Bucky Brooks- the league has QB evaluation and development problem.

[MightyGiants]

https://x.com/BuckyBrooks/status/1769902144541598132?s=20

[Philosophers]

The Brock Purdy success really makes it look odd however he's an outlier.  If you look at success, more QBs have it who were 1st round picks.  That's why yiu don't waste a 4th round pick drafting a QB.  He'll be lucky to be a backup.

Use the 4th instead at a position more likely to be one a starter or solid rotational backup.

[kartanoman]

The Brock Purdy success really makes it look odd however he's an outlier.  If you look at success, more QBs have it who were 1st round picks.  That's why yiu don't waste a 4th round pick drafting a QB.  He'll be lucky to be a backup.

Use the 4th instead at a position more likely to be one a starter or solid rotational backup.

Makes sense. There will always be a category for the Brock Purdys, Kurt Warners, John Unitases, etc.

I think it still comes down to getting the right player to develop in the right system under the right head coach and offensive coordinator.

Peace!

[MightyGiants]

I think the biggest issue is the league evolved into a QB driven league.  There are only a handful of elite QBs at any given time.


Plus, the league has failed to appreciate that teams need to be prepared to develop a QB.  An unprepared team is just wasting the talent of the QB they draft.

[londonblue]

It is not just evaluation and development. The divergence of many college and NFL offences and more players coming out with fewer starts is making the transition harder.

But is is also evaluation and development.

Patience and low pressure helps. Mahomes sat almost a season. Love sat several. Purdy inherited a position with little expectation.

If you cannot sit them then having a powerful OL, running game and TE group to lean hard on helps eg Jackson (Purdy again).

Otherwise you have to accept bumps and stick the course eg Allen

If you have a really bad OL you need a miracle eg Burrow (but he is paying for his rookie miracles with wear and tear that may shorten his productive career).

Even really highly touted QBs like Lawrence, Tua are struggling to elevate their (now) fundamentally decent teams because the stuff that worked best for them in college is better defended in the NFL.

But for all that it is hard and getting harder, this is the job description for NFL front offices and coaches so it is hard to feel sorry for them.

[Philosophers]

Makes sense. There will always be a category for the Brock Purdys, Kurt Warners, John Unitases, etc.

I think it still comes down to getting the right player to develop in the right system under the right head coach and offensive coordinator.

Peace!

100% agree.  It's like an unbelievable with a bunch of ingredients, each of which makes it amazing.  You can't sub out one of these ingredients easily.  That's why I do not think players can just play elsewhere and be successful.  For example, Don Shula had a very different personality and way of talking to people and coaching than Bill Parcells who liked to berate players and do other things. 

[DaveBrown74]

I don't really agree with the broad generalizations made in the tweets in the OP. He's picking a literal two year period and he's using the whole draft instead of the first couple rounds, and then complaining that only 2 out of 19 are starters. How about looking at the last decade or so instead of two drafts, and then looking top 50 drafted QBs only, and then comparing that to the same analysis from say 1980-1990? If the generalizations these guys have made are true, you'll see it in that type of analysis, rather than the cherry-picking job they have done here. And the job they have done here is manipulated to look worse by including the whole draft, when everyone knows that QBs outside of the second round (and really outside the first round) are rarely expected to be any better than backups barring the obvious, rare outliers that everyone loves to bring up over and over again as if they're the norm not the exception.

[Painter]

I'm not buying what Bucky is selling. From any sort of practical point of view, what he is suggesting is and has been of no real consequence for at least the past 20 years of readily available data, whether we're talking No.1, or top-5 or anywhere else in Round 1. Indeed, even when the who, what, and where which may yield success, the process remains fitfully uncertain even as part of such an after-the-fact inference. as Bucky's.

And while we can be certain that the success rate in later Rounds will decline rapidly to less than marginal, it does nothing in the least to address, much less to enhance, predictability. It's no more than where the rare exceptions come to rule us.


Cheers!

[ozzie]

Plus, the league has failed to appreciate that teams need to be prepared to develop a QB.  An unprepared team is just wasting the talent of the QB they draft.

IMO, this I think is the biggest problem. Everyone wants a QB to succeed within their first two seasons. If they don't take their team to the playoffs, they are considered a "Bust" and the QB drafting carousel continues.
Green Bay has had Farve, Rogers (who sat learning behind Farve for about 3 seasons) and now Jordan Love (who sat learning behind Rogers for about 3 seasons) as their last three QB's. I don't think anyone in GB is complaining.
If you throw an inexperienced and obviously non-ready QB into the lineup and expect them to thrive most times you will be severely disappointed and your team is going to be in the cellar.
Patience is indeed a virtue when talking about QB's and more teams need to practice it if they want to be successful.

[Ed Vette]

It's been my opinion that QB's face the luck of the draw in how their career paths move. I have no doubt that many QB's have had short careers becuse they were in a bad situation as to where they went or in the slot they were drafted. Certainly a First Round Selection gets much more in the way of support, training and in the Offensive Scheme built around his skills. A QB like Brady or Purdy happened into a luck situation where things fell in place. We have seen evidence of a few QB's who have emerged successful after being in the league for many years. The Giants and Daniel Jones are at a pivotal point now in his career but what if Jones was drafted by an Organization that had a weak supporting Staff and Players and gave up on him after three years? Such was the case for Fields. It was the case for Mayfield.

Then there are QB's who were in a College System that masked their weaknesses. At this level, some of them develop and some never belonged on an NFL Field. Tommy DeVito was given an incredible opportunity but he was not prepared and was thrown in there, and he's not likely getting that opportunity again because wherever he goes, he's not going to be developed to his potential. Brock Purdy was ready, Tom Brady was ready but they were also lucky to have been in their situation. 

[DaveBrown74]

IMO, this I think is the biggest problem. Everyone wants a QB to succeed within their first two seasons. If they don't take their team to the playoffs, they are considered a "Bust" and the QB drafting carousel continues.
Green Bay has had Farve, Rogers (who sat learning behind Farve for about 3 seasons) and now Jordan Love (who sat learning behind Rogers for about 3 seasons) as their last three QB's. I don't think anyone in GB is complaining.
If you throw an inexperienced and obviously non-ready QB into the lineup and expect them to thrive most times you will be severely disappointed and your team is going to be in the cellar.
Patience is indeed a virtue when talking about QB's and more teams need to practice it if they want to be successful.

I agree with this, but this makes the case that it's worth sitting on QBs for 2-3 years after they're drafted in order to develop them (in practice and perhaps as an understudy to a veteran) and groom them to eventually take over the starting well. The Packers did this with Rodgers and it worked, and it now appears to have potentially have worked nicely with Jordan Love, too.

Since top QBs are so hard to (1) find and (2) be in position to pick, I don't agree with the view that you shouldn't draft them because you're not "prepared." That may be a reason to not start the QB right away, but it's not a reason not to pick one IMO.

And I do understand that the idea is to have a talented QB on a rookie deal for four years so you can load the rest of the roster with expensive talent, and great if you're in that position, but it's ok to not be able to start the QB for all four years. QB is a long term investment. Yes, those four or five years at a reduced price are golden opportunity year, but that doesn't mean you rush the process. And you definitely don't pass on a QB you regard as potentially elite just because your O line at that moment isn't good or you don't have any great wide receivers. You still get the QB into your organization, and then you continue to build your roster with other picks in that draft that year and other future picks and acquisitions. Not everything has to be picture-perfect from day one.