I think this could be useful info if you divided the stats with those who went on to be franchise QBs versus those who didn't.

 

The averages here don't tell us a whole lot.

 

I personally have not once used Blake Bortles' performance as a reason I don't back Bradley as a solid HC.

The averages are designed to show that, for the most part, teams who play rookie QBs- whether by initial design or out of necessity, whether they envisioned the rookie signal caller to be a franchise player or not-tend to lose more than they win.

 

But dividing between franchise signal caller or not can be tricky too.

 

At what point in the career is the designation made?  What the team envisioned upon drafting the player, or after the player's career is established?  Where is the dividing line set?  Does Joe Flacco fall into the franchise signal caller category?

 

I would be willing to go through the list and divide into franchise/non franchise QBs, but I would need to know the operational definitions with which we are working.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

The averages are designed to show that, for the most part, teams who play rookie QBs- whether by initial design or out of necessity, whether they envisioned the rookie signal caller to be a franchise player or not-tend to lose more than they win.

 

But dividing between franchise signal caller or not can be tricky too.

 

At what point in the career is the designation made?  What the team envisioned upon drafting the player, or after the player's career is established?  Where is the dividing line set?  Does Joe Flacco fall into the franchise signal caller category?

 

I would be willing to go through the list and divide into franchise/non franchise QBs, but I would need to know the operational definitions with which we are working.

 

I think it would be interesting to go with something pretty simple, like having more than one season with over 30 TDs thrown, or more than 2 starting seasons with a passer rating over 90. You know, real low hanging kind of fruit as far as "franchise" goes.

 

None of the Jaguars would qualify, but a lot of QBs would.

---

Gus Bradley will be 8-24 (*best case) in his first 2 seasons as an NFL head coach.  Below are the last 11 Super Bowl coaches and their records their 1st 2 seasons as an NFL HC.



 

Bradley will have to lead the Jags to historical level improvement if he is to lead this team to a Super Bowl since every SB coach in the last 2 decades (except Dick Vermeil & Jimmy Johnson) started with 12 or more wins their first 2 seasons.



 

I only listed the past 11 seasons below but looked back the past 20 Super Bowls.  Dick Vermeil (Super Bowl in 2000 with the Rams) started 9-19 with the Eagles in ’76 and 9-23 with the Rams in 1997.  Jimmy Johnson began 8-24 with the Cowboys in 1989.



 

I’m not basing my opinion of Bradley solely on W-L record but if I did, I would be a fool to believe he will succeed against the odds.



 

Super Bowl Coaches Record Their 1st 2 NFL Seasons



2014- Pete Carroll (14-16 * 2nd time in NFL), John Fox (18-14)



2013- John Harbaugh (20-12), Jim Harbaugh (24-7)



2012- Tom Coughlin (13-19), Bill Belichick (13-19 *1st time with Cleveland, started 16-16 with Pats)



2011- Mike McCarthy (21-11), Mike Tomlin (22-8)



2010- Sean Payton (17-15), Jim Caldwell (24-8)



2009- Mike Tomlin (22-2), Ken Wisenhunt (17-15)



2008- Tom Coughlin (13-19), Bill Belichick (13-19 *1st time with Cleveland, started 16-16 with Pats)



2007- Tony Dungy (16-16), Lovie Smith (16-16)



2006- Bill Cowher (20-12), Mike Holmgren (18-16)



2005- Bill Belichick (13-19 *1st time with Cleveland, started 16-16 with Pats), Andy Reid (16-16)



2004- Bill Belichick (13-19 *1st time with Cleveland, started 16-16 with Pats), John Fox (18-14)

---

I think it would be interesting to go with something pretty simple, like having more than one season with over 30 TDs thrown, or more than 2 starting seasons with a passer rating over 90. You know, real low hanging kind of fruit as far as "franchise" goes.

 

None of the Jaguars would qualify, but a lot of QBs would.

 

Under the 30 TD criteria, you'd have Peyton Manning, who was 3-13 as a rookie, Ben Roethlisberger, who was 13-0 as a rookie.

 

Under the second criteria, you'd add Donovan McNabb (2-4), Eli Manning (1-6), Matt Ryan (11-5), and Matthew Stafford (2-8), and Steve McNair (2-0).

 

However, the players excluded by these criteria listed are noteworthy.

 

Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers and Colin Kaepernick (2 seasons with a 90+ passer rating) and Daunte Culpepper (2 seasons with 30 + TDs and 2 seasons with 90+ passer rating) would not qualify because they did not have any starts as rookies.

 

Andrew Luck would be excluded because he only has one season with a rating above 90 or more than 30 TD passes.

 

But back to the first excluded group for a moment.

 

It's interesting that coaches who have been successful in the NFL (Belicheck, Schottenheimer, Green, and Harbaugh) all had "franchise QBs" as rookies and chose to sit them.

 

Even if you add in the included guys, Andy Reid sat Donovan McNabb for much of his rookie year, T. Coughlin sat Eli Manning, and Fisher sat McNair most of his rookie season.

 

Now in some cases, sitting the rookie was understandable on its face.  Rivers had Brees in front of him.  Rodgers had Favre.  Brady sat behind Bledsoe.

 

But Cowher was not inclined to start Big Ben his rookie year.  It took an injury to the incumbent Tommy Maddox for Big Ben to become starter.

 

But the truth is coaches are reluctant to start rookies at QB for a reason.

 

More often than not, rookie QBs will fail to make the plays that invariably lead to victory, and will make the bad decisions that invariably lead to defeat.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I agree that it depends on the play of the QB. Last night, Peyton Manning looked like a rookie, throwing 4 interceptions. He looked like he was confused by the defense. His receivers were not in sync with where he was throwing the ball.

Sound familiar?

---

Another consideration for you guys and gals:

 

The rookie QB W-L records I provided includes rookies who were, by no stretch of the imagination, franchise signal callers, but had rookie success by going to teams who were veteran laden teams with great defenses.

 

Kyle Boller went 5-4 as a rookie with the Baltimore Ravens in 2003.  The Ravens had the 3rd ranked defense that year, and had certain Hall of Famers Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and a great player in Terrell Suggs.

 

Shaun King went 4-1 as a rookie starter on the 1999 Bucs team that held the greatest show on turf Rams team to 11 points at home in the conference championship team.  That Bucs team had Hall of Famers in Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks, and a possible Hall of Famer in John Lynch.

 

Kerry Collins went 7-6 as a rookie starter in Carolina in their inaugural year in 1995.  However, anyone who watched that team knew they weren't the typical expansion team.  They had a defense that featured possible Hall of Famer LB Sam Mills and veterans like LB Carlton Bailey and Lamar Lathon, DBs Tim McKyer and Bubba McDowell, and NT Greg Kragen. That team was built for immediate success, and Kerry Collins was the beneficiary.

 

Roethlisberger certainly qualifies as a franchise signal caller.  He went to the Steelers in 2004 and enjoyed unprecedented success, going 13-0 as a rookie.  However, like those above, he too, was the beneficiary of a dominant and veteran laden defense, which included pro bowlers in SS Troy Polamalu, LB James Farrior, LB Joey Porter, DE Aaron Smith, and future 5 time Pro Bowler NT Casey Hampton.

 

Neither Bortles nor Bradley had the benefit of any of that quality of player or defense.

 

I think anyone examining this objectively would agree it would be unfair to hold Bortles and Bradley to those standards of performance, given the disparity in talent and experience between the current Jaguars and those teams where rookie QBs succeeded.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Didn't Prisco predict us to win only 4 games this year and we thought he was off his rocker?

Yes. Exactly right.

---

Another consideration for you guys and gals:

 

The rookie QB W-L records I provided includes rookies who were, by no stretch of the imagination, franchise signal callers, but had rookie success by going to teams who were veteran laden teams with great defenses.

 

Kyle Boller went 5-4 as a rookie with the Baltimore Ravens in 2003.  The Ravens had the 3rd ranked defense that year, and had certain Hall of Famers Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and a great player in Terrell Suggs.

 

Shaun King went 4-1 as a rookie starter on the 1999 Bucs team that held the greatest show on turf Rams team to 11 points at home in the conference championship team.  That Bucs team had Hall of Famers in Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks, and a possible Hall of Famer in John Lynch.

 

Kerry Collins went 7-6 as a rookie starter in Carolina in their inaugural year in 1995.  However, anyone who watched that team knew they weren't the typical expansion team.  They had a defense that featured possible Hall of Famer LB Sam Mills and veterans like LB Carlton Bailey and Lamar Lathon, DBs Tim McKyer and Bubba McDowell, and NT Greg Kragen. That team was built for immediate success, and Kerry Collins was the beneficiary.

 

Roethlisberger certainly qualifies as a franchise signal caller.  He went to the Steelers in 2004 and enjoyed unprecedented success, going 13-0 as a rookie.  However, like those above, he too, was the beneficiary of a dominant and veteran laden defense, which included pro bowlers in SS Troy Polamalu, LB James Farrior, LB Joey Porter, DE Aaron Smith, and future 5 time Pro Bowler NT Casey Hampton.

 

Neither Bortles nor Bradley had the benefit of any of that quality of player or defense.

 

I think anyone examining this objectively would agree it would be unfair to hold Bortles and Bradley to those standards of performance, given the disparity in talent and experience between the current Jaguars and those teams where rookie QBs succeeded.

 

You're making waaaaaayyy too much sense for this board.  Knee jerkers only please.

 

Great post BTW.

---

I agree that it depends on the play of the QB. Last night, Peyton Manning looked like a rookie, throwing 4 interceptions. He looked like he was confused by the defense. His receivers were not in sync with where he was throwing the ball.

Sound familiar?

 

dont forget the constant pressure Cincy put on him forcing those picks

---

Another consideration for you guys and gals:

 

The rookie QB W-L records I provided includes rookies who were, by no stretch of the imagination, franchise signal callers, but had rookie success by going to teams who were veteran laden teams with great defenses.

 

Kyle Boller went 5-4 as a rookie with the Baltimore Ravens in 2003.  The Ravens had the 3rd ranked defense that year, and had certain Hall of Famers Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and a great player in Terrell Suggs.

 

Shaun King went 4-1 as a rookie starter on the 1999 Bucs team that held the greatest show on turf Rams team to 11 points at home in the conference championship team.  That Bucs team had Hall of Famers in Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks, and a possible Hall of Famer in John Lynch.

 

Kerry Collins went 7-6 as a rookie starter in Carolina in their inaugural year in 1995.  However, anyone who watched that team knew they weren't the typical expansion team.  They had a defense that featured possible Hall of Famer LB Sam Mills and veterans like LB Carlton Bailey and Lamar Lathon, DBs Tim McKyer and Bubba McDowell, and NT Greg Kragen. That team was built for immediate success, and Kerry Collins was the beneficiary.

 

Roethlisberger certainly qualifies as a franchise signal caller.  He went to the Steelers in 2004 and enjoyed unprecedented success, going 13-0 as a rookie.  However, like those above, he too, was the beneficiary of a dominant and veteran laden defense, which included pro bowlers in SS Troy Polamalu, LB James Farrior, LB Joey Porter, DE Aaron Smith, and future 5 time Pro Bowler NT Casey Hampton.

 

Neither Bortles nor Bradley had the benefit of any of that quality of player or defense.

 

I think anyone examining this objectively would agree it would be unfair to hold Bortles and Bradley to those standards of performance, given the disparity in talent and experience between the current Jaguars and those teams where rookie QBs succeeded.

 

My post is in regards to Bradley, not Bortles.  I haven't passed any form of judgement on BB.

 

However, as you can see in my earlier post, it is taking a great deal of faith in Bradley to believe he is going to become the next Jimmy Johnson or Dick Vermeil.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but historically speaking, it is asbolutely improbable and that's an undeniable fact.

---

My post is in regards to Bradley, not Bortles.  I haven't passed any form of judgement on BB.

 

However, as you can see in my earlier post, it is taking a great deal of faith in Bradley to believe he is going to become the next Jimmy Johnson or Dick Vermeil.  I'm not saying it's impossible, but historically speaking, it is asbolutely improbable and that's an undeniable fact.

I am in no position to disagree with you on this point.

 

But I hope he beats the odds and wins us some Super Bowls. 

 

If he survives this year, he's got another shot.

 

If the rookies this year develop like we think, he should look more respectable and show the progress we are all looking for.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I'm not sure they weren't planning to make this season a mulligan right from the start.

 

Caldwell's insistence of making sure Henne didn't make it to free agency always puzzled me.

 

Seems someone of Henne's level would get CHEAPER after he's been out of a job for a while, and anyone who really thought he would be snapped up as if he had any value at all needs their head examined.

But that's just the thing... I believe Dave already suspected that our o-line wouldn't be very good this season; therefore, the plan was to let Henne be the 'sacrificial lamb' this season while the offensive line rookies got some pro-level experience and Bortles carried the clipboard. So in effect, yes, they were planning on this season being a mulligan right from the start.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

I am in no position to disagree with you on this point.

 

But I hope he beats the odds and wins us some Super Bowls. 

 

If he survives this year, he's got another shot.

 

If the rookies this year develop like we think, he should look more respectable and show the progress we are all looking for.

 

Agreed...my personal point of view is that Bradley is not cut out to be a successful HC based off of what I've seen from him (off season, lack of prep for the season, poor game preparation, poor in game management, etc.).

 

HOWEVER, IF the Jags keep him a 3rd year I guarantee I hope he is successful as much as the next Jags' fan.  Unfortunately, I just see the odds stacked against him and he doesn't pass the eye test for me but that's just my humble opinion.

 

Here's to hoping for success in the future no matter what happens!  Either way, I do think Caldwell is building a decent roster and whether Bradley is here another year or 2 or whatever, that's a good thing.

---

Under the 30 TD criteria, you'd have Peyton Manning, who was 3-13 as a rookie, Ben Roethlisberger, who was 13-0 as a rookie.

 

Under the second criteria, you'd add Donovan McNabb (2-4), Eli Manning (1-6), Matt Ryan (11-5), and Matthew Stafford (2-8), and Steve McNair (2-0).

 

However, the players excluded by these criteria listed are noteworthy.

 

Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers and Colin Kaepernick (2 seasons with a 90+ passer rating) and Daunte Culpepper (2 seasons with 30 + TDs and 2 seasons with 90+ passer rating) would not qualify because they did not have any starts as rookies.

 

Andrew Luck would be excluded because he only has one season with a rating above 90 or more than 30 TD passes.

 

But back to the first excluded group for a moment.

 

It's interesting that coaches who have been successful in the NFL (Belicheck, Schottenheimer, Green, and Harbaugh) all had "franchise QBs" as rookies and chose to sit them.

 

Even if you add in the included guys, Andy Reid sat Donovan McNabb for much of his rookie year, T. Coughlin sat Eli Manning, and Fisher sat McNair most of his rookie season.

 

Now in some cases, sitting the rookie was understandable on its face.  Rivers had Brees in front of him.  Rodgers had Favre.  Brady sat behind Bledsoe.

 

But Cowher was not inclined to start Big Ben his rookie year.  It took an injury to the incumbent Tommy Maddox for Big Ben to become starter.

 

But the truth is coaches are reluctant to start rookies at QB for a reason.

 

More often than not, rookie QBs will fail to make the plays that invariably lead to victory, and will make the bad decisions that invariably lead to defeat.

 

Sorry, I didn't make it clear.

 

I didn't mean those stats within their first couple of seasons, I meant those stats within their career.

---

Sorry, I didn't make it clear.

 

I didn't mean those stats within their first couple of seasons, I meant those stats within their career.

That's what I did.

 

The only players affected by the first couple of seasons analysis are

 

a.  Those who did not start in their rookie seasons;

b.  Those like Luck who started in their rookie seasons, but to date have not have multiple 30 TD seasons or seasons with 90+passing ratings.

 

It is pretty much a certainty Luck is a franchise QB...it's just that based upon the criteria, he would be technically excluded.  He really hasn't had much time to meet the criteria.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Agreed...my personal point of view is that Bradley is not cut out to be a successful HC based off of what I've seen from him (off season, lack of prep for the season, poor game preparation, poor in game management, etc.).

 

HOWEVER, IF the Jags keep him a 3rd year I guarantee I hope he is successful as much as the next Jags' fan.  Unfortunately, I just see the odds stacked against him and he doesn't pass the eye test for me but that's just my humble opinion.

 

Here's to hoping for usccess in the future no matter what happens!  Either way, I do think Caldwell is building a decent roster and whether Bradley is here another year or 2 or whatever, that's a good thing.

The only part on this topic where there is disagreement between us is at this point, based upon the lack of experienced/developed talent on the roster, I am not yet prepared to say that Bradley lacks the necessities to be a successful head coach at the NFL level, because the lack of talent affects the perceptions of his game management abilities, preparation, etc.  You have already concluded that he lacks those abilities.  Ultimately you may well be dead on point on this topic. 

 

But, like you, I desperately want him to succeed here.

 

Like you, I also like how the roster is being built.  I am ready to see these rookies at this point next year.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I agree with your assessment here Bullseye.  Even if it's not probably, I still want this Jaguar team to win.  I think people are frustrated with my previous posts because I don't see how it's possible at this point.  I'm all for being proved wrong.

---

The only part on this topic where there is disagreement between us is at this point, based upon the lack of experienced/developed talent on the roster, I am not yet prepared to say that Bradley lacks the necessities to be a successful head coach at the NFL level, because the lack of talent affects the perceptions of his game management abilities, preparation, etc.  You have already concluded that he lacks those abilities.  Ultimately you may well be dead on point on this topic. 

 

But, like you, I desperately want him to succeed here.

 

Like you, I also like how the roster is being built.  I am ready to see these rookies at this point next year.

 

Which is what all of this always comes down to.

 

Some people appraise Bradley as a failure already because it's quite clear he's not a guy who gets something more out of players. If he were then the quality of the roster wouldn't have such a dramatic impact.

 

Then some people believe that it's always players and that coaching essentially can never make the players on the roster better.

 

It's hard to say which is right. Either coaching doesn't matter for the most part and keeping Bradley is fine or coaching does matter and we have a mediocre at best head coach.

 

Either way it's a disconcerting situation.

---

I agree with your assessment here Bullseye.  Even if it's not probably, I still want this Jaguar team to win.  I think people are frustrated with my previous posts because I don't see how it's possible at this point.  I'm all for being proved wrong.

This is how I see it is possible the negative perceptions about Bradley change.

 

1.  Have a good off season in terms of player development.  Bortles, Lee, Robinson, Hurns, T. Smith, Cyprien, Joeckel, et al put in the work, get healthy, and improve in their crafts.  I think if there is scheme continuity, you will see improvement from most, if not all of these players.  They will be acting on instinct and just playing, as opposed to having their confidence and aggressiveness hamstrung by uncertainty.

 

2.  Have a good off season in terms of player acquisition.  Even though the perception is this past draft class was a good to great one, given how bare the cupboard here was when Gene Smith left, that one "good to great" draft isn't enough.  There are still considerable holes at least at RT (possibly LT), RB, TE, LB, and FS. 

 

Combined, these two things would serve to change the perceptions regarding Bradley .  By having a more talented and experienced roster, there will be fewer holes for opposing coaches to exploit, and maybe some negative matchups for them to adjust to.  At the start of games, the team won't look so overmatched, and in the second half, the team would not seem so out adjusted/coached.  Ultimately, this should result in more wins.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Which is what all of this always comes down to.

 

Some people appraise Bradley as a failure already because it's quite clear he's not a guy who gets something more out of players. If he were then the quality of the roster wouldn't have such a dramatic impact.

 

Then some people believe that it's always players and that coaching essentially can never make the players on the roster better.

 

It's hard to say which is right. Either coaching doesn't matter for the most part and keeping Bradley is fine or coaching does matter and we have a mediocre at best head coach.

 

Either way it's a disconcerting situation.

It is, and the new CBA, which limits the amount of offseason contact teams can have with players, can exacerbate the plight, possibly lengthening development times.

 

I think coaching plays a huge role in player development.

 

But I think they have to be given the talent and the time to develop those players.  As a general rule, I don't think Bradley has been given enough of either.

 

I think Cyprien hasn't been as consistent and hasn't made the quantum leap as we had hoped.  I think Joeckel hasn't shown much at LT  Those are arguments against Bradley as developer of talent.

 

However, even Cecil Shorts made a quantum leap at WR under Sullivan.  I think the rookie WRs are each more talented than Shorts, and can make similar strides, which should make Bortles better.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!