You have to devote more time to a QB taken high in the first round. If you take a CB in the first and he doesn't seem to "get it" after the first 4 games, you bury him on the depth chart. Or you move a player to another position like moving a LT to RG. With a young QB, you have to keep playing him to try and get him to develop. Teams that have a young QB who is developing generally won't draft another QB the following year, or the year thereafter. That kind of thing only happens in extraordinary circumstances such as coach/GM changes. With Wheeden, it was all of the above plus a change in ownership. He was drafted in April of 2012. At that time, Randy Lerner was the owner, Mike Holmgren was President of Football Operations, Tom Heckert was GM and Pat Shurmar was the head coach. At the end of the 2012 season, Lerner had sold the team to Jimmy Haslam, Holmgren was out, Heckert was out and Shurmur was gone. For the 2013 season Rob Chudzinski was the HC, Michael Lombardi was the GM and Joe Banner was CEO. Chud was fired at the end of the season. Mike Pettine was named as head coach in Jan of 2014. In Feb, Lombardi was replaced as GM by Ray Farmer. Wheeden was released in March of 2014. That, my friend, is a very good example of "extraordinary circumstances". Usually the circumstances are less extreme, such as the replacement of the HC and/or the GM, depending on whom is most responsible for personnel. As for how you get set back when you weren't good to begin with, good players usually seek to leave bad teams or they get overpaid to stay. Also, when highly drafted QBs don't pan out, there's usually some turnover in the coaching staff and Front Office. New regimes coming in generally take some time to effect change, which is a setback in the short term.
Yep yep. If Aaron Rodgers had been thrown in as a starter his rookie year, he probably would have ended up being a bust. Even after 2 years of riding the bench, GB still had serious reservations about him. It wasn't until his 3rd year in the NFL that things started to click for him.
I can't say I'm a big MM fan, but if you have an opportunity to possibly get your franchise QB, you have to pull the trigger. FWIW, MM isn't a "huge reach" at #6.
Either way you're wrong. When a player is rated as a high as MM He isn't your "huge double fisted reach".
Yeah, I agree with this. I am far from sure Mariota will succeed in the NFL, but to call him a reach at 6 is not supported by the evidence. I am not on board with pure BPA analysis as a general matter, so I don't need to make the case for saying you would take Mariota anyway under BPA. The simple fact is the Jets need a Qb, and Mariota right now seems the best way forward in addressing that need of the available and reasonable options.
Question becomes whether a QB becomes a franchise guy from talent or work ethic or environment. Having seen what we did with 2 very talented QBS under the last regime, I think environment might be 50% or more of the equation for "finding" the franchise guy. With a new regime, maybe we have the environment to turn a prospect into a franchise.
CBS Sports' Jason La Canfora has "become convinced" Oregon QB Marcus Mariota will go No. 2 overall in next month's draft. That doesn't mean Mariota will go to the Titans, who hold the No. 2 pick, though it does remain a possibility. "Some who know coach Ken Whisenhunt well figure in the end, barring him being blown out of the water with a trade offer, he goes ahead and drafts [Mariota]," writes La Canfora. The Saints, Rams, Browns, Eagles, and Chargers are also mentioned as possible teams who may trade up to No. 2 for Mariota. The Jets are expected to pass on him if he gets to No. 6. Mar 20 - 11:44 AM http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/9385/marcus-mariota
Yup, before the Jets even have their private workouts with Mariota they've decided to pass on him. SMH. _
Wow if that isn't draft posturing I don't know what is. Likely means Tennessee has no interest in Mariota at all
Teddy Bridgewater and Johnny Boy were thought to be Top picks last year at this time, so take things with a grain of salt.
Your bolded sentences are true. IMO that speaks more to the "practice" of NFL teams acting like lemmings moreso than it does the wisdom of the practice. In general, 2 years is too early to give up on a QB, but I think you have to look at the individuals rather than going by "generalities." I think you have to look long and hard and why the QB is struggling. Is it just fundamentals that can be fixed with some time to focus just on that? If so, are you willing or able to devote the time necessary to help that player? Obviously, not all teams are willing or able. If not, is it something that might prevent the player from ever becoming a quality starter? Some players just don't have the football IQ, intelligence, instincts, whatever you want to call it to learn, grow and develop. If that's the case, then I think you could keep a player for 20 years and he'd never "get it." Of course, one has to be careful there, as one can judge too quickly and be wrong. When you draft your QB in the 2nd round or lower, I see nothing at all wrong with drafting another QB the following year. Few complain if a team takes a DT one year, then turns around and takes another DT the following year. Some fans will if there are glaring needs on the team and they think the pick is wasted, but for the most part, that is accepted, as is competition at other positions. Why is it that QBs should get a free ride? Are their egos that fragile? If so, then they're probably never going to develop into a quality starter anyway. The GM should be trying to improve his team the best way he can. QB play is crucial. If the QB he drafted the year before isn't progressing fast enough or is struggling, why not draft another QB? They don't have to give up on the one chosen the year before. They can still continue trying to develop him. QBs are valuable commodities. There aren't enough to go around in the NFL. Unfortunately, injuries to QBs happen too frequently. Possibly having two good young QBs is better than having one. If things get messy or the team gets divided loyalties, then you can always trade one of the QBs. I think this is one way NFL teams shoot themselves in the foot. They don't think outside the box. They stay limited by tradition.
Yep. Before all is said and done, I think a lot of teams are going to regret having passed on Bridgewater, and being glad they passed on "Johnny Boy."
If MM is there at #6, I agree that Mac will take him. If the Jets bury Geno and forget him, then I agree they may have given up on him too early, but I can't see them doing that. Even if the Jets get MM and he develops as I expect, they're going to need a quality backup, and one for whom they won't have to totally change the offense. They know that Fitz isn't the long-term answer. They know that Geno has talent. I think they will do everything they can to help Geno develop. That's what's best for the team in the long run. It's better to have two good QBs, than one or none.
Teddy has the potential to be the Franchise QB Minnesota has been looking for since Tarkenton (unless you count Culpepper as one). Minnesota are definitely a team of the future. I agree with this.
Texans I bet are kicking themselves for not taking Bridgewater. Clowney ain't looking so hot right now.
