So what comes first... the team's short term needs or long-term needs? Let's say we have these two choices: A) Tannehill starts day one, and goes on to a career QBR of 84 with five games missed in his second year due to injury. We win three more games this year than we would have with Moore. After four years we get impatient with his lack of 'taking the next step' and begin looking for a QB who can get us to a Superbowl. B) Moore starts, and we struggle and miss the playoffs, but win 7 games. Tannehill sits all year and starts in year two, going on to a career QBR of 96 and becomes a playoff-winning QB. We enjoy him for the next ten years. Now obviously there are a MILLION other ways this could play out, but based on historical patterns with QBs these two seem the most likely. I take option B every time.
Plotted out data for the top ten QBs in the NFL and all the recent Day One starters we've been discussing. Here is what it looks like. Suggesting Tannehill start day one would put him at the far left edge of the graph, where career QBR looks to be in the 70's to 80's. Not seeing anyone in that area up above 90. We want him to become a QB above 100 QBR. That's his potential, imo. Why use an approach that's clearly not likely to get him there?
I get what you're saying about these QBs, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of them sat, and that's the significant point. Generally speaking, there's no way to say that they would've had the same success had they been instead thrown in right away.
This is great info, but it's also a bit bias to prove your point. For starters, most those day one starters are still quite young and haven't had the opportunity to improve those qbr's over the years. I'm betting Eli manning and drew brews are two who've increased theirs dramatically in recent years, but weren't stellar right away. Secondly, you should throw in some guys who sat and then went in that didn't pan out, like Jamarcus russel, leinart, Brady Quinn, etc. This chart is implying that any qb with big talent will succeed as long as he sits a significant amount of time. Surely it's not that simple. I'm not really sure what's best for tannehill, but I don't think this is as easy a decision as this chart implies.
You have no way of knowing that with any degree of certainty. Your statement amounts to pure speculation.
Shuler quit playing when he did due to a serious foot injury he wasn't able to recover fully from despite several surgeries. Not because every team in the league gave up on his potential as a pro QB. It certainly didn't help him that a bad team threw him into the fire out of desperation as a rookie.
I think it was a brilliant analogy. Fans can clamor all the want about getting the rookie QB starting asap. Fans are generally impatient. It is not their jobs or career on the line. The coaches should start whichever QB they honestly believe gives them the best chance to win THIS season. No rookie QB has ever suffered irreparable damage from sitting on the bench as a rookie.
But, like... for my argument that I wanna prove it's a pretty ****ing cool chart, no? lol. Yeah, I get your point. If you want to pull up recent, notable fourth year starters with crap QBRs I'll add them (or just discuss them). It's worth knowing. I'm not married to my viewpoint. I just want Tannehill to be as GREAT as he can be and not shortchange that with impatience, if it's detrimental.
Just because the offense is new does not mean the offense has to struggle. Tannehill could actually help the offense execute better then the other QBs because (a) he has a better understanding of the offense and (b) Ryan has a unique physical skillset that Garrard and Moore lack that adds a 'Newtonesque' element/potential to the offense i.e. zone-read, QB keeps etc. Yes. Imo fear of being scouted/gameplan is a irrational reason to hold Tannehill out. Teams will gameplan after every game. After the first game against the Bills/Pats trust that they will gameplan for Tannehill by the next meeting. Just like defenses gameplanned for Dalton and Tannehill. And although the popular media rhetoric seems suggest that defenses figured Cam out at the end of the season the truth of the matter is the end of the season is when the Panthers actually started winning games. At the end of the day you have to trust your QB and trust that your coaching staff will have a sound gameplan. Heck, most young QBs are named the starter or given the starting job, be glad that you have a rookie QB good enough that he might actually win the job in an open competition. And if he's good enough why hold him back?
Me too. The last thing I want to see is Bradford's "cabin fever". See PFF article/quotes by Ron Jaworski below:
Like David Carr. Like Joey Harrington. Happens all the time when a team isn't strong and ready. Our Oline is not ready. We have zero rushing game. Our WRs are questionable. Our D looks like it might have us playing from behind which means more drop backs, and potentially not for short yardage throws if we are looking for fourth quarter catch-up plays... those are 5 and seven step drops which can mean more sacks. I have no interest in entering my new Cadillac in a demolition derby.
The more I think about it, the more I like that analogy. you have a shiny new Cadillac that probably gives you a great chance of winning that demolition derby. Do you enter it and ruin it just because it could probably beat the other cars? Hell no. It'd be ruined. Then the analogy gets weird, because does that mean next year you should enter it? I guess so, because like, it has better tires and the driver is more experienced at avoiding getting t-boned. Also you're suped up the engine. Or is it souped up? I always pictured superman when people said 'suped-up' so I spell it like that. Suped Up. What was the question?
I say start him game 1. If he's gonna be a good qb, it doesnt matter when he starts. Troy Aikman played on a 1-15 team his first year and got beat up every week. That didnt seem to bother him. Peyton Manning was on a 3-13 team, I believe, his first year. Didnt bother him. Qb's either have it or they dont. Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch etc etc would have sucked no matter when they were thrust into the starting position. Some of you guys make this more in depth then it really is with the mental fragility and all that mess. A QB is either gonna be good, or he's not. Marino and Elway would have been the same QB's they turned into no matter what. Let Tannehill start.
You do understand that for every Hall of Fame example, there are 80 QBs who wilted under the same scenario, yes? So what you are really saying is, Tannehill has hall of fame written all over him. Certainly possible. Likely though?
And by the way, if we are going to use Hall of Fame guy's trajectories as the day-to-day template for every QB we develop, maybe we should consider that even our own Dan Marino did NOT start day one.
No, what I am saying is he is either gonna be good or he isn't. The 80 qb's who say wilted would have wilted no matter what. Aaron Rodgers would be the same qb today if he would have started game one, because he is just a great qb. Nothing more nothing less. John Beck Didnt have to start right away and look at him. Once again, if a qb is gonnna be great, it doesnt matter when you start him. Same goes for if a qb is gonna be a bust.
I'm so sick of the argument that 'those guys would have failed no matter what". such a load of b.s. speculation. We have REAL facts of most guys who succeed sitting for some time first.... and you have some unfactual imagination you've contrived that IF some other reality were real then it would follow the rules you've decided. That's not an argument. Don't go into law.
No great QB was great because he sat a year. I'm not saying we should start him, I'm saying we shouldn't be afraid of starting him.
What are you talking about? A qb is either gonna be good or hes not, no matter if he sits or not. What is so hard to understand about that?
Maybe a QB who has limited upside can benefit from sitting, but IMO the difference between a franchise QB isn't watching or playing...Eli Manning would've been Eli Manning if he started game 1 or game 5.
Perhaps ex NFL QB Ron Jaworski is silly for speaking of a condition that happens enough that there's a name for it, "Cabin Fever". I provide a valid & pertinent example of how Bradford is regressing as a QB, and it gets completely dismissed. If Sam's cabin fever persists and he remains down this same path and busts, a lot of fans will irrationally label him as a bust, and canez06 will say he was destined to be a bust regardless. That's a load of horse crap. If Bradford had the luxury of sitting his rookie year and then entered year 2 in a favorable QB situation, he would NOT have posted a 70.5 QBR, 53.5%, and 6 TDs. Now, in year 3 he would instead be poised for a nice breakout year rather than using this season as a pair of jumper cables trying to get his career back the heck on track and undo all the bad habits and damaged psyche he suffered the past 2 years. Inevitably, some idiot will say, "Well if he's mentally that fragile that his psyche can be damaged, then he's probably not very good in the first place.", to which I'd respond---- "Obviously you've never had a 260 to 340 pound defensive lineman barreling down on you trying to pummel you into the ground... and succeeding... repeatedly!".
Sorry but there's no merit to this argument. We've provided a list of all the QBs who didn't start from day one, and that list included something like 17 of the top 20 passing yardage QBs of All Time, 17 of the top 20 TD passers of All Time, 16 of the top 20 rated passers of all time. You can say whatever you want, but the numbers speak for themselves. True, no great QB was great b/c he sat a year.... but there are more examples of QBs who became great who sat verses ones who didn't. No great QB didn't become great b/c he sat, but history has had plenty of high 1st round QBs who didn't become great who were thrown in immediately. You should absolutely be afraid of starting a QB from day 1 if the conditions are present that deem being afraid.
Newton and Dalton had incredible years, sitting would have done nothing to benefit those guys. That logic is a thing of the past, Hence why 3 of the 4 1st rounders this year have ALREADY been named starters. NFL execs have those same stats you guys keep throwing around and yet they still go with the rookie. Why do you think that is?
How do you know if the qb's who didnt start right away and became good qb's wouldnt have been good right away? You dont. Is Tom Brady who he us csuse he didn't start right away? I seriously doubt it. Would Marino have been better if he didnt start till his second year? I doubt that to
This is such a silly argument, and that fact that you believe in it so much that you'll make the statement in bold is even sillier. NFL QB is THE MOST SENSITIVE position in the NFL, and likely all of sports. NFL QB is also THE SINGLE MOST DEPENDENT position in all of sports. In this fantasy NFL league of yours I suppose QB's never get hit and injured? It's a sack-free league is it? QBs, no matter how great their potential, can get ruined in this league if the conditions aren't beneficial to success. PERIOD. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. For you to assume that it wont happen just b/c you want Tannehill in ASAP is massively irresponsible, and is something the 90's Browns or Bengals with Carson Palmer would do. I'd love to hear your excuse why #1 pick Carson Palmer looked like a future HOFer through year 3 suddenly vanished. Palmer's last 4 years (average): 82.7 QBR, 61.9%, 2936 yards, 18 TD (4.3%), 15 INT (3.5%) Palmer's 2nd 2 years (average): 97.4 QBR, 65.0%, 3936 yards, 30 TD (5.8%), 12 INT (2.4%) So which one is Palmer, because I clearly see 2 different QBs here? Is he great or is he not great?
You just don't get it. The transition into becoming an NFL QB is highly volatile. Sitting them will not hurt them. You know what will? throwing them into a difficult situation while they're in their development stage, that's what. If you make a rookie QB not only have to worry about developing but also improvising plays to avoid pressure or help overcome a bad ground game or defense that isn't effective, then it can absolutely either ruin him or stunt his development b/c, like Bradford is doing RIGHT NOW, he'll spend more time undoing bad habits and trying to reprogram himself (including building up lost confidence) than spending time on furthering his development. Therefore if Tanny isn't in a position favorable to his development, it can do more harm than good by starting him. I honestly don't know why you have trouble understanding that bad habits, damaged psyches, and so forth can develop for a QB.
Dude don't even get me started. Way too frustrating. Next time you need surgery go find a pre-med student who's just 'got the gift'.
It's easy. It allows you to be all the more prepared & acclimated to handle the battle that lay ahead considering the NFL is an entirely different animal than college football.
So what you're saying is you're fine with subjecting a franchise QB to physical harm & mental stress b/c you feel he's guaranteed 100% to rebound from it?
That MAY be true... but we can't say those things as if they are proven fact because that is not a fact. We just don't know. Just like we don;t know how their career will play out having started day one versus later. All we know is how the historical data looks. The rest isn't fact, it is speculation and opinion. We should try to state the facts as facts and the rest as subjective guessing, since that's all it is. For example, if I say Henne would have been a Pro Bowler if only he'd been allowed to be a day one starter!... what the hell is the point of that statement?
I disagree with your stance, but the BOLDED is true. Now we have CEOs who CRATER whole companies to meet THIS QUARTERS reports so they keep their jobs and shareholders don't push for them to get fired. Similarly, fans are so impatient in our fatted-up, pleasure-ridden, id-soaked society that owners, coaches and GMs are on the hotset practically as they do their "I'm taking the job" press conference... which leads to pressing young QBs into service so the bloody masses can gnash our teeth and enjoy our bread and circuses sooner rather than later. They aren't starting more rookies because it's a better development system any more than kids are eating more sugar because it's better for their longevity and health. You say it like they've had a 'Eureka!" moment and discovered it's a superior system, when really, it's just the crappy climate they are in which forces their hand.
That's the point!!!! No one knows anything except what the data actually show!!! And the data pretty strongly show (to those willing to look) that there is a pretty ridiculously high correlation between a QB going longer before his first start, and him performing much better as a QB. Everything else is impatience rationalized by what you've even piinted out as stuff we "don't know"!
You guys are posting skewed facts. You have no way of knowing IF player A benefited from sitting or not?? It's a player by player situation, and to act as if this is some simple formula to success of a young QB is.....well.....stupid. Your franchise QBs are born more than bred, now the Colt Mccoys of the world who must overachieve to be a good QB?? I see your point. And again I'm not calling for Tannehill to start if he isn't ready, I'm simply saying if he wins the job starting him could prove to be beneficial not detrimental. Starting RT week 1 will NOT ruin his career, infact I'd like to think we drafted a QB who will rise to the challenge and excel...not fold like a Tim Couch when adversity strikes. Tell your wife she married an idiot.
so what? Newton was bigger than most DEs, and Dalton was in one of the favorable situations Bpk and I discussed. The situation that surrounded Dalton means squat to other QBs. That logic is a thing of the past, Hence why 3 of the 4 1st rounders this year have ALREADY been named starters. NFL execs have those same stats you guys keep throwing around and yet they still go with the rookie. Why do you think that is?[/QUOTE] So you're saying NFL execs didn't have these stats in years past when they did start & ruin QBs by putting them in too soon when the situation wasn't favorable for their development and transition?
