This is my 40th year as a football fan.

 

Over the years, I've heard many axioms and clichés to explain various truths about the game we all love.

 

"Build from the trenches," "Defense wins championships," "run the ball, stop the run," are just a few of the myriad catch phrases used to represent various beliefs and philosophies that govern NFL football.

 

However, one such phrase seems to be antiquated, if not obsolete, at least in the minds of fans.

 

That phrase is "draft and develop."

 

I offer this because when it comes to analyzing young players, the analysis invariably oscillates between two extremes:  immediate superstar or absolute bust.

 

This is evident when reading the board and the names Blake Bortles and Dante Fowler come up for discussion.  For a long time, the thought regarding QBs was it takes 4-5 years to develop them.  Bortles is in his 4th year, yet there is a sizable number of fans on this board, if not a majority, who have already given up on Bortles as a viable NFL QB.  Many of the same fans have already surrendered all hope that Fowler will be anything remotely resembling a viable pass rusher, despite the fact last year was his first on field action and he produced 4 sacks.

 

Please forgive my considerable cognitive dissonance stemming from these reactions.  It exists because many of the players we celebrate today-past and present- and wish our players would develop into- were themselves not immediate superstars.  Going into his third season, Troy Aikman had a 14-24 record as a starter, missing all or parts of ten (10) with injury.     His TD/INT ratio was 31-46 in that span. He is now in the Hall of Fame. Aaron Rodgers rode the bench his first three years in the league, sitting behind a QB in Brett Favre who garnered no playing time his first year and was deemed such an incorrigible party animal, his original team, Atlanta, traded him away.  There have been fans on this board who have advocated signing 37 year old Tony Romo to supplant Tony Romo as the starter here.  But Romo did not become a starter until his 3rd year.  His TD-INT ratio from his second year as a starter was 36-19.  Those same numbers regressed to 26-14 the next year.  For comparison, Bortles' 2nd year numbers were 35-18, and last year's totals were  23-16. 

 

The irony continues with every other position, including DE.  The current AFC South champs, the Houston Texans, feature two defensive ends who are dominant in J.J. Watt and Jadeveon Clowney.  Watt had five sacks his rookie year, and Clowney was viewed as a bust until this year.  Super Bowl LI, just played about 3 weeks ago, featured the Atlanta Falcons, who drafted another edge rusher in the same draft class as Dante Fowler in Vic Beasley.  Beasley, who did not suffer an ACL tear, notched the same 4 sacks as a rookie as Fowler did last year.  However, in his second year, he led the league in sacks with 15.5.

 

If those teams used the same logic as the fans who are clamoring for Fowler and Bortles to be banished to the scrap heap, they never would have reaped the benefits they did in sticking with those players.  Instead, they would have resembled Atlanta in the aftermath of trading Brett Favre. 

 

 Am I saying definitively Bortles and/or Fowler will develop into the players I mentioned above?  No.  Those are at least very good, if not great players.

 

Is it possible that Bortles and Fowler will fall short of expectations?  Absolutely.

 

But given the countless man hours the team invested in scouting all of the available players, and the draft pick investment used in acquiring them, can anyone give a compelling reason why their development should be abandoned altogether at this stage?  Is there any reason why impatience should preclude the chance for these guys to improve the way the above players did?  Why do the principles of player development that produced Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders not apply to Bortles and Fowler?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I absolutely agree with the OP's point, if you didn't have to develop rookies then why have position coaches, learning football takes an entire career.  I think this where the 'prime years' term comes from, keeping your physical abilities while learning enough about your position to play at a fantastic level.

 

Though I do think that regressing can throw a wrench in the development scheme: Did you have one lucky good year, or was it one unlucky bad year.  I think Blake will have to prove that point.  In the development curve you'd like each future year better than the last.

---

Every fan base does this bullseye. Just last year Vic Beasley was being called a bust his rookie year. So was Melvin Ingram. Both Bortles and Fowler definitely deserve more time, especially Bortles for obvious reasons. Despite what the critics say you don't just luck into 4,000 yards and 35 TDs garbage time or not.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Not only that, but there's any number of factors that determine how a player develops.

 

Brett Favre had to get out of an area conducive to partying, mature, and end up with a great coach who develops QBs.

 

Vic Beasley credits the addition of Dwight Freeney as a mentor for his development.

 

For Clowney, coaches finally putting his hand down and him staying healthy were keys to his most productive year.

 

There's too many moving parts to summarily dismiss a highly drafted player after a year or so, barring some off field issues that preclude keeping him.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Knarnn,

 

I know every fan base does this, which inspired the query in the title.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Ugh were really gonna do this again.


Blakes best season was inefficient stat padding. He wasnt accurate, he didnt make good decisions, he was overrated by all of us. And for a second lets assume he gets back to 2015 for. 2015 blake is not winning playoff games against good teams. He still has to take an enormous leap forward as a QB to even be considered good enough to hang in the playoffs.


Dante Fowler isnt an edge rusher. Its the reason he moved all around at florida. Its the reason we keep talking about putting him at linebacker. Theres zero reason to believe his ceiling as an edge rusher isnt very low.


And for one final time can we not compare him to JJ/Clowney/Beasley.

JJ is a 3-4 end, him just having 5 sacks his first year isn't indicative of failure I have no idea who told you that. Him exploding for the numbers he currently does doesnt change the fact that 5 sacks for a rookie 3-4 end is objectively good.


Anyone who labeled clowney a bust after his second season let alone his first is a reactionary moron. He was dealing with a lot of injuries on top of being a rookie.


Vic was ACTUALLY an edge rusher in college. He can actually bend, hes actually athletic. Fowler isnt any of that.


Draft and develop is cool, its a tried and sometimes true formula thats been in place for ever but I wanna say this and I think its really important


*NOT EVERYONE HAS UNLIMITED UPSIDE*


Sometimes guys dont get better. Sometimes guys dont become what theyre supposed to be. Sometimes all the coaching in the world cant make a guy better than what he is. Its not that serious. Its not that big of a deal. Blake isnt good at football. Fowler isnt going to be some 15 sack a year von miller guy. Were bad at drafting. Its just the reality of our situation.

---

I'm sure people are more inpatient these days.  But I also think people who will be quicker to cut the cord when they see regression as opposed to steady improvement. 

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

I don't know if development is extinct, as much as lack of college development has caused NFL scouts/clubs to have to take talent over readiness.

 

College coaches more concerned with winning by lining up the more talented athletes rather than focus on their NFL preparedness.

 

The college incentive/goal is to win, not NFL placement.

 

IMO, it's something that's "trickled up" from the lower ranks.  I think long term projections are more difficult to make as talent is high and preparedness has dropped.

---

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

I think the stellar rookie years of guys like Ezekiel Elliot, Dak Prescott, Cam Newton, etc. make it really hard to be patient on guys.  

---

Taking it to the top of the Modis building.  

Draft and develop still holds true but 1) It dependent on as good solid coaching in place, which we have not had and 2) Us as fans can only judge the player development based on what we see in games.


We don't get to see the hours of slog they might put in on mechanics, technique or learning their craft.


So from our perspective we are more focused on results, not the process that goes into the results. When I look at Bortles this year I see a QB that struggled to throw the ball and had terrible mechanics, I can't think of ever seeing a QB that struggled to throw the ball and had mechanics like that in year 3 of being in the NFL who developed into a good QB. I hope he does and its entirely possible that he can, it just doesn't look likely right now.


Mentioned it in another post but Bortles has been in California for the past week throwing and working out so he is taking it all seriously, which is good to here in a sense.

---

I think the stellar rookie years of guys like Ezekiel Elliot, Dak Prescott, Cam Newton, etc. make it really hard to be patient on guys.  

 

In Cam's case though, that's not giving enough credit to his development.

 

As a rookie, he was productive, but he certainly was not NFL ready.  He's a completely different QB now than he was then.  He's much better.  They tailored to his one read pass/run skillset his rookie season.  He had to, and did, develop since then into a true NFL QB.  His Super Bowl season he was playing so much better football than his rookie year.

 

Regardless, that still does make the case for learning on the job.  He does prove that you can produce even if you're developing on the field instead of on the bench.  Yet, I still think everyone develops at their own pace, and one size does not fit all.

---

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

No

---

Clearly, there is a huge gap between what great coaching staffs (i.e. Patriots) do with players and what other teams (i.e. Jaguars) do regarding developing players.  The Pats (and other teams) do a great job of making something out of nothing or squeezing every ounce of production out of potential.  The Jags have been horrible lately in that area.

 

There is a lot of value in "coaching 'em up."

 

I also think this ties into what culture is within an organization.  The Pats for example, have a team first philosophy.  If you're a player just looking to get paid then they let you walk.  Aside from Brady, most of their players could be considered above average or average but not "superstars."  But they have a team full of above average players that are all into playing like a team.  This is what breeds championships, obviously.

---

Ugh were really gonna do this again.


Blakes best season was inefficient stat padding. He wasnt accurate, he didnt make good decisions, he was overrated by all of us. And for a second lets assume he gets back to 2015 for. 2015 blake is not winning playoff games against good teams. He still has to take an enormous leap forward as a QB to even be considered good enough to hang in the playoffs.


Dante Fowler isnt an edge rusher. Its the reason he moved all around at florida. Its the reason we keep talking about putting him at linebacker. Theres zero reason to believe his ceiling as an edge rusher isnt very low.


And for one final time can we not compare him to JJ/Clowney/Beasley.

JJ is a 3-4 end, him just having 5 sacks his first year isn't indicative of failure I have no idea who told you that. Him exploding for the numbers he currently does doesnt change the fact that 5 sacks for a rookie 3-4 end is objectively good.


Anyone who labeled clowney a bust after his second season let alone his first is a reactionary moron. He was dealing with a lot of injuries on top of being a rookie.


Vic was ACTUALLY an edge rusher in college. He can actually bend, hes actually athletic. Fowler isnt any of that.


Draft and develop is cool, its a tried and sometimes true formula thats been in place for ever but I wanna say this and I think its really important


*NOT EVERYONE HAS UNLIMITED UPSIDE*


Sometimes guys dont get better. Sometimes guys dont become what theyre supposed to be. Sometimes all the coaching in the world cant make a guy better than what he is. Its not that serious. Its not that big of a deal. Blake isnt good at football. Fowler isnt going to be some 15 sack a year von miller guy. Were bad at drafting. Its just the reality of our situation.

 

Perfect example of the OPs post.

---

This is my 40th year as a football fan.

 

Over the years, I've heard many axioms and clichés to explain various truths about the game we all love.

 

"Build from the trenches," "Defense wins championships," "run the ball, stop the run," are just a few of the myriad catch phrases used to represent various beliefs and philosophies that govern NFL football.

 

However, one such phrase seems to be antiquated, if not obsolete, at least in the minds of fans.

 

That phrase is "draft and develop."

 

I offer this because when it comes to analyzing young players, the analysis invariably oscillates between two extremes:  immediate superstar or absolute bust.

 

This is evident when reading the board and the names Blake Bortles and Dante Fowler come up for discussion.  For a long time, the thought regarding QBs was it takes 4-5 years to develop them.  Bortles is in his 4th year, yet there is a sizable number of fans on this board, if not a majority, who have already given up on Bortles as a viable NFL QB.  Many of the same fans have already surrendered all hope that Fowler will be anything remotely resembling a viable pass rusher, despite the fact last year was his first on field action and he produced 4 sacks.

 

Please forgive my considerable cognitive dissonance stemming from these reactions.  It exists because many of the players we celebrate today-past and present- and wish our players would develop into- were themselves not immediate superstars.  Going into his third season, Troy Aikman had a 14-24 record as a starter, missing all or parts of ten (10) with injury.     His TD/INT ratio was 31-46 in that span. He is now in the Hall of Fame. Aaron Rodgers rode the bench his first three years in the league, sitting behind a QB in Brett Favre who garnered no playing time his first year and was deemed such an incorrigible party animal, his original team, Atlanta, traded him away.  There have been fans on this board who have advocated signing 37 year old Tony Romo to supplant Tony Romo as the starter here.  But Romo did not become a starter until his 3rd year.  His TD-INT ratio from his second year as a starter was 36-19.  Those same numbers regressed to 26-14 the next year.  For comparison, Bortles' 2nd year numbers were 35-18, and last year's totals were  23-16. 

 

The irony continues with every other position, including DE.  The current AFC South champs, the Houston Texans, feature two defensive ends who are dominant in J.J. Watt and Jadeveon Clowney.  Watt had five sacks his rookie year, and Clowney was viewed as a bust until this year.  Super Bowl LI, just played about 3 weeks ago, featured the Atlanta Falcons, who drafted another edge rusher in the same draft class as Dante Fowler in Vic Beasley.  Beasley, who did not suffer an ACL tear, notched the same 4 sacks as a rookie as Fowler did last year.  However, in his second year, he led the league in sacks with 15.5.

 

If those teams used the same logic as the fans who are clamoring for Fowler and Bortles to be banished to the scrap heap, they never would have reaped the benefits they did in sticking with those players.  Instead, they would have resembled Atlanta in the aftermath of trading Brett Favre. 

 

 Am I saying definitively Bortles and/or Fowler will develop into the players I mentioned above?  No.  Those are at least very good, if not great players.

 

Is it possible that Bortles and Fowler will fall short of expectations?  Absolutely.

 

But given the countless man hours the team invested in scouting all of the available players, and the draft pick investment used in acquiring them, can anyone give a compelling reason why their development should be abandoned altogether at this stage?  Is there any reason why impatience should preclude the chance for these guys to improve the way the above players did?  Why do the principles of player development that produced Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders not apply to Bortles and Fowler?

You can't equate fan sentiment with reality.  Draft and develop is still the best way to build a roster regardless of what the Madden GMs want to believe.

---

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

Perfect example of the OPs post.

it doesnt take 7 years to be good at football sorry :/


it doesnt take 3 to be not terrible either :/

---

it doesnt take 7 years to be good at football sorry :/


it doesnt take 3 to be not terrible either :/

 

I don't think that's even close to what he meant, but I agree.

---

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

it doesnt take 7 years to be good at football sorry :/


it doesnt take 3 to be not terrible either :/

 

Yet you support Tyrod Taylor who didn't play until his 5th year.  Kinda odd.

---

This is my 40th year as a football fan.

 

Over the years, I've heard many axioms and clichés to explain various truths about the game we all love.

 

"Build from the trenches," "Defense wins championships," "run the ball, stop the run," are just a few of the myriad catch phrases used to represent various beliefs and philosophies that govern NFL football.

 

However, one such phrase seems to be antiquated, if not obsolete, at least in the minds of fans.

 

That phrase is "draft and develop."

 

I offer this because when it comes to analyzing young players, the analysis invariably oscillates between two extremes:  immediate superstar or absolute bust.

 

This is evident when reading the board and the names Blake Bortles and Dante Fowler come up for discussion.  For a long time, the thought regarding QBs was it takes 4-5 years to develop them.  Bortles is in his 4th year, yet there is a sizable number of fans on this board, if not a majority, who have already given up on Bortles as a viable NFL QB.  Many of the same fans have already surrendered all hope that Fowler will be anything remotely resembling a viable pass rusher, despite the fact last year was his first on field action and he produced 4 sacks.

 

Please forgive my considerable cognitive dissonance stemming from these reactions.  It exists because many of the players we celebrate today-past and present- and wish our players would develop into- were themselves not immediate superstars.  Going into his third season, Troy Aikman had a 14-24 record as a starter, missing all or parts of ten (10) with injury.     His TD/INT ratio was 31-46 in that span. He is now in the Hall of Fame. Aaron Rodgers rode the bench his first three years in the league, sitting behind a QB in Brett Favre who garnered no playing time his first year and was deemed such an incorrigible party animal, his original team, Atlanta, traded him away.  There have been fans on this board who have advocated signing 37 year old Tony Romo to supplant Tony Romo as the starter here.  But Romo did not become a starter until his 3rd year.  His TD-INT ratio from his second year as a starter was 36-19.  Those same numbers regressed to 26-14 the next year.  For comparison, Bortles' 2nd year numbers were 35-18, and last year's totals were  23-16. 

 

The irony continues with every other position, including DE.  The current AFC South champs, the Houston Texans, feature two defensive ends who are dominant in J.J. Watt and Jadeveon Clowney.  Watt had five sacks his rookie year, and Clowney was viewed as a bust until this year.  Super Bowl LI, just played about 3 weeks ago, featured the Atlanta Falcons, who drafted another edge rusher in the same draft class as Dante Fowler in Vic Beasley.  Beasley, who did not suffer an ACL tear, notched the same 4 sacks as a rookie as Fowler did last year.  However, in his second year, he led the league in sacks with 15.5.

 

If those teams used the same logic as the fans who are clamoring for Fowler and Bortles to be banished to the scrap heap, they never would have reaped the benefits they did in sticking with those players.  Instead, they would have resembled Atlanta in the aftermath of trading Brett Favre. 

 

 Am I saying definitively Bortles and/or Fowler will develop into the players I mentioned above?  No.  Those are at least very good, if not great players.

 

Is it possible that Bortles and Fowler will fall short of expectations?  Absolutely.

 

But given the countless man hours the team invested in scouting all of the available players, and the draft pick investment used in acquiring them, can anyone give a compelling reason why their development should be abandoned altogether at this stage?  Is there any reason why impatience should preclude the chance for these guys to improve the way the above players did?  Why do the principles of player development that produced Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders not apply to Bortles and Fowler?

 

I am with you dude. Not giving up on Fowler yet. It's too early. Bortles has this year to get it done though. And I think that's more than fair with it being his 4th NFL season. 

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Yet you support Tyrod Taylor who didn't play until his 5th year. Kinda odd.

it didnt take tyrod 5 years to be good at football, it just took him 5 years to be a free agent and be given the opportunity to start.

---