Jump to content
patriotsheatyan

Does sitting a QB his first season help or hurt his career?

Recommended Posts

On 9/13/2017 at 3:36 AM, tom cody said:

To me it helps. You get a young QB learning from an older mentor. Look at Young and Montana, Rodgers and Favre. Brady and Bledsoe?

This is a myth. Starters treat their successors like competition trying to steal their job, not students. Montana and Young hated each other. Favre outright said mentoring Rodgers wasn't his job and kept communication to the bare minimum. Bledsoe stated in an interview he looked forward to competing to get his job back.

It's ultimately a case by case scenario. Have a competition and the best one gets the job. This is why selling the farm for a QB rarely works out.

Edited by everlong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, everlong said:

This is a myth. Starters treat their successors like competition trying to steal their job, not students. Montana and Young hated each other. Favre outright said mentoring Rodgers wasn't his job. Bledsoe stated in an interview he looked forward to competing to get his job back.

It's ultimately a case by case scenario. Have a competition and the best one gets the job. This is why selling the farm for a QB rarely works out.

it doesnt matter how  Vets treat rookies.

Its still dumb to start people with no experience at QB.

rookies succeeding early just proves how watered down the league is now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, everlong said:

This is a myth. Starters treat their successors like competition trying to steal their job, not students. Montana and Young hated each other. Favre outright said mentoring Rodgers wasn't his job. Bledsoe stated in an interview he looked forward to competing to get his job back.

It's ultimately a case by case scenario. Have a competition and the best one gets the job. This is why selling the farm for a QB rarely works out.

While all that is true, rookie QB's will definitely learn just by watching and seeing an established veteran QB prepare and play. 

 

To answer OP though, it's depends on a lot of different factors. This simply isn't a black and white question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Trouble is that a rookie can be playing and still have a veteran mentor on the team, plus there is the QB coach. He does not have to sit to learn. Playing is the best teacher since it is well known that of everything we are taught, we lose 85% of it if we did not put it into practice right away, so riding the bench can be a real stopper in learning the QB position.

Yet, the one empirical study on this indicates that it's not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a total case by case thing with when you should start a young QB. It depends on the talent on the offense, the head coach, the skillset + mentality of the player and the QB you would have to play in front of him.

A QB like Aaron Rodgers came out of college with very concerning mechanical issues under a system which had a history of producing busts at the QB position. His mental toughness and tenacity probably allows him to find success either way, but who is to say that if he was drafted by the 49ers that year instead of the Packers that he isn't just a middle of the road QB like Alex Smith is? 

Now you can point to someone like Dak Prescott, someone who was taken in the 4th round and didn't exactly blow scouts away in college or at the combine, but showed an ability to learn and adapt quickly and was given the keys to a Ferrari with the Dallas offense.

I think that there are QB's that will always be busts and QB's that will always have success. But I don't subscribe to the idea that QB's like Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady would always be in the conversation of GOAT QB regardless of who they were drafted by. Like a previous poster said, if a QB coming out of college is already destined to be great or terrible, then it wouldn't be such a difficult thing to identify a franchise QB in the draft. But the reality is that so many factors go into a QB's development at the NFL Level.

Edited by Bolts223

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it generally helps if they sit 1 year behind a good QB.  If only mentally.

 

Though at the same time, if they sit too long, they're also wasting years they'll never get back where they easily could have been playing at a high level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, tom cody said:

To me it helps. You get a young QB learning from an older mentor. Look at Young and Montana, Rodgers and Favre. Brady and Bledsoe?

The trouble is, it is a rare occasion when a solid veteran QB is still starting when a team acquires a new franchise QB. You mention 3 cases over how many years. Almost all of the solid franchise QB's n the NFL started in year 1 without losing a beat. Sure, many sat for 7 or 8 games as rookies to get acquainted with the league, but that is as long as a QB can realistically expect in the current NFL unless he gets awful lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the QB. Sitting probably hurts someone like Manning, Luck or Winston who were all deemed pro ready, what can be gained by these Qbs sitting? But a QB like Aaron Rodgers greatly benefited from sitting as it corrected some of the flaws that were developed in college, i.e. Throwing motion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesnt HURT any QB.    I cant think of any scenario where sitting a rookie QB hurts their chances of succeeding...even if it was a an elite pro ready prospect.

It CAN help a player who needs to have their mechanics refined or needs more time to adjust to a particular offense.

In the end, I believe that if a QB meant to be great, they will get there regardless of whether they start from day 1 or they sit for 2 years.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2017 at 10:15 PM, Jakuvious said:

This. If it was a simple situation where players just are as good as they are, the draft would seem like far less of a crap shoot, and we'd see substantially less variance in the performance of free agents. Player performance would be far more predictable if player development was that simple.

Honestly, I think as fans, we often really undervalue player development. Most college teams and coaches really aren't trying to develop players for the NFL. They're just trying to win. So if you have a LT that's stronger than every DE in the conference, you're not overly concerned with his technique. If your QB can outrun most of the defenders in the conference, you're not too opposed to him taking off and running too often. Many flaws that can sink players in the NFL aren't corrected in college because they just aren't as important there. And if those players are thrown in too soon, they can easily revert to those same bad habits. Sometimes it can be valuable to give them time to adjust to good habits in a more controlled environment (practice, preseason) than competitive games. And I think this is especially true at QB. Issues like footwork, throwing motion, pocket presence, etc., are not fixed with game time. Getting better at reading defenses and catching up to NFL speed will happen. So if those are the only rookie concerns, by all means, throw them into the fire. But I'm glad KC is sitting a guy like Mahomes, for instance, because many of his flaws are bad habits more than weaknesses. He doesn't struggle with accuracy or decision making, but with things like technique, which IMO is more fixable outside of proper games.

You are spot on about how much rookies need to learn before they are really solid pros. RB is the only position not requiring a whole lot of retraining from college and even they often have to learn to block. Jury is still out on Mahomes, but he has a shot, because he has a solid QB teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Snake Plissken said:

So what is your basis for this belief?

Intangibles like mental toughness, which is the ability to put the last play completely out of you mind and just go on with the next play, pretty well separates the solid franchise QB's from the flops. Intangibles make or break a rookie QB.

Physical attributes are a bonus, but without intangibles, you can forget ever being a franchise QB. This is just common knowledge for any draftnik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Buddy Ryan said: If you start listening to the fans, pretty soon you'll be sitting with the fans.

Last I looked Ryan had been fired by his last 2 teams, because he never ever did manage to get a franchise QB for either team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dirk Gently said:

I don't know about that.  I think Aikman would've been better off without that 1-15 year

Troy stated that sitting for 3 years would not have made him a better QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TVScout said:

Troy stated that sitting for 3 years would not have made him a better QB.

might have extended his career is all I'm saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×