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

[NCChiFan]

Can we get a break down on all the O coordinators and Head Coaches to go along with those lists?

 

[Leomaz]

If it ruins him it’s not because he started his first year, it’s because he wasn’t an NFL quarterback

 

[Bearly]

Point is to make the transition more beneficial so that they can be up to speed quicker. I doubt starting or sitting significantly alters most QBs end result. If you look at Mahomes, he likely was up to top speed quicker because of sitting. Fields shouldn't need nearly as much grooming and may need none but it's neither always a good nor bad idea. It a situational determination but you'd like your young QB to not have to take one step back to take 2 steps forward too often.

Andy Reid has a clue and tends to sit them a while. McNabb started 6 and Mahomes 1 in their 1st year and they turned out OK. I think Fields is better prepared for this level than any of those but a few weeks to watch and learn could do more good than harm. On the other hand Kyle Shanahan started RG3 immediately though I suspect it was his dad's decision. It was unlucky but GR3 running that much had something to do with not yet being fully versed in the passing game nor being coached up enough on the risk vs reward equation before playing. I think Watson runs a bit too aggressively at times but RG3 was like a RB. Murray get's a lot of yards but doesn't get hit as much/hard and is an example of starting early working out.

That won't happen here because it doesn't need to. Fields is not a system QB and can run anything. There will be plays that Nagy will mimic from Justin's Ohio State days but he'll expect Fields to be able to mostly run the O as designed once he sees the field. Dude is real smart and capable so shouldn't take long but probably not game one unless his camp is remarkable. That said, I wouldn't put it past him.

Point is that they are individuals going into unique offensive systems. Murray's included an old coach of his and an O designed specifically for his game.

Shanny later quit the Browns due to disagreeing with starting rookie Manziel right away. He refused to and left instead.

 

[and 69 others]

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.

You could kind of tell he didn't have it though. Mitch never took over any games as a rookie and did only a couple times as a sophomore. You cut him some slack his rookie year of course, but with the guys that end up being very good to great QBs you can tell early on they have the ability to take over games.

 

[Mdbearz]

History tells us that Rogers, Brady and Mahomes all sat for a period of time.

But Luck, Eli Manning, Flacco all started right away and also had success.

I think that Fields will not only need to be better than Dalton, but for the coaching staff to start him, Fields will need to be substantially better.

If Fields has rookie tendencies but plays better when he understands the play, I still think they will start Dalton, at least initially.

Now will Ownership lean on the coaching staff to start him? I think you can sell more of everything if Fields is starting, but if Dalton is starting, that might not be the case.

 

[rawdawg]

Some corrections:

Herbert did NOT start Week 1. He started in an emergency (or short notice) in Week 2 because Tyrod Taylor got a bad cortizone shot from the team doctor. But makes more sense to keep him in Day 1 guys.

Josh Allen should be in the last category. Was not week 1 starter, but took over in Week 5.

Stafford DID start Week 1, but got hurt after a few games, then hurt again to end the season. He was very injury prone early in his career. Carson Palmer also started all season until he got hurt at the end.

Andrew Luck started every game for his first 3 years.

But this is what I've been saying all offseason. There isn't a set formula to making a QB good. Trubisky wasn't bad because he started too soon. Mahomes isn't great because he sat for a year. It seems like the biggest determining factor is the offensive coaching each QB gets. 1st round QBs tend to go to bad teams, because they have the early picks. Bad teams tend to have bad coaches/GMs, so if they have a bad coach in place already or a bad GM who hires a bad coach upon getting what he hopes is a franchise QB....then that obviously helps to mess up a QB.

The teams that occur multiple times in those busts are Cleveland, Tennessee, Buffalo, Raiders, Broncos. Those teams have had a lot of top 10 picks over the last 20 years and a lot of coaching turnover, with Peyton Manning saving the Broncos from even more damage.

The Bears will be an interesting study, because they are kind of all over the place, and don't fit in any of the categories that determine failure/success before the QB even plays. They aren't a terrible team like the teams that always pick top 10. But they aren't as good as Houston or KC when they added franchise QBs to already talented playoff rosters. We also aren't 100% sure that the coach/scheme are any good, and we all wanted the GM fired like 4 months ago.

 

[Bearly]

Manning set a rookie interception record his 1st year and Josh Allen and others didn't show jack as rookies.

 

[SlickWilly]

History tells us that Rogers, Brady and Mahomes all sat for a period of time.

But Luck, Eli Manning, Flacco all started right away and also had success.

I think that Fields will not only need to be better than Dalton, but for the coaching staff to start him, Fields will need to be substantially better.

If Fields has rookie tendencies but plays better when he understands the play, I still think they will start Dalton, at least initially.

Now will Ownership lean on the coaching staff to start him? I think you can sell more of everything if Fields is starting, but if Dalton is starting, that might not be the case.

I'm pretty sure Kurt Warner was the starter in 2004 for the Giants at the start of the season.

 

[Chicago Staleys]

Point is to make the transition more beneficial so that they can be up to speed quicker. I doubt starting or sitting significantly alters most QBs end result. If you look at Mahomes, he likely was up to top speed quicker because of sitting. Fields shouldn't need nearly as much grooming and may need none but it's neither always a good nor bad idea. It a situational determination but you'd like your young QB to not have to take one step back to take 2 steps forward too often.

Andy Reid has a clue and tends to sit them a while. McNabb started 6, Cunningham 4 and Mahomes 1 in their st year and they turned out OK. I think Fields is better prepared for this level than any of those but a few weeks to watch and learn could do more good than harm. On the other hand Kyle Shanahan started RG3 immediately though I suspect it was his Dad's decision. It was unlucky but GR3 running that much had something to do with not yet being fully versed in the passing game nor being coached up enough on the risk vs reward equation before playing. I think Watson runs a bit too aggressively at times but RG3 was like an RB. Murray get's a lot of yards but doesn't get hit as much/hard and is an example of starting early working out.

That won't happen here because it doesn't need to. Fields is not a system QB and can run anything. There will be plays that Nagy will mimic from Justin's Ohio State days but he'll expect Fields to be able to mostly run the O as designed once he sees the field. Dude is real smart and capable so shouldn't take long but probably not game one unless his camp is remarkable. That said, I wouldn't put it past him.
Point is that they are individuals going into unique offensive systems. Murray's included and old coach and an O designed specifically for his game.

Shanny later quit the Browns due to disagreeing with starting rookie Manziel. He refused to.

Andy Reid was not Cunningham’s coach when he was a rookie.

 

[Chicago Staleys]

History tells us that Rogers, Brady and Mahomes all sat for a period of time.

But Luck, Eli Manning, Flacco all started right away and also had success.

I think that Fields will not only need to be better than Dalton, but for the coaching staff to start him, Fields will need to be substantially better.

If Fields has rookie tendencies but plays better when he understands the play, I still think they will start Dalton, at least initially.

Now will Ownership lean on the coaching staff to start him? I think you can sell more of everything if Fields is starting, but if Dalton is starting, that might not be the case.

Eli didn’t start right away.

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.

Roethlisberger was not the Day 1 starter.

However Roethliberger may have had the best Rookie QB season in NFL history! He was undefeated with a QBR around 100.

 

[greg23]

Its already been set up by the Bears and the NFL

Dalton starts the season; which is why he gets his revenge game vs the Bungles in week 2.

After that game; fields is on the clock...my guess is first start is at home in as soft a landing spot as possible...

Week 4 vs lions if he's ready early

Week 12 vs cardinals if he takes time and Dalton isn't giraffe like ass

Week 17 if Dalton is 2017 Alex Smith and we've clinched the division

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

conclusion:

You either have it or you don’t.

This is 100% my belief. Look at the top QBs to ever play the game. They have/had the “it” factor no matter who was protecting them or how poorly their team was. None of that BS hindered their growth as a QB. A lot of QBs coming out of college show they have the “it” factor, so let them play and find out if they are legit or not.

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

If it ruins him it’s not because he started his first year, it’s because he wasn’t an NFL quarterback

Spot on

 

[botfly10]

giant lists of players mean nothing when talking about a specific individual and what he needs to become a long term stud QB

 

[botfly10]

This is 100% my belief. Look at the top QBs to ever play the game. They have/had the “it” factor no matter who was protecting them or how poorly their team was. None of that BS hindered their growth as a QB. A lot of QBs coming out of college show they have the “it” factor, so let them play and find out if they are legit or not.

"you either have it or you don't" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't know"

 

[ThatGuyRyan]

The one you left off that list who I think it probably the most comparable is Dak

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

"you either have it or you don't" is just a fancy way of saying "I don't know"

Ok….I don’t think I ever brought that up at all. I just agreed that’s the way I look at things and I went into more specifics regarding QBs having the it factor or not.

 

[Canth]

My take, and I believe I said this in another thread is: You start the guy when you feel he has enough command of the offense to be able to execute it. It takes however long it takes. If he shows command of the huddle and offense in training camp, start him week 1. If he is getting by in training camp but not quite showing command then go ahead and start Dalton and give Fields the time needed to know the playbook enough that he can go play and not go out there and be thinking too much. The difference in the speed of the game and that transition will be enough that you don't need to rush him out there if he is not quite sure what the hell the actual play being called means for his reads, timing, whatever.

Every situation is different with these various qb's and their teams. Imo, the Bears have enough weapons on offense that the team itself will not be a detriment to his development. There are guys that know how to run good routes and catch the ball. You have a decent runningback, not special but a solid guy that will get the yards that are there to take and then a bit more. The biggest question mark is probably the offensive line, but even there I think it has enough talent that it would not be dangerous to put him in there. They aren't like the Texans and Carr where he went in there and got killed.

So, it really is for Fields to go into the OTAs and Training camp and show he has that command and take away that starting spot from Dalton. Honestly, I think the coaches would be thrilled for him to do just that and start him sooner rather than later.

 

[BearClaw55]

This is 100% my belief. Look at the top QBs to ever play the game. They have/had the “it” factor no matter who was protecting them or how poorly their team was. None of that BS hindered their growth as a QB. A lot of QBs coming out of college show they have the “it” factor, so let them play and find out if they are legit or not.

Exactly...

Watson had a garbage OL his first year (actually most of his years starting). Sage (a veteran QB) was starting and couldn’t operate behind that porous OL. They put Watson in behind the same OL (his first NFL game) & he never looked back. I’m not saying every good QB will have the success Watson did behind a trash OL but they will still make plays & not be ruined (unless injured permanently). The Bears have always drafted the QBs that need everything around them to be perfect (which means they are just game managers tops).

 

[playthrough2001]

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.

Luck started every game his rookie year. His first NFL regular season game was in Chicago against the Bears. He threw three picks. I was there.