Salguero - Neither Rosen Or Fitzpatrick Will Be The Dolphins Long Term Quarterback | Page 16 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Salguero - Neither Rosen Or Fitzpatrick Will Be The Dolphins Long Term Quarterback

NBP81 said:
Was it a drastic change from rookie to right now in your opinion? Im only asking as Im sure some of it absolutely has to do with the supproting cast but not all of it.

In other words, how much of that drop off do you attribute to coaching staff and OL vs pure regression as a player? And I understand that in the end it might not even matter, as no matter what, his confidence might be crushed and once that happens well...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that there's been regression. He didn't change. The environment did. The experiment provided new information that changed the evaluation.

The "drastic" change in valuation to which you refer is inherent to the position. I think there's a wide perception that the talent-value graph goes like this:

upload_2019-8-16_12-3-19.png

When in actuality, it goes like this:

upload_2019-8-16_12-4-5.png

When it comes to evaluating QBs, there's a very small difference in the skill sets of the guys who can make it and be worth it, versus the guys who will drown.

In Josh Rosen's case, there were certain ways he was supposed to win when he got into the NFL, certain things that made him a compelling prospect within a college backdrop. But when he got to the NFL, his strengths weren't good enough, by a long shot.

The guy was supposed to win by being intelligent, being pro-translatable, being able to throw the football well and accurately with good rhythm, being able to feel the rush, and able to win from the pocket. There were deficiencies. You knew them. You knew that he had to be protected. But if you protect him he can win from the pocket.

But he's not winning from the pocket. Everyone likes to act like he was pressured on 100% of his plays in Arizona. He wasn't. He was pressured on 40% of them, some of those because he held it too long. And on the 60% he wasn't pressured, he was very bad relative to the rest of the league. His timing was bad. His reading the field was bad. He's not getting the offenses or the defenses quickly.

The change in environment was supposed to affect other players more than him, because of his pro translatability. It was the opposite. And from what I'm seeing, it's still happening, even as he grows up, matures, learns, and gets better at the game, which is an inevitability.

People act like I'm saying he can't get better. Of course he can. And will. But getting better doesn't mean he's going to scale that impossible wall in the second graph above. He's just sliding up the rankings of the other guys around the league that aren't worth it.
 
ckparrothead said:
I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that there's been regression. He didn't change. The environment did. The experiment provided new information that changed the evaluation.

The "drastic" change in valuation to which you refer is inherent to the position. I think there's a wide perception that the talent-value graph goes like this:

View attachment 22977

When in actuality, it goes like this:

View attachment 22978

When it comes to evaluating QBs, there's a very small difference in the skill sets of the guys who can make it and be worth it, versus the guys who will drown.

In Josh Rosen's case, there were certain ways he was supposed to win when he got into the NFL, certain things that made him a compelling prospect within a college backdrop. But when he got to the NFL, his strengths weren't good enough, by a long shot.

The guy was supposed to win by being intelligent, being pro-translatable, being able to throw the football well and accurately with good rhythm, being able to feel the rush, and able to win from the pocket. There were deficiencies. You knew them. You knew that he had to be protected. But if you protect him he can win from the pocket.

But he's not winning from the pocket. Everyone likes to act like he was pressured on 100% of his plays in Arizona. He wasn't. He was pressured on 40% of them, some of those because he held it too long. And on the 60% he wasn't pressured, he was very bad relative to the rest of the league. His timing was bad. His reading the field was bad. He's not getting the offenses or the defenses quickly.

The change in environment was supposed to affect other players more than him, because of his pro translatability. It was the opposite. And from what I'm seeing, it's still happening, even as he grows up, matures, learns, and gets better at the game, which is an inevitability.

People act like I'm saying he can't get better. Of course he can. And will. But getting better doesn't mean he's going to scale that impossible wall in the second graph above. He's just sliding up the rankings of the other guys around the league that aren't worth it.
Click to expand...

Rosen doesn't seem to have any rhythm out there and there's not a lot of confidence in his game. He's clearly comfortable in the mid range, center field throws, and hucking 50/50 balls down the sidelines. Great placement.

The issue is almost everything else. A lot of it is coming out late.

Hopefully that improves but my compass is still pointing in the direction of 2020 and thus I can't get mad at Armando putting his name on a prediction that I actually tend to agree with.
 
I really hope Rosen turns out to be the guy. Then we could use the draft to build in other areas.
 
ckparrothead said:
I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that there's been regression. He didn't change. The environment did. The experiment provided new information that changed the evaluation.

The "drastic" change in valuation to which you refer is inherent to the position. I think there's a wide perception that the talent-value graph goes like this:

View attachment 22977

When in actuality, it goes like this:

View attachment 22978

When it comes to evaluating QBs, there's a very small difference in the skill sets of the guys who can make it and be worth it, versus the guys who will drown.

In Josh Rosen's case, there were certain ways he was supposed to win when he got into the NFL, certain things that made him a compelling prospect within a college backdrop. But when he got to the NFL, his strengths weren't good enough, by a long shot.

The guy was supposed to win by being intelligent, being pro-translatable, being able to throw the football well and accurately with good rhythm, being able to feel the rush, and able to win from the pocket. There were deficiencies. You knew them. You knew that he had to be protected. But if you protect him he can win from the pocket.

But he's not winning from the pocket. Everyone likes to act like he was pressured on 100% of his plays in Arizona. He wasn't. He was pressured on 40% of them, some of those because he held it too long. And on the 60% he wasn't pressured, he was very bad relative to the rest of the league. His timing was bad. His reading the field was bad. He's not getting the offenses or the defenses quickly.

The change in environment was supposed to affect other players more than him, because of his pro translatability. It was the opposite. And from what I'm seeing, it's still happening, even as he grows up, matures, learns, and gets better at the game, which is an inevitability.

People act like I'm saying he can't get better. Of course he can. And will. But getting better doesn't mean he's going to scale that impossible wall in the second graph above. He's just sliding up the rankings of the other guys around the league that aren't worth it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. Football is such a low sample size sport that expecting a smooth linear graph is quite unrealistic(like you said), especially with young players. College data (at least outside of tape study) is basically worthless because you have to account for so many factors like SOS, coaching and different systems. So I can see where NFL data trumps college data, nevermind that its more recent, its also more relevant.
 
ckparrothead said:
I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that there's been regression. He didn't change. The environment did. The experiment provided new information that changed the evaluation.

The "drastic" change in valuation to which you refer is inherent to the position. I think there's a wide perception that the talent-value graph goes like this:

View attachment 22977

When in actuality, it goes like this:

View attachment 22978

When it comes to evaluating QBs, there's a very small difference in the skill sets of the guys who can make it and be worth it, versus the guys who will drown.

In Josh Rosen's case, there were certain ways he was supposed to win when he got into the NFL, certain things that made him a compelling prospect within a college backdrop. But when he got to the NFL, his strengths weren't good enough, by a long shot.

The guy was supposed to win by being intelligent, being pro-translatable, being able to throw the football well and accurately with good rhythm, being able to feel the rush, and able to win from the pocket. There were deficiencies. You knew them. You knew that he had to be protected. But if you protect him he can win from the pocket.

But he's not winning from the pocket. Everyone likes to act like he was pressured on 100% of his plays in Arizona. He wasn't. He was pressured on 40% of them, some of those because he held it too long. And on the 60% he wasn't pressured, he was very bad relative to the rest of the league. His timing was bad. His reading the field was bad. He's not getting the offenses or the defenses quickly.

The change in environment was supposed to affect other players more than him, because of his pro translatability. It was the opposite. And from what I'm seeing, it's still happening, even as he grows up, matures, learns, and gets better at the game, which is an inevitability.

People act like I'm saying he can't get better. Of course he can. And will. But getting better doesn't mean he's going to scale that impossible wall in the second graph above. He's just sliding up the rankings of the other guys around the league that aren't worth it.
Click to expand...
Rosen was the 2nd most pressured QB in the NFL. .. that's pretty bad
 
Armando is not wrong in this assessment. Rosen is a longshot to be a long term starter in this league. Miami will have a high pick and can hopefully land that elusive franchise QB in the 2020 draft.
 
ckparrothead said:
And he was also the 2nd worst QB in the NFL on plays where there was no pressure. That's pretty bad.
Click to expand...

( pitter patter pitter patter pitter patter) Thats footsteps in his head from getting killed even when he has a clean pocket


lets try to get the man at least a ****hair of confidence back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom