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

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

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

QB is going to be an enormously stressful position no matter what you do.  Some guys can handle it.  Some can't.  You're never going to be able to simulate the speed of the NFL pass rush by sitting.  Except maybe via new VR tech.  

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

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

I did.  A little over a year ago.  For every QB drafted in the 1st or 2nd round from 1998-2020:

 

• Started right away or within 3 weeks:  57 % Bust rate
• Sat for 4-8 weeks:  72 % Bust rate
• Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season:  56 % Bust rate
• Sat for > 1 full season: 60 % Bust rate

 

 

1) Played right away (within first 3 weeks of rookie season) - HITS (12)

• Peyton Manning (1998 - 1.1)
• Carson Palmer (2003 - 1.1)
• Ben Roethlisberger (2004 - 1.11)
• Matt Ryan (2008 - 1.3)
• Joe Flacco (2008 - 1.18)
• Matthew Stafford (2009 - 1.1)
• Cam Newton (2011 - 1.1)
• Andy Dalton (2011 - 2.35)
• Andrew Luck (2012 - 1.1)
• Ryan Tannehill (2012 - 1.8)
• Derek Carr (2014 - 2.36)
• Deshaun Watson (2017 - 1.12)
• Joe Burrow (2020 - 1.1)
• Justin Herbert (2020 - 1.6)

 

2) Played right away (within first 3 weeks of rookie season) - BUSTS (16)

• Tim Couch (1999 - 1.1)
• Quincy Carter (2001 - 2.53)
• David Carr (2002 - 1.1)
• Joey Harrington (2002 - 1.3)
• Kyle Boller (2003 - 1.19)
• Mark Sanchez (2009 - 1.5)
• Sam Bradford (2010 - 1.1)
• Jimmy Clausen (2010 - 2.48)
• Blaine Gabbert (2011 - 1.10)
• Robert Griffin IIII (2012 - 1.2)
• Brandon Weeden (2012 - 1.22)
• EJ Manuel (2013  - 1.16)
• Marcus Mariota (2015 - 1.2)
• Carson Wentz (2016 - 1.2)
• DeShone Kizer (2017 - 2.52)
• Sam Darnold (2018 - 1.3)

 

3) Sat for 4-8 weeks  - Hits (5)

• Charlie Batch (1998 - 2.60)
• Michal Vick (2001 - 1.1)
• Alex Smith (2005 - 1.1)
• Josh Allen (2018 - 1.7)
• Tua Tagovailoa (2020 - 1.5)

 

4) Sat for 4-8 weeks  - BUSTS (13)

• Ryan Leaf (1998 - 1.2)
• Cade McNown (1999 - 1.12)
• Patrick Ramsey (2002 - 1.32)
• Byron Leftwich (2003 - 1.7)
• Vince Young (2006 - 1.3)
• Matt Leinart (2006 - 1.10)
• Josh Freeman (2009 - 1.17)
• Christian Ponder (2011 - 1.12)
• Blake Bortles (2014 - 1.3)
• Paxton Lynch (2016 - 1.26)
• Mitchell Trubisky (2017 - 1.2)
• Baker Mayfield (2018 - 1.1)
• Josh Rosen (2018 - 1.10)

 

5) Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season  - HITS (7)

• Donovan McNabb (1999 - 1.2)
• Daunte Culpepper (1999 - 1.11)
• Eli Manning (2004 - 1.1)
• Jay Cutler (2006 - 1.11)
• Patrick Mahomes (2017 - 1.10)
• Lamar Jackson 2018 - 1.32)
• Jalen Hurts (2020 - 2.53)

 

6) Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season   - BUSTS (9)

• Akili Smith (1999 - 1.3)
• Shaun King (1999 - 2.50)
• Rex Grossman (2003 - 1.22)
• Tarvaris Jackson (2006 - 2.64)
• JaMarcus Russell (2007 - 1.1)
• Tim Tebow (2010 - 1.25)
• Johnny Manziel (2014 - 1.22)
• Dwayne Haskins (2019 - 1.15)
• Drew Lock (2019 - 2.42)

 

7) Sat for > 1 full season  - HITS (6)

• Chad Pennington (2000 - 1.18)
• Marc Bulger (2000 - 2.168)
• Drew Brees (2001 - 1.32)
• Phillip Rivers (2004 - 1.4)
• Aaron Rodgers (2005 - 1.24)
• Jimmy Garoppolo (2014 - 2.62)

 

8 ) Sat for > 1 full season   - BUSTS (9)

• Marques Tuiasosopo (2001 - 2.59)
• J.P. Losman (2004 - 1.22)
• Jason Campbell (2005 - 1.25)
• Brady Quinn (2007 - 1.22)
• Kevin Kolb (2007 - 2.36)
• Drew Stanton (2007 - 2.43)
• Jake Locker (2011 - 1.8)
• Brock Osweiler (2012 - 2.57)
• Christian Hackenberg (2016 - 2.51)

 

By the numbers:

• Started right away or within 3 weeks:  57 % Bust rate
• Sat for 4-8 weeks:  72 % Bust rate
• Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season:  56 % Bust rate
• Sat for > 1 full season: 60 % Bust rate

 

So is there any correlation between sitting and success in the NFL?  Not so much.  

[Jetsfan80]

6 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

I dont care about them because they're not the best I've ever seen.  The best I've ever seen, sat before they started. 

Well Peyton Manning is the best I'VE ever seen and is consensus top 5 all-time, so....

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

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. 

[JustInFudge]

7 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Well Peyton Manning is the best I'VE ever seen and is consensus top 5 all-time, so....

Hmmm.  For me it's; Mahomes>Rodgers>Montana>Marino>Brady  and they all sat first, so take that for correlation!

 

, 

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

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

Firstly, it was only a 1-year extension.  They also got him super cheap because he hadn't gotten on the field until year 3.  It wasn't exactly a risky gamble when they could afford to hand him a 1-year extension for just $13.5M, with 3 void years tacked on the back end.

Literally no other team ever has this luxury.  Either the guy sucks and you don't want him back OR you have to pay out of the nose, and there's almost nothing in between.

And in the end the Packers will still have to pay Love big coin by the end of his 5th year.  Which works out the same as it would for any team drafting a QB in Round 1 who exercises the 5th year option.

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

The QB is being paid regardless... There is no reason to rush development because of some perceived deadline. 

Love just disproved this idea

No he did not.  And 1 anecdotal instance does not disprove the "rule" anyways.

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

The point is that the Packers still have him under a cost control contract because they didn't rush the process because of a perceived deadline 

Until 2024 ends.  Yes.  Big deal.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

That was kind of my point.  In like my first point in the thread I think I said that the most important thing is being able to identify good QBs.  That is why it is easy to find one when you have one.  That and that there is no emergency to locate another.  

 

The reason that it doesn't apply to signing Cousins is that signing him for $30M means that you are trying to win with him and burning your high #1 on a QB is probably not the best way to win a super bowl.  You can pick a guy late and sit/develop him, but even less of those guys have the talent to succeed than the high ones rushed to start that we are complaining about.  There are just more of them, but there is more opportunity for other teams to take them.

So if Fitz is 34 and playing good as a bridge QB or Cousins is the Steelers QB, you're telling me that they would pass on Drake Maye if he slipped in the draft like Rodgers? 

 

This feels silly

 

We saw the chiefs do the same thing with a really good bridge QB in Alex Smith. They saw the opportunity and took it.

 

The jets did it with Pennington

The Packers have done it twice now

 

 

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Love is getting paid 13 million this year. He's ufa in 25.

Do you mean before '25 or after?  If you mean after:  False.  2025 is the first of 3 void years that will never happen.  

[83Kelly2Allen18]

11 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Firstly, it was only a 1-year extension.  They also got him super cheap because he hadn't gotten on the field until year 3.  It wasn't exactly a risky gamble when they could afford to hand him a 1-year extension for just $13.5M, with 3 void years tacked on the back end.

Literally no other team ever has this luxury.  Either the guy sucks and you don't want him back OR you have to pay out of the nose, and there's almost nothing in between.

And in the end the Packers will still have to pay Love big coin by the end of his 5th year.  Which works out the same as it would for any team drafting a QB in Round 1 who exercises the 5th year option.

The jets have that luxury

They did with Vinny and drafting Pennington years ago...

 

Whoever signs cousins in theory does

The chiefs did it

 

The reason love was cheap is because they didn't put themselves in a position to rush his development. That's the whole point 

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

There is no basis. Its just dogma to say a QB drafted high must play right away. Only a few in NFL history hit the ground running. 

A "few"?  I reeled off 10-12 (1st/2nd rounders only) since '99 while barely trying.  That's like one every 2-3 years.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Until 2024 ends.  Yes.  Big deal.

Why would it matter after if said development led to him being a great QB? He's getting paid regardless...  

 

[Jetsfan80]

12 minutes ago, JustInFudge said:

Hmmm.  For me it's; Mahomes>Rodgers>Montana>Marino>Brady  and they all sat first, so take that for correlation!

 

, 

Pretty much all QB's used to sit pre-Manning though.  It was a completely different game.  Hence why I ended up only looking at '98-present.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

A "few"?  I reeled off 12-15 since '99 while barely trying.

Marino, luck and Stroud are the only ones who were ready right away 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Marino, luck and Stroud are the only ones who were ready right away 

Why does it matter that Peyton wasn't "ready" right away?  He still ended up a HOFer and in the GOAT discussion.  We're only talking results here.  Greatness can only be delayed, not denied.

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Why would it matter after if said development led to him being a great QB? He's getting paid regardless...  

 

Because you think the Packers "beat the system" when they really didn't.  They have to pay the piper starting year 6 like everybody else.

[Jetsfan80]

5 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Why would it matter after if said development led to him being a great QB? He's getting paid regardless...  

Oh so development only matters for the guys who sit, not the ones who played right away.  Peyton "developed" but he doesn't count in this discussion because he started right away AND wasn't awesome right away. 

I see what you're trying to do.  Confirmation bias away my man, confirmation bias away.

[Jetsfan80]

9 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

The reason love was cheap is because they didn't put themselves in a position to rush his development. That's the whole point 

Starting right away doesn't "rush your development".  That's MY whole point.  You can develop WHILE YOU PLAY as long as you're not a total pu$$y. 

And if you ARE a pu$$y, you're gonna fail anyways even if you sit five years.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Why does it matter that Peyton wasn't "ready" right away?  He still ended up a HOFer and in the GOAT discussion.  We're only talking results here.  Greatness can only be delayed, not denied.

Because Peyton Manning was possibly the greatest mind in NFL history playing the position. 

 

Most QBs, 99% basically don't know what is even going on their first two years. Some can still play well and win games, ( although many aren't learning the position correctly which again hurts their long term development)

 

Rushing the process can damage the growth process. 

 

Just throwing the QB out there is not a plan. 

 

I'm not saying that the QB must sit for 2-3 years

 

I'm saying that said first rd QB shouldn't be out there until he's ready. Just like I can't be a lawyer as an undergrad. 

 

My overall opinion is most QBs are forced to play early, ie Darnold and that orthodoxy of handling the position is hurting the way a QB sees the game 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

16 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh so development only matters for the guys who sit, not the ones who played right away.  Peyton "developed" but he doesn't count in this discussion because he started right away AND wasn't awesome right away. 

I see what you're trying to do.  Confirmation bias away my man, confirmation bias away.

Its not mutually exclusive. Most ppl have said it's dependent on the QB and each situation is different. 

 

My overall view is most QBs are rushed regardless of if they are ready

My other view is that as an organization there is no material argument to feel like there is some arbitrary deadline on when said development should occur.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

12 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Because you think the Packers "beat the system" when they really didn't.  They have to pay the piper starting year 6 like everybody else.

Nobody said anything about beating the system with cost. You're paying the QB in almost all context regardless. 

What the Packers did is not rush his development. That's the main overarching point. 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

12 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Starting right away doesn't "rush your development".  That's MY whole point.  You can develop WHILE YOU PLAY as long as you're not a total pu$$y. 

And if you ARE a pu$$y, you're gonna fail anyways even if you sit five years.

It literally is rushing the QBs development if he's not ready... 

Maybe it still works out. Maybe it doesn't. Regardless, it doesn't negate most QBs take longer to develop. It also doesn't negate that not rushing the process increases the chance said QB develops properly 

 

 

[Jet Nut]

You must not have a life.  To compile this many numbers and still be wrong is comical.

Ben sucked initially and the Steelers won a SB with the worst QB in the years you’re compiling.  Just one example.

[83Kelly2Allen18]

6 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

You must not have a life.  To compile this many numbers and still be wrong is comical.

Ben sucked initially and the Steelers won a SB with the worst QB in the years you’re compiling.  Just one example.

Is this for me?

[Jet Nut]

4 minutes ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

Is this for me?

No the one with one post after another, all wrong

[83Kelly2Allen18]

55 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I did.  A little over a year ago.  For every QB drafted in the 1st or 2nd round from 1998-2020:

 

• Started right away or within 3 weeks:  57 % Bust rate
• Sat for 4-8 weeks:  72 % Bust rate
• Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season:  56 % Bust rate
• Sat for > 1 full season: 60 % Bust rate

 

 

1) Played right away (within first 3 weeks of rookie season) - HITS (12)

• Peyton Manning (1998 - 1.1)
• Carson Palmer (2003 - 1.1)
• Ben Roethlisberger (2004 - 1.11)
• Matt Ryan (2008 - 1.3)
• Joe Flacco (2008 - 1.18)
• Matthew Stafford (2009 - 1.1)
• Cam Newton (2011 - 1.1)
• Andy Dalton (2011 - 2.35)
• Andrew Luck (2012 - 1.1)
• Ryan Tannehill (2012 - 1.8)
• Derek Carr (2014 - 2.36)
• Deshaun Watson (2017 - 1.12)
• Joe Burrow (2020 - 1.1)
• Justin Herbert (2020 - 1.6)

 

2) Played right away (within first 3 weeks of rookie season) - BUSTS (16)

• Tim Couch (1999 - 1.1)
• Quincy Carter (2001 - 2.53)
• David Carr (2002 - 1.1)
• Joey Harrington (2002 - 1.3)
• Kyle Boller (2003 - 1.19)
• Mark Sanchez (2009 - 1.5)
• Sam Bradford (2010 - 1.1)
• Jimmy Clausen (2010 - 2.48)
• Blaine Gabbert (2011 - 1.10)
• Robert Griffin IIII (2012 - 1.2)
• Brandon Weeden (2012 - 1.22)
• EJ Manuel (2013  - 1.16)
• Marcus Mariota (2015 - 1.2)
• Carson Wentz (2016 - 1.2)
• DeShone Kizer (2017 - 2.52)
• Sam Darnold (2018 - 1.3)

 

3) Sat for 4-8 weeks  - Hits (5)

• Charlie Batch (1998 - 2.60)
• Michal Vick (2001 - 1.1)
• Alex Smith (2005 - 1.1)
• Josh Allen (2018 - 1.7)
• Tua Tagovailoa (2020 - 1.5)

 

4) Sat for 4-8 weeks  - BUSTS (13)

• Ryan Leaf (1998 - 1.2)
• Cade McNown (1999 - 1.12)
• Patrick Ramsey (2002 - 1.32)
• Byron Leftwich (2003 - 1.7)
• Vince Young (2006 - 1.3)
• Matt Leinart (2006 - 1.10)
• Josh Freeman (2009 - 1.17)
• Christian Ponder (2011 - 1.12)
• Blake Bortles (2014 - 1.3)
• Paxton Lynch (2016 - 1.26)
• Mitchell Trubisky (2017 - 1.2)
• Baker Mayfield (2018 - 1.1)
• Josh Rosen (2018 - 1.10)

 

5) Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season  - HITS (7)

• Donovan McNabb (1999 - 1.2)
• Daunte Culpepper (1999 - 1.11)
• Eli Manning (2004 - 1.1)
• Jay Cutler (2006 - 1.11)
• Patrick Mahomes (2017 - 1.10)
• Lamar Jackson 2018 - 1.32)
• Jalen Hurts (2020 - 2.53)

 

6) Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season   - BUSTS (9)

• Akili Smith (1999 - 1.3)
• Shaun King (1999 - 2.50)
• Rex Grossman (2003 - 1.22)
• Tarvaris Jackson (2006 - 2.64)
• JaMarcus Russell (2007 - 1.1)
• Tim Tebow (2010 - 1.25)
• Johnny Manziel (2014 - 1.22)
• Dwayne Haskins (2019 - 1.15)
• Drew Lock (2019 - 2.42)

 

7) Sat for > 1 full season  - HITS (6)

• Chad Pennington (2000 - 1.18)
• Marc Bulger (2000 - 2.168)
• Drew Brees (2001 - 1.32)
• Phillip Rivers (2004 - 1.4)
• Aaron Rodgers (2005 - 1.24)
• Jimmy Garoppolo (2014 - 2.62)

 

8 ) Sat for > 1 full season   - BUSTS (9)

• Marques Tuiasosopo (2001 - 2.59)
• J.P. Losman (2004 - 1.22)
• Jason Campbell (2005 - 1.25)
• Brady Quinn (2007 - 1.22)
• Kevin Kolb (2007 - 2.36)
• Drew Stanton (2007 - 2.43)
• Jake Locker (2011 - 1.8)
• Brock Osweiler (2012 - 2.57)
• Christian Hackenberg (2016 - 2.51)

 

By the numbers:

• Started right away or within 3 weeks:  57 % Bust rate
• Sat for 4-8 weeks:  72 % Bust rate
• Sat for 9 weeks - 1 full season:  56 % Bust rate
• Sat for > 1 full season: 60 % Bust rate

 

So is there any correlation between sitting and success in the NFL?  Not so much.  

Id have to do a deep dive here but there is already flaws here.  I'm not suggesting that sitting for a few weeks helps really. 

 

A better correlation would be QBs taken in the first round since the merger who sat for more than one year. McNair, Rodgers, Love as an example. A few starts doesn't matter 

 

Then compare the same parameters but with QBs who sat for just one year

Then compare the same parameters of both with organizations that kept the same coach...

I can't count QBs taken after the first round because most good QBs are taken in the first ten picks, and then the hits drop precipitously. 

 

What would be interesting is how many QBs taken in the first round, sat for more than one year and had the same coach failed?  

 

Then compare that percentage with QBs taken in the first round, stated right away and had a coaching change

 

There's a lot of ways to get a result you want but it would be interesting 

 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

You could also leave out a coaching change

 

Compare QBs who are first rd picks that played right away vs those that sat for more than one year

 

You could also do a data analysis with top 10 picks, or wherever the dropoff occurs steeply within the first rd. 

 

If I'm not mistaken it's a big drop off around pick 12-13 since the merger 

[Beerfish]

Rodgers, Brady, Love, Mahomes were all much better of siting for an extended time.   There is no hard and fast rule so we will never know if some guys who were forced to start to early were ruined or where just bad.

It is a huge step from college to the NFL so a full year at least of siting is desirable.

Also with such an important leadership aspect for QB it lets a QB play and practice with his team mates all year and establish some credibility instead of walking into day one of off season and the team being told a guy who looks like zach Wilson is your new leader.

Guys drafted outside that top 3 area are often going to smart teams who are pretty good and can survive a year or more without having to use the new rookie.

People look at mahomes (10), Lamar (31?) Rodgers (22 or so?),  Love (17?) and all say how did the league miss on these guys???   Well they all had a chance to develop, learn, not be forced before they were ready and be able to establish cred with their team mates.

And the opposite end of the spectrum are guys like Darnold, bryce young, David Carr forced in their too early with brain Dead gms who put zero talent around them and terrible olines.

 

 

 

[DoubleDown]

It's a pointless statement that can't be proven one way or the other.

Some quarterbacks are special and will succeed no matter what.  Some quarterbacks are not cut out for the NFL and will fail no matter what.  None of this proves anything.

I happen to believe it's common sense that some quarterbacks can benefit from time on the bench while learning the NFL game, and throwing them into the fire too soon is detrimental to their development.

A very large part of the equation is the situation the player is drafted into: coaching, system, talent around them.

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, JustInFudge said:

Hmmm.  For me it's; Mahomes>Rodgers>Montana>Marino>Brady  and they all sat first, so take that for correlation!

 

, 

Marino started 9 games as a rookie and made the pro bowl 

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, 83Kelly2Allen18 said:

So if Fitz is 34 and playing good as a bridge QB or Cousins is the Steelers QB, you're telling me that they would pass on Drake Maye if he slipped in the draft like Rodgers? 

 

This feels silly

 

We saw the chiefs do the same thing with a really good bridge QB in Alex Smith. They saw the opportunity and took it.

 

The jets did it with Pennington

The Packers have done it twice now

 

 

Look, you are fighting about something we don't necessarily disagree on.  The main point is how sure people are about the prospect.  You want to burn #10 on Drake Maye?   Sure, if you think he is the QB of the future.  You do that for Rosen or Lance and you look a bit nutty.  At some point you have to go all in.  You keep mentioning Fitzpatrick.  Maccagnan literally tried to do exactly what you are discussing.  The QBs he selected?  Bryce Petty and Christian Hackenberg.  The problem is not the plan, it's the execution. 

Yes, if you have a solid QB you can let your pick sit, but you are also using up a portion of your stud's rookie deal and for what? The right to pay Cousins $40M?  If you are a good judge of QBs you will end up with a solid vet and a great prospect.  If you are not, you end up with Christian Hackenberg and even year Ryan Fitzpatrick.

[jeremy2020]

2 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Exactly.  QBs used to sit a while.  Yet the game didn't have any higher % of great QBs as it does now.  The game has gotten easier for QBs, certainly, so it makes much less sense to sit them.  And that's kinda the point.  It doesn't really make any sense to do it for long.  

Sit em a few weeks?  Fine.  A full year?  No.  

I'm a big fan of getting a backup QB that you know will suck just enough or get hurt around week 6 so everyone is desperate for the rookie

[83Kelly2Allen18]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

Look, you are fighting about something we don't necessarily disagree on.  The main point is how sure people are about the prospect.  You want to burn #10 on Drake Maye?   Sure, if you think he is the QB of the future.  You do that for Rosen or Lance and you look a bit nutty.  At some point you have to go all in.  You keep mentioning Fitzpatrick.  Maccagnan literally tried to do exactly what you are discussing.  The QBs he selected?  Bryce Petty and Christian Hackenberg.  The problem is not the plan, it's the execution. 

Yes, if you have a solid QB you can let your pick sit, but you are also using up a portion of your stud's rookie deal and for what? The right to pay Cousins $40M?  If you are a good judge of QBs you will end up with a solid vet and a great prospect.  If you are not, you end up with Christian Hackenberg and even year Ryan Fitzpatrick.

Petty and hackenberg we're not first rd picks. 

I need to find the article but there's a massive drop off in successful QBs if they're not taken in the top half of the first rd. 

 

Its not a static rule or anything. 

 

The general idea is you have a franchise QB or bridge QB. You then take a excellent QB prospect that will eventually come along like the chiefs and Packers did. You then let them learn from afar instead of forcing/rushing development

Ppl seem to agree " well yeah that's the best situation but what about draft capital allocation when you are trying to win now with cousins or Rodgers and/or wasting a qbs rookie contract."

I'm never passing on a top QB prospect while my QB is in his mid 30s or even approaching his mid 30s...Because that draft pick gives me potentially 10-15 more opportunities to win than one singular all in year

 

To wasting the rookie QB contract, you would still be paying the other QB on your team in theory, just like the Packers were, just like whoever signs cousins, and just like the jets now. Again you're paying the position regardless to some extent

Secondly even if you aren't paying the QB a ton, say your QB is Fitz for a few years, and the rookie 1st rd pick sits for 2-3 years. 

You still have years 5-6 where you still won't be paying the QB that much.

but even if you subscribe to " wasting the QBs rookie contract" I don't,

why would I purposely force the QB to play before he's ready jeopardizing his development and long term stability at the position. 

Ppl kept yelling at the Packers when they drafted Rodgers and Love saying " you can't do that. Why take a QB in the first rd and not play him. Etc etc". 

 

I just think that's stuff ppl are repeating and nauseum and just accept it as orthodoxy. 

I don't believe it's the most conducive environment to bring a first rd QB to develop

 

Like the analogy I provided earlier, you're throwing some undergrad out there to be a lawyer and imo it seems reckless 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[83Kelly2Allen18]

If another team took love and forced him to play earlier before he was ready we wouldnt see obviously what we are now. 

 

I can't prove a negative so we'll never know with David carr, couch or Darnold but I highly suspect it they were in love or Rodgers situation their careers would've been more fruitful