Rookie QBs: To Play or Not To Play

[YoHoChecko]

This is definitively not a thread about Rashaan Gary and don't you dare make it one

[NCF]

This is definitively not a thread about Rashaan Gary and don't you dare make it one

x1,000

[Packfntk]

This is definitively not a thread about Rashaan Gary and don't you dare make it one

[YoHoChecko]

Sure, add Vick and Palmer in there! I think it solves more problems than it creates. Like you said, there is a huge gap between Matt Ryan/Cam Newton and say Rex Grossman/Chad Pennington.

How dare you besmirch the name of the great Chad Pennington with Rex Grossman.

I'm struggling with Grossman and Mariota, categorically, but Pennington, despite his noodle arm and many injuries, led his teams to the playoffs every time he stayed healthy and remained a starter in the league. My issue with Grossman is that he started for 2.5 seasons out of 11 in the league, so he wasn't, per se, a starter... but he also played for 11 years and had a W/L record approaching .500, so it's tough to say he's a "bust" in the normal sense of the word.

[NCF]

but he also played for 11 years and had a W/L record approaching .500, so it's tough to say he's a "bust" in the normal sense of the word.

I don't know what, exactly, you are going for, but when I think bust, at the QB position, if you bust out on the team that drafted you, you are a bust, with very few exceptions. I know you are trying to stay away from additional categories, but this seems like the clear definition of the NFL journeyman. A few good seasons, but a lot of inconsistency.

[YoHoChecko]

but he also played for 11 years and had a W/L record approaching .500, so it's tough to say he's a "bust" in the normal sense of the word.

I don't know what, exactly, you are going for, but when I think bust, at the QB position, if you bust out on the team that drafted you, you are a bust, with very few exceptions. I know you are trying to stay away from additional categories, but this seems like the clear definition of the NFL journeyman. A few good seasons, but a lot of inconsistency.

Yeah, I prefer to think of it this way as well, I guess. But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?

I think I should move Rexy to bust; but I'm satisfied with Winston as "starter" for a bit and Mariota as "bust" for now.

[Crazylegs Starks]

Thanks to this thread, I learned that Byron Leftwich was a lot worse than I remembered.

I must agree that Pennington was much better than Grossman.





Jay Cutler should be in the HOF category - for the Packers

[NCF]

But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?

Yep. I agree. I think Bridgewater is the exception to the rule.

[YoHoChecko]

Thanks to this thread, I learned that Byron Leftwich was a lot worse than I remembered.

God, I loved Byron Leftwich. Like, LOVED him. Leftwich is the cautionary tale that led me to value release times over "long wind-up" QBs. I thought with his moxie and arm strength and mastery over the field he couldn't fail. But it turns out that in the NFL, the time you have to go from "made the correct decision" to "the ball is out" is a LOT smaller than in college. Lesson learned.

[Packfntk]

But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?

Yep. I agree. I think Bridgewater is the exception to the rule.

Checkdown Tiny Hands Teddy!

[Pckfn23]

but he also played for 11 years and had a W/L record approaching .500, so it's tough to say he's a "bust" in the normal sense of the word.

I don't know what, exactly, you are going for, but when I think bust, at the QB position, if you bust out on the team that drafted you, you are a bust, with very few exceptions. I know you are trying to stay away from additional categories, but this seems like the clear definition of the NFL journeyman. A few good seasons, but a lot of inconsistency.

Yeah, I prefer to think of it this way as well, I guess. But also, I don't consider Bridgewater a bust yet just because the Vikings gave up on him after injuries. Hard to say someone is a bust who just got paid $20M to be a starter in the league, ya know?

I think I should move Rexy to bust; but I'm satisfied with Winston as "starter" for a bit and Mariota as "bust" for now.

Are we going by what a guy got paid or what they did on the field?

I think if you put in a Quality Starter category and Journeyman category that takes the place of Starter, you might be happier with it.

[bud fox]

I don’t have a problem with one year sitting. Get your mechanics right. Learn the playbook. Get some work in with receivers to get down timing and tendencies.

Any more time than that and you’re wasting your rookie contract window IMO. Gotta get your 1st round picks in the field to play.

The 2nd part if very important for a team to achieve success past the QB.

There is no doubt a QB will be better in there 'first year' of playing if they sit for a year - a year of experience. But for me a year of experience playing is more valuable than sitting. Nothing compares to in game experience and having those reps. Therefore a 2nd year player that played should develop faster than a 2nd year player who didn't play. I believe most would say this is obvious for every other position - I don't understand why people think it differs for QB.

A player has no excuse not getting better from year 1 to year 2. If they are playing they have even more reason to succeed because they are doing everything a back up rookie would be doing plus playing. The only reason for failure in these players is that they were never going to succeed. They weren't good enough - mentally, physically, scheme etc.

[Labrev]

Some QBs are ready enough that I would just throw them out there.

Otherwise, I definitely do not want to throw them to the wolves. I think that's how a lot of QB that had a chance end up getting ruined. Jordan Love is pretty much Deshone Kizer as a prospect, but I don't think Kizer was a bust due to talent limitations, just being forced into starting when he wasn't ready.

[salmar80]

Some QBs are ready enough that I would just throw them out there.

Otherwise, I definitely do not want to throw them to the wolves. I think that's how a lot of QB that had a chance end up getting ruined. Jordan Love is pretty much Deshone Kizer as a prospect, but I don't think Kizer was a bust due to talent limitations, just being forced into starting when he wasn't ready.

I agree with the main point, but not the Kizer comparison.

Pit Kizers arm vs Love's, and the latter has a waaaaay more natural arm, quicker release, and can throw on the run. Kizer had a strong arm, yes (why we tried him out), but he had a very time-consuming wind-up. Taking a long time to get rid of the ball combined with him not being good at looking the D off and lackluster anticipation made him a picnic for DBs. While I agree starting him as a rookie was a travesty, I guess Kizer's flaws weren't correctable even behind AR.

[go pak go]

I was playing around with my filters to try to get a feel for whether/where there are any apparent groupings or cutoffs in terms of the # of games played.

I found, interestingly, that the BEST performing group is if you look at guys with either 0 or 16 starts. This group has 16 players in it, with only four busts, 10 starters, and 2 HoF(?)ers. In other words, not starting at all? Appears to correlate with good results. Starting every game? Appears to be correlated with good results. Everything in between? Appears, at the very least, not to correlate with good results.

This may indicate that teams who start their rookies from Day 1 and those rookies stay healthy and remain in the starting line-up have been properly-evaluated by their teams to be Pro-Ready. Where as guys who take over midway through or only pay partial seasons may be accurately gauged to be unready initially, but circumstances push them into the fire and either expose that inability or actually have a causal relationship to stunting the development.

This really plays into Salmar's point that finding an "all" solution is highly unlikely. The 16-game starters seem to be players that are very unlikely to bust. I'll have to look more into which guys started the season and didn't finish it (indicating poor play, but less common--but helps explain this specific grouping) and which guys were inserted into the lineup later and kept the job, which shouldn't impact this specific group

This is very interesting indeed. I think this is the most interesting way to view the data out of anything I have seen on this.

[lupedafiasco]

I don’t have a problem with one year sitting. Get your mechanics right. Learn the playbook. Get some work in with receivers to get down timing and tendencies.

Any more time than that and you’re wasting your rookie contract window IMO. Gotta get your 1st round picks in the field to play.

The 2nd part if very important for a team to achieve success past the QB.

There is no doubt a QB will be better in there 'first year' of playing if they sit for a year - a year of experience. But for me a year of experience playing is more valuable than sitting. Nothing compares to in game experience and having those reps. Therefore a 2nd year player that played should develop faster than a 2nd year player who didn't play. I believe most would say this is obvious for every other position - I don't understand why people think it differs for QB.

A player has no excuse not getting better from year 1 to year 2. If they are playing they have even more reason to succeed because they are doing everything a back up rookie would be doing plus playing. The only reason for failure in these players is that they were never going to succeed. They weren't good enough - mentally, physically, scheme etc.

I also agree theres no substitute for game reps. Playing on the field is more important than playing on the bench for any player IMO.

We have seen in some cases where QBs werent ready though or the team around them wasnt ready and it ruined the QBs confidence and they developed bad habits. David Carr is one that comes to mind for me.