks often have a tough time in year one. It's rare that they don't look terrible. It's usually year three when their peak begins. Running quarterbacks often have far less of a struggle. Think of Russell Wilson, who wasn't even a high draft pick, having an impact on the league as a rookie.

There's no substitute for constant evaluation. No formula that tells you how long a quarterback will struggle until he can play at NFL pace. It's all scouting. Can a guy make a set of throws (they test this at the combine, but it shows up on tape, too, otherwise, how would they even know who to invite)? Is he progressing? Does he do his work in the film room (hello, Kyler Murray)?

Whether he starts or not is more a function of what you already had on the roster, but sample sizes are too low to say if sitting matters. Some would have argued back in Manning's day that Tim Couch was ruined by starting right away. Maybe he got bad habits. That sounds like analysis by hindsight, though.

Really, the only answer is to see what coaches do. They talk to each other. They want to win, but no one is getting away with hiding a great quarterback on your roster as a backup, just in case.

Bryce Young was simply terrible last season. He can make all the throws, but at NFL speed, he doesn't seem able to make any decisions and he loses his accuracy. He has a long way to go. Hard to say if he'll ever get there, but NFL teams invest a lot in scouting and analysis. We'll just have to see if he gets another opportunity.

[GrantDawg]

I don't think there is a black and white, one-size-fits-all method to QB development. If there were, everybody would be doing it. I believe there is some wisdom to giving guys time to develop before throwing them to the wolves, but most teams just don't have the luxury.
I will say there is a wrong way of doing it, and that is the Panthers' way. They had a bad team, traded away their best players to make the team even worse, and then gave up a huge haul of future picks to get a rookie quarterback to be sacrificed to NFL defenses with no talent around him.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Swaggs]

Not to nitpick too much, but plenty of college QBs still start for 4 (and even 4+) years in college. Off the top of my head and checking from Football Reference: Brock Purdy, Kenny Pickett, Michael Penix (he was a starter for five years, but had a lot of injuries early on), Jaydin Daniels, Jordan Travis, Desmond Ridder, Kellen Mond, Sam Ehlinger, and Skylar Thompson are all recent draftees that had 40ish+ starts in college. There were also several that I reviewed that had more than 30 starts (over three years, as well), so I don't think the argument about college players not getting reps works well here - honestly, I think the only way that argument works is with the 5-10 biggest programs that produce a lot of NFL QBs where you have to sit or transfer if you want to play early on (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, Texas - you are probably one of three or four 5* QBs and you are not real likely to start right away).

[QuikSand]

If there were a straight path to drafting QBs that a gaggle of reasonably smart dues on a message board could figure out, we wouldn't see the meager track record by the people who do this stuff for real and for the highest stakes imaginable. It's tough. There is no one rule, or one test, there are things that surely contribute and correlate, but it's clearly difficult to sort out.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Not to nitpick too much, but plenty of college QBs still start for 4 (and even 4+) years in college. Off the top of my head and checking from Football Reference: Brock Purdy, Kenny Pickett, Michael Penix (he was a starter for five years, but had a lot of injuries early on), Jaydin Daniels, Jordan Travis, Desmond Ridder, Kellen Mond, Sam Ehlinger, and Skylar Thompson are all recent draftees that had 40ish+ starts in college. There were also several that I reviewed that had more than 30 starts (over three years, as well), so I don't think the argument about college players not getting reps works well here - honestly, I think the only way that argument works is with the 5-10 biggest programs that produce a lot of NFL QBs where you have to sit or transfer if you want to play early on (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, Texas - you are probably one of three or four 5* QBs and you are not real likely to start right away).

I think Covid made more of these than normal (esp guys like Penix and Nix). Most of the top guys (McCarthy, Maye, Bryce, Stroud, Richardson, Lance, Fields, Mac) had 2 or fewer years. Guys like Trevor Lawrence and Box Nix aren't very common for the top talents. Once you get in rounds 2-4+, you see more of the 3-4 year starters.

I just think sitting the rookie for even just a half season helps reduce the learning curve and all the hits these guys take. You are going to have your duds like Trubisky and Josh Rosen, but a competent organization makes such a big difference for the pocket passers. Dak, Purdy, Russell Wilson, Love, Stroud all came into very solid coaching staffs and team infrastructures. It can't be a coincidence those guys hit while QBs for the Bears, Panthers and Jets constantly fail. You really have to wonder if a better team had taken Baker, Darnold or Carr if their first stint would have been more successful. So, take a minute to make sure your house is in order before throwing out the top 5 pick into the wolves on a shit OL and crap offense.

[Solecismic]

If there was a pattern, I think we'd see it. Here's a list of the most experienced (by college pass attempts) in the quarterback pool (drafted or experienced undrafted), by year, for the previous ten seasons:

2014: Jimmy Garoppolo (62nd pick)
2015: Sean Mannion (89)
2016: Jared Goff (1)
2017: Cooper Rush (undrafted)
2018: Luke Falk (199 - turns out it's not a magic number)
2019: Devlin Hodges (undrafted)
2020: Justin Herbert (6)
2021: Sam Ehlinger (218)
2022: Bailey Zappe (137)
2023: Tyson Bagent (undrafted)

Now, the opposite (least experienced in the pool)

2014: Zack Mettenberger (178)
2015: Taylor Heinicke (undrafted)
2016: Cardale Jones (139)
2017: Mitchell Trubisky (2)
2018: Tim Boyle (undrafted)
2019: Kyler Murray (1)
2020: Tommy Stevens (240)
2021: Trey Lance (3)
2022: Malik Willis (86)
2023: Anthony Richardson (4)

I'm going to put together a very simple chart, just to see if anything simple correlates on this.

[CrimsonFox]

and gee look who has the least experienced qb of 2023

[miami_fan]

Eh, I think if we can criticize Bryce Young for not being good at quarterbacking an NFL team even though that is hard and he can do that better than all of us, I think it's okay to criticize the GMs and coaches that put him out there. I also think that while there are many ways to develop a rookie quarterback into a good one, there are also many ways to destroy a rookie quarterback. Teams should be called out for doing that as well. For example,my guess is a rookie QB having two OC's in their first two years in the league is not a plus for their development, yet how many of these rookies are running a different offense or at least working with a different OC in their second year?

Anyway, I found this article to be rather interesting given the play or sit conversation.

History of NFL QBs waiting to start: Here's what stats since 2000 say about when they'll most likely succeed - CBSSports.com

First I either forgot or never knew the circumstances that got some of these guys actually got on the field. I definitely had no clue that Dak was third string when he came in and had to play because Romo and Moore were out. I also like the breakdown of the parts of the rookie year guys became starters.

I feel like a lot of the debate of when to put a young QB in has more to do with the countdown of the cheap rookie QB contract than it does whether the QB will get better playing vs. sitting. Because of the all the advantages a rookie contract gives a team in team building, teams are rushing to find out if they found the guy almost immediately. I think playing rookie QB's immediately allows for teams to begin the search for their replacement sooner if they are not Patrick Mahomes or Joe Burrow and restart the rookie QB contract timeline. I think that was part of the reason for all the angst around Jordan Love. The Packers were seen to be wasting not only the last couple of years of Aaron Rodgers with them, they were also wasting the Love cheap years by having him on the bench.

I don't know if Bryce Young would have been better off sitting for the full year or half a season last season instead of playing from the start. I don't know if it would have improved his chances to be better this year. Maybe he will never be a serviceable NFL QB. I do feel bringing him into that organization devoid of all resources other than an "all star" QB friendly coaching staff and then pull all of that from him halfway through the season was not helpful in his development.

[thesloppy]

I agree there's a big question of surrounding talent, and in particular offensive line, which usually gets ignored in this debate. A QB drafted in the top 10 of the first round is more likely going to a shitty team, and/or shitty o-line and it may be as simple as "if the rest of the team sucks then a rookie QB will also suck, and if the rest of the team is good then a rookie QB will at least be setup for success", rather than some formula based around sitting or starting immediately.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I agree there's a big question of surrounding talent, and in particular offensive line, which usually gets ignored in this debate. A QB drafted in the top 10 of the first round is more likely going to a shitty team, and/or shitty o-line and it may be as simple as "if the rest of the team sucks then a rookie QB will also suck, and if the rest of the team is good then a rookie QB will at least be setup for success", rather than some formula based around sitting or starting immediately.

Or all of the above, and very dependent on the player, the coach, the system, etc. All I will hang my hat on is that it is not one size fits all. The are many factors involved.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If there was a pattern, I think we'd see it. Here's a list of the most experienced (by college pass attempts) in the quarterback pool (drafted or experienced undrafted), by year, for the previous ten seasons:

(lists)

I'm going to put together a very simple chart, just to see if anything simple correlates on this.

Of course, intuitively, we'd imagine that:

-top NFL talent tends to declare and leave early (suggesting a negative correlation at the top, best guys don't stay around as long)

-top NFL talent seems likely to be heralded prospects and get more early opportunities (suggesting a positive correlation at the top, guys get chances earlier)

-top NFL talent tends to go to top programs where competition is highest for starting opportunities - top tier teams have multiple 4* and 5* QBs to pick from, why pick the freshman/sophomore when a similarly lauded senior is here? (negative)

-maybe all these rules are out the window now with the revolution in transfers (wtf factor)

It's not quite minor league baseball, but some of the same principles seem like they'd be useful here -- age-adjusted experience might be a stronger foundation than merely total experience. And that's before you even contemplate the effectiveness during that experience...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I agree there's a big question of surrounding talent, and in particular offensive line, which usually gets ignored in this debate. A QB drafted in the top 10 of the first round is more likely going to a shitty team, and/or shitty o-line and it may be as simple as "if the rest of the team sucks then a rookie QB will also suck, and if the rest of the team is good then a rookie QB will at least be setup for success", rather than some formula based around sitting or starting immediately.

Yeah, I think offensive line is incredibly important. Outside of Burrow, I can't think of any young QB who became successful without at least a decent offensive line. And Burrow had Chase/Higgins which helped a bit.

There's probably no sure fire answer to the question, but I do think throwing a rookie behind a dogshit offensive line with a bad coach just stunts their development. Look at what the Bears are doing to Caleb which is the same thing they did to Fields and Trubisky.

[Swaggs]

If Tua doesn't recover, it is kind of wild to think that, out of all of the Alabama QBs drafted during the Saban dynasty, Hurts (who was chased away to Oklahoma) is likely going to be the only long-term NFL starter and star.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Of course, intuitively, we'd imagine that:

-top NFL talent tends to declare and leave early (suggesting a negative correlation at the top, best guys don't stay around as long)

-top NFL talent seems likely to be heralded prospects and get more early opportunities (suggesting a positive correlation at the top, guys get chances earlier)

-top NFL talent tends to go to top programs where competition is highest for starting opportunities - top tier teams have multiple 4* and 5* QBs to pick from, why pick the freshman/sophomore when a similarly lauded senior is here? (negative)

-maybe all these rules are out the window now with the revolution in transfers (wtf factor)

It's not quite minor league baseball, but some of the same principles seem like they'd be useful here -- age-adjusted experience might be a stronger foundation than merely total experience. And that's before you even contemplate the effectiveness during that experience...

I took a look at this last night, and the problem with trying to analyze these questions is that every single case is unique.

To make matters worse, in general, quarterback experience is unchanged or maybe even a bit higher than in the past. But the NFL-changing class of 2020, followed by COVID, gave us less experienced quarterbacks for 2-3 years. So recent years (Nix had 61 starts in five full years) are unusually messed up, and those extra fifth years have messed up the development of the current classes.

Teasing out relevant information is difficult. If there's anything I got out of it, it's that there is a relatively recent trend among quarterbacks going in the top three overall where those with less experience are not doing as well in the NFL - especially those who were particularly effective in college.

However, as you say, being drafted up top means a lot of pressure to play in that first year. It is almost unheard of for a first-round quarterback never to see at least a year of starting. Here's the list of first-rounders with less than 15 career starts, going back past Leaf: Trey Lance (injured, of course), Paxton Lynch, Johnny Manziel.

The list of those with less than 25 career starts, however, is quite long. This, of course, makes messing with the data quite difficult, since any quarterback drafted after the first round with more than 15 career starts often becomes a reliable starter in the league, long-term.

Back in ancient times, meaning information from the time of the game-changing Manning/Leaf decision, the conventional wisdom was that number of starts against decent opposition was the only stat worth looking at for college quarterbacks. Otherwise, it was all scouting.

I don't have time for it right now, but I'd suggest that the best way to approach this problem is to divide quarterbacks into three groups: those drafted in the top three overall, those drafted in the rest of the first round, and those drafted afterward or not at all.

The numbers are going to look very, very different for all three of those groups. First of all, drafting in the top three means you probably weren't very good. So tracking wins as success introduces a bias that's difficult to overcome - even when comparing players within that same group. But I also suspect that whatever recent trends we're seeing are largely limited to that first group.

However... small sample sizes start to nip all of this in the bud at that point. I suspect there's nothing to take much of a chunk out of the conclusion that there's no substitute for trusting your scouts and not your quants when it comes to quarterbacks.

[Solecismic]

Before this gets too long, I wanted to clarify one point above, then break this into a separate topic.

I'll emphasize that "especially those who were particularly effective in college" is not a typo. And it's limited to that top-three group going back quite a while. Otherwise, there's a small positive link between quarterback rating and success in the NFL.

The hypothesis is that when dealing with these early-declarers going in the top three, there may be a tendency to over-hype those who were dominant in that limited play in college. That's all. And, again, sample sizes.

Why I'm interested in all of this?

The draft, really. It's the most critical piece of team-building in the NFL, because you're getting four years off the bat, plus the first shot at paying a superstar.

How do you make it come alive for customers? Either you do what I do, and provide a set of numbers (and now you know more about why I don't bother with college stats for draftees) and some vague ratings based on a subjective connection to real ability, or you try and duplicate the process of scouting.

I don't go into the latter. The reason is that to do so would be to choose elements of the scouting report that were more accurate than other elements. At that point, I'm only teaching you to read scouting reports in a certain and very specific manner.

It's better just to provide the bars, and a known connection, and an unknown accuracy which can be combined with the interviews, which have a known and random inaccuracy. So that's all number manipulation.

I don't know if I'm getting this across properly since it probably sounds like apples and other apples, but it's a very clear differentiation for me. Think of how it would look if I had an art/animation team and you could "see" a combine and watch a quarterback do drills.

Sounds like a lot of fun, right? However, what I'd be doing is I'd be creating a model and the animation would reveal something. I'd be teaching you to read animation in a specific manner - one with known means and variations. And that might not have anything to do with the reality of quarterbacks and drills.

[GrantDawg]

I get it. College stats are really meaningless without further context (quality of competition, quality of the players the QB is surrounded by, offensive system, etc). Number range is the best way to give players an idea unless you were going to create a complete scouting system with full reports from field scouts breaking down the players seasons in detail.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I took a look at this last night, and the problem with trying to analyze these questions is that every single case is unique.

I suspect this is the crux of the challenge. There are too many factors and too small of a sample size to really come to a conclusion via data.

An early and often application of logic & common sense by NFL front offices, could it be quantified, is probably the best bet for successful rookie QB outcomes, and it's a this point that we should remind everyone that common sense is not necessarily present in every (or even a majority) of NFL front offices.