Hello, all. I became interested in Caldwell's plan for Bortles in the days after the draft -- for both the boldness of sitting the No. 3 pick in today's league that stresses quick results and for his transparency in communicating a long-term plan to the Jacksonville fanbase -- so I decided to look at past examples in history of first-round quarterbacks that sat out their entire rookie years (akin to a college redshirt). I wasn't surprised to find that there is no discernible evidence available that suggests a quarterback is better for sitting or starting immediately, but it was an interesting exercise.

 

A lot of people here know a lot more about the Jaguars than me, so please feel free to point out any inconsistencies (or flat-our inaccuracies).

 

http://badmanbureau.com/2014/06/02/blake...-redshirt/

---

We went through Gabbert, so people are concerned with what might happen if he starts right away.  People around here are not looking at 50 years of NFL history, they have Gabbert as a fresh reminder of a guy who was/is not ready.

---

Good write up man. I think you hit the head on the nail with the sample sizes being do different. I suppose I could calculate myself but what was the mean for each sample ? So many floating variables it's really hard to analyze what method is more effective.

---

Good right up man. I think you hit the head on the nail with the sample sizes being do different. I suppose I could calculate myself but what was the mean for each sample ? So many floating variables it's really hard to analyze what method is more effective.

 

The mean would take a lot of time to calculate since it's not just a straight average; different QBs threw different amount of passes so they would all needed to be added up and then calculated through the ANY/A formula ... all while being sure to adjust for era (i.e. the league average for ANY/A in 2013 is much, much higher than when Plunkett and Archie were rookies).

 

I think the sensible conclusion is that there is no correct method, and each QB should be judged on an individual basis. Gene Smith seemed to realize that Gabbert and his pocket presence issues were a huge work in progress back in 2011, but he abandoned all of that way too early into the process. Caldwell seems much more disciplined and is telling the fanbase exactly what they should be hearing.

---

The mean would take a lot of time to calculate since it's not just a straight average; different QBs threw different amount of passes so they would all needed to be added up and then calculated through the ANY/A formula ... all while being sure to adjust for era (i.e. the league average for ANY/A in 2013 is much, much higher than when Plunkett and Archie were rookies).

 

I think the sensible conclusion is that there is no correct method, and each QB should be judged on an individual basis. Gene Smith seemed to realize that Gabbert and his pocket presence issues were a huge work in progress back in 2011, but he abandoned all of that way too early into the process. Caldwell seems much more disciplined and is telling the fanbase exactly what they should be hearing.

 

Gene Smith may have recognized Gabbert's shortcomings, but Del Rio recognized his job was in jeopardy.  Smith didn't throw Gabbert out there early.  Del Rio did.  Both sank as a result.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The mean would take a lot of time to calculate since it's not just a straight average; different QBs threw different amount of passes so they would all needed to be added up and then calculated through the ANY/A formula ... all while being sure to adjust for era (i.e. the league average for ANY/A in 2013 is much, much higher than when Plunkett and Archie were rookies).


I think the sensible conclusion is that there is no correct method, and each QB should be judged on an individual basis. Gene Smith seemed to realize that Gabbert and his pocket presence issues were a huge work in progress back in 2011, but he abandoned all of that way too early into the process. Caldwell seems much more disciplined and is telling the fanbase exactly what they should be hearing.

that's a good point.

---

Very good work, well written and thoroughly researched.

---

The mean would take a lot of time to calculate since it's not just a straight average; different QBs threw different amount of passes so they would all needed to be added up and then calculated through the ANY/A formula ... all while being sure to adjust for era (i.e. the league average for ANY/A in 2013 is much, much higher than when Plunkett and Archie were rookies).

 

I think the sensible conclusion is that there is no correct method, and each QB should be judged on an individual basis. Gene Smith seemed to realize that Gabbert and his pocket presence issues were a huge work in progress back in 2011, but he abandoned all of that way too early into the process. Caldwell seems much more disciplined and is telling the fanbase exactly what they should be hearing.

 

 

Welcome back. Wasn't sure if you'd ever show back up after your insistence of Teddy being the sure-fire #1 overall pick.

---

I take a look at how well it worked out for Rodgers and Palmer, and how the shots Aikman took his rookie season shortened his career considerably, and I see no compelling evidence against the redshirt season.

 

In fact, taking a breather without the pressure to start completely turned around Steve Young's career in the NFL (even though it wasn't his rookie year.)

 

No, there doesn't appear there for a need to make artificial timelines, yet I'm not sure there's evidence that shows that starting QBs from day one has any positive affect on development vs. letting the QB grow at his own pace.

 

Perhaps "development" isn't the proper word at all.  Maybe it has more to do with the coach's confidence in the player, confidence that he'll be able to react the way they would expect him to in any given situation.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Welcome back. Wasn't sure if you'd ever show back up after your insistence of Teddy being the sure-fire #1 overall pick.

 

It probably took that long to finish all that crow he'd prematurely ordered for everyone else.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I take a look at how well it worked out for Rodgers and Palmer, and how the shots Aikman took his rookie season shortened his career considerably, and I see no compelling evidence against the redshirt season.


In fact, taking a breather without the pressure to start completely turned around Steve Young's career in the NFL (even though it wasn't his rookie year.)


No, there doesn't appear there for a need to make artificial timelines, yet I'm not sure there's evidence that shows that starting QBs from day one has any positive affect on development vs. letting the QB grow at his own pace.


Perhaps "development" isn't the proper word at all. Maybe it has more to do with the coach's confidence in the player, confidence that he'll be able to react the way they would expect him to in any given situation.

Tom Brady behind Bledsoe too. Brady said Drew helped him a ton

---

Welcome back. Wasn't sure if you'd ever show back up after your insistence of Teddy being the sure-fire #1 overall pick.

lol, same here

---

It probably took that long to finish all that crow he'd prematurely ordered for everyone else.

some people just fell for the early hype and didnt watch the games. Reality finally kicked in.

---

Gabbert was really done a disservice as he didn't get a ton of reps with the #1s before being named the starter. They set him up to fail and crossed their fingers he would just 'get it' and win.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I take a look at how well it worked out for Rodgers and Palmer, and how the shots Aikman took his rookie season shortened his career considerably, and I see no compelling evidence against the redshirt season.

 

In fact, taking a breather without the pressure to start completely turned around Steve Young's career in the NFL (even though it wasn't his rookie year.)

 

No, there doesn't appear there for a need to make artificial timelines, yet I'm not sure there's evidence that shows that starting QBs from day one has any positive affect on development vs. letting the QB grow at his own pace.

 

Perhaps "development" isn't the proper word at all.  Maybe it has more to do with the coach's confidence in the player, confidence that he'll be able to react the way they would expect him to in any given situation.

There isn't evidence that supports either theory. There are successes and busts in every front-office philosophy, but the only thing they share in common is that a lot more first-rounders bust than become franchise quarterbacks.

---

I don't think there is a formula.  Some guys might need to sit while others need to go through the fire.  Each case is different. 

---

There isn't evidence that supports either theory. There are successes and busts in every front-office philosophy, but the only thing they share in common is that a lot more first-rounders bust than become franchise quarterbacks.

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Blake Bortles is going to succeed or fail based on how Blake Bortles develops as a passer, not because of how teams in the past handled their blue-chip investments.
 

 


</blockquote>
 

It comes down to this.

 

For every Aaron Rogers, there is a Brady Quinn or Jason Campbell or Rex Grossman.

 

For every Blaine Gabbert there is a Peyton Manning or Joe Flacco or Russel Wilson.

 

Sitting Blake Bortles isn't a magic pill which will make him a great player, starting him day one wont make him a bust. If he has the talent and dedication and the staff is able to put the right system and people around him - not to mention has a healthy does of smiles from your chosen deity - he will work out. If not he lacks any of those components he wont work out even if they sit him for the next decade.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

We went through Gabbert, so people are concerned with what might happen if he starts right away.  People around here are not looking at 50 years of NFL history, they have Gabbert as a fresh reminder of a guy who was/is not ready.

Who are people? If you're talking about fans, then maybe that's true, but then again, they are not part of the equation when it comes to Bortles. The coaches and management and owner are all on the same page about what they are doing with Bortles, and why they are doing it. Do they care what the fans think? Probably, but not enough for them to change their plans.

 

It's probably best to just accept that this is the plan. You will be happier for it.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

It comes down to this.


For every Aaron Rogers, there is a Brady Quinn or Jason Campbell or Rex Grossman.


For every Blaine Gabbert there is a Peyton Manning or Joe Flacco or Russel Wilson.


Sitting Blake Bortles isn't a magic pill which will make him a great player, starting him day one wont make him a bust. If he has the talent and dedication and the staff is able to put the right system and people around him - not to mention has a healthy does of smiles from your chosen deity - he will work out. If not he lacks any of those components he wont work out even if they sit him for the next decade.

Exactly. There is no method. If a qb is good then he will be good. The qb who fails starting as a rookie probably would have failed if he sat a year or 2. It all comes down to talent and talent around the qb.

---

Exactly. There is no method. If a qb is good then he will be good. The qb who fails starting as a rookie probably would have failed if he sat a year or 2. It all comes down to talent and talent around the qb.

while there is no method I do believe it can save him from getting the crap best out of him and playing with lots of inexperience. I think in that sense it could benefit him.

---