2019 QB Race

Well we disagree on that.

"resnor wrote:

Wonderlic scores are pretty meaningless. No one even really can say how they relate to actual football smarts. By all accounts isn't Rosen quite intelligent? I just don't see any reason to keep Fitz.

Yeah, Fitz was a calculated gamble, I think.

They had to go into the draft looking like they weren't totally backed into getting a QB. That gave them some leverage with Arizona as well as a practical option--not that they care about winning the few games Fitz would win, but it does have superficial value, I'd agree.

Trading for Rosen was obviously better than not doing so given the cost, but now they're stuck having paid for that insurance policy.

So if you don't come out saying "Rosen is our guy!" then you are obliged to keep Fitz so you can make a case that Rosen "has to compete" when we all know that he's clearly the guy.

I think they wanted to say that because (A) it paints a good image but also (B) you definitely do indeed want Rosen coming in feeling like he's just another guy who has to prove himself. That's healthy for him.

Doing otherwise, handing him the title of Franchise-Hero, would either inflate his attitude or just apply unnecessary pressure, neither of which you want to do.

But in an ideal world, Fitz magically retires the night before the season begins or something.

I will say, now that Rosen is around, I would like to have Fitz gone. I want no part of his ability to win a handful of games that might undermine the Dolphins 2020 draft position. That obviously does NOTHING for anyone.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

you keep Fitz because he keeps you competitive and right now anyone behind Fitz and Rosen is garbage. The coach wants the players playing their hearts out. Keeping Fitz - whether he's starter or backup sends a message (or more like cutting him sends a negative message)

I hope you realize that the Dolphins don't want to be competitive with a 37 year old QB. They aren't winning the super bowl this season.

He was the only option a month ago.

Not anymore. Rosen has played in the league and he's 16 years younger and was a top 10 draft pick in this league. Only a fool would have him on the bench week 1 for a team trying to find their future QB.

i'd say fitz starts weeks 1-4 (4 [playoff teams) then the bye week happens and we switch to Rosen since fitz is ineffective this gives time for the OL to sort out and save some hits on Rosen. While still giving him a lot of time to evaluate what we want to do with him.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

you keep Fitz because he keeps you competitive and right now anyone behind Fitz and Rosen is garbage. The coach wants the players playing their hearts out. Keeping Fitz - whether he's starter or backup sends a message (or more like cutting him sends a negative message)

Rosen's competition isn't Fitz, it's Tua (or Fromm, or Herbert, or whomever). We aren't in position where a decent caliber of backup is needed. If we can trade him for a pick, do it. If not, then sure, let him hang around.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

Our whole offensive line has to learn to play together with multiple new starters. I have zero problems letting them play a few games and letting Rosen come in after the bye week in week 5. 12 games is plenty of time to judge Rosen (assuming he stays healthy and plays all 12 games). Now, if the Oline is playing well in preseason to give us confidence that Rosen won't get killed week 1, I'm fine with him starting, but I'd let the Oline dictate when to start the kid

If our offensive line is that bad, 4 weeks isnt going to fix it.

Let's say you sit him 4 games. That means he usnt getting starter reps in practice every week. That means he is going to need a couple weeks just to get into rhythm with the team. Now it's not just 4 weeks we wasted, its 6 to 8 weeks.

While I agree that Fitz is now expendable, we HAVE TO have a competent backup and he fits that role perfectly for short spurts of time. I do not agree that trading him is the smart move unless there's another young gun out there you're ready to groom for 2019 only.

Ruddock is only 26 and three years out of college, but if we were going to go that route I'd rather see them bring back Fales to be honest. I think Ruddock is just camp competition and will be out the door before the season starts.

"KeyFin wrote:

While I agree that Fitz is now expendable, we HAVE TO have a competent backup and he fits that role perfectly for short spurts of time. I do not agree that trading him is the smart move unless there's another young gun out there you're ready to groom for 2019 only.

Ruddock is only 26 and three years out of college, but if we were going to go that route I'd rather see them bring back Fales to be honest. I think Ruddock is just camp competition and will be out the door before the season starts.

Maybe they got rid of Falk because of the affection for Rudock..

"KeyFin wrote:

While I agree that Fitz is now expendable, we HAVE TO have a competent backup and he fits that role perfectly for short spurts of time. I do not agree that trading him is the smart move unless there's another young gun out there you're ready to groom for 2019 only.

Ruddock is only 26 and three years out of college, but if we were going to go that route I'd rather see them bring back Fales to be honest. I think Ruddock is just camp competition and will be out the door before the season starts.

I think that I see one way Fitz is expendable in 2019. Lets say that Rosen wins the starting job from the get go, and looks really good. But by mid season the team still has a really bad record (1-7, 2-6) due to the defense and/or just losing a bunch of close games.

At that point, if the Rosen question is mostly answered and another team is offering something of value for Fitz because they're a playoff contender and need a band aid QB, then I think the team pulls the trigger. They'd be in a position where they're going to start Rosen the rest of the way as long as he's healthy, and if he does get injured, then winning games isn't the priority any more for the rest of 2019 anyways.

Otherwise, I say its possible Fitz is still here even in 2020. We have a boatload of cap space, Rosen is cheap, and if the two develop a good relationship and Fitz can accept the backup and mentor role, then no real need to move on ASAP.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

If our offensive line is that bad, 4 weeks isnt going to fix it.

Let's say you sit him 4 games. That means he usnt getting starter reps in practice every week. That means he is going to need a couple weeks just to get into rhythm with the team. Now it's not just 4 weeks we wasted, its 6 to 8 weeks.

my point wasn't how horrible they are, my point is that if they have potential to improve, it may take a few games for them to learn how to play together. So, yes, 4 weeks may not fix it but certainly can improve their play together.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

my point wasn't how horrible they are, my point is that if they have potential to improve, it may take a few games for them to learn how to play together. So, yes, 4 weeks may not fix it but certainly can improve their play together.

It could also not improve at all in which case we accomplish nothing. Defenses get those weeks to get and come together too. You're likely going to be seeing the most basic defensive calls the first few weeks with very little complexity thrown at you.

I dont personally see any advantages to sitting him but it isnt my call.

I'm on the fence with benching Rosen to start the year. Not really for it, but not totally discounting the value of it either. Its a worthy point that Baltimore, New England, Dallas and LA have rough defenses to deal with, and it could be like throwing him into the fire. The schedule after that point features a lot more teams that are likely to be poor to mediocre than that first month. Nothing is a guarantee, but it has its logic.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

It could also not improve at all in which case we accomplish nothing. Defenses get those weeks to get and come together too. You're likely going to be seeing the most basic defensive calls the first few weeks with very little complexity thrown at you.

I dont personally see any advantages to sitting him but it isnt my call.

I'm the same. Ideally I'd like him to start the season...if he struggles, fine, it's expected, but you'd think that if he's the guy, that we'd see improvement by the end of the season vs the beginning.

"resnor wrote:

I'm the same. Ideally I'd like him to start the season...if he struggles, fine, it's expected, but you'd think that if he's the guy, that we'd see improvement by the end of the session vs the beginning.

Exactly...I dont expect him to come set the world on fire. I want to judge him by 4 and 6 week chunks more or less where you can see improvement or regression as the season passes.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

It could also not improve at all in which case we accomplish nothing. Defenses get those weeks to get and come together too. You're likely going to be seeing the most basic defensive calls the first few weeks with very little complexity thrown at you.

I dont personally see any advantages to sitting him but it isnt my call.

If you're a management team, you go into this Rosen 1 year evaluation as glass half full attitude - which IMO means giving him a better chance to succeed so we can properly evaluate him. It's a judgement call. but to just make a blanket statement without context of the pieces around Rosen is the wrong approach

• If the Oline is playing like they still need time to gel, then I sit Rosen til the bye week.

• If they are playing up to their potential, you throw Rosen in.

• If they are hot garbage and unlikely to improve, I throw Rosen in.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

If you're a management team, you go into this Rosen 1 year evaluation as glass half full attitude - which IMO means giving him a better chance to succeed so we can properly evaluate him. It's a judgement call. but to just make a blanket statement without context of the pieces around Rosen is the wrong approach

• If the Oline is playing like they still need time to gel, then I sit Rosen til the bye week.

• If they are playing up to their potential, you throw Rosen in.

• If they are hot garbage and unlikely to improve, I throw Rosen in.

Two problems with this. How do you determine whether the offensive line is likely needing to gel or likely to improve at all? The second issue is, making your decision based on the offensive line and not how the starter is playing is recipe for disaster in the locker room and the fan base.

"Nappy Roots wrote:

Two problems with this. How do you determine whether the offensive line is likely needing to gel or likely to improve at all? The second issue is, making your decision based on the offensive line and not how the starter is playing is recipe for disaster in the locker room and the fan base.

obviously the context on how Rosen is playing is also a factor. If he's balling in training camp, I put him out there regardless of the line. I just don't expect to see that.

"Nappy Roots wrote:

Saying we 'stole' a first round QB is a little much. We were the highest bidder on the market, his worth is what the market says it is.

And Henne would never have been good. The sit and wait theory has so many holes in it. Unless speaking about QBs that were injured due to terrible OL.

Rosen was drafted with the 10th overall pick last season. We picked him up for this year's LATE second round and next years fifth round. I'd call that a steal.

Developing a quarterback to start is not the same as sit and wait. Your post suggests that EVERY first round drafted quarterback instantly starts...and is a success.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Rosen was drafted with the 10th overall pick last season. We picked him up for this year's LATE second round and next years fifth round. I'd call that a steal.

Developing a quarterback to start is not the same as sit and wait. Your post suggests that EVERY first round drafted quarterback instantly starts...and is a success.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Rosen was drafted with the 10th overall pick last season. We picked him up for this year's LATE second round and next years fifth round. I'd call that a steal.

Developing a quarterback to start is not the same as sit and wait. Your post suggests that EVERY first round drafted quarterback instantly starts...and is a success.

His post doesnt suggest that at all, I'm not sure how you took that from it.

His post suggests that basing when Rosen starts off of the performance of other units is stupid. It is.

QB's dont start immediately because they lack the understanding of professional football and the speed of the game. Neither issue applies to Rosen, and teams have done a lot of research into whether starting a QB immediately ruins them. Hint...it doesnt.

If he wins the job he needs to start period.

If Rosen takes command of the offense (both guys are new to it, right?) and plays well in the preseason, then you have to consider giving him the start from game one. If the OL is a mess, I could see giving the vet QB the start for the first month or so.

If the team has a winning record, even 2-2 actually, it would be awkward to try and put Rosen in to replace Fitz. The odds say that Fitz will be struggling though, and the way he showed up out of shape tells me he is just in Miami to collect another season of paychecks before retiring.
He would make a decent #2 QB though, as he seems to play better off the bench.

We have to KNOW if Rosen is the QB of the future before the end of 2019, so even with a bad OL you have to give him the majority of the starts.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

QB's dont start immediately because they lack the understanding of professional football and the speed of the game. Neither issue applies to Rosen, and teams have done a lot of research into whether starting a QB immediately ruins them. Hint...it doesnt.

If he wins the job he needs to start period.

Starting a QB immediately won’t ruin a QB. Bad coaching can and will. My poster child example of this is Chad Henne who guy turned into “Check down Chad” by our coaching staff. As a college QB Henne aggressively attacked downfield but we coached that part of his game out of him. Just imagine how people would view Jared Goff if Jeff Fisher was still coaching the Rams.

If you’re in a position to start a rookie QB you are more likely than not to have a poor coaching staff. There aren’t many situations for a Russel Wilson, a Ben Rothlisberger or a Dan Marino to be handed the keys to a well established well coached team as a rookie.

"Pauly wrote:

Starting a QB immediately won’t ruin a QB. Bad coaching can and will. My poster child example of this is Chad Henne who guy turned into “Check down Chad” by our coaching staff. As a college QB Henne aggressively attacked downfield but we coached that part of his game out of him. Just imagine how people would view Jared Goff if Jeff Fisher was still coaching the Rams.

If you’re in a position to start a rookie QB you are more likely than not to have a poor coaching staff. There aren’t many situations for a Russel Wilson, a Ben Rothlisberger or a Dan Marino to be handed the keys to a well established well coached team as a rookie.

Just to be clear, I should have said "QB's who dont start early"

I meant the few that dont are generally incapable of doing so. I agree though.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Just to be clear, I should have said "QB's who dont start early"

I meant the few that dont are generally incapable of doing so. I agree though.

Agreed. A high quality rookie QB should be better than a mediocre-average veteran. And if they show ability in practice then a team is probably better off in the long term starting them and let them get real time experience even if the results are a little inferior to a journeyman starter.

The exceptions people point to, like Aaron Rodgers and Pat Mahomes almost always were sitting behind better than average QBs who had legitimate shots at taking their teams to the playoffs.