Do you HAVE to start a 1st round QB?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

It's time to open this up, and settle this shit once and for all.

1.1 - 1.32, in my opinion it doesn't matter. The majority of the QB's coming out of college aren't equipped for this league, and boy does it show.

The post-Stafford/Sanchez era of big money right off the bat no longer being an issue for these rooks is upon us, and I see no reason that one must be obligated to throw these guys to the fire. Cleveland apparently feels the same.

Hell, this discussion of possibly bringing in RGIII only solidifies the case. Your first round QB's in this new era by and large, will be developmental projects.

It is what it is.

Discuss.

[Rams Fan]

What happened to thumping for taking a QB in the first? Like you were for the better part of the 4 years I've been here.

[Tacoman]

I don't think he is arguing for or against taking a QB in the first with this post?


That being said, I totally agree. While on one hand it's a case by case basis ( obviously Luck fared pretty well), learning to read defenses at the NFL level and taking the beating in the process has ruined careers for a lot of guys that probably could have had successful careers. I think letting guys mature and learn from vets is the way to go.

[Easy 6]

You definitely dont have to, and probably 90% of the time you shouldnt unless its a once in a decade guy like Luck... but the public pressure to start them sure makes a lot of coaches and front offices succumb to it.

Like Bortles, it would almost certainly have been best to let him sit and learn for just one year.

[TimeForWasp]

Case by Case. It depends on how the rook picks it up and how bad your existing QB sucks.

[milkman]

Never believed that you had to start them immediately.

I think a number of huge investments were ruined because they were thrown to the fire much too soon.

[TimeForWasp]

I am wondering how Aaron Murray is doing. Anyone know?

[Easy 6]

Case by Case. It depends on how the rook picks it up and how bad your existing QB sucks.

Thats true as well, each teams circumstances are different.

Bortles should've sat in Jacksonville, but if you put him on a complete team like Roethlisberger had his rookie year, its possible to start them effectively.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

First, I want a 1st rounder and always will.

Secondly, I realize and acknowledge that the 'Luck's' are few and far in-between.

Third, the era of being forced to "start Stafford immediately because you drafted him 1.1 and paid Eleventy Billion to do so" is over.

It's over...

dead...

and gone.

The majority of these 1st and even 2nd round QB's don't need snaps, they need adjustment, tutelage, and steady cultivation.

When we do draft a 1, you won't hear me screaming "start him now", because I know better.

[Valiant]

I think you either have it or you don't. The only thing that effects it more is the stage you are on and coaching. RG3 did great his rookie year, worse after that. That could be injury or coach not adapting.

Look at Carr. He is on a complete shit team. He is doing great as a rookie. He should be getting killed like the rest of the rookie QBs. Sure you can have a coach tell you before what you are going to experience. But gametime matters more and how you react.

[Coochie liquor]

If/when we ever do draft a R1QB I don't know if this fan base can handle it. Like many other positions he'll have a bad 1st preseason game and be labeled a bust and we should fire the coach and FO because they drafted a bust QB.

[TimeForWasp]

I don't know why they don't replace QBs during the game more. If your starter is having trouble , go to the next guy.
Rinse and repeat. I don't understand why the nfl doesn't do similar to baseball and are afraid to do in game switches when the situation changes.

We don't have to have the mindset that the guy was benched, just replaced because of the situation.

[Coochie liquor]

I think you either have it or you don't. The only thing that effects it more is the stage you are on and coaching. RG3 did great his rookie year, worse after that. That could be injury or coach not adapting.

Look at Carr. He is on a complete shit team. He is doing great as a rookie. He should be getting killed like the rest of the rookie QBs. Sure you can have a coach tell you before what you are going to experience. But gametime matters more and how you react.

I hope the Faiders get a new coach after this season who wants to draft one of the QBs in the upcoming draft and put Carr on the back burner. He might become a very good qb, I'd rather it not be for a team in our division!

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

If/when we ever do draft a R1QB I don't know if this fan base can handle it. Like many other positions he'll have a bad 1st preseason game and be labeled a bust and we should fire the coach and FO because they drafted a bust QB.

Probably.

[Mav]

I don't know why they don't replace QBs during the game more. If your starter is having trouble , go to the next guy.
Rinse and repeat. I don't understand why the nfl doesn't do similar to baseball and are afraid to do in game switches when the situation changes.

We don't have to have the mindset that the guy was benched, just replaced because of the situation.
They do it not to shake the confidence is the player and the qb himself.

[mdchiefsfan]

They do it not to shake the confidence is the player and the qb himself.

Hate to say it, but if a pitcher gets pulled in a terrible performance for a long reliever, they still go out to the mound 5 days later and try to pick up the pieces.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Hate to say it, but if a pitcher gets pulled in a terrible performance for a long reliever, they still go out to the mound 5 days later and try to pick up the pieces.

This.

[BigMeatballDave]

Never believed that you had to start them immediately.

I think a number of huge investments were ruined because they were thrown to the fire much too soon.

I do not believe that a QB can be ruined. If they don't make it, they are just not good enough.

[KCwolf]

First, I want a 1st rounder and always will.

Secondly, I realize and acknowledge that the 'Luck's' are few and far in-between.

Third, the era of being forced to "start Stafford immediately because you drafted him 1.1 and paid Eleventy Billion to do so" is over.

It's over...

dead...

and gone.

The majority of these 1st and even 2nd round QB's don't need snaps, they need adjustment, tutelage, and steady cultivation.

When we do draft a 1, you won't hear me screaming "start him now", because I know better.

Ya... you lost me at when we do ......................

[milkman]

I do not believe that a QB can be ruined. If they don't make it, they are just not good enough.

I believe that Jim Plunket stands as evidence, and that you are a fucking moron.

[mikey23545]

Never believed that you had to start them immediately.

I think a number of huge investments were ruined because they were thrown to the fire much too soon.

I'm sure you remember like I do, Old Man, it was considered pretty standard to sit a rookie on the bench for 2 or 3 years after you drafted him, back in the 60's and 70's.

[milkman]

I'm sure you remember like I do, Old Man, it was considered pretty standard to sit a rookie on the bench for 2 or 3 years after you drafted him, back in the 60's and 70's.

Jim Plunkett was an exception.

[BigMeatballDave]

I believe that Jim Plunket stands as evidence, and that you are a fucking moron.So, if Plunkett was ruined, how did he go on to have a successful career in Oakland? Fact is, neither one of us can prove this.

LOL I knew my post would get the moron or dumbass response.

[Sandy Vagina]

No need to start a QB just because he's a rd 1 selection... especially now that rookie contracts have been reasonably lessened. Really just depends on what other QB options they have.. and how strong their support cast is.

[milkman]

So, if Plunkett was ruined, how did he go on to have a successful career in Oakland? Fact is, neither one of us can prove this.

LOL I knew my post would get the moron or dumbass response.

Because, dumbass, the Patriots didn't have the financial investment that teams with recent QB busts have had, which allowed them to move on relatively quickly, which in turn, gave him an opportunity to move on and rebuild his confidence in a different setting.

[Chief Roundup]

To me it depends on where the QB is drafted in the 1st. If it is in the top 10, especially top 5, they should start immediately or they should not have been drafted that high. If they are drafted in the bottom half of the first round they probably do need to sit for at least a year.

[Chief Roundup]

No need to start a QB just because he's a rd 1 selection... especially now that rookie contracts have been reasonably lessened. Really just depends on what other QB options they have.. and how strong their support cast is.

This is definitely a part of the equation.
The contracts for the top 10 draft picks is fully guaranteed, although the contracts are lesser than they use to be and all but Bortles at #3 is getting $5.2M a year average. If it is a true 12% increase from year to year in the slotting it will be $6M a year average for a QB drafted in the top of the draft.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Ya... you lost me at when we do ......................

LMAO Oh you...

To me it depends on where the QB is drafted in the 1st. If it is in the top 10, especially top 5, they should start immediately or they should not have been drafted that high. If they are drafted in the bottom half of the first round they probably do need to sit for at least a year.

By that logic, Eric Fissure is the greatest goddamned Tackle ever drafted.

[Sandy Vagina]

This is definitely a part of the equation.
The contracts for the top 10 draft picks is fully guaranteed, although the contracts are lesser than they use to be and all but Bortles at #3 is getting $5.2M a year average. If it is a true 12% increase from year to year in the slotting it will be $6M a year average for a QB drafted in the top of the draft.

.. and just to nit-pick, I wouldn't even look at it like year/average. In the case of Bortles, he's only making 3.75 mil as a rookie... so that to me isn't reason enough alone to force him out there.

[milkman]

This is definitely a part of the equation.
The contracts for the top 10 draft picks is fully guaranteed, although the contracts are lesser than they use to be and all but Bortles at #3 is getting $5.2M a year average. If it is a true 12% increase from year to year in the slotting it will be $6M a year average for a QB drafted in the top of the draft.

This, to me, has always been backasswards thinking.

A team drafting in the bottom of the first round generally have enough talent to protect a rookie QB, to support him, and not ask too much of him.

Teams drafting in the top 10 don't have that luxury, putting that rookie in a position to fail.

It makes far more sense to me to sit him, get him surrounded by more talent before you ask him to save the franchise.

[GloucesterChief]

Aaron Rodgers says no.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

This, to me, has always been backasswards thinking.

A team drafting in the bottom of the first round generally have enough talent to protect a rookie QB, to support him, and not ask too much of him.

Teams drafting in the top 10 don't have that luxury, putting that rookie in a position to fail.

It makes far more sense to me to sit him, get him surrounded by more talent before you ask him to save the franchise.

Thank you.

[Chiefshrink]

I don't think he is arguing for or against taking a QB in the first with this post?


That being said, I totally agree. While on one hand it's a case by case basis ( obviously Luck fared pretty well), learning to read defenses at the NFL level and taking the beating in the process has ruined careers for a lot of guys that probably could have had successful careers. I think letting guys mature and learn from vets is the way to go.

Luck is a once in a generation type of QB. I really believe that if coaches had their way they would wait and groom but remember it's all about winning NOW and unfortunately as competitive as it is because unlike it was 25-30 yrs ago there is far BIGGER $$ now on the line to win and spend to keep that big $$ coming in. Teams can't afford to groom 1st rd QBs any longer.

[Chiefshrink]

Jim Plunkett was an exception.

Agreed. How long did Stabler ride the pine behind Lamonica ?

[Jim Lahey]

Its entirely based on the offensive talent thats going to surround him.

Im entirely against starting a rook that doesnt have a solidified running game and at least 2 solid receiving targets.

Had the Texans taken a guy like Bortles in this past draft, I'd have been totally on board with starting him week 1.

Ive never understood teams that draft guys, have little to no offensive talent for him to work with and feed him to the wolves in their first season. Its just a recipe for disaster.

[OldSchool]

If you drafted a 1st round QB, chances are that your starter is either really old and about to retire, or he is terrible.

Condition 1) No, he gets the Aaron Rodgers treatment.

Condition 2) Yes, the sooner he gets game experience the better especially given the new CBA. You have to find out all you can about the kid sooner rather than later.

[DaneMcCloud]

I don't see any reason why a first round QB should sit in 2014. It's the most important position on the offense and presumably, the reason he was drafted in the first is because the current QB isn't starter quality.

If you're going to "sit" a guy, it's better to take him in the second round or later, IMO.

That said, who knows what the hell Cleveland was thinking with Manziel. While I don't believe they're a quality playoff team this year, they could have grabed a WR, which would have helped their playoff chances considerably this season.

[DeezNutz]

Absolutely not.

A QB might justify a first-round grade because of his potential and raw tools, and the latter might need a bit of refining. Obviously the player would have dominated in college, as almost all first-rounders have, but that doesn't mean that the transition to the NFL is a seamless one.

There might be a period of learning and waiting, which is perfectly fine.

Instant gratification isn't necessarily synonymous with building a high-quality franchise.

[Chief_For_Life58]

Manzel is benched because hoyer is better right now

[WhiteWhale]

3 of the best 4 QB's in the NFL did not start immediately.

[Mav]

I don't see any reason why a first round QB should sit in 2014. It's the most important position on the offense and presumably, the reason he was drafted in the first is because the current QB isn't starter quality.

If you're going to "sit" a guy, it's better to take him in the second round or later, IMO.

That said, who knows what the hell Cleveland was thinking with Manziel. While I don't believe they're a quality playoff team this year, they could have grabed a WR, which would have helped their playoff chances considerably this season.
It wasn't Cleveland. The owner pulled rank.

[Rausch]

This, to me, has always been backasswards thinking.

A team drafting in the bottom of the first round generally have enough talent to protect a rookie QB, to support him, and not ask too much of him.

Teams drafting in the top 10 don't have that luxury, putting that rookie in a position to fail.

It makes far more sense to me to sit him, get him surrounded by more talent before you ask him to save the franchise.

This.

Plus teams are throwing young guys in there and then giving up on them early as well. Geno and Manuel were not ready to start day 1. They both should have sat and learned.

Now they'll both start for less than two full seasons and possibly be thrown in the scrap heap.

It makes no sense to waste a top 10 pick on a QB if you aren't going to be patient and give them the tools they need...

[DaneMcCloud]

This.

Plus teams are throwing young guys in there and then giving up on them early as well. Geno and Manuel were not ready to start day 1. They both should have sat and learned.

Now they'll both start for less than two full seasons and possibly be thrown in the scrap heap.

It makes no sense to waste a top 10 pick on a QB if you aren't going to be patient and give them the tools they need...

Neither Geno nor Manuel was a top ten pick.

Also, as it turned out, Geno and Manuel were the best options in 2013.

Not so much in 2014.

[OldSchool]

This.

Plus teams are throwing young guys in there and then giving up on them early as well. Geno and Manuel were not ready to start day 1. They both should have sat and learned.

Now they'll both start for less than two full seasons and possibly be thrown in the scrap heap.

It makes no sense to waste a top 10 pick on a QB if you aren't going to be patient and give them the tools they need...

You're losing sight of the fact that teams only have 5 years, at most, to figure out what they have in the QB that they drafted.

Minimum of 3 full seasons, IMO, to see if they have what it takes or not to become a franchise QB.

The sooner that a 1st round QB can start, the better for the franchise.

[Rausch]

Neither Geno nor Manuel was a top ten pick.

Also, as it turned out, Geno and Manuel were the best options in 2013.

Not so much in 2014.

I didn't say they were. They were examples of young guys not ready to start day 1.

And drafting a top 10 guy and just throwing him out there because tickets is a good way to ruin him. Guys that can come in day 1 and start are rare...

[Rausch]

You're losing sight of the fact that teams only have 5 years, at most, to figure out what they have in the QB that they drafted.

Minimum of 3 full seasons, IMO, to see if they have what it takes or not to become a franchise QB.

So you let a guy sit for a year or two and still have 3 full seasons to evaluate.

That's a fair enough sample size if you ask me...

[OldSchool]

So you let a guy sit for a year or two and still have 3 full seasons to evaluate.

That's a fair enough sample size if you ask me...

The player has to perform well enough to warrant that 5th year option being exercised.

When I say 3 years I mean 3 years of at least solid QB play. Not a 1 year wonder like RG3, etc. There has to be consistent improvements and a high enough level of play to warrant a $100 mil extension the way that the current league is structured and with how QBs are being compensated.

That's why, if you think that a player is your QBOTF, rookie or not, he needs to play ASAP and not sit and wait in the current NFL.

That being said, I'm of the opinion that you don't draft a QB in the 1st 4 rounds if your current starter is still good and under 35 years old. The only time you do take a 1st round QB is if:

1. Someone unbelievably falls to you (Rodgers and the Packers)
2. Your current starter should be a backup (Jacksonville, Houston, Buffalo, etc)
3. Your current starter is a year or two away from retiring.

Otherwise it's a waste of a draft pick that you could have spent somewhere else to build a championship caliber roster.

[Rausch]

The player has to perform well enough to warrant that 5th year option being exercised.

When I say 3 years I mean 3 years of at least solid QB play. Not a 1 year wonder like RG3, etc. There has to be consistent improvements and a high enough level of play to warrant a $100 mil extension the way that the current league is structured and with how QBs are being compensated.

That's why, if you think that a player is your QBOTF, rookie or not, he needs to play ASAP and not sit and wait in the current NFL.

They can still sit a year and get 3 years of PT.

What good does it do to rush them, bench them year two, and have some FA starting in year 3?

You're much better off letting them sit behind a vet and then take over...

[007]

No, you don't have to start a 1st round draft pick immediately. 1-2 years of grooming will always be better than throwing them into the fire. QBs like Luck happen once a decade.

[BossChief]

I prefer throwing them into the fire and seeing what happens, but every scenario is different and there isn't 1 correct set of answers.

If the team has a decent offensive line and 2-3 weapons to work with...I start the kid and accelerate his learning curve but if the line is bad and there aren't any receivers, I sit him and let him learn while starting a vet.

I'd also consider the strength of the defense because one of the biggest parts of developing a quarterback in the nfl is putting him in positions to succeed and win games. If the defense is soft, it won't be able to overcome a lot of rookie mistakes and that causes problems in the locker room.

No situation is absolutely optimum for a rookie to start and with how advanced the defenses are these days coupled with lessened time in camp and other recent changes that lessen the time these kids have to acclimate themselves to the role of quarterback, I'd lean towards sitting a rookie over starting him early unless he is a special guy like Luck or Manning.

[BigMeatballDave]

Don't have to, but it really depends on how ready the guy is, and how talented.

I don't have problem starting immediately because you'd like to see how they handle adversity.

[WhiteWhale]

You're losing sight of the fact that teams only have 5 years, at most, to figure out what they have in the QB that they drafted.

Minimum of 3 full seasons, IMO, to see if they have what it takes or not to become a franchise QB.

The sooner that a 1st round QB can start, the better for the franchise.

I agree the sooner the better. The most important thing is that the play caller understands where that QB is in his development and not overwhelming him. QB's have to know protections, route options, audibles, hot reads... it's a LOT to learn in a few months before the season with few repetitions.

The less he's out there trying to think about and remember, the more he can just play. Steelers did a great job with Big Ben on that.

[Chief Roundup]

This, to me, has always been backasswards thinking.

A team drafting in the bottom of the first round generally have enough talent to protect a rookie QB, to support him, and not ask too much of him.

Teams drafting in the top 10 don't have that luxury, putting that rookie in a position to fail.

It makes far more sense to me to sit him, get him surrounded by more talent before you ask him to save the franchise.

A team drafting in the bottom of the 1st is definitely a better team, most of the time, than a team at the top.
But the point is and was that the best QBs will normally be drafted at the top of the first not in the bottom half. The better QBs are more NFL ready regardless of the team around them.

[Deberg_1990]

I think most QBs drafted late in the 1st have always been considered more 'developmental' guys. If they were not they would have been drafted top 10.


Of course there are exceptions, like Marino but most of the time you end up with Drukenmiller or Brady Quinn.

[Chiefshrink]

You're losing sight of the fact that teams only have 5 years, at most, to figure out what they have in the QB that they drafted.

Minimum of 3 full seasons, IMO, to see if they have what it takes or not to become a franchise QB.


RGIII would disagree. Try a max of 3 not a minimum.

[Kaepernick]

I think it is terrible to start any QB prospect. They should all ride the pine for 2 years while being an understudy. Then turn them lose. They should not have the sink-or-swim pressure on them to learn bad habits.

But owners are short-sighted idiots.

If I was owner and needed a QB and had drafted a top prospect, I would direct my GM to hire a savvy old Veteran with a wonderful headful of experience to play for 2 years. While we were going 5-11 for 2 years, the team would be stockpiling high draft picks and the QB prospect would be sucking up all the wisdom the saavy vet had to offer.

Year 3, bye bye veteran, start the top QB prospect and laugh all the way to the bank.

Owners are impatient and short sighted. Few will suffer a short term loss for a long term gain, even winning the SB.

[Kaepernick]

No, you don't have to start a 1st round draft pick immediately. 1-2 years of grooming will always be better than throwing them into the fire. QBs like Luck happen once a decade.

Even Luck would have done well to sit. Aaron Rodgers benefited greatly from it.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I think it is terrible to start any QB prospect. They should all ride the pine for 2 years while being an understudy. Then turn them lose. They should not have the sink-or-swim pressure on them to learn bad habits.

But owners are short-sighted idiots.

If I was owner and needed a QB and had drafted a top prospect, I would direct my GM to hire a savvy old Veteran with a wonderful headful of experience to play for 2 years. While we were going 5-11 for 2 years, the team would be stockpiling high draft picks and the QB prospect would be sucking up all the wisdom the saavy vet had to offer.

Year 3, bye bye veteran, start the top QB prospect and laugh all the way to the bank.

Owners are impatient and short sighted. Few will suffer a short term loss for a long term gain, even winning the SB.

I'm one 1st round pick away from this very scenario! Yay me!

[BigMeatballDave]

Even Luck would have done well to sit.

What? He's already elite.

Third season and he's on pace to shatter all QB records.

[DaneMcCloud]

Even Luck would have done well to sit.

No.

[tk13]

Yeah I think even Manning said it would've been a mistake to sit Luck.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

No.

LMAO

Yeah, he was already there.

[kccrow]

No, they don't have to start right off the bat. I think if you have a situation where you can avoid doing just that, then you sit the rookie for at least one year. Learning the speed of the game, the playbook, defense recognition, audibles, line calls/shifts, etc is quite a bit.

[BigCatDaddy]

Red shirt the kid except the in the rare(Luck) occasion.

[Chiefshrink]

Yeah I think even Manning said it would've been a mistake to sit Luck.

Luck is an exception to the rule. Guys like Luck only come around once every 15-20yrs. Like I said earlier coaches don't have the luxery of sitting a 1st rd QB any longer like years ago.

[Valiant]

3 of the best 4 QB's in the NFL did not start immediately.

Who are the 4 best QBs?

I assume

Peyton... started
Brady... drafted 6th round, took an injury to find the gem, without Bledsoe injury would have never seen the field.
Rodgers.. Sat behind Favre
Brees.. Behind Flutie..

This seems to back up the fact, you are either a great QB or you are not.

One started from the beginning.

The other took a injury to a star QB..

3rd was sitting behind a 1st ballot HOFer.

Last one, sat behind a midget veteran..

Newer on the cusp or raising stars.

Rapelessburger, Started the last 13 games his rookie year

Luck, Started from the start

Wilson, Beat out veteran FA signing to become the starter..


Add this with all the guys that flop, either from starting right away or sitting...

Carr with Oakland is also showing this, he is having a decent year on that completed shit team. It should not be happening, but he is doing it. But thankfully Oakland has a good chance to draft another QB and ruin him or let him walk.

[BigCatDaddy]

How about 1st round OLB's? Should they see the field in year 1?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

How about 1st round OLB's? Should they see the field in year 1?

LMAO

How about shitty, shitty Tackles and garbages DB's?