Sitting a rookie QB down a few weeks doesn't matter.

[Jetsfan80]

I've previously started topics on this.  It's still a prevailing thought on JN and I do not understand it.

For every good/great QB out there who sat for a while there are just as many who played right away (somewhere in the Week 1-4 range of their rookie years):  Peyton, Donovan McNabb, Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Tannehill, Burrow, Herbert, Lawrence, Stroud just to name a few.  

There’s also plenty of highly drafted QBs who sat for a while and still sucked.  Cade McNown, Marques Tuiasosopo, J.P. Losman, Jason Campbell, JaMarcus Russell, Kevin Kolb, Brian Brohm, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Johnny Manziel, Paxton Lynch, Christian Hackenberg, Dwayne Haskins, Drew Lock and Trey Lance are on that list.

I think we can all agree that, while there’s no way to prove it, bust QBs would still have sucked a$$ even if they sat a year and a half.  There's no fixing a slow processing brain.

Peyton Manning agrees with me on this.  The data agrees with me on this.  Sitting is basically meaningless.  And no one outside of the Packers goes a full season without starting a guy.  It just doesn't happen.

These young guys need to arrive in the league mostly ready out of the box.  And it's not exactly an unreasonable ask when nearly every rule change since 2005 has been made to benefit QB's.  

Want to sit a guy 3-4 weeks his rookie year?  Fine.  Just don't expect it to make much difference.  

If you DO plan to sit a QB for a full year, he had better not be a guy for which you're using a 1st or early 2nd round pick.

[The Crusher]

I gonna move this to the STFU and stop repeating yourself forum. 

[Larz]

Sitting by itself isn’t magical.  Being drafted into a stable franchise with good coaching and a team around you matters more. 
 

Being drafted into a stable franchise with good coaching and a team around you and sitting is the perfect situation 

[Dunnie]

Redshirting a year running the practice squad under a stellar coaching regime and behind a HOF QB absolutely matters .. denying that is fodder.

[Warfish]

Every QB is different and may need different things to succeed. Some are ready day 1. Some clearly aren’t. Those that aren’t should sit and learn till they are ready or till they’re replaced.

[August]

It depends on the player. You have the rare player that can step right in no matter the situation and function properly and even carry the team. CJ Stroud did it last season. Some guys need time. Jordan Love in most other circumstances is probably on a second team as a failed draft pick and career backup. He needed time to work on his mechanics and develop. 

[August]

I think if we had better teams and a little better stability around Geno and Sam maybe they could be carried by the team ala Brock Purdy. Then hopefully they could’ve came into their own by their 4th seasons. 
 

Zach Wilson never had it tbh so it’s a moot point with him. 

[BigRy56]

IMO it's pretty evident if a player has it or doesn't right away. Of course, some QBs sit a while and work out, but that's really just the Packers' methodology. Nobody else does that

[Beerfish]

Well sitting for a year rather than a few weeks can help.   But teams that can sit players for year or more are already good and well coached.  The smart teams, when they are good are looking for their next QB and getting one they like.

 

[extmenace]

Drafting a qb is a roll of the dice. What’s even more, it also comes down to the coaching staff, surrounding talent, and finding the right fit. Just because a guy panned out for one team, Doesn’t mean he’d have panned out for the jets. 

josh Allen for example, I have zero doubt in my mind that he’d have busted with the jets. He’d have probably busted in a bunch of spots. He had to be developed, the bills had the right guy in the building to do it and it took until his 3rd season to see it pay off. There is no way that he’d have been developed with Adam Gase in co.

if you look at the young qbs that are successful vs the ones that aren’t, the state of the team is a huge factor. Burrow, Herbert, Mahomes, stroud, tua, and etc…they all have talent around them. Now look at guys that failed like trubisky, Darnold, Mac jones and etc and you’ll see QBs put in terrible situations with little to no help. Look at Bryce young vs CJ stroud. The team you’re on matters. That has more to do with it than when the kid starts playing. The most important attribute a QB must have is confidence, when the team around you is trash, confidence is really the first thing to go. The heat these kids take is rough and it’s a big reason we see so many QBs fall apart.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

2 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I've previously started topics on this.  It's still a prevailing thought on JN and I do not understand it.

For every good/great QB out there who sat for a while there are just as many who played right away (somewhere in the Week 1-4 range of their rookie years):  Peyton, Donovan McNabb, Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Tannehill, Burrow, Herbert, Lawrence, Stroud just to name a few.  

There’s also plenty of highly drafted QBs who sat for a while and still sucked.  Cade McNown, Marques Tuiasosopo, J.P. Losman, Jason Campbell, JaMarcus Russell, Kevin Kolb, Brian Brohm, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Johnny Manziel, Paxton Lynch, Christian Hackenberg, Dwayne Haskins, Drew Lock and Trey Lance are on that list.

I think we can all agree that, while there’s no way to prove it, bust QBs would still have sucked a$$ even if they sat a year and a half.  There's no fixing a slow processing brain.

Peyton Manning agrees with me on this.  The data agrees with me on this.  Sitting is basically meaningless.  And no one outside of the Packers goes a full season without starting a guy.  It just doesn't happen.

These young guys need to arrive in the league mostly ready out of the box.  And it's not exactly an unreasonable ask when nearly every rule change since 2005 has been made to benefit QB's.  

Want to sit a guy 3-4 weeks his rookie year?  Fine.  Just don't expect it to make much difference.  

If you DO plan to sit a QB for a full year, he had better not be a guy for which you're using a 1st or early 2nd round pick.

I disagree with this in a massive way. 

 

Firstly can we agree the QB position is probably the hardest position to scout in all of sports and I'm convinced most of the NFL doesn't know how to identify/ scout the position

 

Secondly i don't think the orthodoxy of handling the position is rational and should be more in line with how slowly baseball prospects are brought along... Even great prospects will be brought along slowly through the minors to ease the transition. I understand there are contract/ cap restraints that can effect this so I'm talking about idealistic development

 

IMHO I don't think 99% of QBs even know what they're looking at for the first 1-2 yrs 16-32 starts. Some never make it out of the insane gauntlet and stress needed to play at just a competent level. Usually between 16-32 starts the light comes on, and usually another level is reached by year 4-5.... Drew Brees to an extremely high level is an example of this slower progression, geno Smith/ Vinny testaverde/ rich Gannon is a lower level example. 

Josh Allen has said in the chargers game his rookie year he was calling out protection audibles that literally didn't exist. I firmly believe that if Sam Darnold got the Jordan love treatment or Rodgers treatment he would be a franchise QB right now...

 

For me, when you draft a QB in the first round ( unless he's an extreme outlier) the overall approach should be like a entering a PhD program. I firmly believe that decent to very good QBs are ruined in that development window ( first 3 years or 16-32 starts). And many of these QBs for a myriad of reasons can never learn the nuances of the position. Not just learning to read defenses, but really understanding why a concept is working from a 30,000 foot view....

 

The perfect way is the Packers model. There are exceptions and different organizations with different problems but that is my overall view...

 

Its the most frustrating thing in professional sports seeing the microwave approach to the QB position

 

 

 

 

[jeremy2020]

This was the way it worked for a looong time and the "hit rate" on QBs wasn't any higher. Every QB is different. It's a nice story for Sam and Zach stans to tell themselves about how their heroes were done wrong.

[GreenFish]

I want us to draft a rookie QB so that we have a pipeline at the position. I wouldn’t do that with a 1st round pick. But a round 4 pick would work. We don’t need to wait to get a QB for when Rodgers retires. Start looking for that player now. Otherwise it’s going to be a fire drill later.

[Warfish]

27 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Well sitting for a year rather than a few weeks can help.   But teams that can sit players for year or more are already good and well coached.  The smart teams, when they are good are looking for their next QB and getting one they like.

 

Given the level of investment teams make in top-pick QB's, I think many teams could use a lesson in patience. 

Long term gain over short term satisfaction for fans.  I'll be honest, I'd probably sit a rookie QB in almost every case, and have a NFL Veteran to start the entire first season they're there, and re-evaluate in year 2 where that rookie is (or isn't).  Until that rookie can equal or better than NFL Vet on the field, I don't start them.  Jobs should be earned.  If they're not, it's cheaper to give time than to force a bust immediately.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

48 minutes ago, Larz said:

Sitting by itself isn’t magical.  Being drafted into a stable franchise with good coaching and a team around you matters more. 
 

Being drafted into a stable franchise with good coaching and a team around you and sitting is the perfect situation 

The QB is not just sitting. I understand that's not what you literally meant, but learning the position at a high level while not getting put into chaos can be a massive advantage.

 

Its like being thrown into the middle of a chess match with no experience. Its a world of difference from watching, studying and learning from afar and not having to deal with the stress/chaos with being thrown into something so dynamic

I remember working at a grocery store when I was a teenager. I would just stock shelves with really no thought or understanding of the purpose and concept of what I was stocking, why it was going there or when it would take place.  It wasn't until weeks later that I understood there was an entire logistics process at work for peak efficiency, like down to fuel, how particular items are shipped, timing lined up with statistics of what is coming in and out of the store, how the store is even outlined with particular items in the back or front was all for a very specific reason. 

 

Playing QB as a rookie or second year guy is like running an entire grocery store with zero experience. Even if you're pretty intelligent, there's going to be a rigid process in learning the basics 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

16 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

This was the way it worked for a looong time and the "hit rate" on QBs wasn't any higher. Every QB is different. It's a nice story for Sam and Zach stans to tell themselves about how their heroes were done wrong.

I haven't looked at the specific numbers on this or what is considered sitting and what is considered a bust or hit. 

 

Rich Gannon and Vinny are examples of different situations 

[JetsFanatic]

I think it depends on the QB. I always felt sitting down a QB in his rookie season was the way to go, but teams that normally draft QBs high in the first round aren’t very good and generally start them as rookies.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

17 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

I want us to draft a rookie QB so that we have a pipeline at the position. I wouldn’t do that with a 1st round pick. But a round 4 pick would work. We don’t need to wait to get a QB for when Rodgers retires. Start looking for that player now. Otherwise it’s going to be a fire drill later.

I would absolutely take a QB rd 1 if a top prospect falls to 10

[bonkertons]

I highly doubt KC regrets not only using a 10th overall pick on a QB that they sat for a year, but trading a future 1st as well for the right to do it.

 

That said I do tend to agree with the overall thesis.  Every QB is different.  Some aren't ready to start.  Some are.  Some can survive an awful rookie year(Manning), some can't.  Overall for the most part I think if a QB is going to become great, he'll become great.  I think "ruining" a QB is a pretty rare thing.  

 

I will say though, there is very little downside to sitting a QB for a year outside of burning a year of his rookie contract.  I get why people prefer this route.  Personally I could go either way.  Like if somehow Maye or Daniels slip to 10 and we take them - let's say Rodgers gets hurt and we replace him with Tannehill.  Tannehill ends up looking pretty bad and we're going nowhere...I'd have no problem giving the kid a chance.  I don't think there should be some "do not play under any circumstances" mandate attached to a rookie.  

[Warfish]

Just now, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

I would absolutely take a QB rd 1 if a top prospect falls to 10

But JD wouldn't, so it's sorta moot.

[Biggs]

Depends on the toxic level of the fan base.  The Jets should only start a rookie QB in road games.  

[Warfish]

Just now, bonkertons said:

That said I do tend to agree with the overall thesis.  Every QB is different.  Some aren't ready to start.  Some are.  Some can survive an awful rookie year(Manning), some can't.  Overall for the most part I think if a QB is going to become great, he'll become great.  I think "ruining" a QB is a pretty rare thing. 

The problem I think, is a failure of scouting.

QB's who aren't ready to play day 1 shouldn't be #2 overall picks.  No matter how much "potential" they might have.

Drafting under pressure, when you suck, and must play that pick day 1, and the pick is based mostly on supposed potential......that is truly a lottery. 

You lose vastly more than you win.  

The conflicting priorities of "must play and win now" and "get best out of QB draft pick" is the core problem.  

Again, teams should manage the high-pick QB first, and winning second, at least in the QB's rookie year at least.  

[83Kelly2Allen18]

Just now, Biggs said:

Depends on the toxic level of the fan base.  The Jets should only start a rookie QB in road games.  

Lol this is like my grocery store manager example but someone constantly screaming at you for 12 hours lmfao 

[#27TheDominator]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Given the level of investment teams make in top-pick QB's, I think many teams could use a lesson in patience. 

Long term gain over short term satisfaction for fans.  I'll be honest, I'd probably sit a rookie QB in almost every case, and have a NFL Veteran to start the entire first season they're there, and re-evaluate in year 2 where that rookie is (or isn't).  Until that rookie can equal or better than NFL Vet on the field, I don't start them.  Jobs should be earned.  If they're not, it's cheaper to give time than to force a bust immediately.

It isn't for the fans.  It's because you need to know after year 3 if you want to pay them.  You don't want to play the Daniel Jones game with your high draft pick.  It is getting the money for your investment.  I think there might be some value to sitting a guy and having him learn for a portion of a year if they just don't seem ready, but I don't believe the idea of a set plan for sitting a guy for a full season is particularly viable plan. 

I guess the main issue is the stigma with being benched.  I think some of these kids benefit from some starting time, but there are certain teams that literally run them through the wringer.  Putting a kid that is trying to call protections against a Belichick D or having them face the early 2000's Ravens can do more harm than good.  Problem is that giving them a start against the Cardinals might build them up, but sitting them against one of the powerhouses will make them look weak and ruin any gains.   

[JustInFudge]

This isnt black and white and there is not a right wrong or answer.  Every player is different.

 

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

Watch Fields go to Pittburgh where Arthur Smith will run the football 50x a game

 

[rangerous]

1 hour ago, August said:

I think if we had better teams and a little better stability around Geno and Sam maybe they could be carried by the team ala Brock Purdy. Then hopefully they could’ve came into their own by their 4th seasons. 
 

Zach Wilson never had it tbh so it’s a moot point with him. 

All of those guys were lacking in maturity.  In geno’s case I think he should’ve started over fitzy in 2016 but Bowles anointed fitzy well before training camp and Mac wrecked his re- signing.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

8 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

It isn't for the fans.  It's because you need to know after year 3 if you want to pay them.  You don't want to play the Daniel Jones game with your high draft pick.  It is getting the money for your investment.  I think there might be some value to sitting a guy and having him learn for a portion of a year if they just don't seem ready, but I don't believe the idea of a set plan for sitting a guy for a full season is particularly viable plan. 

I guess the main issue is the stigma with being benched.  I think some of these kids benefit from some starting time, but there are certain teams that literally run them through the wringer.  Putting a kid that is trying to call protections against a Belichick D or having them face the early 2000's Ravens can do more harm than good.  Problem is that giving them a start against the Cardinals might build them up, but sitting them against one of the powerhouses will make them look weak and ruin any gains.   

I don't buy this. The Packers just signed love to a 2 yr extension before they knew... 

[Warfish]

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

It isn't for the fans.  It's because you need to know after year 3 if you want to pay them.

GM's might think that, but it's not true.  First round QB's have 5 years of team control.  Just because some GM's refuse to use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I think there might be some value to sitting a guy and having him learn for a portion of a year if they just don't seem ready, but I don't believe the idea of a set plan for sitting a guy for a full season is particularly viable plan.

Seems to work for Green Bay.  The pressure is all self-inflicted.  You do not need to know if a guy is a 20 year starter at the end of his rookie year.  And in so doing many QB's get forced in before they're ready, before the team is ready around them (Bad O-line and rookies = lol fail), all in a rush to judgement.  Even NFL GM's forget they actually have time to work with.

But I'll repeat, I also wouldn't draft a guy based just on potential, who didn't seem at least very close to ready to step in and play, in the first round.  Personally.

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I guess the main issue is the stigma with being benched.  I think some of these kids benefit from some starting time, but there are certain teams that literally run them through the wringer.  Putting a kid that is trying to call protections against a Belichick D or having them face the early 2000's Ravens can do more harm than good.  Problem is that giving them a start against the Cardinals might build them up, but sitting them against one of the powerhouses will make them look weak and ruin any gains.   

Yeah, agreed.  The NFL could learn a thing or two from MLB and pitcher management tbh.  But you're right, there is "the NFL way" and with that comes stigma and all-or-nothing management when it comes to QB's.  

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

I don't buy this. The Packers just signed love to a 2 yr extension before they knew... 

and if they were wrong?  Are the Giants happy?  Obviously the main issue is just being right, but that isn't always so easy, even after being with a kid for a bit. 

[Warfish]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

Are the Giants happy?

I think the Giants are a bad example, because literally only they thought that Jones extension deal was a good deal.  No one outside their building thought that was the way to handle things lol.  Don't rely on extreme outliers when forming general policy IMO.

 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

13 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

It isn't for the fans.  It's because you need to know after year 3 if you want to pay them.  You don't want to play the Daniel Jones game with your high draft pick.  It is getting the money for your investment.  I think there might be some value to sitting a guy and having him learn for a portion of a year if they just don't seem ready, but I don't believe the idea of a set plan for sitting a guy for a full season is particularly viable plan. 

I guess the main issue is the stigma with being benched.  I think some of these kids benefit from some starting time, but there are certain teams that literally run them through the wringer.  Putting a kid that is trying to call protections against a Belichick D or having them face the early 2000's Ravens can do more harm than good.  Problem is that giving them a start against the Cardinals might build them up, but sitting them against one of the powerhouses will make them look weak and ruin any gains.   

This is my point tho. You don't take the bar exam as an undergrad... 99% of QBs shouldn't be calling protections vs bellicheck in their first couple years. Like you said it can create exponential harm in the QBs development 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

and if they were wrong?  Are the Giants happy?  Obviously the main issue is just being right, but that isn't always so easy, even after being with a kid for a bit. 

Its not this black and white. But you simply draft another QB and restart the process.

 

Daniel Jones is the opposite of the Packers methodology...

[83Kelly2Allen18]

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I think the Giants are a bad example, because literally only they thought that Jones extension deal was a good deal.  No one outside their building thought that was the way to handle things lol.  Don't rely on extreme outliers when forming general policy IMO.

 

Jones also played right away and then there was multiple front office changes etc. it's a terrible example. And then they gave him the dumbest contract in a long time. Jones also had some flashes but the light never came on

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

GM's might think that, but it's not true.  First round QB's have 5 years of team control.  Just because some GM's refuse to use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Not going to get into our usual back and forth about things that we kind of agree on.  Just pointing out the one thing I do not agree with.  

You have a QB signed for 4 years.   The 5th year option is around $20M.  You have to lock yourself in for that after the 3rd season.  Meaning the Jets have to decide now about whether to lock up Wilson.  Not that hard, but have him sit his first season and it becomes quite a bit murkier. 

The alternative is the Giants way.  Decline the option and see how he does.  At that point, if he is decent, you have to decide between a huge extension or the tag.  The tag is sub-optimal because it is only for one year and you get into that whole Kirk Cousins/Washington thing.  

The real monkey wrench is the constant changes in coaching.  It is fairly easy with someone established - like Pittsburgh, Baltimore or Green Bay.  With places like NY, Cleveland and Arizona you are evaluating guys who are trying to learn while the coaching carousel spins madly around them.