Roethlisberger had one year as a high school QB and started as a redshirt freshman before coming out early and winning a Super Bowl as a rookie. It wasn't by design, but it shows its possible. Not saying I disagree with the approach with Bortles. Just saying it might not necessarily be the end of the world if he was thrust into the starting role.
Quote:I think a QB can be ruined by starting him when the team around him is not ready. You have a combination of his inexperience, plus rookie WRs running wrong routes, plus an offensive line that has yet to gel, and to my mind at that point putting him into the lineup can't help his development at all.
Just my opinion. I'm not the coach.
Do you mean when the QB isn't ready or when the team isn't ready to support him?
Quote:Roethlisberger had one year as a high school QB and started as a redshirt freshman before coming out early and winning a Super Bowl as a rookie. It wasn't by design, but it shows its possible. Not saying I disagree with the approach with Bortles. Just saying it might not necessarily be the end of the world if he was thrust into the starting role.
Every situation is unique. Roethlisberger had a stout defense and running game to rely upon his rookie year. The steelers were also a year removed from a playoff run, so it wasn't a team that was in the midst of a major rebuild like this one.
People should look at the examples in their entirety before trying to compare the two.
In 2004, the steelers passing offense ranked 28th. Their rushing offense was ranked #2. Their defense was the top rated unit that year.
Big Ben didn't win a superbowl as a rookie. He won as a second year player.
Quote:Big Ben didn't win a superbowl as a rookie. He won as a second year player.
Correct. They lost in the AFC Championship his rookie year. They beat Seattle the following year to win the Lombardi.
Quote:Do you mean when the QB isn't ready or when the team isn't ready to support him?
I mean when both are true at the same time.
Quote:Big Ben didn't win a superbowl as a rookie. He won as a second year player.
I stand corrected. He was the youngest to win one. And yes Pittsburgh had many more established pieces than Jax currently does. The point was, he had early success.
Quote:I mean when both are true at the same time.
How does he get "ruined" (which implies irrecoverable damage) from starting too early? I understand the argument that his development could be delayed, though I don't accept it as true unconditionally. But ruined, as in he'll never be any good in the future regardless of coaching and teammates?
Quote:I stand corrected. He was the youngest to win one. And yes Pittsburgh had many more established pieces than Jax currently does. The point was, he had early success.
And the point remains, he had more to work with early on in his career.
Quote:Correct. They lost in the AFC Championship his rookie year. They beat Seattle the following year to win the Lombardi.
"They" meaning the Refs and Steelers beat Seattle.
Quote:Henne is a talented guy actually. He could surprise if he ever gets a chance to get comfortable with an offense
This is what I think. I think it's a smart move by Bradley to name him the starter & put out the plan to red shirt Bortles. Let's see how Henne develops in the best possible conditions, if he's not where you want him to be after the first preseason game, make the switch. If he is, keep developing him. Take another look at it before week 1. Then have the mental fortitude to stick with whatever you decided, until you have no choice.
Jacksonville should know that drafting a guy in the first round doesn't guarantee anything. Henne is already smack dab in the middle of Starting QBs in the NFL, it wouldn't take much improvement for him to get into the upper half & it's not too far fetched for him to get to "pro bowl" type level... less talented QBS have done it; Schaub, Cassel, Young...
I think the Jags are talented enough (with your offseason moves) to start Bortles week 1, but if it were me, I'd keep that ace in the hole. No one sees it, but Henne just might be the next Drew Brees.
Not trolling. I honestly like Henne, liked him since he got serious minutes in Miami. Looked like someone who could develop into a starter. If you're lucky (& let's face it, you could use a little luck of your own) deciding between Henne & Bortles is going to be a tough call... kinda like the Brees/Rivers thing.
Trust me, I've got nothing against Jacksonville. I'd much rather our division looked like the NFC West or AFC North, than what we look like now.
Quote:How does he get "ruined" (which implies irrecoverable damage) from starting too early? I understand the argument that his development could be delayed, though I don't accept it as true unconditionally. But ruined, as in he'll never be any good in the future regardless of coaching and teammates?
I remember David Carr. After getting sacked 140 times in his first two seasons, he was ducking from phantom pressure.
Poor pass protection, throwing picks because the receiver ran the wrong route, it can get in a young QB's head.
Personally, I remember all the arguments about Gabbert and whether his problems were his fault or the fault of bad pass protection or bad receivers. If Henne can throw 15 TDs and 10 INTs, then that would set a standard that we could reasonably expect Bortles to exceed. Henne could also get our young WRs on the same page without them having to deal with a rookie QB. This just seems like a logical way to develop the offense- not all at once. All at once can produce a chaotic situation.
Quote:And the point remains, he had more to work with early on in his career.
This roster is getting better before our eyes. I don't feel the talent gap is nearly as wide as it was 12 months ago.
Quote:This roster is getting better before our eyes. I don't feel the talent gap is nearly as wide as it was 12 months ago.
But it's relatively untested at the skill positions, and the offensive line hasn't taken a single snap as a unit.
This team doesn't even remotely compare to the steelers in Roethlisberger's rookie season.
Quote:Personally, I remember all the arguments about Gabbert and whether his problems were his fault or the fault of bad pass protection or bad receivers.
Don't forget bad coaching; some of Gabbert's flaws came about as a result of what he was coached to do - and the more you ingrain bad habits the harder it's going to be to get rid of them.
Quote:Don't forget bad coaching; some of Gabbert's flaws came about as a result of what he was coached to do - and the more you ingrain bad habits the harder it's going to be to get rid of them.
Bad coaching, and then a constant rotation of coaches and a complete lack of cohesiveness. Gabbert was doomed from the start whether he started early or not.
Quote:Bad coaching, and then a constant rotation of coaches and a complete lack of cohesiveness. Gabbert was doomed from the start whether he started early or not.
i wanted to believe that was the only reason for so long... i still kinda think thats what ruined him... i dont know if was those things, or that those things resulted in him getting absolutely hammered... for the sake of the argument, if u agree that it was the the pounding he took, then you would have to consider sitting him may have helped him...
ive come to the conclusion he sucks and cant handle the pressure. the mechanics are there, the execution is not, i dont think it ever will be and i dont think the pounding he took created that, i think it just made it more apparent.
Quote:i wanted to believe that was the only reason for so long... i still kinda think thats what ruined him... i dont know if was those things, or that those things resulted in him getting absolutely hammered... for the sake of the argument, if u agree that it was the the pounding he took, then you would have to consider sitting him may have helped him...
ive come to the conclusion he sucks and cant handle the pressure. the mechanics are there, the execution is not, i dont think it ever will be and i dont think the pounding he took created that, i think it just made it more apparent.
I think many people were fine with sitting him as a rookie, just as we are with Bortles. Gabbert was one of the youngest players in the league when he was thrown into the starting role by a coach desperate to keep his job. It was like the perfect storm for career disaster that swept up Gabbert.
It's possible that, given time, Gabbert could have been significantly better than he was. Unfortunately, the areas where he needed the most improvement were fully exposed here with a weak line and sub-par receivers. Still, the pocket presence is something that maybe could have been improved with time? Time will tell. He'll get a chance to sit behind a guy in SF. With the right coaching, maybe he overcomes some of his challenges. Probably not, but you never know.