Mike Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 Why do so many people want to rush young QBs and then when the QBs don't pan out they complain that we aren't developing any. you can't develop a QB without giving him playing time. If it wasn't for Brohm getting injured last year, Marve probably wouldn't have seen the field at all. That's absolutely false. Especially in the CFL.
Yourface Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 Why do so many people want to rush young QBs and then when the QBs don't pan out they complain that we aren't developing any. you can't develop a QB without giving him playing time. If it wasn't for Brohm getting injured last year, Marve probably wouldn't have seen the field at all. That's absolutely false. Especially in the CFL. What do you mean? Players need to be put in game situations eventually. Sure, young players usually need to be eased in at a slower pace but it certainly doesn't hurt that Marve got into some real game action last year. Do you honestly think that his development would've been hampered had he taken the few extra reps that Brohm got last year? I'm not saying Marve should be the starter or anything, just that he should be given the backup role if he shows to be more competent than everyone else at his position. kelownabomberfan 1
New_Earth_Mud Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Id think you can develop a QB in the CFL without much playing time. If hes working under the same system and watching lots of film i would think he could get a real good hang of things because there is only so many kinds of D systems he will see.
iso_55 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Why do so many people want to rush young QBs and then when the QBs don't pan out they complain that we aren't developing any. you can't develop a QB without giving him playing time. If it wasn't for Brohm getting injured last year, Marve probably wouldn't have seen the field at all. That's absolutely false. Especially in the CFL. Care to explain that golden nugget of knowledge, Mike? Maudie fingerjammer 1
iso_55 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Id think you can develop a QB in the CFL without much playing time. If hes working under the same system and watching lots of film i would think he could get a real good hang of things because there is only so many kinds of D systems he will see. Nothing replaces game speed & having to be successful under pressure. Or having to make throws & completions before your head is torn off of you. You need to play to develop. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Some guys can develop while others can't. kelownabomberfan 1
17to85 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Why do so many people want to rush young QBs and then when the QBs don't pan out they complain that we aren't developing any. you can't develop a QB without giving him playing time. If it wasn't for Brohm getting injured last year, Marve probably wouldn't have seen the field at all. That's absolutely false. Especially in the CFL. What do you mean? Players need to be put in game situations eventually. Sure, young players usually need to be eased in at a slower pace but it certainly doesn't hurt that Marve got into some real game action last year. Do you honestly think that his development would've been hampered had he taken the few extra reps that Brohm got last year? I'm not saying Marve should be the starter or anything, just that he should be given the backup role if he shows to be more competent than everyone else at his position. Key word in bold. We don't even have to go very far to see what rushing a qb can do... Tito Sunshine in Saskatchewan last year. Showed well as a third stringer in limited action, failed as a #2 when the starter got hurt and he had to go in. Riders and Sunseri would have both been better off if he'd stayed at #3 last year. Mr. Perfect 1
Brandon Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 I don't put blame on Sunseri or Glenn last season... it was the coaching that really hampered those guys. Chamblin benching guys because of a fumble or 2 despite them running with huge averages and 100+ yards a game is ridiculous..... With BC they kept airing it out despite having Logan , Harris, Anolin who all moved the ball very well when given the chance..... for certain guys it's purely the system that screws them over.
GCn20 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Id think you can develop a QB in the CFL without much playing time. If hes working under the same system and watching lots of film i would think he could get a real good hang of things because there is only so many kinds of D systems he will see. Nothing replaces game speed & having to be successful under pressure. Or having to make throws & completions before your head is torn off of you. You need to play to develop. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Some guys can develop while others can't. At some point and time you have to play a guy to see how he has developed. However, Mike is correct in saying that you can still develop a QB without playing him. It is nonsense to suggest that a player only learns by playing. Pure nonsense. Many QBs have been successfully developed for a couple of years before they start taking meaningful snaps. It is helpful to get young guys on the field to aid in their development if possible, and teams should make the effort to do so. However, there are many, many QBs who have found great success with only small exposure to playing time prior to it. There is also great danger to a QBs development by throwing him to the wolves before he is ready. A QBs confidence is EVERYTHING...shatter that and even the Peyton Manning's of the football world can't overcome it. QB is not a position you learn flying by the seat of your pants in game action you are not ready for.
Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Why do so many people want to rush young QBs and then when the QBs don't pan out they complain that we aren't developing any. you can't develop a QB without giving him playing time. If it wasn't for Brohm getting injured last year, Marve probably wouldn't have seen the field at all. That's absolutely false. Especially in the CFL. Care to explain that golden nugget of knowledge, Mike? Drew Tate is a perfect example, although you can easily blame Saskatchewan for letting him go. They sat him on the practice roster for two years before he ever took a snap and he was much more effective with his initial repetitions because of it. Darian Durant is another one. In his first two seasons in the CFL, how many snaps did he take? Two. Same with Mike Reilly - two snaps in his first two seasons. I bet if you were to ask them how much more comfortable they felt because of their time developing without game reps, they'd tell you it sucked to not play but it was well worth it. An American QB is coming to a league where there's a wider field and an extra man, among other things. It's invaluable for a QB to be able to get a chance to soak it all in. Let them work out their kinks in practice reps. Ideally, I wouldn't have my developmental QB take much more than a handful of reps for his first two years. It doesn't always work out that way because of injuries, etc but that'd be the goal. Too many QBs ruined because they get rushed. SPuDS 1
17to85 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Too many QBs ruined because they get rushed. You'd think that Bomber fans would be the last people this needs to be explained to....
GCn20 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Too many QBs ruined because they get rushed. You'd think that Bomber fans would be the last people this needs to be explained to.... No kidding. Joey Elliot, Alex Brink, Max Hall....that's just the last few years and I'm probably forgetting a couple. All very effective arguments against rushing a QB into playing time.
bearpants Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Too many QBs ruined because they get rushed. You'd think that Bomber fans would be the last people this needs to be explained to.... No kidding. Joey Elliot, Alex Brink, Max Hall....that's just the last few years and I'm probably forgetting a couple. All very effective arguments against rushing a QB into playing time. Max Hall would be an example of the problem with signing an "older" QB... Max was already 28 (maybe 27?) when he got here so his window of peak time was closing.... ideally you want to sign a developmental QB at 25 or younger...
Mr Dee Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Despite what some are saying..this is good news and settles the QB situation for now. *Booha…Brohm signs - that fits the point matching the letter criteria recently questioned. Walters - “Continuity, rhythm and familiarity are all very important at the quarterback position,” said Blue Bombers General Manager Kyle Walters. “Brian continues to grow as a quarterback in our league, he is very well respected in our locker room, and most importantly, he’s trusted to go in and succeed when called upon. We are very pleased to have him remain with our organization.”
pigseye Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 imo, Brohm looked good in the system last year when he got the opportunity, good move by Walters.
Brandon Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Too many QBs ruined because they get rushed.You'd think that Bomber fans would be the last people this needs to be explained to.... No kidding. Joey Elliot, Alex Brink, Max Hall....that's just the last few years and I'm probably forgetting a couple. All very effective arguments against rushing a QB into playing time. Max Hall would be an example of the problem with signing an "older" QB... Max was already 28 (maybe 27?) when he got here so his window of peak time was closing.... ideally you want to sign a developmental QB at 25 or younger... Max Hall simply had no arm , nothing to do with peak times. Mr. Perfect 1
WBBFanWest Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Good to hear. Now if we can just sign Curran.
TBURGESS Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Best thing about Brohm signing IMHO is folks can stop arguing about Glenn. Westy Sucks, Rich, gbill2004 and 1 other 4
Mr. Perfect Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Too many QBs ruined because they get rushed. You'd think that Bomber fans would be the last people this needs to be explained to.... You're giving our fan base way too much credit... Logan007 and mbrg 2
mbrg Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Best thing about Brohm signing IMHO is folks can stop arguing about Glenn. Can. But won't. Fan Boy 1
gbill2004 Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Posted February 17, 2015 Glad to see Brohm back. Doublezero 1
IC Khari Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Good for Brohmmy ... OK got a better handle? Mark F and Westy Sucks 2
Doublezero Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Very happy about this. The thing about Brohm is he got better every time he got a chance to play. Hopefully he gets more playing time with us in 2015.
Rich Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Very happy about this. The thing about Brohm is he got better every time he got a chance to play. Hopefully he gets more playing time with us in 2015. Hoping if he does it is because we are blowing people out and he comes in the 4th for mop up duty. The alternative is either we are getting blown out, Willy is hurt, or Willy isn't playing well. Goalie 1
BomberBall Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Good to hear. Now if we can just sign Curran. I don't think we have any interest in Curran.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now