That was just one time. The actual list is a LOT longer. Most of them are from either taking hits or trying to avoid them. - sprained knee - strained back/spasms - blown out knee (required surgery) - broken nose - shoulder tendonitis - torn ligament & tendon in elbow (required Tommy John surgery) - ankle sprain - another ankle sprain - ligament damage to thumb (required surgery) - injured hip - foot injury - another shoulder injury 2008, Cincly allowed 118 combined sacks & hits. For comparison, in '08, Atlanta allowed only 53 (Ryan's rookie year). First off, Palmer is yet another example of a high 1st round QB who apparently benefited by sitting his rookie year as he went gangbusters in year's 2 & 3. The correlation is: Palmer was in a highly UNfavorable position to succeed, and it destroyed him. So what you're saying is that you'd willingly throw a rookie QB into a similarly unfavorable situation rather than temporarily sitting him while you allow that volatile situation some time to solidify.
Do you understand what "risk" is? Do you understand there are different levels of risk? Do you understand that some levels of risk are actually worth avoiding? Using an analogy, Bpk and I are making references about it being wise to avoid driving during a snow storm after just receiving your license, and you're essentially saying if that's the case then no one should ever drive. It's a weak argument. Seriously? You're gonna try and use a 7th round draft pick who's now an NFL starter as a reason why a QB shouldn't sit? lol. Nope, Leaf started from week 1. He supports our examples. Why would they start? Smith, Klingler, and Ware weren't remotely close to being ready TO start. Shuler saw action in week 1 and took over in week 4. Wash threw him to the wolves. Shuler proves our point, not yours. Akili Smith saw significant action during week 2 and took over in week 4 of rookie year. He also proves our point. Quinn didn't start as a rookie and isn't one now b/c he never came close to earning it. According to you though he should've been put in regardless and let the entire team suffer for it.
Here's a list of 1st round, franchise-hopeful QBs who were thrown in early (started by week 5): Jeff George- week 1 Kelly Stouffer- week 5 Dan MaGuire- week 5 Rick Mirer- week 1 Heath Shuler- took over during week 4 (played week 1) Kerry Collins- took over week 3 Jim Druckenmiller- week 2 Ryan Leaf- week 1 Akili Smith- week 5 (played week 1) Tim Couch- week 2 (played week 1) Patrick Ramsey- week 5 David Carr- week 1 Joey Harrington- week 3 (played weeks 1 & 2) Kyle Boller- week 1 Byron Leftwich- week 4 (played week 2) Alex Smith- week 5 Sam Bradford- week 1 (hopefully jury is still out and he can recover from cabin fever) Mark Sanchez- week 1 That's a long list of 1st rounders who became nobodies. I could understand if it was a list of 7th rounders, but 18 first rounders? Seems like it could be more than coincidental.
To play devils advocate, can we come up with a list of 1st rounders who sat til at least week 8 or year two before starting.... And still became nobodies? If that list is significantly shorter, as I expect it would be, then it may be supportive of the idea that starting earlier carries higher risk.
There is an alternative reason that QBs who start later may do better, usually, than QBs who start day one (or close to it). Bad teams tend to need to press their drafted QBs into action ASAP, whereas good teams usually aren't urgently desperate to do so. This may mean that it is less about the difference in time and experience than about a QB being thrown into the mix with bad players and coaching around him, compared to having good players and coaching around him. In this case, time is not the cause, but a coincident indicator of the situation. That situation being, teams who NEED to play their QBs right away coincide with QB failure at a higher rate. I think it's a combination of the factors. Time and experience shouldn't make a young QB worse, so one would think it has some benefit in this equation.
Nice post. I agree with all this, and I think Bpk would, too. Our argument has been more about starting a rookie in general as opposed to Tannehill specifically. Added to your point, I think that the new era passing league, thanks to rule changes benefitting receivers, can help make a rookie QB's transition a little easier than in year's past, but like you said---- if the line isn't protecting him then it's not worth it. It also might not be worth it if the receiving corps doesn't offer enough deterrent from defenses blitzing often and from everywhere; that's what I'm more worried about. If the line looks fairly good by week 1 and the receiving corps doesn't look like a sack of potatoes, then I wouldn't be against starting Tanny at all, and I've stated such. Roethlisberger at least had the luxury of a great defense and strong ground game to lean on. Matt Ryan had very good protection his rookie year, a solid defense, and a great ground game & surrounding cast to rely on. Newton has an advantage b/c of his sheer size IMO. It also didn't hurt that he had a gret ground game (5.4 ypc for Williams & Stewart), Steve Smith, and a solid pair of TEs to use in Carolina's often used 2 TE formations. All 3 of those guys were in great positions to succeed as a rookie. If we can get close to those types of situations, then I'd say heck yes, let's put him in..... but I might want to wait till the live bullets have already started flying before making that determination, perhaps by week 3 or 4 (unless we look really good by preseason game 4).
You just arent grasping what I am trying to say. Brady Quinn would not be a good NFL qb if he sat, which he did, or started from day one. Whereas Peyton Manning was gonna be a hall of famer if he sat, which he didnt, or played from day one. Its called talent and being football smart. Once again, a qb is either gonna have "it" or not. If Ryan tannehill has the talent and the tools to be a hall of famer, sitting him isnt gonna be a benefit
And as far as worrying about him getting hurt that xan happen if he starts from day one or sits for 3 years. And it can happen even if we have the best OL in the league. Marino ruptured his achilles and no one even touched him. If tannehill is tge best of our 4 qb's he should be the opening day starter.
yes, one sec. Brady Quinn- game 27 JaMarcus Russell- 16 (was a bust regardless, that's for sure) Jason Campbell- 20 (not sure if he counts as a bust) Rex Grossman- 14 (Injury plagued didn't help. Broken finger, broken ankle, damaged knee ligaments, sprained knee) David Klingler- 12 (sacked 1 every 8 pass attempts during 1st 3 years. Cabin Fever) Tommy Maddox- 11 (played on 4 teams during 1st 5 years, so not sure he counts) Chuck Long- 15 Todd Blackledge- 17 Tony Eason- 13 (looked good early, then Cabin Fever---- sacked 130 times in seasons 2-4, including NFL record 59 during year 2.) Todd Marinovich- 16 (sitting obviously wasn't what ruined him) Andre Ware- 9 (sacked 1 every 6 pass attempts)
Random injuries are not the issue, nor is this what I'm speaking of, so Marino is irrelevant in this discussion. Random injuries don't cause Cabin Fever. What IS the issue is when a talented, young, developing QB is in an offense that can't protect him due to either lack of oline protection, WR talent, or zero running game. The QB doesn't have to get injured to get injured; injury to his psyche is more damaging, and unlike an injured knee, an injured psyche could take a lot longer to recover from, if he recovers at all. If you get to a QB enough times when he's young, it can put him into some bad habits. Period. It doesn't matter how strong a player is mentally, so don't use some "well he's just as wuss" excuse. I've seen plenty of highly talented QBs begin to habitually ditch an unscathed pocket b/c he started seeing and feeling ghost pressure that wasn't actually there. That kind of mental stuff doesn't just disappear when the protection improves either; it can take a while to build the trust back up. If you don't think you can recognize what is or isn't a favorable situation to develop a QB in, then you don't belong in the game. If you know you're throwing a QB to the wolves, then simply don't do it. Trying to rationalize doing such by saying "well you can't be afraid of injury" is plain silly and irresponsible. That's like saying--- "eh, I'll put this $12 million in gold into this unguarded, poorly-protected storage shed b/c most likely no one will break in and steal it." That's irresponsible and poor logic.
I love how you're presented with extensive facts, quotes by ex NFL QBs, and sound logic..... and you plod on ignoring every single bit of it. It's not just about talent and football smarts, unless you want to boldly say that 18 1st round QBs of the past 15 years were simply talentless. You keep saying the QB is either "going to have it or wont have it", yet I gave you one PRIME example [Carson Palmer] of how that's not always the case, and what makes it a prime example is I'm comparing a QB with his OWN SELF. You can't get any more accurate than that. You have a player who was elite who became average, yet your stubbornness completely dismisses it. I'm done debating this with you.
He started opening day of his rookie year and nine games overall. He struggled mightily on a very bad team. He is another example of a highly drafted QB who was rushed into the fray before he was ready. Was that why he never developed? We cannot know for certain, but it sure didn't help his development by playing him that soon.
Who knows... maybe Leaf sitting for a year or two w/o any pressure on him would've allowed him the ability to mature a bit, acclimate to the NFL, and become more capable of handling pressure and less likely of becoming a drugged out bunghole.
Was that why none of them ever developed into the franchise QB they were drafted to be? Ware only started 6 total games in his 4 year career. Do you think his being a major bust was because he sat on the bench for most of his rookie season? Shuler played quite a bit as a rookie on a bad Redskins team and struggled. He is a good example of a QB who was pushed into a starting role too soon. Maybe he'd have been the same if he just held a clipboard as a rookie, but we'll never know now. A serious ankle injury that didn't respond to surgery was what ended his career anyway. Not that every team in the league had given up on him.
This is why I don't think our QB situation is as desperate as Indy or Wash. We have a veteran who produced pretty good numbers last season. PFF rated Moore the 9th best QB in the league last season. They rated Rex Grossman the 31st QB and Indy's main starter, Curtis Painter, the 35th.
Lolololol... You seen mod under his name and decided to do a flip flop huh? What Boik said in that post is pretty much what I have been saying (without the pretty paragraphs ofcourse) and yet you agree with him? Confusing. Maybe your just a closet Knicks fan.
- Is part of quaterbacking mental, yes or no? - Do some people learn better by studying instead of doing, yes or no? - Do you know which type Tannehill is? You are letting impatience cloud your judgment.
Calling all these guys nobodies is way toos trong. Jeff George was good, great talent, just a head case, which had nothing to do with playing year 1 versus year 2. Kerry Collins went to a Super Bowl. Byron Leftwich had a few good years Alex Smith just went to an NFC Championship and got $10 million per year. And it's way too early to say anything about Sanchez/Bradford, although they both were very good in their rookie eyars and have just not made huge leaps. I don;t see why their career arcs would look different now if they simply hadn't played that first year. You also leave off all the first round picks who played right away and did become great. Peyton, Troy Aikman, Eli, etc. And Aikman and Peyton were on terrible teams, got their brains beaten in and somehow both had hall of fame carrers. It's a player to player analysis. And there is no crystal ball. If the coaches feel Tannehill is ready to play and play well then he should play. If they don't then he shouldn't. But if they feel he is ready, but don't want to play him because our receivers aren't great, then that is stupid. Sometimes you aren't going to have great receivers and there is no guarantee we draft or sign a great receiver next year.
I'm sorry...so you haven't been saying we should start Tanny and that sitting QBs instead of playing them isn't beneficial?
I'm saying we should start him if he is the best QB on the roster, and not be afraid of it being "too early"... And sitting/starting a QB in year 1 isn't cut n dry, it's a case by case scenario. And I haven't watched enough episodes of Hard Knocks to pretend to know if Ryan Tannehill is ready. I simply am not opposed to starting him and don't think it will play much of a factor on his overall outcome.
That makes no sense. If its a case by case scenario and you don't know if Tannehill is the right type to start right away, then why do you want him to start right away? The only way that makes sense is if you really don't think a player can be ruined by starting too fast.
no it's not. They all should've been franchise QBs by their 3rd, 4th, or 5th season for the respective team that drafted them based on their lofty draft status. He was a total bust for the team that drafted him, which is what counts. 4 year avg w/ Colts: 72 QBR, 57.0%, 2388 yards, 10 TD, 12 INT, 6.4 avg. As a #1 overall pick that's a bust. Collins was traded during his 4th season after posting a 66.0 QBR and 54 INTs through 42 starts. That's a bust for Carolina. What? He's a #7 pick who was cut in preseason of year 5 by the team that drafted him and has spent the past 6 years as a backup for 4 different teams. Alex Smith was a bust through 5 years based on #1 pick expectations. It wasn't until year 6 after Harbaugh got a hold of him that he started to become relevant. Bradford made a huge leap, a huge leap backwards after spending more time in year 1 & 2 avoiding sacks and developing bad habits than good ones. Alex Smith spent his first 3 seasons in an offense that had him sacked 1 every 9.88 attempts. Leftwich seemed to start out ok but fizzled; perhaps his early success would've endured if he spent a year sitting, maturing, and learning/developing more first. Whenever does the minority outweigh the majority [b/c that's what you're stating-- the minority]? A number 1 pick should be great; after all they're a #1 pick; therefore, on that merit alone there will inevitably be #1 picks who will shine when a team is properly built around them, which was definitely the case for Aikman in Dallas, Peyton in Indy, Elway in Denver. Nobody's saying that every one of them will bust if they don't sit; that's not the argument. The argument is there's enough of them who do bust to cause a flag to be raised that says "approach with caution". Eli didn't start till his 10th game btw. Peyton didn't get his brains beaten in, and he also had Marvin Harrison, Marshall Faulk/Edgerrin James, and a couple good receiving TEs during his 1st 2 seasons. I agree with most of this, but a lot of the argument hasn't been about what the coaches feel. Some posters are saying that a 1st round rookie QB should be played from day 1 regardless of circumstance and that absolutely nothing can interfere with his destiny, and are also disputing the historical correlation between sitting a QB and success. And who would be more prepared to handle that situation? a rookie from day 1?... or a 2nd year player who had a chance to acclimate and let the NFL game slow down a hair??
Again. I want him to start if he is the best QB on the team...I give zero merit to playing the waiting game. You're acting like I'm screaming to the mountains to start Tannehill no matter what. Example? If he plays bad tonight? Maybe he shouldn't be our guy, but. If he plays well? He should start. Not sure why some of you aren't understanding this.
Jeff George was one of the most talented QB's ever to lace em up. The fact that he had a million dollar arm and a 2 cent brain was the problem. Sitting wouldnt have cured this. Collins was at worst an average NFL QB. His problem was always touch..he tried to drill everything. The fact he got thrown to the wolves on some poor Panther teams makes his situation different. Also Collins made some very poor choices off the field (alcohol, and who could ever forget him dropping the N bomb on teammates). Leftwich and Smith are ok. Nothing great or terrible. Smith's draft position dictated he was going to start early whether he was ready or not and the fact he had different (and terrible) OC's every year couldnt have helped. With the rest of those guys it was a talent issue imo....some were deemed to have such great arm strength they were cant miss (Boller), others were drafted because of athleticism (Smith, Mirer, Harrington), others were drafted because of collegiate pedigree (Mirer, Carr, Couch)...the list just goes on. The one thing they have in common is being drafted highly for terrible reasons. I think it varies from rookie to rookie though. Some players process the information and the change in speed of the game differently. Its not concrete. Ability also plays a large role. Youre only willing to start a rookie QB it looks like under optimal circumstance when in fact those circumstances are rare. Most QB's taken high go to bad teams, thats why those teams are picking in the top half of the first round. Theyre going to have multiple needs. If youre only willing to start a QB under certain circumstances then Eli Manning may well have never played in the NFL because those Giant teams he came in on were not good at all. The only thing Id be worried about is if the player is ready, LT and C. If those positions have adequate players then youre good. If the players there are weak then I might agree for fear of the player getting David Carr'ed (i.e. beaten to a pulp and never recovering). With a running QB (i.e. a Mike Vick or a Cam Newton) I might feel it necessary to sit them a bit just to make sure they learn to make reads first rather then react by running. Whats the problem with being a Knicks fan chief? FYI: Sometimes its not what you say but how you say it.
Because playing well in a preseason game doesn't mean he's ready. Being the best QB on the team doesn't mean he's ready. And if you give zero merit to sitting than you're contradicting what you said about it being a case by case basis.
Tell that to real NFL heads...there is a REAL possibility that all 4 rookies will be day 1 starters....last year almost all of the high picks saw significant time. These guys are smarter than me and you.
I feel like you had to reach back further to even get this many onto the list of late-starting busts. Your list of early-starting busts was longer, and you could pull them more easily from the 2000's or at least 1990's (for the most part).
I would add to the bolded that all rookie QBs are likely to take a bit longer to recignize defenses and make certain decisions on where to throw and when to throw. That doesn't mean it happens on every play, but there will be more plays where that 1st year QB hesitates or holds the ball than the same guy would if he had four years of recongizing NFL defenses from film room and practice. Hold ball longer = get hit more.
The common denominator among successful QBs is either sitting & learning or starting early on in an offense that's highly conducive toward success to where his overall burden is eased to the extent he can focus on developing rather than carrying an offense or even worse--- his team. It has to do more with his environment and circumstances than his actual talent level. A talented, potential HOF QB who's not in the right favorable environment becomes Archie Manning, where as a similarly talented QB in the right environment wins 2 SBs and appears headed to Canton if he keeps it up..... and I'd argue that Archie is the second best of the 3 Manning QBs. If you feel you don't have a favorable environment for a rookie QB to enter, it's wiser and more responsible to hold him back.
The game is changed. QBs are throwing 2-3x more often than they did in the 90's. Hence they are more likely to be Pro ready, hence the high number of QBs starting earlier these days.
To your points, phinsational... Alex Smith was a bust through 5 years based on #1 pick expectations. It wasn't until year 6 after Harbaugh got a hold of him that he started to become relevant. *** But that is impossible. If he started and just 'didn't have it' then there is no way he could have played better at *any* later point in his career. We all know that how a QB performs on a football field is an intrinsic pre-determined constant, and other variables cannot change that. Alex Smith must be a different guy, literally. They switched people and the new guy is a body-double with new DNA. Maybe a body-snatchers doppelganger? I don;t know! I'm just trying to help figure this out. Whenever does the minority outweigh the majority [b/c you're stating the minority]? **** Spock does not approve this message. Nobody's saying that every [#1 pick] will bust if they don't sit; that's not the argument. The argument is there's enough of them who do bust to cause a flag to be raised that says "approach with caution". **** You know, I had sex with this gal once who told me she wasn't on birth control, and we didn't use a condom. Boy was I scared. I thought she might get pregnant. It was a scary few weeks. But guess what!?? She didn't!!!! It was nice, because then we realized you could ALWAYS have sex without birth control and nothing would ever happen! #WINNING!
Not even close. Boik wasn't being black & white like you and pea pod have been. He understands the gray area, whereas you two seem to not. He made logical points. You and pea pod, not so much.
Wrong pickle ----, Boik said basically what I said. Difference is he treated it like a thesis and I treated it like a rant.
Those guys also have jobs to keep, owners to pleae and an impatient as hell public pressuring the organization to "Give us the rookie now!!!". Wanna sell tickets? Give the fans what they want. It doesn't always mean it's the optimal choice for QB development. They sometimes sacrifice that slightly for the 'big picture'.
And yet weirdly the historical data from the last couple years doesn't reflect early starters doing just as well as guys who sat. The data must be wrong.
