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

[iueyedoc]

This is an unanswerable question. Each player is different, thus the experiment is different each time, and thus without a control. Without going back in time and reversing each players starting circumstances and then comparing the results the answer is unknowable.

I think the only agreed on axiom is that starting a player before ready is a recipe for disaster. The pressure can be intense to put the new guy out there, especially if a coaches job is on the line. But predetermining that a guy must sit x amount of games or seasons is moronic.

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

This is an unanswerable question. Each player is different, thus the experiment is different each time, and thus without a control. Without going back in time and reversing each players starting circumstances and then comparing the results the answer is unknowable.

I think the only agreed on axiom is that starting a player before ready is a recipe for disaster. The pressure can be intense to put the new guy out there, especially if a coaches job is on the line. But predetermining that a guy must sit x amount of games or seasons is moronic.

Your last paragraph is a great explanation. Everything Ive posted about Fields starting over Dalton is based on him being ready by the end of TC. If he’s not, then yes, Dalton has to be the guy.

 

[botfly10]

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.

yeah, the it factor

thats what I mean

when people talk about the it factor, they just saying they dont know

 

[Bust]

That settles it. Fields week 1 starter boyz.

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

yeah, the it factor

thats what I mean

when people talk about the it factor, they just saying they dont know

No, it’s just saying they have an it factor. They have something special. Every player coming out of college is unknown. Not all have that it factor.

 

[Enasic]

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.

I have a bit of a different take on this. I think starting Mitch his rookie year actually was detrimental for him. The weapons were absolute dog shit and he did not have much experience entering the NFL. It would have been ideal to sit him and have him develop. Sure, he likely still would have sucked, but maybe not as bad. The problem was Glennon was so terrible, there was too much pressure from the outside to start the rookie QB that they just traded up one spot to get.

I also don't think firing Loggains and Fox ruined him either, and I certainly hope Pace doesn't look back at that as a mistake and a reason to keep Nagy around past this season if the offense still looks bad or underachieving. If Nagy is still Nagy at the end of the year, you fire him and fire him fast. There will be a lot of qualified coaches who would love to coach up Justin Fields. I personally believe Fields will do more to help Nagy than Nagy will do to help Fields. We could cross all our fingers and toes but Nagy is not going to get his shit together. We've all witnessed 3 years of horrendous decision after horrendous play call after undisciplined play on both sides of the ball, I have no idea why anyone would have any faith at all in him getting his shit together anytime soon.

The start/sit question is an easy one...you let them battle it out in camp and if Fields is clear cut and looks special, you start him. If it's close then you have bigger problems on your hands. Fields should definitely be noticeably better than Dalton.

 

[satchice]

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

No it is just a way of saying sitting on the bench and developing is bullshit. You have almost no development if you’re not playing.

 

[satchice]

Can anyone give me an example of a quarterback who didn’t play and developed while in the sidelines?

I mean a quarterback who wasn’t good got benched or whatever, sat on the bench and developed and became good.

I know there’s lots of examples of good to great quarterbacks who sat on the bench and came in later in the year and we’re good to great quarterbacks. Those guys didn’t necessarily develop.

Paxton Lynch, Brandon Weeden, Teddy Bridgewater, Matt Barkley, Caleb Haney(sp?) none of these guys in fact I don’t think I know any quarterback that develops on the sideline. I think that’s just coach speak.

 

[greg23]

Can anyone give me an example of a quarterback who didn’t play and developed while in the sidelines?

I mean a quarterback who wasn’t good got benched or whatever, sat on the bench and developed and became good.

I know there’s lots of examples of good to great quarterbacks who sat on the bench and came in later in the year and we’re good to great quarterbacks. Those guys didn’t necessarily develop.

Paxton Lynch, Brandon Weeden, Teddy Bridgewater, Matt Barkley, Caleb Haney(sp?) none of these guys in fact I don’t think I know any quarterback that develops on the sideline. I think that’s just coach speak.

Aaron Rodgers

He totally revamped his mechanics and throwing motion from college to the time he started for green bay

 

[Bearly]

The perspective here is the issue. It's not just about the QB, it's about the team and trying to win the most games. Fields won't get ruined regardless of when he starts. It 'may' be an issue for other young QBs but not him. When Big Ben started, he wasn't asked to do too much and kinda sucked in the playoffs that year. The next year playoffs were better but still had the worst winning performance in SB history. If you think Grossman had a bad SB performance...

Teams that draft early tend to not be playoff contenders and are perfectly happy to live through a QBs growing pains. It's why you tend to see those start game 1 and later 1st round picks not as much. It's not as much about their individual capabilities as it is about a teams situation. It will be interesting to see what the 49ers do this year since they are both a good team and have a top 3 pick.

Mac Jones is one of the most prepare for the NFL QBs to ever come out of the draft. Ran a read heavy pure pocket O that NE has done for years. I bet Belichick sits him. He's wary of rookie QBs which inevitably make decisions that lose games unless they are just being carried like Orton was.

When it comes to Fields. I don't care what happens and like iueyedoc, think it's silly to predetermine. We need to understand why a rookie QB starts or not and have a bit of patience with them either way. I'm of the opinion that in our case, Nagy will want to remove some unknowns and sit Fields to start the season because he has that luxury with Dalton and can then see how Fields responds to actual game film of non vanilla Ds and/or how he's diagnosing on the sidelines during those games. I understand why we're in a rush for a good QB but the team has a greater perspective on this. Fields may prove brilliant in the pre and get the call anyway. It's just not that big of a deal to get worked up over.

 

[jts1207]

So tired of hearing the Mahomes sat a year bs blah blah blah......He also sat while a guy threw for 4000+26 TDS and knew the system. Dalton is none of these

 

[Mdbearz]

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

I'm pretty sure Eli replace Warner in the 4th Quarter of the first game, so yeah he sat for .75 of a game, not technically the Starter, you are correct. It is also not enough time to say he sat and learned behind the starter.

 

[jive]

I'm pretty sure Eli replace Warner in the 4th Quarter of the first game, so yeah he sat for .75 of a game, not technically the Starter, you are correct. It is also not enough time to say he sat and learned behind the starter.

Eli Manning started 7 games his rookie year. Kurt Warner was the starter that year until he had a concussion.

 

[SlickWilly]

I'm pretty sure Eli replace Warner in the 4th Quarter of the first game, so yeah he sat for .75 of a game, not technically the Starter, you are correct. It is also not enough time to say he sat and learned behind the starter.

You might want to check that again because Warner started the first 9 games of the 2004 season.

 

[bears51/40]

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

Correct, though I think it is safe to say that both Manning and Allen learned much more on the field by taking their lumps and making their rookie mistakes than watching a veteran with half their talent from the bench.

 

[Bearly]

Correct, though I think it is safe to say that both Manning and Allen learned much more on the field by taking their lumps and making their rookie mistakes than watching a veteran with half their talent from the bench.

Allen still kinda sucked his 2nd year and credits his offseason work and help from vet QBs for his improvement in year 3. There is no best way. They are different individuals in different situations.

 

[Mdbearz]

You might want to check that again because Warner started the first 9 games of the 2004 season.

I stand corrected, he only started 7 games.... I'm officially old....I have a buddy that is a Giants fan, so I was going off memory....I should know better than that....

 

[TheWinman]

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.

No matter how you do it, 50% will fail, not because of how you did it but just because that many will always fail because they don't have what it takes to succeed in the league

 

[Nelly]

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?

How could you ever know that you indeed hindered his growth or limited his ceiling by starting or not starting him? You can't.

It's as simple as having him earn the job. If he gives the team a better chance to win than Dalton does from the jump, then he should start. If he's showing he's having trouble picking some things up or Dalton is just straight-up better, then sit him. It's that simple. There's no reasonable or logical argument for sitting a talented player who helps you win games just because other QBs have played football to varying degrees of success.

 

[dbldrew]

its real simple if he seems ready and the OL is not a turnstile then play him.