Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
While I understand that first rounders will likely succeed at a higher clip, the implication made on this thread is that lower round QBs don't usually succeed in the NFL and that's damning proof against them. My point being is, if lower round QBs are never given more than a half-season to perform (if even that), how do we have any idea what they could have been capable of?
I would have to imagine that if more lower-round QBs were given the time and patience that QBs like Harrington and Leftwich got, you would see a far higher success rate. But they don't. That's just the nature of the game. It's an understandable decision, but realize that it's an unfair statement to make that lower round QBs fail at such a high rate because they aren't any good. Most of them fail because they were never given a chance to prove one way or the other.
|
I call bullshit on this "given half a season to perform" bullshit.
If you have talent, you get more time.
Ask Matt Schaub, Trent Edwards and David Garrard, as some examples.
Guys like Bulger and Hasselebeck bounced around, but got their chance. They kept showing enough to stick around, and not wash out of the league completely.
Guys like Chris Simms and Brodie Croyle would have gotten several seasons had they been able to stay healthy.
You're making excuses.