Vikings Need A Plan B at QB

[Raptorman]

Do you seriously think Zimmer just hired Norv without caring what sort of offense he would run, how he would use the personnel, etc. ? I have no doubt Zimmer chose Turner because he trusted him and felt he could give him a certain level of autonomy but if he had zero vision for the offense of his own team beyond hiring someone and handing him the keys to that offense ... well, let's just say that would be more than a little problematic.

You did notice which offense was second on that list, right?

When your offense is ranked lower than Les Steckels, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Also interesting to see how Tice went from 2,1,4, to 25 when they got rid of Randy Moss.

[mosscarter]

aside from diggs and peterson i couldn't care less if they cleaned house offensively. someone mentioned it above, it appears zimmer can and is building a defense, but has no idea about an offense. so, i think he is learning the hard way right now. i really do think he can take this organization where it needs to be; but it appears he missed the mark with turner. and, as someone also noted above, bridgewater was basically norv's guy. it appears they are both underachieving, but there have been several instances when norv was visibly upset in the booth because of teddy's inability to execute. everyone keeps saying "build" an offense around bridgewater. well, i'm not sure einstein could draw up such a blueprint for a quarterback who can't consistently complete a 20 yard pass through the air. it is going to be ugly tomorrow night, but maybe that is what needs to happen because this offense (passing wise) is worse than many division 1 teams.

[purpletinted66]

^ i don't understand why so many think zim has no savy for offense? how is it possible to be a master of defensive coaching if you cannot comprehend offensive scheming?

[mansquatch]

^ i don't understand why so many think zim has no savy for offense? how is it possible to be a master of defensive coaching if you cannot comprehend offensive scheming?

Exactly correct.

I think Zimmer brought in Norv because Norv is a lot like Zimmer. He is a highly epxerienced NFL coach with a similar amount of experience. They also coached together in Dallas.

I get a sense that Zimmer is really big on sound fundamentals and smart players. IMO, if Norv gets the axe it will be because he is not succeeding in those two areas vs. anything to do with scheme.

I think the Norv already yielded his scheme in terms of the Vikings offense, there have been some articles about that written and how the OL limits what they can do.

[Mothman]

This discussion has veered around a bit and been interesting but I'm going to try to re-focus on the topic in the thread title.

I still think it's a good idea. It's the way I want the Vikings to think and the way I would like them to approach the position. Whether they will or not is, of course, an entirely different question.

I think the argument for getting a young, Plan B quarterback they can groom to compete with or eventually replace Bridgewater goes something like this:

Things clearly aren't going terribly well with Bridgewater at QB. Whether that's due to his performance, the playcalling, the system, the WRs, the o-line, Adrian Peterson or some/all of the above, the Vikes offense (and passing game), has been near the bottom of the league for two years and production from the QB position hasn't been very good. Consequently, when they head into Bridgewater's third year, I think it would a good idea to begin preparing for the possibility that he's just not their guy, that it simply isn't going to work out with him at QB. Recognizing and preparing for that possibility does not mean they have to give up on Bridgewater. After all, the whole idea of a "Plan B" is that it's a contingency plan, in case "Plan A" doesn't work.

QB is the most important position in football so, in the absence of a really good veteran backup, I think it makes sense to develop a talented young QB as the primary backup. That player can serve as a contingency plan on a team still trying to establish a starter. He can serve as depth, ready to step in if the starter gets hurt (if that happens, you don't want the season to go down with the QB). He can also be a motivating factor for the starter (competition can be healthy).

A young QB is usually cheaper than a veteran backup too so going that route opens up a little more cap space. Heck, Hill makes more than Bridgewater and would next year too.

Speaking of Shaun Hill, he will be 36 next season and if they keep him, he'll make $3,250,000. Does anybody think the Vikes would have more than a mediocre season if they had to start him for 15 or 16 games? He offers little upside down the road while a talented younger backup should have that upside to offer.

The main arguments I see against this "Plan B" strategy are:

— It requires a commitment of resources, probably draft resources, which means the team would be drafting a player not to play (ie: to be a backup) as opposed to bringing in a player that could provide immediate help. That's basically true regardless of round but would obviously be more controversial if it involved a first or second day pick.

— Depending on who is available and how the draft and free agency fall, there may not be a player available that the Vikings consider a worthy fit for the role.

There are more nuanced aspects of this within the framework above but hopefully, I've hit on the main points. I didn't mention the possibility of trading for a young QB that's already in the league but it would be another option on the table...

[dead_poet]

This discussion has veered around a bit and been interesting but I'm going to try to re-focus on the topic in the thread title.

I still think it's a good idea. It's the way I want the Vikings to think and the way I would like them to approach the position. Whether they will or not is, of course, an entirely different question.

I think the argument for getting a young, Plan B quarterback they can groom to compete with or eventually replace Bridgewater goes something like this:

Things clearly aren't going terribly well with Bridgewater at QB. Whether that's due to his performance, the playcalling, the system, the WRs, the o-line, Adrian Peterson or some/all of the above, the Vikes offense (and passing game), has been near the bottom of the league for two years and production from the QB position hasn't been very good. Consequently, when they head into Bridgewater's third year, I think it would a good idea to begin preparing for the possibility that he's just not their guy, that it simply isn't going to work out with him at QB. Recognizing and preparing for that possibility does not mean they have to give up on Bridgewater. After all, the whole idea of a "Plan B" is that it's a contingency plan, in case "Plan A" doesn't work.

QB is the most important position in football so, in the absence of a really good veteran backup, I think it makes sense to develop a talented young QB as the primary backup. That player can serve as a contingency plan on a team still trying to establish a starter. He can serve as depth, ready to step in if the starter gets hurt (if that happens, you don't want the season to go down with the QB). He can also be a motivating factor for the starter (competition can be healthy).

A young QB is usually cheaper than a veteran backup too so going that route opens up a little more cap space. Heck, Hill makes more than Bridgewater and would next year too.

Speaking of Shaun Hill, he will be 36 next season and if they keep him, he'll make $3,250,000. Does anybody think the Vikes would have more than a mediocre season if they had to start him for 15 or 16 games? He offers little upside down the road while a talented younger backup should have that upside to offer.

The main arguments I see against this "Plan B" strategy are:

— It requires a commitment of resources, probably draft resources, which means the team would be drafting a player not to play (ie: to be a backup) as opposed to bringing in a player that could provide immediate help. That's basically true regardless of round but would obviously be more controversial if it involved a first or second day pick.

— Depending on who is available and how the draft and free agency fall, there may not be a player available that the Vikings consider a worthy fit for the role.

There are more nuanced aspects of this within the framework above but hopefully, I've hit on the main points. I didn't mention the possibility of trading for a young QB that's already in the league but it would be another option on the table...

I'm one that sees the potential benefit, but I also struggle to agree with this approach. This could be a nightmare for coaches. If your Plan A guy (still on his second year of starts) struggles a bit to start 2016 do you bench him? If so, do you think it should be for good? If you bench him for rookie Plan B guy...how many games do you give Plan B guy to see if he's capable of being the new starter? What if he performs as bad or worse? Do you continue to play him? Do you go week-to-week? Game plan specific? What if Plan B guy gets injured two games into his starts after he's playing at a similar level as Plan A guy? Then Plan A guy plays marginally better than before (perhaps it's an easier matchup). Then what? What does this do to the locker room (divide it?)? We all know how this approach would play out in the press (read: constant questions/distractions, etc.).

Do you think a rookie Plan B QB is better equipped to lead a team to a win than seasoned veteran (I'm assuming injury to Plan A quarterback)? I think this is yet another wrinkle. Remember: wins = job security.

To me this strategy is predicated on the assumption that Plan B guy is going to succeed where Plan A guy fails. Plan B guy could be just as bad (or worse). But Plan B guy could develop if not thrust into action right away.

The "seasoned veteran" approach is working for the Jets after Geno was injured. Now Geno is probably gone and Petty will probably compete with a new guy.

I also look at the nightmare that has been Hoyer/Mallet and McCown/Manziel/Davis and to some extent RGIII/Cousins.

I don't know what the right approach is (obviously the ideal approach is spending one draft pick on one guy that steps in and becomes your unquestioned starter for 15 years), but I cringe at the potential mess of having two highly-drafted quarterbacks on the roster. It could pay off, but it could also backfire masterfully. But I do understand the "swing until you hit" mentality. Largely the Vikings (and other teams) have done that for a long time, only they typically decide not to whiff on more than one pitch per year. It would be crazy if the Vikings took a QB in the second round only to have Teddy completely turn it around in 2016 with an improved offensive line/receivers and have the second-round QB never play a snap in a Vikings uniform. I know that's unlikely and a good problem to have, but I'd hate for them not to draft an impact starter at another position because of it.

This is just a long-winded way of saying this approach makes me very uncomfortable.

[Mothman]

I'm one that sees the potential benefit, but I also struggle to agree with this approach. This could be a nightmare for coaches. If your Plan A guy (still on his second year of starts) struggles a bit to start 2016 do you bench him? If so, do you think it should be for good? If you bench him for rookie Plan B guy...how many games do you give Plan B guy to see if he's capable of being the new starter? What if he performs as bad or worse? Do you continue to play him? Do you go week-to-week? Game plan specific? What if Plan B guy gets injured two games into his starts after he's playing at a similar level as Plan A guy? Then Plan A guy plays marginally better than before (perhaps it's an easier matchup). Then what? What does this do to the locker room (divide it?)? We all know how this approach would play out in the press (read: constant questions/distractions, etc.).

There are certainly potential pitfalls and it would take a strong, assured coach to navigate them.

Do you think a rookie Plan B QB is better equipped to lead a team to a win than seasoned veteran (I'm assuming injury to Plan A quarterback)? I think this is yet another wrinkle. Remember: wins = job security.

It's hard to answer that question. It probably depends on the rookie and the veteran (and the matchup). An immobile veteran journeyman with an adequate arm might fare worse than an athletic rookie with a strong arm but a rookie is only a rookie for one year. A second or third year backup might very well fare better than a seasoned veteran.

To me this strategy is predicated on the assumption that Plan B guy is going to succeed where Plan A guy fails. Plan B guy could be just as bad (or worse). But Plan B guy could develop if not thrust into action right away.

I can see why you'd view it that way but I don't see any such assumption involved. I just view it as an effort to be prepared. Remember, we've seen the alternative play out a few times already. If you put all of your eggs in one basket or don't prepare you end up going into an offseason with somebody like Webb as your only QB and you're forced to draft the best QB you think you can get....

... or you go into an offseason with Matt Cassel as your designated starter and frankly, that's not good for anybody.

I don't know what the right approach is (obviously the ideal approach is spending one draft pick on one guy that steps in and becomes your unquestioned starter for 15 years), but I cringe at the potential mess of having two highly-drafted quarterbacks on the roster.

They wouldn't have to be highly drafted but obviously, the better talent tends to be in on the board in the first two days of the draft. You're looking at a lot of the nightmare scenarios but remember, success stories like Russell Wilson and Tom Brady illustrate the flipside of this coin.

Having a "Plan B" doesn't necessitate dropping the veteran backup teams often like to carry because the rookie cap would allow for both. Dropping that veteran is a potential benefit but nota necessary step. For all I know, Heinicke is a legitimate Plan B and the Vikes already have this covered (but I doubt it). To me, it's more about the upside of the prospect than the round in which he's drafted.

It could pay off, but it could also backfire masterfully. But I do understand the "swing until you hit" mentality. Largely the Vikings (and other teams) have done that for a long time, only they typically decide not to whiff on more than one pitch per year. It would be crazy if the Vikings took a QB in the second round only to have Teddy completely turn it around in 2016 with an improved offensive line/receivers and have the second-round QB never play a snap in a Vikings uniform. I know that's unlikely and a good problem to have, but I'd hate for them not to draft an impact starter at another position because of it.

Sure, but what's worse, missing out on that player or ending up in another draft where they're forced to grab the best QB they can get and then bank on that guy for another 3 years?

I suppose it's a "swing until you hit" mentality but what's the alternative when, sooner or later, you need to hit? It's also about being ready for the worst, Culpepper went down and they had aging Brad Johnson and nobody they could even consider as a legitimate future for the position. Favre retired and... nobody. Ponder flamed out and... nobody.

This is just a long-winded way of saying this approach makes me very uncomfortable.

Hey, I understand. As I said, I see the potential pitfalls. I'm just more uncomfortable with the team putting all of their eggs in one basket again and again.

Look at it this way: if the player you commit to as a starter the starting QB doesn't work out (for any reason) it usually leads to difficulties. I just like the idea of trying to be more prepared.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I wasn't sure that post would get one!

Edit: I should add that i see this whole concept as something to consider, not something to force. I advocate adding this type of QB when there's a good opportunity and good fit, not just for the sake of it.

[dead_poet]

There are certainly potential pitfalls and it would take a strong, assured coach to navigate them.

And a GM/owner that has patience and confidence in the approach to let it play out for several seasons.

It's hard to answer that question. It probably depends on the rookie and the veteran (and the matchup). An immobile veteran journeyman with an adequate arm might fare worse than an athletic rookie with a strong arm but a rookie is only a rookie for one year. A second or third year backup might very well fare better than a seasoned veteran.

Yeah, it's impossible to say for sure but I would say that the veteran is probably the better short-term option (would be interesting if there were stats to verify). Of course, sometimes neither are the option as we've seen with Dallas' Weeden-Cassel strategy.

I can see why you'd view it that way but I don't see any such assumption involved. I just view it as an effort to be prepared. Remember, we've seen the alternative play out a few times already. If you put all of your eggs in one basket or don't prepare you end up going into an offseason with somebody like Webb as your only QB and you're forced to draft the best QB you think you can get....

... or you go into an offseason with Matt Cassel as your designated starter and frankly, that's not good for anybody.

Indeed.

They wouldn't have to be highly drafted but obviously, the better talent tends to be in on the board in the first two days of the draft. You're looking at a lot of the nightmare scenarios but remember, success stories like Russell Wilson and Tom Brady illustrate the flipside of this coin.

But they represent the extreme minority. Did you know there hasn't been a 4th rounder who has won a Super Bowl in 30 years? The only notable QB to come out of the fifth or later rounds in the past decade is Tony Romo and...Matt Cassel.

I encourage you to take a look at this, which lends quite a unique look into QB drafting in relation to "success" https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/1 ... thats_not/

The Cliff notes (no, not YOUR notes, Cliff):

If You're Drafting a QB That's Not Considered a First Round Talent, Are You Wasting Your Pick?

The average draft pick for a QB that won at least one playoff game during their career since the 1983 draft was 51.78, so middle of the second round. The Median is much lower at 25.

The average draft pick for a QB that has a winning record in the playoffs drops clear down to 14.20, so middle of the first round. The Median is 21.

Edited this section. Thanks to the two brave redditors that pointed out I was smoking crack with my math here The average draft pick for a QB that has won a Superbowl in this time frame is 43.04. I found this particularly interesting, because this number would be much much lower without Tom Brady (6th round pick, # 199), Mark Rypien (6th round, #146) and Brad Johnson (9th round, #246). Still, just looking at the distribution you can tell that it's heavily slanted toward first round picks, and first picks overall in particular. The Median, which helps deal with outliers here, is 14.5.

So What Did We Learn?

Quarterbacks that advance deep into the playoffs and have success there are quarterbacks that scouts believe have a first round grade, particularly ones that teams believe are worth a high draft pick (10th or higher).

Drafting a QB any later than the middle of the second round could easily be considered a waste of a draft pick. Your odds of landing a winner in the 3rd, 4th or 5th round aren't really a ton higher than if you sign undrafted Joe Schmoe from Northeast Southern Grand Rapids Community College to your practice squad and go from there.

You've got like a 1% chance of getting a Tom Brady.

This is obviously not the end-all-be-all but if you're playing the probabilities, you would be advocating for the Vikings to draft a QB in the first two rounds in 2016 and potentially every draft thereafter (or every other?) until they "hit"? How frequently are you advocating for this approach?

For all I know, Heinicke is a legitimate Plan B and the Vikes already have this covered (but I doubt it). To me, it's more about the upside of the prospect than the round in which he's drafted.

And what your expectations are, too. I would be shocked if the Vikings kept Heinicke on the 53 with the thoughts he could realistically compete to start vs. progress to eventually be a solid backup. And as mentioned above, the upside of the prospect is typically tied to draft position.

Sure, but what's worse, missing out on that player or ending up in another draft where they're forced to grab the best QB they can get and then bank on that guy for another 3 years?

They aren't mutually exclusive. IF Plan B quarterback isn't the guy, you've squandered the pick entirely. Of course you could say this for any pick at any position but I think we've seen enough data to suggest that round 2-3 players of other positions "hit" more often than round 2-3 quarterbacks.

I suppose it's a "swing until you hit" mentality but what's the alternative when, sooner or later, you need to hit? It's also about being ready for the worst, Culpepper went down and they had aging Brad Johnson and nobody they could even consider as a legitimate future for the position. Favre retired and... nobody. Ponder flamed out and... nobody.

This also speaks to the bigger question/problem of dearth of overall competent NFL quarterbacks. We're hardly alone in this.

Hey, I understand. As I said, I see the potential pitfalls. I'm just more uncomfortable with the team putting all of their eggs in one basket again and again.

Couldn't the Plan B approach be seen as putting more eggs in the same basket?

Look at it this way: if the player you commit to as a starter the starting QB doesn't work out (for any reason) it usually leads to difficulties.

The Plan B approach could lead to just as many (if not more) difficulties as much as it could be a success (one may argue that because you're likely not spending a first-round draft pick on a QB when you recently selected one that it's not the best use of that pick). I can see how it has the possibility of working if the second round 1-3 QB is allowed to sit for a couple of seasons while the Plan A quarterback "grows" (or not). Of course this is predicated on the assumption that sitting and watching/learning is more beneficial than "live bullets." I think that's the assumption because of the success of guys like Brady, Rodgers and maybe Osweiler.

[mondry]

They have too many holes for me to "hope" they invest a high draft pick into a backup QB and like Poet said it creates such a massive negative situation on the team if the main guy struggles. You either have faith in your guy or you don't, if you do then you stick with him and if you don't then you move on. Imagine if they brought in a 1st round pick behind Andy Dalton while he struggled his first 4 years? Could you imagine the never ending #### storm they'd be dealing with while Dalton struggled?

Oh and by the way, they don't have Tyler Eifert now because they spent that pick on Geno Smith.

That type of strategy only really makes sense for a team like NE where you have not only an established QB but an established TEAM and even for them it only made sense when a guy like Garappolo fell to them with one of the last picks in the 2nd round. Otherwise it's way too risky and I'm a firm believer that in order to see what your QB has you have to build a team towards his strengths, protect him properly in pass protection, and give him the weapons to succeed.

With all that said, another part of it for me is the draft, it becomes a lot more palatable if a higher rated guy falls. When Brett Hundley fell to the packers in the 5th round I thought it was a really good move for them to pick him up there. So no I'm not entirely against the idea of drafting a plan b / backup QB but the situation has to fit really well, where he's probably the best player on the board and the value is too good to pass up.

A lot of teams, including ours, will seemingly just pass up any QB no matter what, if a 4th round guy falls to the 6th they pass on um, I don't agree with that, I think you have to treat the position just like any other position, if a LB you like falls to you but you don't need LB's you'll still take that guy cause he's the BPA but for QB it's different and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Worst case scenario they bust like any other late round pick but best case scenario, even if you don't need a QB because it clicks for your main guy, you trade him like Matt Cassell for a much higher pick and get VALUE. IF your main guy fails then best case changes to having another viable guy with some upside instead of just a guy like hill.

So that's where I stand, no way can they spend a high 1st or 2nd round pick on a QB this year, but if a decent talent starts to slip from say the 3rd round to the 5th? Sure, take him because you should always consider taking the BPA on the board.

[Texas Vike]

I have enjoyed reading this back and forth, starting with Jim's "redirection" post.

Mondry, I think I align most with your take. If the draft plays out in such a way that you can snag someone in the 5th round that you graded as, say, a 2nd rounder: Go for it!

Also, I wouldn't mind seeing Heineke this season if Teddy keeps playing like he has. Hill does nothing for me, even while our playoff hopes are alive.

[sneaxsneax]

This seems like the right place to leave this,

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-r ... dgewater-0

posted in the vikings reddit forum.

[dead_poet]

This seems like the right place to leave this,

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-r ... dgewater-0

posted in the vikings reddit forum.

We're discussing this very thing over here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28923&start=60

[Mothman]

I encourage you to take a look at this, which lends quite a unique look into QB drafting in relation to "success" https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/1 ... thats_not/

Thanks. I did take a look at it. I've seen that basic data before in other formats too so i'm familiar with it.

This is obviously not the end-all-be-all but if you're playing the probabilities, you would be advocating for the Vikings to draft a QB in the first two rounds in 2016 and potentially every draft thereafter (or every other?) until they "hit"? How frequently are you advocating for this approach?

Certainly not every year! Ideally, it would only be necessary once in 4 years or so (ie: the duration of a rookie contract). The goal is still to have the designated starter succeed. If you draft a player to develop behind him and that player becomes the primary backup, it should be possible to keep him for at least the span of his rookie contract. After that, it might or might not be problematic.

Other than the potential expenditure of a day one or two draft pick , this isn't such a big departure. Essentially, the idea is to replace the MBT/Heinicke type the Vikes already carry on the roster with a prospect that has a much higher ceiling. The team could easily afford to keep a veteran backup too, at least at first. Hopefully, if they chose wisely, the prospect would develop in a year or two and become the primary backup. At that point, "Plan B" is in place.

There are lots of potential scenarios from there ...

They aren't mutually exclusive. IF Plan B quarterback isn't the guy, you've squandered the pick entirely. Of course you could say this for any pick at any position but I think we've seen enough data to suggest that round 2-3 players of other positions "hit" more often than round 2-3 quarterbacks.

Nevertheless, as you said, you could say the same for any pick at any position.

I'm assuming scouting and player evaluation would still matter. I'm not suggesting they ever just pick a QB for the sake of it.

This also speaks to the bigger question/problem of dearth of overall competent NFL quarterbacks. We're hardly alone in this.

No, but I don't think that matters. If anything, I see it as another reason to get ahead of the curve. Better to end up as the team with two good QBs than the team with none.

[mykyle]

Teddy is just misssing to many tools to possibly be a qb in the nfl, he is slow footed, he has a week arm, he is physicalluy weak.
Teddy candidate for steroids, if he juices he could be ok

[purpletinted66]

^meat, potatoes, and some coffee should bring him up to spec - eta - homecooked