1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rosen Returns

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by tirty8, Feb 19, 2020.

  1. Patster1969

    Patster1969 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    311
    312
    63
    Nov 8, 2017
    With the Cleveland situation, the actual core of the team wasn't bad (they had had so many early round draft picks, they had to have some talent on there) but was held back by the terrible coaching job done by Hue Jackson - once he was fired, the team suddenly got better (although obviously regressed last year, again due to terrible management and a lot of egos).
    Miami last year was viewed to be historically bad and over the first couple of weeks (particularly due to the player turnover), it certainly looked that way but unlike Cleveland & Arizona, coaching was the main reason that we weren't. Rosen was definitely caught up in the flux of us going from bad to not so bad but whether he will be able to process the game at the mental level required is another thing. He didn't seem to trust the play/his reads in the Skins game and looked bad, whereas Fitz has the mental part down and has always trusted his reads.
     
    resnor likes this.
  2. Patster1969

    Patster1969 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    311
    312
    63
    Nov 8, 2017
    Although there was a lot of evidence at the time that once the Colts realised that Manning was going to miss the year with the nerve damage and was likely not going to be the player he was, they jumped on the Suck for Luck train. Therefore, the drop off wasn't entirely because Manning was missing.

    I can see both sides of the argument. We all want the next great QB (whether it's a Marino/Manning or Mahomes/Wilson) but they don't come around that often. Therefore, the offense every team wants is one that sustains drives and drives the other team backwards to score points whilst not relying on spectacular plays on 3rd & 15 on a consistent basis - the spectacular plays on the odd occasion are great but if your great QB goes down, you want the offense to not miss a beat and are still able to execute correctly with the back-up. Basically you want substance with a sprinkling of style (also, by having that great offense that can sustain drives without putting the great QB under the gun all of the time, this great QB is not taking unnecessary risks with his health).
     
    resnor and Unlucky 13 like this.
  3. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,198
    1,912
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    He only loses to those QB because those QB look shiny and new.

    I will go on record as saying Burrow and Tua have no more talent or chance to succeed than Rosen. Neither is as sure a thing as people prop them up to be and Rosen, as of now IMO, is not a bust and has the same potential.

    His reads were not too slow minus the Washington game. He was on point while the rest of the offense pooped their pants around him.

    Now I will also say I am missing crucial factors that can make or break him because I do not work with him every day. Neither does anyone else here though.
     
    KeyFin, resnor and Irishman like this.
  4. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not at all true. That team was talent starved in addition to bad coaching. Just because you have high picks doesn't mean you hit on them. Detroit also had lots of high picks and picked busts. And Cleveland started winning once Mayfield started. Jackson was fired afterwards.

    We were only historically bad the first 2 games, nothing else. And Rosen didn't start those two games. Regardless, the situation Rosen was in was bad but nothing utterly special. LOTS of bad situations QB's get drafted into.

    And I'll reiterate: Mayfield's situation was worse and he shined.

    We just saw last year how difficult it is to orchestrate a tank. GM's might want to do it but the players still play. And the Colts weren't on Suck for Luck from the outset. So there was still a huge dropoff due to Manning's injury.

    First, there's no evidence whatsoever that you're more likely to sustain drives with the style he likes (pocket passer that is NOT a dual threat QB). There's also no evidence that they have less longevity. And finally, you have to understand the extreme style over substance position he's taking (note he didn't answer any of the 3 questions I asked.. he never directly compared cases where we either assume or already know that consistency is not an issue). He actually thinks Rosen is nearly as good as Peyton:
    https://www.thephins.com/threads/dolphins-plans-for-qb.94036/page-15#post-3159900
    There is NO way from a performance standpoint or from a point of view of how a QB could help a team win that anyone could come to that kind of conclusion. This type of extreme position is ONLY possible if you are arguing style > substance, which is his position.

    So don't forget that's the position he's coming from (and that you're helping to defend). This view is diametrically the opposite of what almost every fan and certainly every NFL team has. Not criticizing him for it, but it's important for people to understand that he's not suggesting what's best for the team from a win% standpoint.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,742
    7,867
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    There's no evidence that scrambling QBs have less longevity than pocket QBs?
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  6. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I haven't seen any. You have that evidence?
     
  7. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,742
    7,867
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm asking. Does anyone compile such data? Just anecdotally, it seems to me that mobile QBs don't have the same long sustained careers of more traditional pocket passers.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  8. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There are many articles written on it, but they look at cherry picked cases, nothing close to a comprehensive study.

    What's needed is to separate QB's by some operational definition of "mobile" vs. "pocket passers" and then look at ALL cases. No one seems to have done that. Worse, people disagree on what "mobile" means. Some articles that argue mobile QB's are more injury prone actually say Steve Young and John Elway weren't "mobile" QB's lol.. so it fits their narrative.

    I haven't seen any good statistical evidence mobile QB's are more injury prone. Would love to see those stats however.
     
  9. danmarino

    danmarino George Floyd was murdered Club Member

    10,464
    11,451
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    Here is a very informative article.

    https://cantcutlist.com/medical-myths-mobile-qbs/
     
    rafael likes this.
  10. rafael

    rafael Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    27,336
    31,207
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    There are several myths that keep getting repeated and argued about. The ones that come to mind readily regarding QBs are:

    Mobile QBs get injured more.
    Small hands leads to fumbles.
    Shorter QBs get injured more.

    IMO anybody who keeps pushing these narratives is just ignoring the facts.
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Informative (especially the medical stuff), but it doesn't answer the question.

    The main problem is how to define "mobile" and there's no good operational definition of it. Looking at a short list of hand-picked QB's you'd argue are mobile vs. pocket passers is a cherry picking exercise.. unless you do that for all QB's that played in the NFL during some time and give some rationale for why each QB belongs in each category.

    To be fair, there's simply no evidence that's been presented showing mobile QB's get injured more. That doesn't mean it's not true so I wouldn't call it a "myth", just that no one has demonstrated it to be true (or false).
     
  12. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,198
    1,912
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    The first two may not be concrete facts, but they are at least true in some cases.

    A mobile QB does open himself to more hits which in turn opens up the potential for more injury. It also isnt just the number of injuries, it is whether the injury saps any of the mobility said QB gets by on.

    A mobile QB may only have one injury his entire career, but a torn up knee is 100x more detrimental to their career.

    So like Im saying it isnt just the idea they get injured more, even if that has not played itself out the fact remains any single lower body injury could have a much greater impact on their career.

    The small hands thing....it does put you at a disadvantage. The thing is that most NFL players hands are not small enough to cause a significant impact. They are only small compared to other giant hands. If your hands were abnormally tiny it would be a legitimate concern IMO
     
    Unlucky 13 and resnor like this.
  13. danmarino

    danmarino George Floyd was murdered Club Member

    10,464
    11,451
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Not true. At least not provable. There is evidence to suggest that attempting to stand in the pocket and throw will get a QB hurt more often.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2020
  14. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,198
    1,912
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I believe we may be using the term mobile QB differently.

    To me a QB who moves well within the pocket and behind the line is not a mobile QB in my eyes. Those who often look to break the LOS and run are what I consider to be mobile QB.

    Any pocket QB worth his salt does not simply sit in the pocket. They manipulate it whether it be through minimal use of their legs breaking the pocket or sliding within it.

    I'd imagine mostly those with poor pocket presence or who take a freak hit would sustain injuries.

    Also, like I said it doesnt only boil down to the number of injuries. A pocket QB can play through a bad ankle and not lose too much. Confining a mobile QB to the pocket is a much bigger issue.

    I'm not against mobile QB for what it's worth, I'm just putting it out there.
     
    resnor likes this.
  15. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,242
    3,209
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    The methodology I would use would be based on QB rush attempts per game
    Put the guys who are in the upper third in the basket named “mobile”
    Put the guys in the middle third in the basket called “normal”
    Put the guys in the bottom third in the basket called “pocket passers”
    Then do the math on games lost to injury for each category.
    Also do it for starting QBs only, as I can see putting backups into the mix as creating issues.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Even better is QB rush attempts per total plays by the QB. Then you don't need to separate by "starter" and "backup" (which is hard to know just from a stat-line). Also, no need to categorize, just look at the correlation between QB rush attempts per play and injuries.

    And if someone really wants to get fancy they can first take out kneels before doing those calculations.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  17. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,710
    8,838
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Okay, since we're being fair, let's list the "mobile QB's" who have lasted more than 5 seasons as a starter in the NFL. Ready? Go!

    Randal Cunningham (although he ultimately retired from injury)
    Cam Newton (although he missed several seasons on IR)
    Michael Vick (did he start five total seasons? Grasping here...)

    Feel free to fill in more.....the point is that there's been very few mobile quarterbacks that were also franchise quarterbacks. We could stretch here and count folks like Russell Wilson, although his game isn't built around the dual threat and he only runs out of necessity. There simply haven't been that many long-term success stories when compared to pocket passers.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,742
    7,867
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Russell Wilson absolutely is a mobile QB.
     
  19. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,710
    8,838
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    He averages 500 yards rushing per season, or 31 yards per game. I was assuming people saying "mobile QB" were referring more to the dual threat type...to me that's not Russell Wilson. But I honestly don't know for sure what we're actually arguing about since there are very few mobile QB's with great careers anyway. Wilson has always been an enigma in almost any QB conversation.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's only recently that the NFL has started to transition towards favoring dual threat QB's. They didn't even do that in the early 2000's. We've only really seen this trend towards dual threat QB's in the last decade or so, so you're not going to have anywhere near as many examples as pocket passers if you look at all of NFL history.

    Having said that, Steve Young, Donovan McNabb and John Elway have to be on that list, among others (Wilson too since you mention him).
     
  21. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,710
    8,838
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Sure they did with Vick, Newton, Kaepernick, McNair, McNabb, Stewart, etc. Steve Young had a good chunk of yards in the 90's and you also had Cunningham and a few lesser names that washed out through those decades (for example, Pat White, RG3 and Tim Tebow). They've always been there but haven't been "mainstream" across the league because of injury concerns...which is the exact argument you guys were having.

    Whether or not that's actually true doesn't change the fact that teams have avoided those types of QB's for decades due to the perception of greater injury risk. Just that hit to Cunningham alone probably set mobile QB's back a decade...I can still remember seeing that live and feeling sick from how his leg bent.

    Plain and simple, the league overly protects QB's in the modern era if they stay in the pocket. Asking your QB to run and slide just before being hit is playing with fire....I'm not sure how that's even up for debate.
     
    resnor likes this.
  22. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They didn't favor dual threat QB's before. You had some, but most were pocket passers.

    And there's something wrong with your theory because nothing has changed in terms of perception of injury risk. Same now as before.

    So what's explaining the rise of all these mobile QB's? I mean today you have Rodgers, Wilson, Jackson, Mahomes, Watson.. and each year the crop increases. Once Brady, Brees, Rivers, etc.. retire it'll be the end of the pocket passer era.

    Something else is afoot: 1) defenses blitz a lot more, and 2) QB's coming out of college are FAR more athletic than before. The transition is happening because mobile QB's are starting to outperform pure pocket passers. That wasn't the case before (except for individual cases obviously). Injury risk doesn't explain what's going on here.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  23. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,242
    3,209
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    One caveat is that without checking the historical data we don’t know f QB rushing is going up, or whether it is our perception is that QBs are rushing more
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014

    http://www.nfl.com/fantasyfootball/...nteresting-fantasy-facts-from-2019-nfl-season

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-numbers-rise-bring-on-kyler-murray/40009047/
    I don't have all the data, but that right there at least suggests it's not just fan perception.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  25. Patster1969

    Patster1969 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    311
    312
    63
    Nov 8, 2017
    Appreciate the reply Cbrad - still feel that Cleveland had more talent in 2018 than we had in 2019 though (particularly over the first few weeks), so much so that with the addition of only a few players, they were deemed to be SB bound. As I said, obviously that didn't happen due to mis-management.

    I did say that we were only reckoned to be historically bad for the first few weeks - we were then less bad for the next 2 or 3. It was only when Rosen was yanked in the Skins game where we saw an improvement, so I think we could all see that he wasn't ready to be the starter - will he be, no idea. I would like to see him succeed somewhere though, as he seems like a good guy.

    With a tank, everyone has to buy in, which is why we weren't tanking, as the Coach Flo or the players didn't get that memo. The Colts definitely jumping on the tank after several weeks though in order to get Luck.

    As has been said, there is definitely a difference between a mobile QB, a QB with mobility and a pure pocket passer, as even though Marino/Manning were deemed pocket passers, they still had pocket mobility - I am assuming that Unlucky13 isn't looking for a static pocket passer, as they will get killed with the way that todays defenses play. You likely have a preference for a QB with great mobility (Wilson, Mahomes, Watson) as opposed to a statuesque pocket passer or someone like Tebow. I would have thought that coupling someone like Wilson with a good running game would be the ideal way to play on offense, as this gives us the best of both worlds and would enable us to sustain drives - no guarantees though.

    I'm not sure that I could mention Rosen & Manning in the same sentence in terms of their QB skills though. I'll be honest, I haven't read through the history of Unlucky's thoughts on style of play - so trying to come across as balanced in my hopes for the team. We are all looking for consistency instead of style vs substance really and making sure that your QB is not taking unnecessary risks/hits outside the pocket. It may well be a difficult viewpoint though.
     
  26. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,855
    30,362
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    No, I am absolutely looking for a pocket passer, and an offensive line and scheme that can protect him. I greatly dislike the notion of "today's style of play" that has crept up the last few years. To me, is lesser football. You need to find a way to make it work.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,782
    9,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Dolphins in early 2019 season were totally talent starved, yes, but the comparison is Mayfield's rookie year vs. Rosen's rookie year in Arizona. There, I'd go with Cleveland being the worse situation both talent-wise and coaching wise.

    I think people are forgetting how Suck for Luck went down. The Dolphins were the odds-on favorite to win the Suck for Luck sweepstakes early on. Ross even said he was willing to put up with short term losses to win later. That wasn't the vibe coming from the Colts. If there was any team that looked like it was aiming to lose it was the Dolphins, not the Colts.

    The Colts had just signed Manning to a 5-year $90 million contract and he was expected to see playing time later in the season. It only turned out late in the season that he couldn't come back. Once the Colts won "Suck for Luck" they decided to part ways.

    So if the Colts were really trying to win Suck for Luck it was only much later in the season, and you can see that in their record:
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/2011.htm

    Look how many games up till week 6 were lost by a TD or less. That is NOT Suck for Luck. In fact, I remember how surprising it was that the Colts couldn't even win a single game without Manning mid-way. I don't think anyone thought the loss of Manning would be THAT bad.

    I will say however that something was suspicious later on in the season when Indy won a few games after they won Suck for Luck. But that was late in the game, not early. Early on it was the Dolphins going after Luck and you see how difficult it was to pull that off.
     
  28. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,198
    1,912
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I'm in the middle.

    I dont think a guy needs to be Dan Marino with his legs, but I dont believe he needs to be Lamar Jackson either.

    Give me an Aaron Rodgers who can run enough to evade trouble but looks to do most of his dirty work from within the pocket or on boots.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. rafael

    rafael Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    27,336
    31,207
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    If you read the article above it was pretty clear that knee injuries are far more likely to occur in the pocket than outside of it. It's just easier to protect yourself when you're moving. In the pocket, with your eyes downfield and bodies all around your legs, knee injuries are just much, much more prevalent. The mobile QB takes himself out of the more dangerous situation more often. And I also don't agree, nor is there any evidence that, the mobile QB takes more hits. I would say the opposite is true. I certainly believe Tannehill would have taken fewer hits if he'd left the pocket sooner and more often. Mobile QBs slide and run out of bounds so they avoid hits that they usually can't in the pocket. With fewer bodies around they are more likely to see the hits coming or take hits flush and/or from odd angles. They take fewer hits and are better able to protect themselves from the hits they do take.
     
    resnor likes this.
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,742
    7,867
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I mean some of this has changed due to more recent rules changes and enforcements. I agree in today's league, a QB out on the run probably isn't going take the same types of punishing hits he would have take 10 or 20 years ago. You routinely see players pull up before hitting QBs out on the run
     
  31. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,198
    1,912
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    You are only looking at knee injuries which most people already know happen when a plant leg is on the ground.

    A knee injury is not the only type of injury.
     
  32. Patster1969

    Patster1969 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    311
    312
    63
    Nov 8, 2017
    Probably me with my selective/terrible memory remembering it differently - also thought that the Manning contract was a few years older by then, so must have hammered them for cap space for a few years.
    Also had forgotten that Christianson was the OC at the time!
     
    cbrad and Irishman like this.
  33. rafael

    rafael Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    27,336
    31,207
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Actually you're the one who stated, "A mobile QB may only have one injury his entire career, but a torn up knee is 100x more detrimental to their career", in response to an article that showed how QBs got fewer knee injuries outside the pocket. I just assumed you hadn't read it. Just like I assume you didn't read my post either, since the majority of the post was about how mobile QBs take fewer total hits and that they are better able to protect themselves when they do. You concluding that I was only looking at knee injuries is just wrong.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  34. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    526
    572
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Rosen is a young QB that played on the worst team in the league during the last 2 seasons. Fitzmagic was better suited to handle that sort of situation with his 15+ years of experience. It does not mean Rosen is Dog****. To Rosen's credit he has worked hard and been a great teammate. The coaches have said nothing but positive things about Rosen. Flores has praised his work ethic, attitude, and progress... He has stated numerous times that Rosen is still improving.

    For a minute out there Rosen looked like he belonged.. He looked like he had something special... But with that line and the pounding he was taking the coaches did the right thing getting him out of there. To stay in the lineup and take that kind of beating could potentially destroy him as a QB... Flores knew Fitz could go out there and win or lose it would not change him as a player.

    Fitz to his credit played some of the best football of his life and he was probably the Dolphins MVP last season.

    Rosen is young
    Rosen is cheap
    Rosen is healthy

    He is more than worthy of the back up QB roster spot.

    Bringing him back was a no brainer.

    If the Line is improved and the running game is improved maybe Rosen shows you something in camp and the pre season.

    We should trust Flores... He turned cranberry man into something useful... Ditto for Taco when nobody else wanted him... How about the fantastic job our coaches did coaching up Needham to be a pretty decent #2 cornerback?

    For the first time in 20+ years we have someone here that can coach up and develop players... Because of that, we should hold out some hope that Rosen will be part of a very bright Miami Dolphins future.
     
    freeperjim, AGuyNamedAlex and resnor like this.

Share This Page