What Should Titans Do at QB In 2014?

[Jamalisms]

This doesn't need to be revisited, but...

Hope my shoes are snug and comfy!

[Mercalius]

Merc good post and I even read almost half of it but a couple of things:

 

- 5/8's, in one year, hardly constitues a trend.  The only thing that would be less of a trend indicator would be 4/8's. 

 

- Our QB or organizational situational isn't nearly as ugly as some of those places that did go after  QB. I can;t even remember who the KC QB was before Smith. We did not win 2 - 4 games last year. We are better than that. And we have a former top 10 pick on the roster and a great back up who has started a lot of games in the NFL.

 

I agree with you. Draft a QB if he's the BAP in ANY round. If it's the first round, it's going to make for some awkward decisions but if he's the BAP so be it.  

 

5 out of 8 in a (I won't say historically) but incredibly bad draft class for quarterbacks, where Jacksonville likely felt there was no true franchise QB available, especially to justify using the 2nd overall pick.  And the other 2 teams have Cutler and Rivers - extremely talented quarterbacks to have on a roster, which is way more of an outlier for a new coach than the opposite.

Ours certainly isn't some sinkhole type situation, as we are worlds better off than The Browns and Jacksonvilles of the world, but - we haven't proven we have a franchise guy on the roster yet either.  I want Locker to get another chance, and I want him to succeed, and I don't want to have to worry about the QB position everytime April/May rolls around, but the reality is that he's a question mark health-wise and a question-mark viability wise, and it would be no huge shocker or surprise if a new coach felt he'd have a better chance to win with someone he chooses rather than someone who was here when he showed up.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Mercalius

[Righteous]

I don't plan around outliers and I know Whisenhunt wont at QB.

 

You can hope a rookie QB is ready to compete and win and be a starter and/or be a serviceable back up. To put any level of plan around that is completely ridiculous. Rookie QB's who are ready to play, lead and win are outliers. 

 

Yeah, but you have started the plan for the future.  Why waste another year?  Eventually you will have to get a rookie QB, and if what you've said is true and he can’t lead his first year, allow him time to develop.  It's best to do that now to speed up the timetable when this team will be able to compete.  Why continue to waste time with a QB who is obviously not the answer?  If this is to be a wasted year for someone, why wouldn’t that be the QB of the future and not some test case subject?

[Righteous]

And for the record, I hope with the change in coaching staff, the organization and we, the fans, make a radical change in how they view things.  The conservative approach has gotten this organization stuck dead in the middle of the pack.  It’s time for a change.  If you look at all the teams left in the playoffs, you will see teams that took a bold approaches to the QB position.

 

• Denver had just gone to the playoffs with T. Tebow.  Instead of taking the conservative approach and see how or if he developed, they made a bold move a went out and got P. Manning, who was coming off of a severe injury and a year out of football.
• NE moved on from Drew Bledsoe (their franchise QB) and went with a hot T. Brady.
• SF had just come off of a NFC championship appearance, but moved on from A. Smith, as they realized that they had a more talented QB on the roster, instead of sticking with the status quo.
• Seattle had just spent big bucks for a QB in FA but went with a low round rookie.

 

You have to be bold in this league.  Forget the “let’s wait and hope” approach.  Great reward comes with great risk.  I hope this organization identifies it’s next QB and make the moves necessary to secure him.  I can and never will get use to the 8-8 mentality.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Which is why I said historically speaking. Guys you can get in the first are generally better than guys you can get in the 2-5th.

Wilson is an aberration, not the rule. People win the lottery too but that doesn't mean you're going to bank on it.

Traditionally mid round guys are picked and developed when you've already got a consistent starter on the roster.

Any mid round guy picked this year would not get the time or reps and we'd be looking QB again next year.

I think those times are changing. Foles, Wilson and Glennon are all solid starters. Kaep and Dalton aren't 'mid-round' QBs, but they weren't first rounders, either. None of those QBs had a stable situation. Why go further back in the past to prove your point when the recent trend is going the opposite way?

[Tex in a Can]

Jonboy, I don't see any problems with your logic.

 

Of course you need to be frugal with yoru draft picks. But if Locker puts in another year like last he will drag the whole team down, including your refortified defense.

 

I don't see any problems with drafting another QB high and keeping Locker AT ALL. Locker starts, the new guy learns. If Locker has a great year you have a great problem on your hands. If he doesn't your plan B is on deck.

 

QB is that important.

 

Having said all that, I don't see how we can get one of the top 3 QB's at 11, and any QB we draft at 11 woudl be a second round reach. Lots of things can change in 4 months however.

 

Tex

[Guest]

Let me reiterate- if anyone thinks Whisenhunt will entertain going into next season with a guy who can't stay healthy and has all of 16 NFL games under his belt and a rookie as his 2 dressed QB's isn;t dealing with reality imo.

 

One of Locker or the highly touted rookie will be in civvies and I don't see that working or being the plan. 

[reo]

I think those times are changing. Foles, Wilson and Glennon are all solid starters. Kaep and Dalton aren't 'mid-round' QBs, but they weren't first rounders, either. None of those QBs had a stable situation. Why go further back in the past to prove your point when the recent trend is going the opposite way?

 

Wilson is an aberration, not the rule.

 

Different situations. Foles and Glennon were drafted by teams who had set starters and got reps as developmental guys. Kaep and Dalton were drafted to be the QBs of the future and were given reps accordingly. No one behind Locker and Fitz will get those reps.

 

It's not just about whether a mid round guy can make it. It's whether or not he can get the reps and where we'll be at this time next year. We'll be looking for a QB again and there will be a guy in the 1st that will be much more attractive than the mid round pick already on the roster that we know nothing about.

Edited January 16, 2014 by reo

[Jonboy]

Perhaps "given up on" is too strong. Would you accept, "have doubts about and would feel better if we drafted a young guy?"

I'll try to explain again. People keep asking me about it so I must be doing a poor job on the explanation. (EDIT: Yikes, that was longer than I intended, lol. Bear with me...)

 

If Locker can stay healthy for a full season, I completely believe he can become a franchise QB. I have always been a believer in his potential, abilities, character...you name it. Sure, he had flaws but we all saw the potential. It flashed more than it ever had in games against the Chargers and the Jets. My hope and belief was sky high on the kid. I fully believed we'd witnessed the emergence of our franchise QB. 

 

Then the hip/knee injury happened. I certainly didn't give up on him then. As he's always shown, he's a hard worker and he made his way back into the lineup much quicker than expected. The way he performed upon his return is when I started to grow concerned. It seemed the injury had almost reset the progress he'd made. He looked like a different QB and was flat out abysmal against Jacksonville before getting hurt yet again. 

 

If these had been only his first and second major injuries, I probably wouldn't have been too concerned. Unfortunately, it was eerily similar to the previous season when Jake made steady progress before having an incredible game against the Lions. Again, many of us felt, even with the flaws, our franchise QB had arrived. We know the story...he was injured the next week. When he returned from that injury? Again, it seemed the injury and time off had completely thwarted the progressions he'd made. 

 

So now we have a number of things to consider in the evaluation of Jake Locker. After three years in the league, the concerns people had about him in college are the exact same concerns everyone still has. That's scary. His extensive injury history in college, which I attributed to just being unfortunate/unlucky also followed him into the NFL. Calling it injury prone, unlucky, flukey, or whatever is of no concern. The facts are he hasn't been able to stay healthy at the collegiate or professional level. 

 

To go with those pretty major red flags, we have a few signs of hope. He's always displayed incredible character, grit, determination, and has even shown he can make all the NFL throws. I have never believed Jake to be without fault or anywhere close to being a sure-fire franchise QB, even in the midst of my staunch defense of him as a prospect and what he'd accomplished. 

 

As much as I like him, we've come to the point where I believe the odds are no longer in his favor of ever becoming that franchise QB we all know we need. If we were keeping track of a "Locker potential franchise QB" scale, then mine has officially dropped below 50%. The injuries and how they caused such a great setback every time they happen is what ultimately tipped me below that 50% threshold. 

 

I think you must always have the long-term future of the franchise in mind. Locker basically has one year, coming off a major surgery and rehab, to prove to a new owner and a new coach that he can be the guy for the next 5-7 years. If he so much as sprains an ankle and misses one game...then he's done as a Titan. 

 

With that in mind, I can't fathom how a GM with the long-term future of the franchise in mind would actually be able to neglect the QB position this offseason. Ryan Fitzpatrick keeps being brought up in this discussion, but I actually believe he's 100% irrelevant to it. He's a stopgap QB and nothing more. 

 

In a perfect world, I would trade up and get Bridgewater because I think he's truly elite. As Merc said, he's a better prospect than Locker ever was and I would take him 10 times out of 10 even over a healthy Jake. But when it comes to this draft, Teddy is the exception for me...not the rule. Outside of Bridgewater, there's no other QB in this draft I would rather have than Locker. 

 

With Teddy being highly unlikely, my next option would be to take a value pick on a QB in round 2 or 4 (sucks we don't have that 3rd rounder). I wouldn't severely overdraft someone at 11. At this point, our best case scenario is Locker plays a full season, hits his potential, earns a massive extension and we have our QB for the next 10 years. The rookie we drafted would make for an excellent backup (much cheaper than Fitz) or potential trade-bait. If Locker gets hurt along the way, then you immediately insert the rookie QB and start getting him the experience for the next season. His development becomes your sole priority and winning itself even takes a back seat to that. 

 

Let's look at the other scenario many are suggesting, one in which we don't take a QB this year. We roll with Locker and Fitz. Again, the ideal is Locker pans out and we're all happy anyway. If he sucks or gets hurt again? What do we do? Turn to Ryan Fitzpatrick? Not only would that be throwing the 2014 season down the drain, but it also throws away a large portion of the 2015 season, which would undoubtedly be used to develop a rookie QB from scratch. 

 

To summarize, I hope Locker comes back in 2014 and solidifies himself as the starter for the next decade. But I'm not going to let what I think would be a blind/misguided hope get in the way of the team's overall future. Webster is paid to make decisions with his brain...not his heart. I would draft a QB, let them compete, and see what happens. If the goal is long-term success and championships, then finding a true franchise QB is 100% the only thing that matters right now.

[reo]

To summarize, I hope Locker comes back in 2014 and solidifies himself as the starter for the next decade. But I'm not going to let what I think would be a blind/misguided hope get in the way of the team's overall future. Webster is paid to make decisions with his brain...not his heart. I would draft a QB, let them compete, and see what happens. If the goal is long-term success and championships, then finding a true franchise QB is 100% the only thing that matters right now.

 

1) Do you really think there will be enough reps to teach Locker and Fitz the offense and still develop a 2-5th round rookie?

2) Do you think there will be someone available in the 1st next year who will be a much more attractive prospect than someone that falls to the 2-5th this year?

[IsntLifeFunny]

Wilson is an aberration, not the rule.

 

Different situations. Foles and Glennon were drafted by teams who had set starters and got reps as developmental guys. Kaep and Dalton were drafted to be the QBs of the future and were given reps accordingly. No one behind Locker and Fitz will get those reps.

The Alex Smith situation isn't similar? He was a first round pick with a new coach, and he put up great numbers. Why would it be bad to have a Kaep/Smith situation? Is it just because Jake is injury prone? If Smith stays healthy, then he probably finishes out the season. Either way, San Fran got picks out of the guy and found a new starter, so it was a win on both accounts.

How can you call Vick a set starter? Freeman also wasn't a set starter.

Saying you don't want a QB is okay. Using history to prove the point of why we don't need one is too. But discounting relevant information is what isn't making much sense to me.

[Mercalius]

1) Do you really think there will be enough reps to teach Locker and Fitz the offense and still develop a 2-5th round rookie?

2) Do you think there will be someone available in the 1st next year who will be a much more attractive prospect than someone that falls to the 2-5th this year?

There's no promise Locker is even ready to start the season.  He was in a cast/crutch just a couple of weeks ago at an autograph session.  It's highly speculative to believe he's healthy enough to throw once training camp starts.  Right now, he can't put any weight on his injured foot.  He's a long way from being able to take any kind of reps.  That risk alone, that you're starting the season with Fitzpatrick and Locker's still a ? on a return date, makes not picking up another QB a very scary situation.  You keep stressing the importance of reps...what if Locker has to miss most OTAs and most of training camp?  In a new offense, would you want him coming in cold without being super-comfortable in the offense?

 

As Jonboy said, Fitz shouldn't factor into the equation much at all.  He wasn't signed to be a starter.  He's an emergency plan.  Yes, he or the unknown rookie might lose some reps to the other, but this is a professional team where talent and potential are spotted and worked with.  Oftentimes, that talent emerges whether they're given 30 throws a practice or 10.  3rd team reps aren't ideal for either player, but if Locker is healthy enough to participate - what does it really matter?  He's likely the starter, and if the rookie looks good enough in third team drills, he might bump past Fitz on the depth chart.  If Locker isn't healthy enough to start camp, then Fitz and the rookie split 1st/2nd team reps.  Plenty of folks come in 3rd in the depth chart and work their way up from there.  Look at Washington in 2012 with RG3 and Cousins when they both walked into TC as rookies- that worked out well enough (that season) when RG3 had to miss a few games.

 

As to the draft next year - who knows.  I will say no one this year going into next year is as exciting as Bridgewater is.  Hundley, Mariota, and Winston IMO don't look any better than Bortles, Carr, Manziel (even though I'm not a fan), Mettenberger, Murray, Fales - etc, but a year can change a lot of things.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Mercalius

[IsntLifeFunny]

Well said Jonboy. I couldn't agree more.

[reo]

The Alex Smith situation isn't similar? He was a first round pick with a new coach, and he put up great numbers. Why would it be bad to have a Kaep/Smith situation? Is it just because Jake is injury prone? If Smith stays healthy, then he probably finishes out the season. Either way, San Fran got picks out of the guy and found a new starter, so it was a win on both accounts.

How can you call Vick a set starter? Freeman also wasn't a set starter.

 

 

Smith wasn't Harbaugh's starter of the future. He was a placeholder for Kaep and he was also a lot more solid than Locker. Locker needs a vet presence behind him. Smith could have a more inconsistent backup and you could get him reps. You can't get a guy reps behind Locker and Fitz.

 

Similar situations w/ Vick and Freeman. Those guys were the starters and didn't need vet backups.

[CMJ]

Locker can very easily be cut, as could Fitz (KW may bring in a vet he is familiar with). KW isn't beholden to either.

LOL @ automatically assuming Locker will be QB1