Cam Ward analysis heading into year two

[begooode]

7 minutes ago, rns90 said:

The theory works better if you have a bad qb room and say the late round/UDFA guy gets legit snaps with the second or third string groups.

example: Tony Romo was the last ufda I recall to emerge from nowhere to take the starting spot (Brock Purdy sure was close, though). Romo’s competition for reps was from Quincy Carter and Chad Hutchinson, yikes.

[begooode]

2 minutes ago, scine09 said:

The other thing with Purdy is he went to the perfect situation.  He was basically the flier QB who played because the two guys in front of him got hurt.  Had he gone elsewhere it's honestly possible that he never plays in one game and is out of the league by now.

And developing in Shanahan’s offense sure didn’t hurt

[XAEA12]

7 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

Except you can't really do that. You can only give the minutes to one.  The other gets very limited chances to show anything.. so teh pressure is higher and the success mens less.  

 

 

 

They don't have to be the priority. Guys develop on the bench, with second team reps, coming in as a backup, acclimating to NFL speed over the course of seasons. Just like every other position.  Only 11 starting QB played in every game last year. 21 relied on a backup. Developing QBs are important. It's the most important position.

 

The biggest area of opportunity is actually the backup position. Most current backups have hit their ceiling and you know who they are. That third QB spot is what gets rotated and evaluated to compete with the backup first. At the very least, you try improving that backup QB position as they almost always see playing time. 

 

The chance may be small, but the more players you cycle the more opportunities you have for a hit. Take a flyer on a prospect you see potential in, let him develop and see if he's good enough to replace the veteran backup, see if he develops into the role. If he is more talented than the starter you'll see it through evaluations in practice, training camp, preseason. Don't let a guy flounder for 5 years with no competition because he was a first round pick. It's pretty simple really.

 

 

[XAEA12]

4 minutes ago, scine09 said:

The other thing with Purdy is he went to the perfect situation.  He was basically the flier QB who played because the two guys in front of him got hurt.  Had he gone elsewhere it's honestly possible that he never plays in one game and is out of the league by now.

 

Exactly. What other players has the potential but never got developed or looked at, evaluated, or has their potential seen because of draft position

[XAEA12]

 

 

I think the biggest issue is the organizations myopic vision. The same coaches carousel to different teams, they tie their career to the gamble of a new QB. The same coach who struggles one place succeeds in a better situation. No coach can afford themselves s long term strategy to winning. The owner will want the high drafted QB to succeed, the GM too most likely. A lot of mortgages are depending on it

 

[scine09]

Just now, XAEA12 said:

 

Exactly. What other players has the potential but never got developed or looked at, evaluated, or has their potential seen because of draft position

I'm sure there's dozens out there who never took a snap or if they did played very little that in the right situation could've been a functional starter, or better.

 

In order to get there, though, you have to be very lucky.  The starter has to either get hurt or be terrible.  Same with the backup.  You need the right coach.  You generally have to be on a good team.  This is what happened with Purdy.  You think we'd even know who Brock Purdy is if he went to, say, Buffalo?  Highly unlikely.

[titanruss]

58 minutes ago, Face said:

Yeah it sounds great in theory. Just keep drafting QB’s every year. Except you can’t do it in the top 3 rds cause you know, you have to actually build a team around your 1st pick QB. Sure you can draft QB’s in the 6th-7th rd every year to get Brock Purdy. Except the reality is you get Luke Falk & Cole McDonald.

 

My favorite one was all the guys saying we shouldve drafted Patrick Maholmes in 2017 to give us a better chance at finding our franchise QB. After picking Mariota #2 in 2015 & coming off a real solid 2016. Like, nobody does this. Also of course draft Patrick Maholmes not Mitch Trubisky & DeShaun Watson. Just make sure you draft the generational superstar for your QB room.

 No, what we should have done was go after Drew Brees way back when instead of KFC and even if Bud had forced drafted VY, he was still fine with the plan to start a Vet for a couple years. Brees would have proved himself and VY would have developed on the bench or shown his ass and gotten traded. 
 

He was cheap, younger, and just as much of a risk as KFC

Edited Thursday at 08:12 PM by titanruss

[begooode]

39 minutes ago, scine09 said:

In order to get there, though, you have to be very lucky.  The starter has to either get hurt or be terrible.  Same with the backup.  You need the right coach.  You generally have to be on a good team.  This is what happened with Purdy.  You think we'd even know who Brock Purdy is if he went to, say, Buffalo?  Highly unlikely.

If Rodney Harrison had never cheapshot Trent Green, we’d likely never would have heard of Kurt Warner or his wife’s luxurious feather boa. 

[XAEA12]

2 hours ago, begooode said:

caveat — the franchise QB role is the sole position on a team that requires an unquestioned leader otherwise team unity can breakdown, imo.
 

Definitely see that across the league, but if the franchise guy is that shaky what do you have to lose if, emphasis if, you think the other guy can actually do better. The team is breaking down because the starting quarterback isn't cutting it. I think taking a chance is less bad than what usually happens - holding on to a guy when it's clear he isn't going to turn the corner. 

 

As an example, look at deshaun watson still getting trotted out when he hasn't played meaningful football since 2021. That's half a decade. It's insane 

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 hours ago, Face said:

Yeah it sounds great in theory. Just keep drafting QB’s every year. Except you can’t do it in the top 3 rds cause you know, you have to actually build a team around your 1st pick QB. Sure you can draft QB’s in the 6th-7th rd every year to get Brock Purdy. Except the reality is you get Luke Falk & Cole McDonald.

 

My favorite one was all the guys saying we shouldve drafted Patrick Maholmes in 2017 to give us a better chance at finding our franchise QB. After picking Mariota #2 in 2015 & coming off a real solid 2016. Like, nobody does this. Also of course draft Patrick Maholmes not Mitch Trubisky & DeShaun Watson. Just make sure you draft the generational superstar for your QB room.

@abenjami you're being slandered! 

[IsntLifeFunny]

I think instead of every year it should more realistically be every other year until you find your franchise QB. If Ward is mediocre but showing progress I'd have zero problem spending a 3rd or 4th on a QB next year to push him. If he's showing some growth but still making way too many mistakes that might jump to a second. If we are drafting top 3 and you think a guy is obviously better then you take him there. Until you have a franchise QB or a completely stacked roster you aren't winning a SB. 

[Pragidealist]

3 hours ago, XAEA12 said:

 

They don't have to be the priority. Guys develop on the bench, with second team reps, coming in as a backup, acclimating to NFL speed over the course of seasons. Just like every other position.  Only 11 starting QB played in every game last year. 21 relied on a backup. Developing QBs are important. It's the most important position.

 

The biggest area of opportunity is actually the backup position. Most current backups have hit their ceiling and you know who they are. That third QB spot is what gets rotated and evaluated to compete with the backup first. At the very least, you try improving that backup QB position as they almost always see playing time. 

 

The chance may be small, but the more players you cycle the more opportunities you have for a hit. Take a flyer on a prospect you see potential in, let him develop and see if he's good enough to replace the veteran backup, see if he develops into the role. If he is more talented than the starter you'll see it through evaluations in practice, training camp, preseason. Don't let a guy flounder for 5 years with no competition because he was a first round pick. It's pretty simple really.

 

 

so which one of our players this draft are you taking a qb instead?

[XAEA12]

1 hour ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I think instead of every year it should more realistically be every other year until you find your franchise QB. If Ward is mediocre but showing progress I'd have zero problem spending a 3rd or 4th on a QB next year to push him. If he's showing some growth but still making way too many mistakes that might jump to a second. If we are drafting top 3 and you think a guy is obviously better then you take him there. Until you have a franchise QB or a completely stacked roster you aren't winning a SB. 

 

Every year would be crazy, even every other year makes more sense but I think it's more so if there's a prospect you like you take in a later round. 

 

I'm not even saying a round 2 3 or 4 pick but a last day pick or undrafted player.

 

To me all draft prospects are risks. The point of a higher pick is a higher probability of success and or higher upside. 

 

The point isn't about replacing the starter but having the best team and players, if a player develops over time then great,  Like Saleh said you should always be evaluating your players, not just coaching them. If he's a Falk then cut him, no biggie. Most players don't get second contracts anyway, that's normal.

 

If you have two good quarterbacks, even better. That's a great problem to have. You trade one like the did Montana, They got Stubblefield with that pick, he was DPOY. Pats got a second round pick out of Cassel, etc. 

 

It's just a philosophy. Belichick did it and he had the greatest QB of all time. And his belief in it is why Brady got his shot and got to keep his job when Bledsoe got healthy. Idk it just makes sense to me.

[XAEA12]

1 hour ago, Pragidealist said:

so which one of our players this draft are you taking a qb instead?

 

Idk, I don't even follow the draft like that anymore. Honestly didn't even have to draft, could have brought in a udfa like Fagnano instead of wasting time with Hooker and Levis.

 

I think QB production is highly influenced by surrounding talent at the college level and guys bust out all the time and other guys surprise. Can't hurt to give yourself more chances to hit. That's all I'm saying 

[IsntLifeFunny]

10 minutes ago, XAEA12 said:

 

Every year would be crazy, even every other year makes more sense but I think it's more so if there's a prospect you like you take in a later round. 

 

I'm not even saying a round 2 3 or 4 pick but a last day pick or undrafted player.

 

To me all draft prospects are risks. The point of a higher pick is a higher probability of success and or higher upside. 

 

The point isn't about replacing the starter but having the best team and players, if a player develops over time then great,  Like Saleh said you should always be evaluating your players, not just coaching them. If he's a Falk then cut him, no biggie. Most players don't get second contracts anyway, that's normal.

 

If you have two good quarterbacks, even better. That's a great problem to have. You trade one like the did Montana, They got Stubblefield with that pick, he was DPOY. Pats got a second round pick out of Cassel, etc. 

 

It's just a philosophy. Belichick did it and he had the greatest QB of all time. And his belief in it is why Brady got his shot and got to keep his job when Bledsoe got healthy. Idk it just makes sense to me.

I don't disagree and I'm pretty sure I was one of the first two on the board pounding the table for Ward. I think he's going to be excellent but it'll take time. Depending on how he looks there's nothing wrong with using a lottery ticket on a QB. If your starter isn't mentally tough enough to deal with competition then he isn't your franchise QB.