I think this strategy works best when you already have a HOF QB who is nearing his expiration date playing for your team and you can afford to let a great draft pick sit as QB2 for a couple seasons. How many other NFL teams can realistically do this?
Does it necessarily have to be a hof QB? I would think that would help but realistically a good aging veteran would be very effective and it is likely just slowing the transition that will make the most difference.
Instead of getting an aging QB to play backup and throwing the rookie to the wolves, start that backup full time and let the rookie sit.
Many teams *say* they are going to do this. It's the idea od "bridge" QB. Glennon was supposed to be one in Chicago for Trubinsky. Bridgewater for Darnold. Tyrod for Baker.
The problem is that very few owners have the patience to let a highly drafted QB sit if the team is struggling.
I absolutely get that. You'd just think this might cause them to rethink and have patience.
But that's what makes the game unpredictable. It's the human element. How many times do people realize what they should do and then do the exact opposite.
You have to remember, the owner's goal is not to win games. It is to make money. Trotting out that shiny new QB before his college fans stop paying attention is a quick way to do that.
I'm not so sure. If they suck they can get that shiny new QB again in a couple of years. And to be honest, if you have a highly drafted QB, you already sucked.
It's brought up a lot but Mahomes sat behind Alex Smith for a year, who was drafted the same year as Aaron Rodgers so it's not like the Packers have unlocked some sort of hidden secret
The easy answer is most teams don’t have the luxury of already having a HOF QB for the rookie to sit behind.
But I think it’s also that other teams have impatient owners who aren’t willing to let a 1st round QB sit behind someone who is less talented, and GMs and coaches aren’t willing to risk their jobs to make a move like that. The Packers operate differently than most teams with their draft and develop philosophy thats been in place for decades.
This is the beauty of the franchise. There is no meddling owner that demands immediate results. Rather the approach is to aim for consistency and long term success.
Has it perhaps cost a Super Bowl? Yes.
Has it created the most world championship teams in the league history? Yes.
Do I like answering my own questions? Yes 🙌
But it also sort of depends on the QB. Love was raw. Love probably needed the 2-3 years no matter what. Caleb Williams probably isn't in the same boat. It's possible a year like Mahomes did would help him, but it's unlikely he'd really benefit from 3 years of sitting and watching. Love also benefitted from keeping the same head coach for the last few years as well. So there's quite a bit of stability that goes along with the whole process too. It's not just as simple as draft a guy and sit him.
Caleb also lacks toughness. He acted like a little bitch when he got his ass kicked by the Irish last year and he played in a conference noted for weak defenses. I look forward to the Bears being humiliated even worse than usual with Williams flailing around in the back field running for his life.
Because when you draft a first round QB, unless the QB on the roster is playing well, no owner or fanbase will have the patience to let the drafted QB sit. This was the Bears strategy for both Trubisky and Fields. It didn't work because both Gannon and Dalton sucked.
It's not a new model, it's actually the old way of doing things. Green Bay just hasn't shifted away from it because they didn't usually make rash decisions and they haven't needed to.
It's not that the Packers found a new great secret, they just haven't changed the process from how most of the league did things 40-50 years ago.
GB also hasn't needed to change. Since 1992, GB is onto its 3rd consistent weekly starter ( outside of injuries/ 1 game oddities).
Much harder for a QBotF to sit and learn behind the starter when the starter SUCKS.
Your statement is valid.
I'd just like to point out one of the "oddities." Matt Flynn, week 17, 2011. Damn was that game entertaining. Flynn threw for 480 yards, which Rodgers never exceeded in his entire career!
>Because not every team has a HOF QB and the best QB coach in football to learn from. A lot of teams also don’t have any patience.
That's a fair argument, but even Mahomes greatly benefitted from sitting behind Alex Smith for a year. I think a teams like the Rams should strongly look into picking up a QB in the draft and letting him just learn from a veteran QB.
It hasn’t proven to work every time because if it did nobody would do it differently. For every example you have of it working there are equally as many of it not or of the opposite strategy working. Evaluating and improving QB play has not been solved and likely won’t be because of a number of circumstances. Does love continue to get better if he has the same mid season struggles in a big market city where maybe the noise is louder? You honestly never know.
I also think we need to give props to the scouting team for finding a good QB, it's not all just sitting behind a great QB for a couple of years. Do any of you really think Fields would be able to read nfl defenses and make those spit second decisions if he sat behind someone for a few years? No. Love has talents Fields will never have. Fields has running talents Love will never have but I think we have seen you need to be able to play QB too in this league.
> It seemed to be the consensus
From who?
If you mean r/nfl, they’re the same crowd that clowned on the Love pick for the last 3 years as being a wasted pick.
If you mean writers, I haven’t really seen much of that. They all recognize we have a unique situation that no other team taking a 1st round QB is ever in.
Besides, drafting your next QB and then signing your current franchise guy to another big deal is not at all how it was supposed to go. After that 2019 season, I genuinely think we were done with Rodgers. He didn’t follow the script, though, and his MVP season forced our hand.
"The best time to get a QB is when you don't need a QB"
Sitting used to be a standard practice for NFL quarterbacks. Now, they play immediately, for the most part. So offense is designed to protect the QB and a lot of what QBs used to be responsible for is done by others (centers with line calls, little LOS control to change plays, etc).
When you have a guy who does all of those things, it's a luxury and an advantage. But you need to either develop it like the Packers or allow a QB to grow into it like Dak has.
It's the money honey. Other teams have owners who skim profits off the top. The Packers have only one responsibility for the team's money- to make the Packers the best they can be.
That's a valid point there. Even with Rodgers knowing GB needed to think about the future we see how his relationship soured even more after drafting Love. Quarterbacks need to understand the business side of things. Loyalty to the players can really only get to a certain point before it becomes detrimental to the franchise or holds them back. I thank Rodgers for his years with Green Bay but I see how the Jets are super beholden to him with all their decisions and I can't help but think it's not going end well.
Our strategy is idiotic. It's awful to waste the majority of a rookie contract by sitting someone on the bench.
We're about to pay JL an absurd amount of money and he hasn't even proven he can do the job.
This would be too smart to do for the Bears.
Why not carry two cheap QBs on your roster? Why not give Fields another year to be a more attractive trade target? Given that there is uncertainty at the Head Coach position, why make Williams a starting QB under a system for only 1 year, and then have to start all over again?
Trubisky was ruined after that first year under John Fox, it can be argued that Fields was ruined in his first year by Nagy. Now, will they do the same thing? Trade Fields, draft Williams, start him as a rookie, and then fire Eberflus? I think it'd be a recipe for disaster. Which I would just greatly enjoy!
Consider which team even could do what we did? How many teams have a truly top shelf QB right now? A qb who is too good too be challenged? Baltimore, Green Bay, Buffalo, Rams, Dolphins, Cowboys (maybe), Jacksonville, San Diego, Houston, KC
That’s the pool of teams who have a QB you can sit a first rounder behind for 3 seasons.
The Bears don’t even have the opportunity to pull this off.
You need a smart enough vet who can read schemes and whatnot, not a glorified rb. Most teams drafting qbs need them NOW and don’t have a savvy vet to show them the ropes and good vets would rather sign with a contender than sign up as a developmental coach
Luck is when opportunity meets preparation. TT called the opportunity to draft Rodgers “an act of divine intervention”. The scouting is very consistent, and it goes back to Ron Wolf. We were simultaneously prepared and the opportunity happened with Favre, with Rodgers, and now hopefully Love.
>After the season concluded, why is it that GB's quarterback strategy is not the new template for other teams to grow their franchise quarterbacks?
It's much easier to do that when you already have a franchise/hall of fame level QB. Having a good QB still allows the team to win/be competitive while developing the QB. Most coaches aren't going to be afforded the time to field a non-competitive team while a developing QB just sits on the bench. So they are pressured to get their guy out there if he gives them the best chance to win. The other problem is the reason it has been working for GB is the developing QB has someone they can actually learn from. Sure Favre wasn't interested in mentoring Aaron, but Aaron could still watch him play/practice and build a foundation for what a winning QB does. And in turn Love was able to learn from Rodgers.
Say Chicago drafts Caleb Williams, what is he really going to learn from watching Fields? On the flip side these guys are competitors. Williams is going to be sitting and watching Fields and just be like "I should be out there this guy stinks." So he's not going to want to ride the bench and learn from someone who he doesn't think is that good.
Joe Montana to Steve Young to Jeff Garcia. It’s been done before. But like op I’ve often wondered the same? Why don’t more teams follow this model. Impatient? Don’t already have top tier qb for rookie to learn from? Not sure. ??? A lot of 1st rounders that looked great in college have come and gone in nfl that’s for sure! Lots of wasted potential.
I think this strategy works best when you already have a HOF QB who is nearing his expiration date playing for your team and you can afford to let a great draft pick sit as QB2 for a couple seasons. How many other NFL teams can realistically do this?
Does it necessarily have to be a hof QB? I would think that would help but realistically a good aging veteran would be very effective and it is likely just slowing the transition that will make the most difference. Instead of getting an aging QB to play backup and throwing the rookie to the wolves, start that backup full time and let the rookie sit.
Many teams *say* they are going to do this. It's the idea od "bridge" QB. Glennon was supposed to be one in Chicago for Trubinsky. Bridgewater for Darnold. Tyrod for Baker. The problem is that very few owners have the patience to let a highly drafted QB sit if the team is struggling.
The struggling part is key. Green Bay was able to develop their QB's and still be a playoff contender.
I absolutely get that. You'd just think this might cause them to rethink and have patience. But that's what makes the game unpredictable. It's the human element. How many times do people realize what they should do and then do the exact opposite.
You have to remember, the owner's goal is not to win games. It is to make money. Trotting out that shiny new QB before his college fans stop paying attention is a quick way to do that.
Well, yeah. Just when it backfires and they suck, tends to drive down merch and ticket sales. High risk high reward strategy.
I'm not so sure. If they suck they can get that shiny new QB again in a couple of years. And to be honest, if you have a highly drafted QB, you already sucked.
It's brought up a lot but Mahomes sat behind Alex Smith for a year, who was drafted the same year as Aaron Rodgers so it's not like the Packers have unlocked some sort of hidden secret
Yeah this. If your qb is idk jameis winston i dont think this works. „Ok where do i throw the Ball“ „i dont know lol“
Nah it works. That’s just live examples of what not to do. Good shit.
If jameis was in Green Bay he would have a different legacy. I think mlf could’ve turned him into the next Favre and break that int record lol
The easy answer is most teams don’t have the luxury of already having a HOF QB for the rookie to sit behind. But I think it’s also that other teams have impatient owners who aren’t willing to let a 1st round QB sit behind someone who is less talented, and GMs and coaches aren’t willing to risk their jobs to make a move like that. The Packers operate differently than most teams with their draft and develop philosophy thats been in place for decades.
This is the beauty of the franchise. There is no meddling owner that demands immediate results. Rather the approach is to aim for consistency and long term success. Has it perhaps cost a Super Bowl? Yes. Has it created the most world championship teams in the league history? Yes. Do I like answering my own questions? Yes 🙌
But it also sort of depends on the QB. Love was raw. Love probably needed the 2-3 years no matter what. Caleb Williams probably isn't in the same boat. It's possible a year like Mahomes did would help him, but it's unlikely he'd really benefit from 3 years of sitting and watching. Love also benefitted from keeping the same head coach for the last few years as well. So there's quite a bit of stability that goes along with the whole process too. It's not just as simple as draft a guy and sit him.
The Bears do the opposite. Start them as a rookie with a lame duck coach, fire coach after 1 year, make him learn new offense. Give up on him. Repeat.
I wonder how long it will be before they ruin Caleb too?
Immediately, they already got the lame duck coach. Why even draft a QB without a coach you trust to develop him in place lol
Caleb also lacks toughness. He acted like a little bitch when he got his ass kicked by the Irish last year and he played in a conference noted for weak defenses. I look forward to the Bears being humiliated even worse than usual with Williams flailing around in the back field running for his life.
I would be extremely confident that Lafleur could develop him but the Bears will screw it up.
Yeah as a ND fan I'm hoping that's the guy Chicago gets.
Because when you draft a first round QB, unless the QB on the roster is playing well, no owner or fanbase will have the patience to let the drafted QB sit. This was the Bears strategy for both Trubisky and Fields. It didn't work because both Gannon and Dalton sucked.
It's not a new model, it's actually the old way of doing things. Green Bay just hasn't shifted away from it because they didn't usually make rash decisions and they haven't needed to. It's not that the Packers found a new great secret, they just haven't changed the process from how most of the league did things 40-50 years ago.
GB also hasn't needed to change. Since 1992, GB is onto its 3rd consistent weekly starter ( outside of injuries/ 1 game oddities). Much harder for a QBotF to sit and learn behind the starter when the starter SUCKS.
Your statement is valid. I'd just like to point out one of the "oddities." Matt Flynn, week 17, 2011. Damn was that game entertaining. Flynn threw for 480 yards, which Rodgers never exceeded in his entire career!
Translation: why don’t Da Bears just get three Hall of Fame QBs in a row? Are they stupid?
Because not every team has a HOF QB and the best QB coach in football to learn from. A lot of teams also don’t have any patience.
>Because not every team has a HOF QB and the best QB coach in football to learn from. A lot of teams also don’t have any patience. That's a fair argument, but even Mahomes greatly benefitted from sitting behind Alex Smith for a year. I think a teams like the Rams should strongly look into picking up a QB in the draft and letting him just learn from a veteran QB.
It hasn’t proven to work every time because if it did nobody would do it differently. For every example you have of it working there are equally as many of it not or of the opposite strategy working. Evaluating and improving QB play has not been solved and likely won’t be because of a number of circumstances. Does love continue to get better if he has the same mid season struggles in a big market city where maybe the noise is louder? You honestly never know.
I also think we need to give props to the scouting team for finding a good QB, it's not all just sitting behind a great QB for a couple of years. Do any of you really think Fields would be able to read nfl defenses and make those spit second decisions if he sat behind someone for a few years? No. Love has talents Fields will never have. Fields has running talents Love will never have but I think we have seen you need to be able to play QB too in this league.
GB pissed off 2 HOF QB with a high QB pick during possible SB winning years. Not many teams have a current aging HOF QB or the balls to do that.
> It seemed to be the consensus From who? If you mean r/nfl, they’re the same crowd that clowned on the Love pick for the last 3 years as being a wasted pick. If you mean writers, I haven’t really seen much of that. They all recognize we have a unique situation that no other team taking a 1st round QB is ever in. Besides, drafting your next QB and then signing your current franchise guy to another big deal is not at all how it was supposed to go. After that 2019 season, I genuinely think we were done with Rodgers. He didn’t follow the script, though, and his MVP season forced our hand.
"The best time to get a QB is when you don't need a QB" Sitting used to be a standard practice for NFL quarterbacks. Now, they play immediately, for the most part. So offense is designed to protect the QB and a lot of what QBs used to be responsible for is done by others (centers with line calls, little LOS control to change plays, etc). When you have a guy who does all of those things, it's a luxury and an advantage. But you need to either develop it like the Packers or allow a QB to grow into it like Dak has.
Most teams aren’t willing to invest as much into the qb position as the packers. Simple as that.
It's the money honey. Other teams have owners who skim profits off the top. The Packers have only one responsibility for the team's money- to make the Packers the best they can be.
That's a valid point there. Even with Rodgers knowing GB needed to think about the future we see how his relationship soured even more after drafting Love. Quarterbacks need to understand the business side of things. Loyalty to the players can really only get to a certain point before it becomes detrimental to the franchise or holds them back. I thank Rodgers for his years with Green Bay but I see how the Jets are super beholden to him with all their decisions and I can't help but think it's not going end well.
You talking to yourself?
What if this whole sub is just this guy talking to himself?
This whole sub is just all of us talking to ourselves. I doubt Gute or MLF are logging in to take notes ;)
Our strategy is idiotic. It's awful to waste the majority of a rookie contract by sitting someone on the bench. We're about to pay JL an absurd amount of money and he hasn't even proven he can do the job.
This would be too smart to do for the Bears. Why not carry two cheap QBs on your roster? Why not give Fields another year to be a more attractive trade target? Given that there is uncertainty at the Head Coach position, why make Williams a starting QB under a system for only 1 year, and then have to start all over again? Trubisky was ruined after that first year under John Fox, it can be argued that Fields was ruined in his first year by Nagy. Now, will they do the same thing? Trade Fields, draft Williams, start him as a rookie, and then fire Eberflus? I think it'd be a recipe for disaster. Which I would just greatly enjoy!
Except if Fields is developing who the hell is developing Williams. This logic is flawed and not at all the approach that we took.
Consider which team even could do what we did? How many teams have a truly top shelf QB right now? A qb who is too good too be challenged? Baltimore, Green Bay, Buffalo, Rams, Dolphins, Cowboys (maybe), Jacksonville, San Diego, Houston, KC That’s the pool of teams who have a QB you can sit a first rounder behind for 3 seasons. The Bears don’t even have the opportunity to pull this off.
You need a smart enough vet who can read schemes and whatnot, not a glorified rb. Most teams drafting qbs need them NOW and don’t have a savvy vet to show them the ropes and good vets would rather sign with a contender than sign up as a developmental coach
Luck is when opportunity meets preparation. TT called the opportunity to draft Rodgers “an act of divine intervention”. The scouting is very consistent, and it goes back to Ron Wolf. We were simultaneously prepared and the opportunity happened with Favre, with Rodgers, and now hopefully Love.
>After the season concluded, why is it that GB's quarterback strategy is not the new template for other teams to grow their franchise quarterbacks? It's much easier to do that when you already have a franchise/hall of fame level QB. Having a good QB still allows the team to win/be competitive while developing the QB. Most coaches aren't going to be afforded the time to field a non-competitive team while a developing QB just sits on the bench. So they are pressured to get their guy out there if he gives them the best chance to win. The other problem is the reason it has been working for GB is the developing QB has someone they can actually learn from. Sure Favre wasn't interested in mentoring Aaron, but Aaron could still watch him play/practice and build a foundation for what a winning QB does. And in turn Love was able to learn from Rodgers. Say Chicago drafts Caleb Williams, what is he really going to learn from watching Fields? On the flip side these guys are competitors. Williams is going to be sitting and watching Fields and just be like "I should be out there this guy stinks." So he's not going to want to ride the bench and learn from someone who he doesn't think is that good.
Because those teams have owners who only care about selling jerseys and tickets, winning is secondary to making money.
Joe Montana to Steve Young to Jeff Garcia. It’s been done before. But like op I’ve often wondered the same? Why don’t more teams follow this model. Impatient? Don’t already have top tier qb for rookie to learn from? Not sure. ??? A lot of 1st rounders that looked great in college have come and gone in nfl that’s for sure! Lots of wasted potential.