Rosen Returns

IMO the Rosen "had to learn new systems" is mostly an excuse. He's had the same issues in every one of the systems. At some point we have to accept that it's more of a Rosen issue than a system issue.

I don't know man, QB's have quite a long shelf life in the NFL. Rosen can spin the football, we know that. It could be possible that his first two years were a fluke and he simply wasn't ready. I mean, how eager would we be to draft a guy if we hadn't seen Rosen play yet? Lets assume he had sat behind a vet for two years the way Rivers and Rodgers did. That actually may have been better for him. Lets also keep in mind that it takes guys some time to find their footing in the pros. Drew Brees looked like an absolute bust his first two seasons. Hell...San Diego drafted Rivers BECAUSE they thought Brees was a flop. Brees came out on fire that third year and the result was Rivers sat and watched and Brees eventually left to make history with New Orleans. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Rosen can't improve or can't be a good quarterback. Not all these guys take the same road to success. Now do I believe that Rosen will be good? No....that's a hard pass for me, but I do think because of that slim possibility and because he was such a highly touted prospect that we have to at least do our due diligence in seeing what we have with him. Throw last season out the window, flush his rookie year, and give him a third campaign. If he doesn't drastically improve this offseason and win the starting job next September, then it'll be time to part ways. I have no issue with us bringing him back. We need talent, and we need to explore all avenues in terms of acquiring that talent.

"rafael wrote:

I appreciate the Harrington comparison as I made that prior to Rosen's draft. They were both guys I had rated as 2nd rounders coming out who went ridiculously higher than they should have. But IMO there's a world of difference between either of those guys and Alex Smith. Smith is a guy you can win with. That won't ever be said about Harrington or Rosen.

Again, aside from one game Rosen looked really good. His stat line wont reflect it but that is why individual stat lines are worthless without a lot of data.

Aside from his last start Rosen looked well ahead of the offense as a whole and it's like people want to neglect that fact.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Again, aside from one game Rosen looked really good. His stat line wont reflect it but that is why individual stat lines are worthless without a lot of data.

Aside from his last start Rosen looked well ahead of the offense as a whole and it's like people want to neglect that fact.

I whole-heartedly disagree that he looked good on film. He was missing reads or late on reads frequently. Many of those were completed, but it was not good QB play. I have never seen him look well ahead of the offense on more than the occasional individual play, but you could say that about most any NFL QB.

"rafael wrote:

I whole-heartedly disagree that he looked good on film. He was missing reads or late on reads frequently. Many of those were completed, but it was not good QB play. I have never seen him look well ahead of the offense on more than the occasional individual play, but you could say that about most any NFL QB.

At least you are looking at the whole picture even if we disagree on the technical side of things. I can respect that. You at least have a fully formed opinion.

"cbrad wrote:

Arizona made one coaching change (at HC) prior to the 2018 season, hiring Steve Wilks, and Rosen played his entire rookie year under him.

And I'm assuming you meant 2019 instead of 2020 since the post you quoted was about Murray's rookie season? Murray played his entire rookie year under one coach: Kliff Kingsbury. So it's not like Rosen had more coaching changes than Murray his rookie year.

However, like I pointed out in this post:
https://www.thephins.com/threads/rosen-returns.94948/#post-3252695

Mayfield is an example of a QB that had more coaching changes than Rosen, not just during his rookie year (had a coaching change mid-season too) but also over 2 years. And Mayfield played well his rookie season despite being on the worst team in the NFL for the 2 seasons prior, and was clearly instrumental in leading Cleveland to 6 wins his rookie year.

So sure.. Rosen's team was bad, but Rosen himself was one of the main reasons that offense stayed bad.

Although wasn't his first OC at Arizona fired mid-year - not making too many excuses for him but that probably didn't help unless we know categorically that the offensive system was exactly the same?

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I would argue until I'm blue in the face that if you put nearly any 21/22 year old QB into the situations that he was in with the Cardinals and Fins, that they would do little better.

And I would argue that when you ONLY look at statistics, you don't see that Fitz/Rosen were used as tackling dummies for the first half of the season. It's very easy to forget that Rosen took over when we were viewed as the worst team in the history of the NFL, and it's even easier to forget that Rosen had three TD bombs dropped by Preston Williams and Grant....despite literally running for his life. Just those 3 catches makes him above average for those few starts and the Fins have said he consistently improved over the course of the year.

Folks who are saying Rosen is clearly a bust just aren't looking at this objectively. Then again, many of those same people said Tannehill was a bust as well.

"KeyFin wrote:

And I would argue that when you ONLY look at statistics, you don't see that Fitz/Rosen were used as tackling dummies for the first half of the season. It's very easy to forget that Rosen took over when we were viewed as the worst team in the history of the NFL, and it's even easier to forget that Rosen had three TD bombs dropped by Preston Williams and Grant....despite literally running for his life. Just those 3 catches makes him above average for those few starts and the Fins have said he consistently improved over the course of the year.

Folks who are saying Rosen is clearly a bust just aren't looking at this objectively. Then again, many of those same people said Tannehill was a bust as well.

In both cases, I think that a lot of fans just want a different player, or a different style. And that's fine. Hey, I'm there on the other side because I don't ever want someone like Murray or Jackson as my QB. But be open about it.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

In both cases, I think that a lot of fans just want a different player, or a different style. And that's fine. Hey, I'm there on the other side because I don't ever want someone like Murray or Jackson as my QB. But be open about it.

I think most people have a completely different mindset than you in regards to this.

I don't really care if we have a QB like Favre, Elway, Marino, Young, Jackson, Murray, Brees, etc, etc, as long as they are helping the team win games.

I would be completely giddy if Rosen turned into some elite QB. I just don't believe he's capable of doing that. He's not able to play the game at a mental level high enough to be an even good QB much less an elite QB.

"danmarino wrote:

I think most people have a completely different mindset than you in regards to this.

I don't really care if we have a QB like Favre, Elway, Marino, Young, Jackson, Murray, Brees, etc, etc, as long as they are helping the team win games.

I would be completely giddy if Rosen turned into some elite QB. I just don't believe he's capable of doing that. He's not able to play the game at a mental level high enough to be an even good QB much less an elite QB.

I get that people see it differently. For me, my mindset goes like this:

A) My number one desire, before we even talk about the quarterback position - before we talk about winning or losing ball games or winning titles, is to have a consistent, repeatable offense. One that can execute the same type of plays over and over, game in and out, season in and out. One that can both run and pass effectively. That doesn't mean elite at everything, and I'm more than willing to give up big plays and excitement for gaining that consistency in execution.

B) Any QB that's going to run a consistent, repeatable offense needs to be protected well, so a good offensive line is at the top of my list. And as noted, the line has to be good enough at run blocking to provide holes, and to keep the offense in a managable down and distance, and not put the QB under pressure to continually be trying to convert on third and long.

C) After all of that, I see Rosen as a great candidate to be a QB that fits into what I want to do. He's still very young, he has great size, he has a great arm and a beautiful release, he throws a very catchable pass and he's an extremely intelligent and seemingly agreeable young man to work with. He offers nearly everything that I want in the position, and I think that he just needs time, coaching, patience and team mates around him to help.

"KeyFin wrote:

And I would argue that when you ONLY look at statistics, you don't see that Fitz/Rosen were used as tackling dummies for the first half of the season. It's very easy to forget that Rosen took over when we were viewed as the worst team in the history of the NFL, and it's even easier to forget that Rosen had three TD bombs dropped by Preston Williams and Grant....despite literally running for his life. Just those 3 catches makes him above average for those few starts and the Fins have said he consistently improved over the course of the year.

Folks who are saying Rosen is clearly a bust just aren't looking at this objectively. Then again, many of those same people said Tannehill was a bust as well.

lol.. Once again, no one is ONLY looking at statistics. I didn't use stats at all during the season to argue Rosen was a bust until he had a full 16 starts under his belt. We all saw the games and I kept arguing he wasn't showing any improvement in his decision making abilities.

And as pointed out before, even IF you give him 3 extra TD's it still makes him the worst QB statistically.

But that 2nd paragraph of yours is another level of ridiculousness: "anyone disagreeing with KeyFin is simply not looking at things objectively". LOL. You actually think QB evals can be done "objectively" with any accuracy by anyone?? Just look at all the busts taken by teams with the 1st overall pick to realize no professional can evaluate QB's well. So don't come at us with that kind of arrogance.

Finally, the argument about Tannehill was always that he was statistically average and likely to remain so. Tannehill was NEVER in the same "bust-level" stratosphere statistically that Rosen is. These aren't comparable situations. And again.. don't act like you somehow can tell which QB is good or not. You thought Moore was a better QB than Tannehill for starters.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I get that people see it differently. For me, my mindset goes like this:

A) My number one desire, before we even talk about the quarterback position - before we talk about winning or losing ball games or winning titles, is to have a consistent, repeatable offense. One that can execute the same type of plays over and over, game in and out, season in and out. One that can both run and pass effectively. That doesn't mean elite at everything, and I'm more than willing to give up big plays and excitement for gaining that consistency in execution.

B) Any QB that's going to run a consistent, repeatable offense needs to be protected well, so a good offensive line is at the top of my list. And as noted, the line has to be good enough at run blocking to provide holes, and to keep the offense in a managable down and distance, and not put the QB under pressure to continually be trying to convert on third and long.

C) After all of that, I see Rosen as a great candidate to be a QB that fits into what I want to do. He's still very young, he has great size, he has a great arm and a beautiful release, he throws a very catchable pass and he's an extremely intelligent and seemingly agreeable young man to work with. He offers nearly everything that I want in the position, and I think that he just needs time, coaching, patience and team mates around him to help.

I certainly agree that Rosen would help provide consistency to the offense: we'd be consistently bad.

And even though you care more about style than winning, it's the other way around for NFL teams and for most fans. Most of us just want to win. So I think it's really important to periodically include that disclaimer (for those who don't know) that you're not suggesting Rosen is the best choice at QB if the goal is to help the team win. You're just saying you like his style of play.

Either way, you don't last long in the NFL if you don't help the team win, and I predict that Rosen will have less than 10 more starts in his career and that all will be as a backup. In other words, I think coaches and GM's will continue to say he's a bust. We'll see what happens.

"cbrad wrote:

I certainly agree that Rosen would help provide consistency to the offense: we'd be consistently bad.

And even though you care more about style than winning, it's the other way around for NFL teams and for most fans. Most of us just want to win. So I think it's really important to periodically include that disclaimer (for those who don't know) that you're not suggesting Rosen is the best choice at QB if the goal is to help the team win. You're just saying you like his style of play.

Either way, you don't last long in the NFL if you don't help the team win, and I predict that Rosen will have less than 10 more starts in his career and that all will be as a backup. In other words, I think coaches and GM's will continue to say he's a bust. We'll see what happens.

He's not arguing for style over substance. He's arguing that he wants a consistent offense, of which the QB is one part.

"resnor wrote:

He's not arguing for style over substance. He's arguing that he wants a consistent offense, of which the QB is one part.

He's consistently argued style over substance for years. Your interpretation of his post is precisely why I made that post to clarify things. It's important to make clear that he doesn't like QB's like Mahomes precisely because of style over substance. Would you take Mahomes as our QB? I would LOVE it. He would hate it (at least based on his posting history).

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I get that people see it differently. For me, my mindset goes like this:

A) My number one desire, before we even talk about the quarterback position - before we talk about winning or losing ball games or winning titles, is to have a consistent, repeatable offense. One that can execute the same type of plays over and over, game in and out, season in and out. One that can both run and pass effectively. That doesn't mean elite at everything, and I'm more than willing to give up big plays and excitement for gaining that consistency in execution.

B) Any QB that's going to run a consistent, repeatable offense needs to be protected well, so a good offensive line is at the top of my list. And as noted, the line has to be good enough at run blocking to provide holes, and to keep the offense in a managable down and distance, and not put the QB under pressure to continually be trying to convert on third and long.

C) After all of that, I see Rosen as a great candidate to be a QB that fits into what I want to do. He's still very young, he has great size, he has a great arm and a beautiful release, he throws a very catchable pass and he's an extremely intelligent and seemingly agreeable young man to work with. He offers nearly everything that I want in the position, and I think that he just needs time, coaching, patience and team mates around him to help.

Every team has the wish to see their offense as a consistent repeatable machine. However, you seem to want that only if it fits your play style. There are many styles/schemes, etc that can produce that type of offense.
The problem with Rosen, IMO, is he can't run any of those offenses. Yes, he throws a pretty ball. His brain, however, needs a lot of work.

"cbrad wrote:

He's consistently argued style over substance for years. Your interpretation of his post is precisely why I made that post to clarify things. It's important to make clear that he doesn't like QB's like Mahomes precisely because of style over substance. Would you take Mahomes as our QB? I would LOVE it. He would hate it (at least based on his posting history).

No. He dislikes Mahomes types because they aren't consistent and repeatable. In other words, if Mahomes goes down or leaves the team, then your prefer changes fundamentally because Mahomes overall skillet is far different from the norm. So for consistency he prefers a great system and then put the QB in.

I also agree with Unlucky that that is the best.

But, myself, I've changed a bit. I think it's far too difficult to put all that together consistently, so if you have a shot at a Mahomes, you take it. And over time you put an offense around them that can also support a normal QB. I've always preferred pocket QBs, Marino was King. But I understand taking these Wilson/Mahomes types. I don't think you'll get a crazy long career from them like Brady's career.

"resnor wrote:

No. He dislikes Mahomes types because they aren't consistent and repeatable. In other words, if Mahomes goes down or leaves the team, then your prefer changes fundamentally because Mahomes overall skillet is far different from the norm. So for consistency he prefers a great system and then put the QB in.

Nope. He's made it VERY clear he's against mobile QB's that use their scrambling ability as a threat:
https://www.thephins.com/threads/dolphins-plans-for-qb.94036/page-15#post-3160203

Rosen, or a QB a lot like him, is exactly what I want. My soul would be crushed if were to commit to a small, running QB.

I don't ever want my QB to run unless the field is wide open and he can get the first down and then slide without being touched.

And he's said that consistently over years. He's against QB's like Russell Wilson or Patrick Mahomes because of style.. doesn't matter how good they are, it's the wrong style for him.

"cbrad wrote:

Nope. He's made it VERY clear he's against mobile QB's that use their scrambling ability as a threat:
https://www.thephins.com/threads/dolphins-plans-for-qb.94036/page-15#post-3160203

And he's said that consistently over years. He's against QB's like Russell Wilson or Patrick Mahomes because of style.. doesn't matter how good they are, it's the wrong style for him.

Did you not read what I wrote? Yes, he doesn't like running QBs. He wants a dynasty. You don't get a dynasty with a bad offense that is successful because you have Mahomes for a couple years.

"resnor wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote? Yes, he doesn't like running QBs. He wants a dynasty. You don't get a dynasty with a bad offense that is successful because you have Mahomes for a couple years.

He's against Russell Wilson because he's a scrambling QB. Wilson has proved what he does is sustainable. Why aren't you doing some research first before arguing against this. He's got YEARS of posts saying he's uncomfortable with a great offense if it's not the right style.

"cbrad wrote:

He's against Russell Wilson because he's a scrambling QB. Wilson has proved what he does is sustainable. Why aren't you doing some research first before arguing against this. He's got YEARS of posts saying he's uncomfortable with a great offense if it's not the right style.

I think that the odds of finding someone like Wilson who can do it over a long period of time is a once a decade prop at best. I'll gladly take a second tier QB who can do it for 15 years instead. Give me Eli Manning. Give me Matt Ryan. Give me someone with the ability level of Rivers. Even step down from there, and give me someone like Flacco or Hasselback or Trent Green. Let me build around them. Let me have an actual offense, rather than making it up as we go.

I'm going to bet you that five years from now, many of the ones that are currently scrambling around making plays aren't quality starters any more. A few will be, but a lot won't. They'll lose their legs, and the league will adapt.

"cbrad wrote:

He's against Russell Wilson because he's a scrambling QB. Wilson has proved what he does is sustainable. Why aren't you doing some research first before arguing against this. He's got YEARS of posts saying he's uncomfortable with a great offense if it's not the right style.

But you're leaving our WHY he didn't like that. You're presenting like 3/4 of his argument, but ignoring his reason. Eventually you don't have that crazy mobile QB, and finding ones like Wilson or Mahomes is not easy, and once you don't have your crazy electric QB, your offense is screwed. If you have a well built offense, if your QB goes, it's easier to adapt the offense to the next one.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Let me have an actual offense, rather than making it up as we go.

QB's like Mahomes live in offensive systems designed to take advantage of what they can do. They're not "making it up" along the way.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I'm going to bet you that five years from now, many of the ones that are currently scrambling around making plays aren't quality starters any more. A few will be, but a lot won't. They'll lose their legs, and the league will adapt.

We'll see what happens 5 years from now, but right now the trend is diametrically the opposite of what you're hoping for: practically every hot prospect from college is a scrambling QB. Some are also good passers while others aren't or aren't yet, but the trend is going in the opposite direction because coaches see how much more potent an offense can be when you have a dual threat QB. This also means that it's actually becoming harder to find a pure pocket passer that's great because most prospects aren't like that.

And at least as of right now, there's no sign they have shorter life spans.

"resnor wrote:

But you're leaving our WHY he didn't like that. You're presenting like 3/4 of his argument, but ignoring his reason. Eventually you don't have that crazy mobile QB, and finding ones like Wilson or Mahomes is not easy, and once you don't have your crazy electric QB, your offense is screwed. If you have a well built offense, if your QB goes, it's easier to adapt the offense to the next one.

No that's not consistent with his position. He loves Peyton Manning and look what happened when Manning went down. He's also still against Wilson due to style despite clear evidence that's sustainable. Finally, he's explicitly stated on many occasions that style comes first and then you worry about winning. In other words, it's not like the thought process was "what does it take to win consistently".. it's style FIRST, then focus on winning. TONS of quotes supporting that position.

"cbrad wrote:

QB's like Mahomes live in offensive systems designed to take advantage of what they can do. They're not "making it up" along the way.

We'll see what happens 5 years from now, but right now the trend is diametrically the opposite of what you're hoping for: practically every hot prospect from college is a scrambling QB. Some are also good passers while others aren't or aren't yet, but the trend is going in the opposite direction because coaches see how much more potent an offense can be when you have a dual threat QB. This also means that it's actually becoming harder to find a pure pocket passer that's great because most prospects aren't like that.

And at least as of right now, there's no sign they have shorter life spans.

No that's not consistent with his position. He loves Peyton Manning and look what happened when Manning went down. He's also still against Wilson due to style despite clear evidence that's sustainable. Finally, he's explicitly stated on many occasions that style comes first and then you worry about winning. In other words, it's not like the thought process was "what does it take to win consistently".. it's style FIRST, then focus on winning. TONS of quotes supporting that position.

They were bad for a year, then rebounded with a new QB. I also seriously question that one season for them. You're hung up on style, but again, it's the reason that he doesn't like that style that matters, not the style.

Post #71 basically said exactly what I've been saying.

"resnor wrote:

You're hung up on style, but again, it's the reason that he doesn't like that style that matters, not the style.

I think the way I'm interpreting what he's said is the way almost everyone would interpret his past quotes. danmarino seems to interpret it that way too, that it's irrelevant how great (or consistently great) the offense is if it's not the style he likes. And note that Unlucky 13 hasn't disputed what I'm saying. He's giving more examples of QB's he likes but he isn't disputing my interpretation.

Either way, since he's taking part in this conversation, let's just ask him directly:

Unlucky 13, is it your position that you'd prefer an average production offense with a QB that plays the style you like (i.e., pocket passer, not a dual threat QB that uses scrambling ability as a weapon) over a much more productive offense with a QB that plays like Mahomes year in year out? Assume in both cases that it's sustainable and that greater production implies higher win%.

Oh.. and secondly, is what I originally said true: you're not suggesting that Rosen is the QB most likely to increase win% for us, but he's the best in your mind among QB's that play the style you like?