Outstanding piece. This is the sort of thing where you regularly hit your zenith - deconstructing false binary media narratives with stats, history, and logic. Complete agreement with your takes here. I'll add the following:
*Richardson and to a lesser extent Justin Fields are the product of a faulty Draft punditry class that frequently moves the needle too far toward athleticism and away from skill. With dual threat quarterbacks rising, there is a danger in assuming that a quarterback that relies on their running ability to open passing windows can mature over time and develop pocket skills to still succeed as their running ability wanes. Too often their poor passing skills are excused by specious claims of "flashes" of passing ability and the hope that their NFL team will "coach them up." Both are too often fallacies that deceive teams into a false reality around a prospect.
*Teams need to distinguish between "run first" dual QBs - like Richardson - and "pass first" ones like Jayden Daniels. Failure to do so implicates what I call "The Fugitive Rule" from the old TV series..."the day the running stops, the show is over."
*Your point around Josh Allen is spot on. His use case continues to haunt NFL teams drafting lower skilled QBs. They are falsely comforted by a "cherry picking bias" or by the application of an "erroneous extrapolation" by continually saying "well what about Josh Allen?" Outliers are just that - outliers. They are not predictive of your situation any more than a lottery winner is predictive of your financial future if you also buy tickets. Just a few months ago, people thought that Aaron Rodgers was not close to aging simply because Tom Brady played until he was 45. The aging curve did not change due to one outlier. Ask Jets fans.
*Isn't moving to Flacco akin to the Colts admitting they should have drafted Bo Nix? There's a perspective for you. Isn't Nix eerily similar to Flacco and his game? Which brings me to similarity scores. Why doesn't anyone look at numbers accumulated after one or two years and compile a list of QBs with similar early output to try and predict their future? I suspect Cam Newton shows up on the Anthony Richardson list.
*Your point about the locker room was perhaps your most insightful as the media complains that Steichen is "choosing winning over development." Yes, he is - and should. Brian Billick years ago, made this exact point from experience. He noted that players will support decisions they disagree with as long as they believe you made them solely to try and win. However, the moment you do anything for any other reason (e.g. continuing to start the bad 1st round pick) you will lose the locker room as players begin to make business decisions with their bodies. "If they don't care about winning, why the hell should I?" To continue with Richardson at his poor level of skill. risks sinking the team and the season. See Cleveland Browns.
*Finally, a small correction on Lamar Jackson. John Harbaugh's starting of Lamar was not done out of courage or foresight, but pressure to save his own ass. In 2018, Harbaugh stubbornly stuck with Flacco despite calls for Jackson to start through a disappointing 4-4 start. Rumors began to circulate that the Ravens were likely to fire Harbaugh even before the season's end. After a disastrous loss to the Steelers on November 4th - putting them at 4-5 and potentially out of the Playoffs - Harbaugh reluctantly agreed to use the bye week to rework the offense with Marty Mornhinweg for Jackson. They won 6 of their next 7.
An honest accounting of history will reveal that Harbaugh was neither a genius nor a visionary. He was a desperate man. He did what Winston Churchill said about Americans, "they can always be trusted to do wsthe right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted." Harbaugh had exhausted his options. Here is some background info as an fyi:
Outstanding piece. This is the sort of thing where you regularly hit your zenith - deconstructing false binary media narratives with stats, history, and logic. Complete agreement with your takes here. I'll add the following:
*Richardson and to a lesser extent Justin Fields are the product of a faulty Draft punditry class that frequently moves the needle too far toward athleticism and away from skill. With dual threat quarterbacks rising, there is a danger in assuming that a quarterback that relies on their running ability to open passing windows can mature over time and develop pocket skills to still succeed as their running ability wanes. Too often their poor passing skills are excused by specious claims of "flashes" of passing ability and the hope that their NFL team will "coach them up." Both are too often fallacies that deceive teams into a false reality around a prospect.
*Teams need to distinguish between "run first" dual QBs - like Richardson - and "pass first" ones like Jayden Daniels. Failure to do so implicates what I call "The Fugitive Rule" from the old TV series..."the day the running stops, the show is over."
*Your point around Josh Allen is spot on. His use case continues to haunt NFL teams drafting lower skilled QBs. They are falsely comforted by a "cherry picking bias" or by the application of an "erroneous extrapolation" by continually saying "well what about Josh Allen?" Outliers are just that - outliers. They are not predictive of your situation any more than a lottery winner is predictive of your financial future if you also buy tickets. Just a few months ago, people thought that Aaron Rodgers was not close to aging simply because Tom Brady played until he was 45. The aging curve did not change due to one outlier. Ask Jets fans.
*Isn't moving to Flacco akin to the Colts admitting they should have drafted Bo Nix? There's a perspective for you. Isn't Nix eerily similar to Flacco and his game? Which brings me to similarity scores. Why doesn't anyone look at numbers accumulated after one or two years and compile a list of QBs with similar early output to try and predict their future? I suspect Cam Newton shows up on the Anthony Richardson list.
*Your point about the locker room was perhaps your most insightful as the media complains that Steichen is "choosing winning over development." Yes, he is - and should. Brian Billick years ago, made this exact point from experience. He noted that players will support decisions they disagree with as long as they believe you made them solely to try and win. However, the moment you do anything for any other reason (e.g. continuing to start the bad 1st round pick) you will lose the locker room as players begin to make business decisions with their bodies. "If they don't care about winning, why the hell should I?" To continue with Richardson at his poor level of skill. risks sinking the team and the season. See Cleveland Browns.
*Finally, a small correction on Lamar Jackson. John Harbaugh's starting of Lamar was not done out of courage or foresight, but pressure to save his own ass. In 2018, Harbaugh stubbornly stuck with Flacco despite calls for Jackson to start through a disappointing 4-4 start. Rumors began to circulate that the Ravens were likely to fire Harbaugh even before the season's end. After a disastrous loss to the Steelers on November 4th - putting them at 4-5 and potentially out of the Playoffs - Harbaugh reluctantly agreed to use the bye week to rework the offense with Marty Mornhinweg for Jackson. They won 6 of their next 7.
An honest accounting of history will reveal that Harbaugh was neither a genius nor a visionary. He was a desperate man. He did what Winston Churchill said about Americans, "they can always be trusted to do wsthe right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted." Harbaugh had exhausted his options. Here is some background info as an fyi:
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ravens-coach-john-harbaugh-reportedly-on-the-hot-seat-midseason-move-not-being-ruled-out/?origin=serp_auto
Thanks again for an excellent pod.
Felt like that could have been a post on this newsletter! Thanks for the thoughtful feedback and I like your theories! Gives me a lot to think about