this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024

6 points (80.0% liked)

NFL

4404 readers

27 users here now

Rules:

No racism or bigotry.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
No spam posting.
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
No trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

NFL - [email protected]
NFL Memes [email protected]
Arizona Cardinals [email protected]
Chicago Bears [email protected]
Cincinnati Bengals [email protected]
Cleveland Browns [email protected]
Dallas Cowboys [email protected]
Denver Broncos [email protected]
Detroit Lions [email protected]
Green Bay Packers [email protected]
Houston Texans [email protected]
Indianapolis Colts [email protected]
Kansas City Chiefs [email protected]
Jacksonville Jaguars [email protected]
Los Angeles Chargers [email protected]
Los Angeles Rams [email protected]
Miami Dolphins [email protected]
Minnesota Vikings [email protected]
New England Patriots [email protected]
New York Giants [email protected]
New York Jets [email protected]
Philadelphia Eagles [email protected] - [email protected]
Pittsburgh Steelers [email protected]
San Francisco 49ers [email protected]
Seattle Seahawks [email protected]
Washington Commanders [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Why backup quarterbacks matter more than ever -- and why some NFL teams still lack a plan (www.espn.com)

submitted 3 months ago by GreenEngineering3475 to c/nfl

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

More quarterbacks are starting games than ever before. So why do so many NFL teams lack a backup plan?

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] jedibob5 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I think the NFL's desperation for quality QBs is likely making the problem worse. So many top QB prospects get drafted to dysfunctional franchises with incompetent coaches and massive holes across the entire roster, then get dropped into week 1 with the expectation that they'll be the savior of the franchise.

Circumstances matter a lot, and I can't help but wonder how many "bust" QBs would've been better off with a year or two in a low-pressure backup spot to adjust to the league and learn the scheme instead of getting thrown into the fire right away. It seems to work for the Packers. Hell, even Mahomes sat behind Alex Smith his rookie year. I wonder how different his career would be if he had been sent to start immediately...

[–] Tujio 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It used to be SOP to sit a young qb for at least a year. Then we had RGIII, Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson in quick succession, and that messed up everybody's expectations.

[–] jedibob5 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I was curious about this because I felt like this has been a problem for longer than that, and after a bit of searching I found this random forum post that compiled some stats around week 1 rookie starters. It's from 2021, so a bit out of date, and the formatting is a bit confusing, but it's still interesting to look at.

Filling out the list after 2020 from memory and some quick Googling, 2021 would add Trevor Lawrence, Mac Jones, and Zach Wilson, 2022 had no week 1 rookie starters (Kenny Pickett wouldn't start until week 4) for the first time since 2007, and 2023 had CJ Stroud, Bryce Young, and Anthony Richardson.

As for trends, there was a meaningful bump after 2000, as 10 rookies started week 1 between 2000 and 2010 compared to just 3 across the 90s. The insane 2012 class really kicked it into high gear though.

I think the league's increased passing focus caused it to happen more often, but usually out of desperation or with players considered to be generational prospects, but then 2012 seemed to give everyone the impression that it could happen regularly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

The desperation is partially on coaching as well. Most coaches/managers adapt teams to their strategy rather than what their players can do. There's about 5 QB styles that work in the pros and maybe 5 QBs that can successfully play in more than 2 of those systems.

Most teams struggle to pick a QB that can actually fit their system in the first place.

[–] BestTestInTheWest 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Definitely, as a vikes fan that's why I'm kinda glad that jj will have a whole season to sit back and watch and learn. I wish it was from someone better than darnold but such is life.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I always figured that was the plan for JJ to begin with. Now with his injury he'll probably have some extra time, maybe even a whole other extra year. With apparently one of the toughest schedules in the league and running Darnold out there this year is likely to be a wash and was always going to be, but it's short-term frustration for future long-term success. The only annoying part is that the rest of our division decided to all greatly improve at the same time, so it's going to be the old Black and Blue division bloodbath the next few years and we'll just have to see who comes out on top. We're also paying the proverbial price right now for the absolute cap hell Spielman left behind for Kwesi (as well as Kwesi's disaster of a first draft). We could end up on top in a few years or become the next Lions languishing in the division cellar for a long time. Who knows with the division right now.

[–] jedibob5 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I feel like if the Vikings were planning to sit JJ year one, they would've targeted someone other than Sam Darnold as their bridge starter. We'll see if the injury gives JJ more time to learn the offense, but I think it's hard to call a major injury a "good thing" for anyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Not at all saying the injury was "good". And to me, Darnold seems like an ideal bridge QB: someone they could get for a short contract on a budget while they get JJ ready. It may not necessarily be pleasant to suggest the team is basically writing off a year before Week 1, but they're clearly looking at the long term rather than the short term. It's a pain that we Vikings fans will just have to live with this season, but we're quite used to pain, lol.