|
Some QBs go out with 11 cracked ribs and punctured lungs.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:Some QBs go out with 11 cracked ribs and punctured lungs. Call me when he plays on a torn acl
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:The rest are good, but these 3 I dunno. I'd call them "set." Burrow and Jones are going to be run out there a few more years at very least and Brady is going to play for 5 more seasons or so. I don't think you can call TB "set" since you're banking on a player repeating a feat heretofore unseen in NFL history, also he's a year older now
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
setting up camp around an arbitrary "set" line and raising my arms in the air indignantly as people pass over it to set up their camps
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
get used to it fuckabee
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Impossibly Perfect Sphere posted:Burrow's grade last season is INC. He certainly hasn't proven that he's an NFL franchise QB and that the Bengals are set for the future and now he's a year older and coming off a serious injury. That's fair, but also I think even a rocky season this year (say he's back for week one), they'd give him another year. So at least they go another year and half knowing who their QB is. He might not be the long term answer, but the "set" the OP article is using is next year. Impossibly Perfect Sphere posted:Jones is a joke. The Giants are the only team in the NFL that would still be running him out there again because they're too stubborn/proud, or whatever you want to call it, to admit he's a failure. And yet, I think most observers would agree if Jones puts up another one of his typical seasons even the Giants FO will be forced to recognize that drafting him was a mistake and move on. Hardly set at that position. They're basically waiting for him to fail so they can move on. Yeah, you're right. If it gets rough we'll get some Clayton Thorson time  Impossibly Perfect Sphere posted:Brady is one unlucky sprain away from being done forever. That's how all these old QB's go out; they get a nagging lower body or shoulder injury and that's the end. When you're as old as he is - regardless of your health regime - you do not recover fast enough to maintain your football shape. indigi posted:I don't think you can call TB "set" since you're banking on a player repeating a feat heretofore unseen in NFL history, also he's a year older now Can't bet against Tom Brady. He's going to play for another 20 years with no injuries and win most of the Super Bowls. I don't like it, but it seems to be the way it is now. It really is different levels of set. The article is just using it as "This team is drat sure who their QB will be all year baring any injuries." Edit: QB stability is not the norm now and plenty are teams are hosed and have to start guys who are not "starter level QBs."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Brady will still be playing long after we're all cold in the ground
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
There's always been more then enough QB talent. The bigger issue honestly is the league needs a minor league spring league. If a QB gets picked in the 4th round or later, and the starter never gets hurt, there's no video on him except for pre-season play which is questionable at best. Teams are also more willing to take a chance on an older guy who is honestly bad but has some sort of pedigree, then to roll the dice on an unknown backup whose younger. Right off the top of my head, Tyrod Taylor's career is a perfect example. If Rex Ryan didn't know of him from his connections with the Ravens, he probably just disappears after his first contract. Instead Rex gives him a shot and he puts together 3 solid seasons for the Bills and leads them to their first playoff game in forever. If there was more footage on younger QBs with actual talent, they might get more chances/shots in the NFL. At the very least maybe we'll see more interesting QBs starting games instead of the same 5-10 bad older QBs who have a former pedigree or are living off the fumes of seasons long in the past as backups and more guys who might not have gotten the same chances as first rounders but worked their way up from the minor league. It's sort of ridicules that the NFL is the only league that doesn't have a minor league of the big 4. There's so many guys in the annals of NFL history who were too small, they had this wrong or that wrong, that kept at it and worked their way into the NFL. Doug Flutie, Brad Johnson, Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, are just the QBs off the top of my head that played in the World League/NFL Europe and were able to get the attention of NFL teams. Part of the problem is always going to be that coaches think they are the ones that can shove a square peg into a round hole, or that it's their system that's perfect and just the players not executing properly. But that it's seemingly the same group of older backup QBs eternally cycling around the league despite being known quantities that honestly aren't very good that's probably hurting more then anything else. Hell, who knows what becomes of Brady if Bledsoe doesn't get hurt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
Belichick replays his controversial Bernie Kosar benching with Bledsoe in like 2003 or something. Bledsoe was dumb as a bag of hammers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/1418935101828775949
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
I let my athletic sub lapse, what the one new trick that made Josh Allen good that doctors hate
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
Chucktesla posted:I let my athletic sub lapse, what the one new trick that made Josh Allen good that doctors hate Like eight 240 fps motion capture cameras, microchips in the footballs, and force plates for the feet. Just a ton of computer poo poo to make every session like an impromptu episode of Sports Science. Article is basically saying we haven't seen Joe Burrow's final form yet while also burying that Kyle Allen is also a recipient of Palmer's tutelage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
Chucktesla posted:I let my athletic sub lapse, what the one new trick that made Josh Allen good that doctors hate Using 3-d motion capture, chips in balls, etc. to make sure lower body mechanics are right. Basically making sure they have their feet properly planted on the ground so they can properly engage their core. It's probably more of an advertisement for the camp than it is legitimate insight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
Why at this rate Josh Allen will be completing 99% of his passes in a few years!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
And a year after that he will be at 109percent!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
It's certainly an ad for the camp but as far as I know nothing even resembling Josh Allen's development has ever happened before in the NFL so you have to at least pay some attention
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
fsif posted:Like eight 240 fps motion capture cameras, microchips in the footballs, and force plates for the feet. Just a ton of computer poo poo to make every session like an impromptu episode of Sports Science. The problem with Burrow isn’t his accuracy, it’s the fact that if he throws a pass over 12 yards he looks like he’s trying to lob a shotput
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Hamhandler posted:Yeah, basically good coaching can ameliorate some of the scarcity issues at QB... but then that kind of coaching is scarce in itself. I agree that teams which copy McVay and Shanny are going to see diminishing returns. However it’s flat out incorrect that “the writing is on the wall” for McVay and Shanny to sustainably succeed with non-elite QBs. The niners have been among the most injured teams in the league over the last several years. The year where they were healthy, the niners cruise controlled to the super bowl with a mediocre starting quarterback. Last year, the niners were comically injured and they still put a relatively decent W-L in a tough division. Then there is LA. Goff was one of the worst starting QBs over the last few seasons and all of his success came from McVay scheming around the weaknesses. They still had decent success and a great W-L record. The fact that SF and LA have done as well as they have with bad starting quarterbacks is proof that those two coaches are great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
give josh allen a little credit here. i mean tom brady already proved you dont have to be a genetically engineered superhuman to be great at football, you can also sell your soul and never think a nonfootball thought again. but that still requires a lot of training and dedication to something thats ultimately silly and pointless. sure these tools can help, but thats all they are. we arent molding lumps of clay, you still have to ask a human being to do work (cf dwayne haskins) also the scarcity issue is about relative not absolute skill. the worst qbs today are probably better than the best qbs playing however many years ago, precisely because coaching and training and all that has gotten better. scarcity doesnt go away if everyone gets better, it goes away if everyone is equally as good
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:I agree that teams which copy McVay and Shanny are going to see diminishing returns. I don't think we're at the point yet we can say there's a sea change where there's one simple trick the NFL hates to having good offensive performance with bad QBs sustainably. We've seen a lot of schemes boom then bust, to the point where I think you're going to have to see more to claim everything we've known previously is different now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
Hamhandler posted:I don't think we're at the point yet we can say there's a sea change where there's one simple trick the NFL hates to having good offensive performance with bad QBs sustainably. We've seen a lot of schemes boom then bust, to the point where I think you're going to have to see more to claim everything we've known previously is different now. I don’t know what a sea change is, in this context. But clearly McVay and Shanahan have in fact found “one weird trick for offensive production without elite QBs, GMs hate him!” They’ve been doing it for years at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:I don’t know what a sea change is, in this context. But clearly McVay and Shanahan have in fact found “one weird trick for offensive production without elite QBs, GMs hate him!” This seems a bit disingenuous given that both of these dudes literally just traded away massive hauls with multiple 1sts to improve the qb spot, even though they already had a bunch of money tied to their other qb. Yeah they're great coaches who can compensate for iffy qb play better than most, but I'm sure they'd tell you that great qbs are hard to find but are worth the investment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Magicpants posted:This seems a bit disingenuous given that both of these dudes literally just traded away massive hauls with multiple 1sts to improve the qb spot, even though they already had a bunch of money tied to their other qb. Yeah they're great coaches who can compensate for iffy qb play better than most, but I'm sure they'd tell you that great qbs are hard to find but are worth the investment. It’s not disingenuous at all. Obviously great QBs are rare and of course they are worth the investment but significant success came with poop QBs for both these coaches. McVay was having great success with one of the worst starting QBs in the league. And if he makes the decision to upgrade a QB you might as well invest into getting the best that you can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Magicpants posted:This seems a bit disingenuous given that both of these dudes literally just traded away massive hauls with multiple 1sts to improve the qb spot, even though they already had a bunch of money tied to their other qb. Yeah they're great coaches who can compensate for iffy qb play better than most, but I'm sure they'd tell you that great qbs are hard to find but are worth the investment. They may all be in 'win now' mode aka betting the farm. I admit, I'm skeptical. I've always thought that "high starter talent" > "high team talent" > "a few superstars." We'll see what happens over the next 3-5 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
The big difference between Stafford and Goff is that Goff found success because McVay's scheme running almost exclusive 11 personnel with receivers flooding high low often straight up schemed guys open. When Belichick exposed the rams with his 6-1 front out of a cover 3 shell a lot of the run game got taken away and the flooding crosses became less effective. Goff started having issues because he straight up can't throw guys open. He was fine hitting someone two or three yards ahead of their defender streaking across the field but on a tight coverage he lacked the ability to throw a contested completion or find the hole in the zone and I highly doubt his ability to on the fly communicate to his team mates what they need to do in terms of adjustments to allow him to get them the ball. You plug in stafford who spent his career running pretty traditional offensive schemes requiring accuracy and placement in tight windows and you end up with the same baseline of success with a lot of easy pitch and catch completions but acquire a guy who when the scheme starts to break down has the ability to throw guys open, recognise where the soft spots in the zone are and provide input during games as to what needs to change in the play calling and route running. The analytics and schemes have definitely increased the chances of success for average players but there's still a hard ceiling for some guys and that's still going to make all the difference over time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:When Belichick exposed the rams with his 6-1 front out of a cover 3 shell a lot of the run game got taken away and the flooding crosses became less effective. When did Belichick start coaching the Bears???
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
fast cars loose anus posted:It's certainly an ad for the camp but as far as I know nothing even resembling Josh Allen's development has ever happened before in the NFL so you have to at least pay some attention Matt Stafford actually had a fairly similar career trajectory. Garbage-rear end accuracy in college (57% for Staff, 56% for Allen) which actually declined in their rookie year (53.3% vs. 52.8%), before having breakout seasons in their third respective years (Stafford: 63.5% accuracy, 5038 yards, 41 TDs, Allen: 69.2%, 4544 yards, 37 TDs). Unfortunately the Lions fell apart in 2012, so uh hope things go better for Allen and the Bills!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Last month, Paul Noonan posted a series of articles arguing that a great number of NFL teams have broken through barriers previously constraining QB development. Because of this breakthrough, QB stability is now the norm for the majority of the league. The following linked articles examine this hypothesis and the changes in how coaches and GMs approach player development. We haven't yelled enough about this thread yet. Allow me to stir the pot Previously Stated Hypotheses: - Scheme evolution and retrofitting to meet players has reduced scarcities - Coaching tools have improved drastically to the point where identifying actual issues is easier - Halo effect on different traits and elements has skewed the market too much when there are obvious counters readily in place. I'm going to take a few of these in a different direction, because I just flatly don't think you can ever be rid of quarterback scarcity in the sense that there isn't going to be a bottomless hunger for quarterback talent. In reality, it's going to change the calculus for how teams approach drafting with an existing QB. Scheme I think this argument has legitimate merits on a macro level but can be overstated in how it individually suits just one guy. When you look at how Mahomes has developed, Reid effectively tinkered with the system from when he had Vick into something more modern that reflects an offense with the same ability to speed stretch deep and cut routes off over the middle in such a way that it becomes a professional attempt at the Briles Era Baylor system of pace and space with structural pressures. It's also a logical evolution of how Kliff changed the air raid call system to meet what he saw at the pro level. That said, you could drop him in the scheme Kyler's in, the scheme Baker's in, or even the McVay system and have similar per play results. He would run the short concepts Kyler specializes in better, the PA concepts Baker throws to the corner better, or whatever we call the strange west coast stuff that McVay likes. When you have a certain level of raw physical ability in conjunction with a level of accuracy, any scheme becomes an academic exercise in execution. Fit is one of those things that helps you hide weaknesses and occasionally harness strengths, but there's a level of QB where it quite honestly doesn't matter. That's also part of why GMs really like to chase "tools" guys, because they open a possibility for you to change coaches and not have to worry about the QB's fit, even though this backfires frequently. To really get into it though, let's talk offense 101. When a coach is building an offense, the first question is what type of running they expect to do. That's not to say they don't care about the personnel, quite the opposite--coaches have been very comfortable changing their running schemes over the years far more easily than their passing schemes. Ultimately, the tendency to run a given power/counter/zone game on the ground is mainly a matter of what linemen and backs you can get ahold of, and you marry your play action game to those concepts. For years, that's a problem, because if you only view play action as a constraint play, you inject a bias in the system towards what makes your back's life easier, not necessarily an optimal play. In addition, the other founding question becomes "do we pass or run on x down in y situation?". Successful offenses, more than any other unifying trait, are willing to pass on first down. Why is this important? Think beyond stats for a minute to what the job of a defensive coordinator is first and foremost--coordinating in such a way that an offense becomes one-dimensional and consequently manageable. Saban's goal, explicitly for years, was to eliminate the ability of the other team to run so that they were trapped in the pass game and predictable. Belichick's infamous anti-K gun defense consisted of allowing Thurman Thomas to do whatever he wanted in favor of making Kelly's life terrible. When you preserve the option to pass early, you're injecting uncertainty into early downs the way that 2nd/3rd and short have. So what is play action? It's the same level of potential confounding variable if the defense considers both elements a credible threat. As such, PA is a balancing act for a playcaller between making sure it's an actual constraint against your running plays and also something a QB can consistently execute. When this goes bad, you get things like the Freddie Kitchens offense with the Browns where the inability to consistently pass block forces Mayfield to bail or force the ball out which forces picks or the current Cardinals offense where the running threat is only credible when it's Murray. From that standpoint, the adaptation is less about the need to coddle quarterbacks and more a need to disguise intents better, because defenses are athletic enough to solve pretty much anything that they know is coming. So what does that lead to for quarterback development? Well, there's a couple elements. One is that "bringing a rookie along" is no longer as simple as "we're going to run 40 times a game" now. You can do it, if you have an insanely optimal line and backfield, but that's not going to be the vast majority of teams picking high. Giving a young QB simpler reads more or less requires them to do one of 3 things now 1. Play Action 2. Constrained reads 3. Isolation Concepts. We covered play action. Constrained reads are the other half of this--think about all those bootlegs you've seen Murray/Mayfield/Watson/Mahomes do over the last few years. Those aren't meant to be full-field plays. The instructions are to focus on essentially half the receiving targets based on when in the play you are and what the defense is showing. Because you change the launch point, you can clear a throwing lane more easily to a guy that might not explicitly be "open" from the pocket. Isolation concepts are a similar thing where you use the spacing of the formation and play to essentially force defenders to declare what they're doing at the snap in the hopes that your QB just gets a hot read and goes. Obviously, you have to mix some "regular" NFL passing plays in there, but simplifying things is less about using vanilla plays than it is about making things obvious, as opposed to 20 years ago when things like learning the initial WCO would mandate you essentially use none of the complexity that makes the offense work while building things out and maybe have a usable offense by year 3 in the system. All that said, those 3 elements are all things that offenses at every level like to focus on now, because easing guys into a new level of competition is a universally liked idea, as is the idea of a play that is hard to defend whether you have rookies or veterans. Additionally, there's an element here that's made passing easier that has nothing to do with QBs but makes certain things more accessible ina scheme--PI, Defensive holding, and Illegal Hit penalties. Over-the-middle passes don't get guys killed the same way now, and the amount of contact defenders can make before a ball gets to a receiver is far lower which enables things like slant/curl/drag/mills combos far easier to read and utilize. As such, baseline success for everyone goes up, because penalties are always going to be worse odds than chancing whatever a rookie QB puts out on the field. So, in summary on scheme: Schemes getting more QB friendly probably shouldn't be looked at as an optimizing force for the QB so much as an optimizing force for the rule set and offense as a whole that has good synergy crop of slightly better moving/spread QBs who can handle these plays more. Coaching Tools So, this part is half incredibly true and half debatable. The ability to have All-22 and do the Belichick play diagram live from every player's positions objectively does better spatial awareness training than traditional film. In addition, the ability to have more complete offensive information allows you to not only project defensive tendencies better but also self-scout and notice flaws in your own offense more quickly. That said, this is a universal thing for defenses and offenses now. Yes, your average viewer or QB prospect years away from the NFL can get the All-22 cuts now, but that's not going to mean much without play diagrams, rules, and coaching tweaks that go into actually running a play. It's one reason why tape junkies like myself still get things wrong all the time--we don't have the playbooks for these guys to know what's scheme and rule versus what was a coaching adjustment, and we certainly don't know what the offense a guy will be stepping into will do in relation to what's on those film. In the context of learning broadly about the game, this is objectively correct, but it's a bit of an oversimplification to think the democratization of All-22, film, or game footage is making QBs smarter earlier. Film helps show what guys can theoretically do, not always what they're supposed to do or need to do Now, here's where I think the tools part is completely correct--the ability to go get coaching and coaching clinics from high-end coaches or from individual position gurus is objectively raising the level of coaching one can get at a young age. You can go watch the Sark install clinic on youtube right now, or you can watch Ryan Day's QB clinics, or you can watch Quincy Avery break down mechanics. All of these things teach initial rules, mechanics, and traits of the positions that used to be walled off to specific camps and academies for years. When you talk about programming QBs to execute, this is where there's a huge value add. So in summary on tools: What we think of from a fan standpoint as a tool isn't always what prepares a guy to step into a system. Being mechanically sound and understanding your playbook matters more than being able to read a defense in terms of initially getting comfortable, because the modern playbook will tell you what to read once you know it. Halo Effect/Trait Fishing Scouts/draftniks/recruiting guys at every level love to obsess over marginal utilities because that's what dictates the parameters of what's possible. Herbert is a fascinating concept because I flatly don't know a lot of smart people that got it right with him. His tendencies under pressure at Oregon were a disaster, and the Chargers clearly established a fix to help with that. Whether it's a matter of mental clock, stepping in to throws, confidence, footwork, or a bit of all of them, they got a mechanical and mental set that allowed him to work closer to the potential dictated by his raw physical talents. It's hard to project a guy's ability to get better because the concept of what's a stubborn habit versus something that can be repped out is highly dependent on individual characteristics. Herbert was coming out of a similar situation to Josh Rosen in terms of physical ability, mediocre skill players, and a system that wasn't optimal for them, but Herbert made changes while Rosen didn't. What caused that? It's not apparent on film. The only thing that's apparent on film is the results. Physical talent is a ceiling for QBs, and the arms race to come that will cause scarcity isn't one of executing a vanilla offense--it's one of constantly trying to raise the offense's theoretical capabilities if we are actually getting smarter/better at teaching. An average QB now may put up better numbers, but having a top 10% guy is still that much more impactful and not something that's going to be shelved. Mental execution can take you to a certain level of confidence, but there's a reason why, if you held all football knowledge, intelligence, and tendencies constant, coaches take the most physically talented guys they can right now, and it's just the fact that they could theoretically do 5% more concepts because of their arm talent. We don't scout mental ability well beyond second guessing passing plays and attempting to dissect if a guy made the right decision or not. In total? All of this equates to, if anything, just a change in the valuation. Game managers/physically limited/older guys get devalued; tools guys go higher, especially if they're young and/or smart. It's like how RBs only get high draft grades if they're transcendent/capable of doing anything at any time. It won't be that extreme, but that's the concept to follow here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 19:05
|
|
