Can Starting a QB in Their Rookie Year Really Ruin Him?

[jive]

There's lots of talk about how starting a rookie QB their first year can ruin them, so I figured I'd take a look at the QBs drafted in the first round the last 20 years to take a look and see if that was really the case. I only included first rounders since they are the guys that expected to make an immediate impact on the team. It would be expected that a QB taken in the 2nd round or later would take time to develop. When I call a player a bust, it's because they were not able to put together a single successful season and/or were out of the league in a hurry. Even though players like Trubisky, Bradford, etc. are considered busts, they still put together at least one productive season.

Here's a list of guys that were day one starters for their team. I also included Watson because he played in game 1, even though he didn't start.
Joe Burrow
Justin Herbert
Kyler Murray
Baker Mayfield
Josh Allen
Deshaun Watson
Carson Wentz
Cam Newton
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Ben Roethelisberger
Ryan Tannehill
Jameis Winston
Sam Bradford
Sam Darnold
David Carr
Marcus Mariota
Brandon Weeden
Kyle Boller
EJ Manuel
From this list, 12 of them had good careers albeit the careers of Murray, Herbert, and Burrow are short, they started out well and don't really see a reason why they will fizzle out. Bradford had his career derailed by injury, but was productive when he played. Tannehill didn't start out great, but did develop after a few years. The jury is still out on Darnold, IMO. He had issues with injuries, had a poor start, but flashed productivity. Winston is a mixed bag: great numbers but also lots of mistakes. Carr didn't play like a #1 overall pick, but managed to stick around in the NFL for a while. Mariota produced, but below expectations. Weeden and Boller just didn't pan out. Many considered Manuel a reach in the 1st round in a terrible QB class of 2013. So out of 20 QBs, 12 had good careers, 5 stuck in the NFL but played below expectations, and 3 were flat out busts.

Here's a list of guys that did not start the majority of games their rookie year. Some may have sat out the whole year, while others came in towards the end of the season.
Patrick Mahommes
Aaron Rodgers
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Alex Smith
Michael Vick
Jay Cutler
Chad Pennington
Rex Grossman
Jason Campbell
Jake Locker
Tim Tebow
Paxton Lynch
Johnny Manziel
J'Marcus Russell
Brady Quinn
JP Losman
Jordan Love
At the top of the list you have some all pro players. a handful of decent QBs, and then a list of colossal busts. The jury is still out on Love, but reports don't speak well of his development. The guys at the top of the list had the benefit of being behind great QBs like Favre, Warner, Smith, and Brees. Although not all-pro, Kitna had a decent year for CIN while Palmer sat on the bench and watched. Smith took a while to hit his stride after it looked like he hit an early ceiling. Vick changed the possibilities of the QB position. Cutler put up some numbers and flashed, while Pennington was a good game manager. Grossman did get to a Superbowl before fizzling out, and Campbell flashed some promise. The rest were busts. I know Tebow won a playoff game, but I put that on God and the running game, not Tebow. That's the only way his awful throws could ever result in a win. From this list of 19 you have 7 QBs that had great careers, 4 that were mediocre to decent, and 8 that were flat out busts.

Here's a list of QBs that started the majority of games their rookie year, but were not the day 1 starter.
Andrew Luck
Matthew Stafford
Lamar Jackson
Jared Goff
Vince Young
Robert Griffin
Daniel Jones
Tua Tagovailoa
Teddy Bridgewater
Mitchell Trubisky
Blake Bortles
Byron Leftwich
Matt Leinart
Christian Ponder
Joey Harrington
Patrick Ramsey
Dwayne Haskins
Josh Rosen
There's quite a mixed bag in this group. You have some productive QBs and guys that have won some games at the top, and some mediocre ones in the middle, and some busts at the bottom. Luck and Stafford put up numbers consistently, while Jackson is a play maker, and Goff took his team to a Superbowl. Young and Griffin had some stellar seasons, but fizzled. Jury is still out on Jones and Tagovailoa. After those guys, you have a bunch of mediocre QBs that flashed some potential but never could put together any consistent success. Bridgewater, Trubisky, and Bortles all had one decent season, but not much else. Bridgewater looked promising until injury, and Trubisky until regression. But to their credit, they are still in the league. Leftwich stuck around in the league for a while, but did not live up to his first round billing. The rest wound up being busts. So out of this list of 18 QBs, you have 3 good QBs, 3 that had inconsistent careers, 6 that were mediocre or jury is still out on, and 6 busts.

I know I'm making generalizations, and not taking every factor into account. But, I wanted to get a general feel for whether history shows that starting a QB in their first year will actually ruin them. So, by looking at these QBs, the group that had the most busts were those that did not start the majority of games their rookie year, followed by those that did start the majority of games but did not start day 1. The least number of busts were those that were day one starters (3). The group that had the most productive players was those that started day one. Even if you exclude the young careers of Murray, Burrow, and Herbert, they still have the most productive players. In terms of quality, those that sat for the majority of the season wins. It's hard to argue with Mahommes, Rodgers, Manning, Rivers, and Palmer. But, that group also has the most busts and mediocre players. Those that were not day 1 starters, but started the majority of games their rookie year happen to be the most mixed bag. It has some good QBs, but a lot of inconsistent careers, and unmet expectations as well. Another item to note is that the majority of QB busts that were day one starters or started the majority of games their rookie year were drafted over 10 years ago.

Some conclusions I've made:
- Sitting on the bench and learning the game in and of itself does not contribute significantly to the success of a QB.
- Sitting on the bench behind a good QB, team and coaching staff gets better success. The QBs that had that benefit went on to have good careers, while those that didn't busted.
- It's more about the player than when they started their first game. More of those that were deemed NFL ready on day 1 went on to have better careers than those that didn't. Quite often those things that made a player not ready continued to follow them throughout their career. Sitting on the bench did not help with the maturity of Russell and Manziel, the weak arm of Quinn, the mechanics of Tebow, or the cluelessness of Lynch.
- The QBs that made their first start during the season usually were on losing teams, which probably affected their initial success or failure. I think that's why that group has mixed results.
- The college game has produced more NFL ready QBs in the last 10 years than the 10 before it. Except for 2013, that QB draft absolutely sucked.
- The number of QBs that succeeded after being thrown into the fire exceed those that were ruined by it.
- If Justin Fields shows in training camp, he should be the day 1 starter.

 

[dbldrew]

if the OL sucks then yes he can start seeing ghosts. There is a lot for a young QB to process, if him getting killed because the OL sucks then that can stunt his growth.

Nothing wrong with having him sit a bit and let Dalton get his head bashed in while the new OL rookies get their feet wet.

 

[Chicago Staleys]

no

 

[Visionman]

I think you’re looking at it wrong. It’s not a matter of if they put together a decent season or two, it’s a matter of if they reached their potential or not.

You may not ruin Fields by starting him early, but what if you hinder his growth, and his ceiling?

 

[BearsGr8]

I realize he doesn't fit in your 20 year window, but where would Troy Aikman fit into your analysis?

He started 11 games his rookie season in 1989; Dallas went 1-15 that year. He certainly ended up with a HOF career.

 

[Anytime23]

The whole should he start or sit debate is kind of annoying tbh. Its a mixed bag whether it's beneficial to sit or start a rookie QB. Some make an immediate impact. Others take time. Last season we saw rookies play well despite poor OL play.

There's no manual to develop QBs. Its all a matter of individual talent, luck and circumstance. Fields has the individual talent that merits starting immediately and if we're lookin to 2022 as the make or break season for Nagy and Pace, it's better to get started sooner, rather than later. But I'm going to put unmerited trust into the coaching staff. If they believe he's ready to go week 1, lets go. If not, then Bears football will continue to be tough to watch until we get the ray of hope that is Justin Fields under center.

 

[jive]

I think you’re looking at it wrong. It’s not a matter of if they put together a decent season or two, it’s a matter of if they reached their potential or not.

You may not ruin Fields by starting him early, but what if you hinder his growth, and his ceiling?

What if not starting him early hinders his growth?
More QBs that sat out the season or a majority of the season busted than those that started day 1.
I will admit that Carr playing behind that turnstyle in HOU made him see ghosts, and affected his ceiling. But, I think because cases like this stick out in our minds, we apply it to more situations than there actually are. Guys like Tannehill and Winston had their question marks when they came into the league, and never seemed to develop out of them. Not sure if a season of sitting on the bench would have made Tannehill's arm stronger, but it may have helped with Winston's decision making. It would be interesting to see what he could do after sitting behind Brees.

 

[jive]

I realize he doesn't fit in your 20 year window, but where would Troy Aikman fit into your analysis?

He started 11 games his rookie season in 1989; Dallas went 1-15 that year. He certainly ended up with a HOF career.

A guy who started a majority of games his rookie year, and went on to lead his team to a few Super Bowls once they surrounded him with talent. He would definitely be the most success of that group, but he didn't have the arm talent of Stafford or Luck.

 

[Penny Traitor]

For the most part no, but I am sure there are plenty of circumstances where it could.

Trubisky may be a good example because throwing him out there as a rookie was not that detrimental. Throwing him out there as a rookie and then firing pretty much his entire coaching staff three months later was rather detrimental. I don't think Pace does that twice and we all now have to cross our fingers that Matt Nagy finally gets his shit together.

Andy Dalton's entire career has been a model for "average NFL QB" play...not complete shitshow with a weird neck. If Fields can play better than Dalton, he's ready to start...no matter when that is.

 

[BearClaw55]

There's lots of talk about how starting a rookie QB their first year can ruin them, so I figured I'd take a look at the QBs drafted in the first round the last 20 years to take a look and see if that was really the case. I only included first rounders since they are the guys that expected to make an immediate impact on the team. It would be expected that a QB taken in the 2nd round or later would take time to develop. When I call a player a bust, it's because they were not able to put together a single successful season and/or were out of the league in a hurry. Even though players like Trubisky, Bradford, etc. are considered busts, they still put together at least one productive season.

Here's a list of guys that were day one starters for their team. I also included Watson because he played in game 1, even though he didn't start.
Joe Burrow
Justin Herbert
Kyler Murray
Baker Mayfield
Josh Allen
Deshaun Watson
Carson Wentz
Cam Newton
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Ben Roethelisberger
Ryan Tannehill
Jameis Winston
Sam Bradford
Sam Darnold
David Carr
Marcus Mariota
Brandon Weeden
Kyle Boller
EJ Manuel
From this list, 12 of them had good careers albeit the careers of Murray, Herbert, and Burrow are short, they started out well and don't really see a reason why they will fizzle out. Bradford had his career derailed by injury, but was productive when he played. Tannehill didn't start out great, but did develop after a few years. The jury is still out on Darnold, IMO. He had issues with injuries, had a poor start, but flashed productivity. Winston is a mixed bag: great numbers but also lots of mistakes. Carr didn't play like a #1 overall pick, but managed to stick around in the NFL for a while. Mariota produced, but below expectations. Weeden and Boller just didn't pan out. Many considered Manuel a reach in the 1st round in a terrible QB class of 2013. So out of 20 QBs, 12 had good careers, 5 stuck in the NFL but played below expectations, and 3 were flat out busts.

Here's a list of guys that did not start the majority of games their rookie year. Some may have sat out the whole year, while others came in towards the end of the season.
Patrick Mahommes
Aaron Rodgers
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Alex Smith
Michael Vick
Jay Cutler
Chad Pennington
Rex Grossman
Jason Campbell
Jake Locker
Tim Tebow
Paxton Lynch
Johnny Manziel
J'Marcus Russell
Brady Quinn
JP Losman
Jordan Love
At the top of the list you have some all pro players. a handful of decent QBs, and then a list of colossal busts. The jury is still out on Love, but reports don't speak well of his development. The guys at the top of the list had the benefit of being behind great QBs like Favre, Warner, Smith, and Brees. Although not all-pro, Kitna had a decent year for CIN while Palmer sat on the bench and watched. Smith took a while to hit his stride after it looked like he hit an early ceiling. Vick changed the possibilities of the QB position. Cutler put up some numbers and flashed, while Pennington was a good game manager. Grossman did get to a Superbowl before fizzling out, and Campbell flashed some promise. The rest were busts. I know Tebow won a playoff game, but I put that on God and the running game, not Tebow. That's the only way his awful throws could ever result in a win. From this list of 19 you have 7 QBs that had great careers, 4 that were mediocre to decent, and 8 that were flat out busts.

Here's a list of QBs that started the majority of games their rookie year, but were not the day 1 starter.
Andrew Luck
Matthew Stafford
Lamar Jackson
Jared Goff
Vince Young
Robert Griffin
Daniel Jones
Tua Tagovailoa
Teddy Bridgewater
Mitchell Trubisky
Blake Bortles
Byron Leftwich
Matt Leinart
Christian Ponder
Joey Harrington
Patrick Ramsey
Dwayne Haskins
Josh Rosen
There's quite a mixed bag in this group. You have some productive QBs and guys that have won some games at the top, and some mediocre ones in the middle, and some busts at the bottom. Luck and Stafford put up numbers consistently, while Jackson is a play maker, and Goff took his team to a Superbowl. Young and Griffin had some stellar seasons, but fizzled. Jury is still out on Jones and Tagovailoa. After those guys, you have a bunch of mediocre QBs that flashed some potential but never could put together any consistent success. Bridgewater, Trubisky, and Bortles all had one decent season, but not much else. Bridgewater looked promising until injury, and Trubisky until regression. But to their credit, they are still in the league. Leftwich stuck around in the league for a while, but did not live up to his first round billing. The rest wound up being busts. So out of this list of 18 QBs, you have 3 good QBs, 3 that had inconsistent careers, 6 that were mediocre or jury is still out on, and 6 busts.

I know I'm making generalizations, and not taking every factor into account. But, I wanted to get a general feel for whether history shows that starting a QB in their first year will actually ruin them. So, by looking at these QBs, the group that had the most busts were those that did not start the majority of games their rookie year, followed by those that did start the majority of games but did not start day 1. The least number of busts were those that were day one starters (3). The group that had the most productive players was those that started day one. Even if you exclude the young careers of Murray, Burrow, and Herbert, they still have the most productive players. In terms of quality, those that sat for the majority of the season wins. It's hard to argue with Mahommes, Rodgers, Manning, Rivers, and Palmer. But, that group also has the most busts and mediocre players. Those that were not day 1 starters, but started the majority of games their rookie year happen to be the most mixed bag. It has some good QBs, but a lot of inconsistent careers, and unmet expectations as well. Another item to note is that the majority of QB busts that were day one starters or started the majority of games their rookie year were drafted over 10 years ago.

Some conclusions I've made:
- Sitting on the bench and learning the game in and of itself does not contribute significantly to the success of a QB.
- Sitting on the bench behind a good QB, team and coaching staff gets better success. The QBs that had that benefit went on to have good careers, while those that didn't busted.
- It's more about the player than when they started their first game. More of those that were deemed NFL ready on day 1 went on to have better careers than those that didn't. Quite often those things that made a player not ready continued to follow them throughout their career. Sitting on the bench did not help with the maturity of Russell and Manziel, the weak arm of Quinn, the mechanics of Tebow, or the cluelessness of Lynch.
- The QBs that made their first start during the season usually were on losing teams, which probably affected their initial success or failure. I think that's why that group has mixed results.
- The college game has produced more NFL ready QBs in the last 10 years than the 10 before it. Except for 2013, that QB draft absolutely sucked.
- The number of QBs that succeeded after being thrown into the fire exceed those that were ruined by it.
- If Justin Fields shows in training camp, he should be the day 1 starter.

conclusion:

You either have it or you don’t.

 

[bears51/40]

conclusion:

You either have it or you don’t.

Define "it".

 

[and 69 others]

Define "it".

You're either a good player with good physical & mental characteristics that has the ability to adjust and grow at the next level or you're not and you don't.

 

[and 69 others]

A few points:

1) It's never been easier to be a QB in the NFL.....this is a QB driven league and the rules favor it
2)Unless the roster/team is an absolute disaster (i.e. many of the Browns teams of the past), you start the guy who gives you the best opportunity to win. If a young QB is that guy, you start him.

 

[bears51/40]

I think you’re looking at it wrong. It’s not a matter of if they put together a decent season or two, it’s a matter of if they reached their potential or not.

You may not ruin Fields by starting him early, but what if you hinder his growth, and his ceiling?

There is more evidence to support that you will not ruin a rookie by starting him early than the other way around.

If you don't start him early you can actually slow his growth, because you simply don't learn anything from the bench.

As a team you simply don't have the luxury of time to develop a rookie QB. You are in a five year window the moment that the rookie is drafted.

 

[Urblock]

Start him. dalton and foles suck.

 

[bears51/40]

You're either a good player with good physical & mental characteristics that has the ability to adjust and grow at the next level or you're not and you don't.

Even with those characteristics 50% of first round QB's fail. Mitch Trubisky was Pace's failure. You could not tell if Mitch had "it" until he hit any NFL field.

 

[Urblock]

When you get a new beast of a tool you use it. Hell the kid knows that.

 

[jive]

There is more evidence to support that you will not ruin a rookie by starting him early than the other way around.

If you don't start him early you can actually slow his growth, because you simply don't learn anything from the bench.

As a team you simply don't have the luxury of time to develop a rookie QB. You are in a five year window the moment that the rookie is drafted.

I think one of the reasons why there is such a mixed bag for those QBs that start the majority of their rookie season is because they did not get first team reps from the beginning. I wonder what their progress would be if they had first team snaps from the beginning. Taking over for a failing QB with limited first team reps can hinder development as well.

 

[dabears70]

That's a question that nobody can answer. We can all guess but there's no way of knowing if the QB's that did start day one and ended up busts would of been good QB's if they would of sat some games or their first year or whatever and vice versa for the QB's that did sit and learn for some games or full years.

 

[BearClaw55]

Define "it".

NFL franchise QB, mental, skills & confidence.