OT, QB-Which comes first?

[Blitzen]

It's obvious that every team must figure out how to get very good quarterback play and very good offensive line play to have consistent very good offensive production throughout a game.

One goes with the other, but often young quarterbacks with high pedigree (highly drafted) go to clubs with poor offensive line play. They are expected to run and dodge for their lives till the offensive line woes are solidified.

These young QB’s might take too many sacks (Carr) or take an injury (Burrow) early in their career that can skew their later production and abilities.

Good OL play has something to do with coaching, but most of the top level OL come with rounds 1-3, so it seems like a squad's willingness to spend high picks on the position is the biggest indicator for OL success.

I wanted to know your thoughts on what you would do with a young highly drafted QB (like Trevor Lawrence) when confronted with the reality of poor OL play and all that comes with it. Do you sit the QB till you can further develop and protect him? Seems like it can yield great results (Romo, Rodgers, Mahomes, Palmer, etc) for their individual play. Fans might cry over it, but I would be inclined to tell them to shove it while building a better foundation.

 

[JoeKing]

We almost got Troy killed by going QB first.

 

[Corso]

Seriously, it depends on the talent that's available.
There should be a slant towards QB, but if the talent diff is not a big chasm, i.e.: the OT is better than than not so sure-thing QB...

I get the best player and wait till next year rather than reach and have to hold on.
Unless something cray happens and you have the opportunity to trade!

Which is rare...

 

[CT Dal Fan]

There's valid points to make for sitting and starting young QB's. There have been several quarterbacks that enjoyed instant success as rookie starters- Peyton Manning, Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, and Cam Newton come to mind. Not to mention Dak, but he had a great line in front of him and I don't know about the other guys.

I think unless a team clearly has a horrible line, they should play a rookie QB and allow him to learn on the job.

 

[DanA]

When you are in reach or a QB you like you go get him. Once you have him his protection has to be the no.1 priority. And if you hit a rookie QB you need to make the most of his cheap contract so it’s hard to sit him. He needs to get experience so that he’s ready in that 3rd-5th year.

 

[Forneymike]

Would you take Tony Mandarich before Troy. Jimmie could have done that

 

[TwoCentPlain]

@Blitzen You do not sit a talent like Lawrence. If the OL is bad you adjust to protect him with quick passes and screens and he is mobile so you can move the pocket. Meyer will figure it out.

 

[Blitzen]

We almost got Troy killed by going QB first.

Right? And who knows if it shortened his career or not...

 

[Blitzen]

Would you take Tony Mandarich before Troy. Jimmie could have done that

This isn't about who to draft first, but how do you decide when to play the QB if you are certain that the OL will be so shaky that there is a significantly increased chance for injury (or risk of poor QB development).

 

[Blitzen]

@Blitzen You do not sit a talent like Lawrence. If the OL is bad you adjust to protect him with quick passes and screens and he is mobile so you can move the pocket. Meyer will figure it out.

You do if you think it results in net higher production and development. In my opinion some good QB's are ready to just learn while dodging/running, but ALL good QB's benefit from sitting for some time and watching/listening/learning from the sidelines.

 

[Corso]

That Houston QB that looked so promising...

Carr? The guy who embarrassed our QB, a few years ago, at some Pro Bowl party event?



QB's can be ruined by their OL's.

 

[garyo1954]

I'm going with Corso and ninja:

Depends on what you have. If the kid can get the ball out in under 3 seconds, he's on the field with that command. That's how Rodgers, et. al., make it easier on their lines.
Get the ball out quickly.

If he can't get the ball out quickly, then we have another problem.

I can remember it being a big deal when Landry would use an air horn to blow at 4 seconds. The purpose was to train his QBs to get the ball out and to let the line get an idea how long they had to hold their blocks before the air horn. Something like that might still help.

 

[Corso]

I'm going with Corso and ninja:

Depends on what you have. If the kid can get the ball out in under 3 seconds, he's on the field with that command. That's how Rodgers, et. al., make it easier on their lines.
Get the ball out quickly.

If he can't get the ball out quickly, then we have another problem.

I can remember it being a big deal when Landry would use an air horn to blow at 4 seconds. The purpose was to train his QBs to get the ball out and to let the line get an idea how long they had to hold their blocks before the air horn. Something like that might still help.

I agree with everything you said, except for those offenses who look for passing game plans that require longer routes.
Something Romo was saddled with, IIRC.

I think most passing offenses should be geared toward quick dink and dunks with misdirection big plays added in on both run and pass plays.

Ah... to live in a Perfect World though where the game just flows in your direction.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

You do if you think it results in net higher production and development. In my opinion some good QB's are ready to just learn while dodging/running, but ALL good QB's benefit from sitting for some time and watching/listening/learning from the sidelines.

I don’t think Desean Watson sat his rookie year. Can’t remember. Lawrence has played in a pro-like offense for 4 years at Clemson.

Ready or not, fans want to see him. You want an empty stadium and few people watching in Jacksonville? The Jags have no choice but to play him. Money talks.

Jags would look silly if Wilson and Lance are playing and Lawrence is on the bench. Explain that nightmare scenario to Jaguar fans.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm going with Corso and ninja:

Depends on what you have. If the kid can get the ball out in under 3 seconds, he's on the field with that command. That's how Rodgers, et. al., make it easier on their lines.
Get the ball out quickly.

If he can't get the ball out quickly, then we have another problem.

I can remember it being a big deal when Landry would use an air horn to blow at 4 seconds. The purpose was to train his QBs to get the ball out and to let the line get an idea how long they had to hold their blocks before the air horn. Something like that might still help.

Doesn't the premise of the topic kind of make this not an option? Sure, if you had a QB that could do that you might go OL, but what if you didn't? That's how I interpret the question.

In that case, I go QB simply because you can try to counter a bad OT by helping them out. Adding another TE, RB, designed plays away from that side, etc. You can't just throw a TE into the formation and expect to get better QB play like you can get better protection. If you have to choose 1 - and only 1 - I think it has to be QB.

There is no counter to being stuck with a bad QB except for running, and that's not going to win often enough on it's own. There are counters to having a bad OT.

 

[Ranching]

We almost got Troy killed by going QB first.

Worked out pretty good....

 

[Ranching]

Who in the hell would draft an OL before a franchise QB? Only an idiot!
NFL zone with this!

 

[garyo1954]

Doesn't the premise of the topic kind of make this not an option? Sure, if you had a QB that could do that you might go OL, but what if you didn't? That's how I interpret the question.

In that case, I go QB simply because you can try to counter a bad OT by helping them out. Adding another TE, RB, designed plays away from that side, etc. You can't just throw a TE into the formation and expect to get better QB play like you can get better protection. If you have to choose 1 - and only 1 - I think it has to be QB.

There is no counter to being stuck with a bad QB except for running, and that's not going to win often enough on it's own. There are counters to having a bad OT.

You're right. Back in the day Landry concluded from some super secret analysis he and his super secret agents had done, QBs needed 4 seconds in the pocket to pass successfully.
Thus you get the introduction of the shotgun.

And yeah, not everybody has a Rodgers or Ben, (or Romo with his Al Michaels' dubbed "patented spin move") so you use different methods to back the defense off...blast, screens, trap draws, or jet sweeps. Games don't go the way you plan them, so you have to think on your feet.

I don't know, but if I had a choice, and saw my QB getting the lights beat out of him, and nothing was working, I'd ask myself, "Do I want to lose this game, or lose my QB?"

 

[xwalker]

It's obvious that every team must figure out how to get very good quarterback play and very good offensive line play to have consistent very good offensive production throughout a game.

One goes with the other, but often young quarterbacks with high pedigree (highly drafted) go to clubs with poor offensive line play. They are expected to run and dodge for their lives till the offensive line woes are solidified.

These young QB’s might take too many sacks (Carr) or take an injury (Burrow) early in their career that can skew their later production and abilities.

Good OL play has something to do with coaching, but most of the top level OL come with rounds 1-3, so it seems like a squad's willingness to spend high picks on the position is the biggest indicator for OL success.

I wanted to know your thoughts on what you would do with a young highly drafted QB (like Trevor Lawrence) when confronted with the reality of poor OL play and all that comes with it. Do you sit the QB till you can further develop and protect him? Seems like it can yield great results (Romo, Rodgers, Mahomes, Palmer, etc) for their individual play. Fans might cry over it, but I would be inclined to tell them to shove it while building a better foundation.

This might not be an exact answer to you question; however...

If I was building an NFL team, I would start by putting max resources into the OLine.
- Use premium draft picks on OL and spend big on free agent OLinemen.

The level of focus would be on WRs/TEs/RBs.

The goal would be preparation for drafting a QB early but not in year 1.
- By hiring all minimum wage defensive players it would assure that the team has about 3 years of top 5 picks.
- The draft QB would come in year 2 or 3 depending on how the drafts panned out.

Once the offense and top notch young QB are in place, then focus on defense.
- Defenses can be put together much faster than offenses.
- The original expensive free agent OLinemen will start to be replace by still on their 1st contract OL from the early drafts.
- The offense will be low cost for a few years with all of the draft picks.
- That make cap dollars available to buy a defense once the offense is rolling.

 

[Blitzen]

Who in the hell would draft an OL before a franchise QB? Only an idiot!
NFL zone with this!

That wasn't my question. I was trying to see if you were building a team, and had a great young QB would you try to roll the dice if you knew the OL was likely going to give up an inordinate amount of big hits.

Sure, it still worked out with Troy but it's also been proven that choosing that route can lead to early catastrophic injury or significant developmental impairment (that alters the career trajectory) to the most valuable resource on the roster. Romo, even admitting it himself, needed the four years development from the sidelines.