Week 4 Discussion Thread

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by njx9

right? we should give him 3 years, like we give every other 22/23 year old rookie qb.

Three years? He's so polished and mature and pro ready...he'll be awesome right out of the gate!

[Grizzlegom]

I still love how the backbone of the reason every hates on the Browns selection and dislikes Weeden is because of his age.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Originally Posted by njx9

right? we should give him 3 years, like we give every other 22/23 year old rookie qb.

Maybe not that much. I am starting to think that model is outdated and used only if you have your rookie QB sit for a couple of years and then play him. Now a days it seems like people expect rookies to come out and do well.

What makes this so interesting is Weeden's age. I think there should be patience but the team has to do everything possible to make him succeed. If that means changing the scheme or loading up on offensive players than so be it.

I liked what the Panthers did last season by adding Newton's college scheme and elements of that to the NFL offensive. I was very impressed with the OC's flexibility to do that. Maybe the Browns need to that? Put that QB in a the best possible situation to succeed.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by Grizzlegom

I still love how the backbone of the reason every hates on the Browns selection and dislikes Weeden is because of his age.

His age plays into the fact that he doesn't have time to go through the normal development cycle and will likely cause the next coach/GM to move on from it.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

Maybe not that much. I am starting to think that model is outdated and used only if you have your rookie QB sit for a couple of years and then play him. Now a days it seems like people expect rookies to come out and do well.

What makes this so interesting is Weeden's age. I think there should be patience but the team has to do everything possible to make him succeed. If that means changing the scheme or loading up on offensive players than so be it.

I liked what the Panthers did last season by adding Newton's college scheme and elements of that to the NFL offensive. I was very impressed with the OC's flexibility to do that. Maybe the Browns need to that? Put that QB in a the best possible situation to succeed.

You say this as if rookies never do well. We've actually seen quite a few instances in recent years of rookie QBs playing capably right away. Justify why things worked out for each one however you wish, but the point is that team, fan and media expectations are higher for rookie QBs now than they ever have been.

Going out and playing like Gabbert or Clausen did their rookie years will likely get the team to move on from you pretty quickly. Complicating matters is when there is a coaching change on top of it because the guy that drafted the QB is no longer there to support and defend him.

[Bengals78]

Hey Andy Dalton has a perfect 158.3 Passer rating in the 4th quarter.
So that's pretty cool.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

Maybe not that much. I am starting to think that model is outdated and used only if you have your rookie QB sit for a couple of years and then play him. Now a days it seems like people expect rookies to come out and do well.

What makes this so interesting is Weeden's age. I think there should be patience but the team has to do everything possible to make him succeed. If that means changing the scheme or loading up on offensive players than so be it.

I liked what the Panthers did last season by adding Newton's college scheme and elements of that to the NFL offensive. I was very impressed with the OC's flexibility to do that. Maybe the Browns need to that? Put that QB in a the best possible situation to succeed.

absolutely. the broncos did the same for tebow. i don't know why more teams don't do it, other than ego on the OC's side. but yeah, i think the issue with weeden is that he *had* to be ready. if he goes through the same progression as, say, drew brees (even if he ends up being that good), he'll be in his mid-30's before he's a solid starting qb. that's just unacceptable from your first round pick.

in general, i do agree. i think it's silly, at all levels, to evaluate anyone after 1/4 of the season has been played. but i also haven't posted about weeden until the 'hate' stuff started coming up.

[Grizzlegom]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

His age plays into the fact that he doesn't have time to go through the normal development cycle and will likely cause the next coach/GM to move on from it.

This is true mostly because the Browns have a new owner that is likely to clean house. What if the browns start winning these close games and manage to get to 6-10 or something like that? The regime may stick around. I understand that people didn't like Weeden coming into the draft and laughed at the Browns taking him in the first round but its funny seeing people bash him in here right now alluding to him being out of it in a year or two considering he's gotten better just about every week so far. He's still making rookie mistakes, like the pick-six, but he's also showing flashes of why the others felt he had the talent to justify taking him in the first round.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

You say this as if rookies never do well. We've actually seen quite a few instances in recent years of rookie QBs playing capably right away. Justify why things worked out for each one however you wish, but the point is that team, fan and media expectations are higher for rookie QBs now than they ever have been.

Going out and playing like Gabbert or Clausen did their rookie years will likely get the team to move on from you pretty quickly. Complicating matters is when there is a coaching change on top of it because the guy that drafted the QB is no longer there to support and defend him.

the point is that team, fan and media expectations are higher for rookie QBs now than they ever have been.

I agree! Rookies do well. But i am saying was it was never the norm way back. The norm was draft a guy, sit him, and then play him later on. This changed really when Ben started and did well. By then the rules of the NFL shifted, and it became a passing league, with the rules also favoring the offensive players.

Matt Ryan then came along and did well, and that's when I noticed the fan and media expectations drastically change. Now it seems like the norm is for the rookie QB to do well, and if someone doesn't do well early on, it's bad press and perhaps the bust label.

The Jags QB has an uphill climb to win back that fan/media respect. I would hate for Eli to play as a rookie now with those expectations and playing in NY. It would be a million times worse with our own fans pointing to the successful rookie QBs as evidence which would fuel WW3. It was big debate in the giants MB, and sports talk radio. If Eli played as a rookie now, I can't imagine the drama.

[Ness]

I never check out that part of the forum where the draft thread regarding Weeden was brought up. So who was saying outlandish comments?

[Cudders]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Cudders,

Rice had a terrible average because they would run the ball in such obvious running situations the Browns knew what was coming. I agree you need to keep him fresh but the situation play calling from Cameron is just so awful. I'd limit his catches a little and let him run a bit more.

I’m not in full agreement with how Cameron called the game. But the issue wasn’t lack of touches. The issue was the fulfillment of those touches. I liked their counter of getting Rice in space and that’s where he did most of his damage. The Browns’ front responded great to their traditional running game though. I would’ve liked to have seen the sweep pass wrinkle implemented even earlier.

As for Weeden, here’s the problem. He was all-time horrific against the Eagles. He was above-average against the Bengals. He was below-average against the Bills. And he was average last night against the Ravens. He has been erratic and wild so far. You expect that from a rookie, sure, but Weeden doesn’t have the same luxuries as other rookies because of his age. Fair or unfair, it’s the truth. This is a quarterback that’s nearing his thirties. He doesn’t have two or three seasons to work out the kinks and then just become a Fitzpatrick-esque quarterback. If that’s his ceiling, that’s a waste of a time. After four games, I’ve seen him make stick throws and I’ve seen him make stupid throws. He needs more of the former if he wants to survive as a starter. Because there’s no guarantee the regime that drafted him lasts past this season.

And, for the record, I’m not adamant the Browns should draft another quarterback in the top five because I haven’t watched a ton of these prospects yet. If I didn’t like what I saw there, I would be open to using Weeden as a stopgap and addressing other issues. Grab a coverage-changing wide receiver, a premier pass-rusher, or another corner to pair with Joe Haden. But, if there’s a quarterback that I like, and feel comfortable handing the future to, I’m not letting Weeden and a Fitzpatrick-esque upside stop me from doing it. I don’t care how high he was drafted or when.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Originally Posted by njx9

absolutely. the broncos did the same for tebow. i don't know why more teams don't do it, other than ego on the OC's side. but yeah, i think the issue with weeden is that he *had* to be ready. if he goes through the same progression as, say, drew brees (even if he ends up being that good), he'll be in his mid-30's before he's a solid starting qb. that's just unacceptable from your first round pick.

in general, i do agree. i think it's silly, at all levels, to evaluate anyone after 1/4 of the season has been played. but i also haven't posted about weeden until the 'hate' stuff started coming up.

We didn't do it when we drafted Eli. We run a high risk/high reward offense with a very complex set of WR rules, specifically option and choice routes. It's one aspect of our offense I loath with every bit of my heart! We didn't change anything for anyone. We simply dropped Eli in and said good luck. On top of that, we hired a pathetic OC, in John Huganel, and had guys who all backed Kerry Collins. So they weren't happy with a rookie QB.

One contemporary would be big Ben. The steelers should be applauded on how they developed Ben. I have lots of family there and we would talk about this. Great defense, and basically a run first offense. Ben did very well! We instead had Eli throw 557 times in his first full year.

My point is I LOVE, as an offensive coach, when other coaches change their scheme to put their franchise QB in the best position to win. I respect Whisenhunt for doing that AND respect the Panthers OC for adding elements of the college game to their pro system so that Newton could flourish. Newton got his props last year, but I give equal props to the OC for putting Newton in the best chance to succeed.

Even give props to the GM for getting talent around Newton.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by Grizzlegom

This is true mostly because the Browns have a new owner that is likely to clean house. What if the browns start winning these close games and manage to get to 6-10 or something like that? The regime may stick around. I understand that people didn't like Weeden coming into the draft and laughed at the Browns taking him in the first round but its funny seeing people bash him in here right now alluding to him being out of it in a year or two considering he's gotten better just about every week so far. He's still making rookie mistakes, like the pick-six, but he's also showing flashes of why the others felt he had the talent to justify taking him in the first round.

If Holmgren goes, as has already been rumored, I don't think that the rest of the staff would be safe even at 6-10. If Weeden manages to be more consistent and maybe grade out to a Dalton-esque level (not so much the wins, but just consistent performance) he might buy himself a chance with the new staff, but I bet they'd still consider bringing in their own guy.

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

I agree! Rookies do well. But i am saying was it was never the norm way back. The norm was draft a guy, sit him, and then play him later on. This changed really when Ben started and did well. By then the rules of the NFL shifted, and it became a passing league, with the rules also favoring the offensive players.

Matt Ryan then came along and did well, and that's when I noticed the fan and media expectations drastically change. Now it seems like the norm is for the rookie QB to do well, and if someone doesn't do well early on, it's bad press and perhaps the bust label.

The Jags QB has an uphill climb to win back that fan/media respect. I would hate for Eli to play as a rookie now with those expectations and playing in NY. It would be a million times worse with our own fans pointing to the successful rookie QBs as evidence which would fuel WW3. It was big debate in the giants MB, and sports talk radio. If Eli played as a rookie now, I can't imagine the drama.

I think it's even beyond the media and the fans. Like I said, we've seen an increase in team expectations as well. While the coaches and GMs might try to tune out external voices in making decisions, a good portion of NFL owners would prefer their team be winning and winning now. They see guys like Newton, Dalton, Ryan, Flacco, etc. all jump out to great success right away and want to know why the guy their GM/Coach drafted so high can't do it.

A lot of the most consistent teams in the sport (Steelers, Giants, Patriots) have owners who just sign the checks and let their football guys run the team.

But the teams who seem to eternally struggle either have ownership situations that have been in flux (Browns, Jags, Vikings) or have meddling owners who like attention (Jets, Redskins.) And then of course, there are the clueless owners or the penny pinchers (Lions, Cardinals, Bengals.)

There is a reason none of those teams in that last paragraph have won a Superbowl...well, ever besides the Redskins and Jets, and their SB victories are getting further and further in the rear view mirror.

Anyway, returning from being side tracked, the great expectations placed on rookie QBs come internally as well.

[Bengals78]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

If Holmgren goes, as has already been rumored, I don't think that the rest of the staff would be safe even at 6-10. If Weeden manages to be more consistent and maybe grade out to a Dalton-esque level (not so much the wins, but just consistent performance) he might buy himself a chance with the new staff, but I bet they'd still consider bringing in their own guy.

A perfect 158.3 in the 4th quarter?

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by Bengals78

A perfect 158.3 in the 4th quarter?

That wasn't as a rookie. Go tout your statistics elsewhere.

[Bengals78]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

That wasn't as a rookie. Go tout your statistics elsewhere.

You wouldn't complain if I had it like:

QB A - 158.3 passer rating
QB B - 58.3 passer rating
one is Andy Dalton. But I won't tell....

[Jvig43]

The important thing is, youre not implying anything with those stats, you just find them interesting right?

[Bengals78]

Originally Posted by Jvig43

The important thing is, youre not implying anything with those stats, you just find them interesting right?

Andy Dalton iz elitezzzzz

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Bengals78

Andy Dalton iz elitezzzzz

i'm not surprised you have a thing for the fire crotch.

[cmarq83]

The age criticism for Weeden is so over the top. Say what you want about him as a prospect (personally I wasn't a huge fan), but the critics say with absolute certainty that he's going to be useless for 3-4 years, and his body will break down immediately after that. That is basically as big of a leap of faith as the idea that Weeden would be pro ready. The truth is there have been a bunch of guys who have taken different development paths, but most effective starters in the league didn't take 4 years to start playing good football more consistently than not. Also, most decent QB's can play well into their late 30's even with mediocre tools.

Weeden is already arguably better than Colt McCoy and pretty much most of the other options available to them during the offseason. They upgraded the most important position on their team with their first round pick, and if he develops on the path that most successful QB's take they'll likely have 5+ years of a functional QB before they need to throw him on the scrap heap. Teams can do a lot worse than that with a draft pick in the 20's.

Hate the player for his ability to play football. Drafting a QB in his late 20's isn't inherently bad. If you get a franchise QB who can play functional football by year 3, you're in better shape than pretty much any other pick you could have made.

[Bengals78]

Originally Posted by njx9

i'm not surprised you have a thing for the fire crotch.

He is no Tim Tebow Knowshon Moreno! BURN!

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Bengals78

He is no Tim Tebow Knowshon Moreno! BURN!

of course he isn't. i assume andy dalton can actually run the football, if necessary.

Originally Posted by cmarq83

The age criticism for Weeden is so over the top. Say what you want about him as a prospect (personally I wasn't a huge fan), but the critics say with absolute certainty that he's going to be useless for 3-4 years, and his body will break down immediately after that. That is basically as big of a leap of faith as the idea that Weeden would be pro ready. The truth is there have been a bunch of guys who have taken different development paths, but most effective starters in the league didn't take 4 years to start playing good football more consistently than not. Also, most decent QB's can play well into their late 30's even with mediocre tools.

Weeden is already arguably better than Colt McCoy and pretty much most of the other options available to them during the offseason. They upgraded the most important position on their team with their first round pick, and if he develops on the path that most successful QB's take they'll likely have 5+ years of a functional QB before they need to throw him on the scrap heap. Teams can do a lot worse than that with a draft pick in the 20's.

Hate the player for his ability to play football. Drafting a QB in his late 20's isn't inherently bad. If you get a franchise QB who can play functional football by year 3, you're in better shape than pretty much any other pick you could have made.

name 10 qbs in league history who were still playing competently, let alone well enough to justify a first round pick, past age 34. no, the charlie batchs of the world don't count. then ask yourself, how many of these qbs already had major throwing arm issues before ever taking an nfl snap?

[BeerBaron]

Also, "most decent QBs can play into their late 30s."

By decent, do you mean future HoFers? Those are the only guys in the past two decades playing well past 35. Like njx pointed out, you might get a Charlie Batch riding the bench that late, or a Kerry Collins being a very lousy starter, but by 35, the vast majority of QBs are done.

They may not take the constant hits of RB, but they get banged around just enough and put a lot of stress on their throwing arm over the course of a career. Favre was just a freak, so he's a definite exception. But besides him...has ANY QB, ANY QB at all, played "well" into their late 30s recently?

[Grizzlegom]

Kurt Warner!

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by Grizzlegom

Kurt Warner!

Alright, I'll give you that one. We're up to two in the...12-13 years since the retirements of Dan Marino and John Elway. Alright.

And those 3 + Favre are all current/future HoFers.

So anyone else have examples of serviceable starting QBs playing past 35?