Start your Rookie QB

I have to disagree with the whole "give them time to learn the offense" knowing the offense on paper means nothing on the field if you can't execute. Bill Parcels was desperate last year with Bledsoe and put in Tony Romo after saying earlier in the year he didn't feel confident in him. What my point is these Qb's best time to play football is by playing, sitting Jamarcus Russel and Brady Quin is Idiotic. If you don't have a solid QB and drafted a Rookie QB start him and go game to game. Ben Rothlisberger lead his team to the Playoffs his first 2 years in the league. If Jamarcus and Brady are your future you need to start them in week 1 cause next year don't hold your breath cause they still have to learn to avoid a Pass Rush and throw inbetween windows, something they won't learn this year.

Why take 2 years to do something you can do in 1? Oaklands not making the playoffs Even though Clevlands doing good whos to say if they started Brady in week 1 they might have been a better team. Look what Rothlisberger did when Maddox got injured in his first year.

It's not just the offense, which is a valid point. Execution is the most important part, but you can't even get to that if you don't even know how to run each play. As a rookie, it takes you a lot longer to learn a NFL playbook than a vet, so they sit for awhile until they have it down.

After that is the part where you throw him out there too soon. The guy is out of College, most times playing in a good team, so not used to a pass rush. He comes in and if you throw him to the wolves, he'll get hit 10 times harder and 10 times more than he did in college. He'll have 1/10th the time he had in college. All that contributes to a young guy losing confidence. He'll get flustered in the pocket easily in his career, throw off his back foot, throw it too soon. Stuff like that. That's what happened to Carr and Couch.

This approach worked well with Palmer and Pennington. For some QBs, it does, for some it doesn't. There's no right way and there's no what if b/c you only get one shot. That's why QBs are the riskiest position in football. There's just as many if not more 1st round QB busts as there are booms.

PS: Also when you start a rookie from day 1, you're effectively telling the vets that you've given up on the season before it even began. You simply can't run a team that way.

Rather have a rookie QB sit and learn. McNair did that years ago with the Titans(might been Oilers when he came in I forget)and was a good QB for them for that. Some are good enough mentally and physically(increased games from college with stronger opposition)to handle it, most are not. Rather see a QB watch for a year, with some can come in midway to end of season to get the reps. Russells time should be now. Quinns time is not as Anderson is doing a fine job as the starter.mrgab

It's not just the offense, which is a valid point. Execution is the most important part, but you can't even get to that if you don't even know how to run each play. As a rookie, it takes you a lot longer to learn a NFL playbook than a vet, so they sit for awhile until they have it down.

After that is the part where you throw him out there too soon. The guy is out of College, most times playing in a good team, so not used to a pass rush. He comes in and if you throw him to the wolves, he'll get hit 10 times harder and 10 times more than he did in college. He'll have 1/10th the time he had in college. All that contributes to a young guy losing confidence. He'll get flustered in the pocket easily in his career, throw off his back foot, throw it too soon. Stuff like that. That's what happened to Carr and Couch.

This approach worked well with Palmer and Pennington. For some QBs, it does, for some it doesn't. There's no right way and there's no what if b/c you only get one shot. That's why QBs are the riskiest position in football. There's just as many if not more 1st round QB busts as there are booms.

PS: Also when you start a rookie from day 1, you're effectively telling the vets that you've given up on the season before it even began. You simply can't run a team that way.

manningbowl135

[QUOTE="manningbowl135"]

It's not just the offense, which is a valid point. Execution is the most important part, but you can't even get to that if you don't even know how to run each play. As a rookie, it takes you a lot longer to learn a NFL playbook than a vet, so they sit for awhile until they have it down.

After that is the part where you throw him out there too soon. The guy is out of College, most times playing in a good team, so not used to a pass rush. He comes in and if you throw him to the wolves, he'll get hit 10 times harder and 10 times more than he did in college. He'll have 1/10th the time he had in college. All that contributes to a young guy losing confidence. He'll get flustered in the pocket easily in his career, throw off his back foot, throw it too soon. Stuff like that. That's what happened to Carr and Couch.

This approach worked well with Palmer and Pennington. For some QBs, it does, for some it doesn't. There's no right way and there's no what if b/c you only get one shot. That's why QBs are the riskiest position in football. There's just as many if not more 1st round QB busts as there are booms.

PS: Also when you start a rookie from day 1, you're effectively telling the vets that you've given up on the season before it even began. You simply can't run a team that way.

peacebringer

1) Roethlisberger is an anamoly. Most starting QBs are horrible in their rookie season. Starting them usually means you're giving up on the season and focusing on the future.

What I'm saying is there's no right way to tell what's the better way. You just said starting Peyton was the best way to develop him. I can't argue that b/c well..look how he turned out and I don't know how he would turn out if he sat. But you can look at it from the other side. Palmer, he sat and later became one of the best QBs in the league. If the Bengals had to do it again, would they start Palmer immediately? Should they? The sitting method resulted in the complete turnaround of their franchise and just like the Peyton situation, you can't say starting him would've been better b/c you don't know.

My point: Both methods have success and failure stories. There's no way to tell which one is the best way for a QB.

[QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="manningbowl135"]

It's not just the offense, which is a valid point. Execution is the most important part, but you can't even get to that if you don't even know how to run each play. As a rookie, it takes you a lot longer to learn a NFL playbook than a vet, so they sit for awhile until they have it down.

After that is the part where you throw him out there too soon. The guy is out of College, most times playing in a good team, so not used to a pass rush. He comes in and if you throw him to the wolves, he'll get hit 10 times harder and 10 times more than he did in college. He'll have 1/10th the time he had in college. All that contributes to a young guy losing confidence. He'll get flustered in the pocket easily in his career, throw off his back foot, throw it too soon. Stuff like that. That's what happened to Carr and Couch.

This approach worked well with Palmer and Pennington. For some QBs, it does, for some it doesn't. There's no right way and there's no what if b/c you only get one shot. That's why QBs are the riskiest position in football. There's just as many if not more 1st round QB busts as there are booms.

PS: Also when you start a rookie from day 1, you're effectively telling the vets that you've given up on the season before it even began. You simply can't run a team that way.

manningbowl135

1) Roethlisberger is an anamoly. Most starting QBs are horrible in their rookie season. Starting them usually means you're giving up on the season and focusing on the future.

What I'm saying is there's no right way to tell what's the better way. You just said starting Peyton was the best way to develop him. I can't argue that b/c well..look how he turned out and I don't know how he would turn out if he sat. But you can look at it from the other side. Palmer, he sat and later became one of the best QBs in the league. If the Bengals had to do it again, would they start Palmer immediately? Should they? The sitting method resulted in the complete turnaround of their franchise and just like the Peyton situation, you can't say starting him would've been better b/c you don't know.

My point: Both methods have success and failure stories. There's no way to tell which one is the best way for a QB.

[QUOTE="manningbowl135"][QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="manningbowl135"]

It's not just the offense, which is a valid point. Execution is the most important part, but you can't even get to that if you don't even know how to run each play. As a rookie, it takes you a lot longer to learn a NFL playbook than a vet, so they sit for awhile until they have it down.

After that is the part where you throw him out there too soon. The guy is out of College, most times playing in a good team, so not used to a pass rush. He comes in and if you throw him to the wolves, he'll get hit 10 times harder and 10 times more than he did in college. He'll have 1/10th the time he had in college. All that contributes to a young guy losing confidence. He'll get flustered in the pocket easily in his career, throw off his back foot, throw it too soon. Stuff like that. That's what happened to Carr and Couch.

This approach worked well with Palmer and Pennington. For some QBs, it does, for some it doesn't. There's no right way and there's no what if b/c you only get one shot. That's why QBs are the riskiest position in football. There's just as many if not more 1st round QB busts as there are booms.

PS: Also when you start a rookie from day 1, you're effectively telling the vets that you've given up on the season before it even began. You simply can't run a team that way.

peacebringer

1) Roethlisberger is an anamoly. Most starting QBs are horrible in their rookie season. Starting them usually means you're giving up on the season and focusing on the future.

What I'm saying is there's no right way to tell what's the better way. You just said starting Peyton was the best way to develop him. I can't argue that b/c well..look how he turned out and I don't know how he would turn out if he sat. But you can look at it from the other side. Palmer, he sat and later became one of the best QBs in the league. If the Bengals had to do it again, would they start Palmer immediately? Should they? The sitting method resulted in the complete turnaround of their franchise and just like the Peyton situation, you can't say starting him would've been better b/c you don't know.

My point: Both methods have success and failure stories. There's no way to tell which one is the best way for a QB.

You're not making any valid arguements at all.

Just speculation. Maybe Palmer would be more developed. Maybe Manning would have 5 SB if he sat.

Rather have a rookie QB sit and learn. McNair did that years ago with the Titans(might been Oilers when he came in I forget)and was a good QB for them for that. Some are good enough mentally and physically(increased games from college with stronger opposition)to handle it, most are not. Rather see a QB watch for a year, with some can come in midway to end of season to get the reps. Russells time should be now. Quinns time is not as Anderson is doing a fine job as the starter.mrgab

Totally agree. There are rare cases where a guy can handle it but usually it's too tough right off the bat. Now, if your QB is doing very bad for a few games or more in a row, then I totally think you should throw in your rookie QB because you have nothing to lose (example: Miami with John Beck). But if your QB is doing well there is no reason to put in the rookie, it's as simple as that.

[QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="manningbowl135"][QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="manningbowl135"]

It's not just the offense, which is a valid point. Execution is the most important part, but you can't even get to that if you don't even know how to run each play. As a rookie, it takes you a lot longer to learn a NFL playbook than a vet, so they sit for awhile until they have it down.

After that is the part where you throw him out there too soon. The guy is out of College, most times playing in a good team, so not used to a pass rush. He comes in and if you throw him to the wolves, he'll get hit 10 times harder and 10 times more than he did in college. He'll have 1/10th the time he had in college. All that contributes to a young guy losing confidence. He'll get flustered in the pocket easily in his career, throw off his back foot, throw it too soon. Stuff like that. That's what happened to Carr and Couch.

This approach worked well with Palmer and Pennington. For some QBs, it does, for some it doesn't. There's no right way and there's no what if b/c you only get one shot. That's why QBs are the riskiest position in football. There's just as many if not more 1st round QB busts as there are booms.

PS: Also when you start a rookie from day 1, you're effectively telling the vets that you've given up on the season before it even began. You simply can't run a team that way.

manningbowl135

1) Roethlisberger is an anamoly. Most starting QBs are horrible in their rookie season. Starting them usually means you're giving up on the season and focusing on the future.

What I'm saying is there's no right way to tell what's the better way. You just said starting Peyton was the best way to develop him. I can't argue that b/c well..look how he turned out and I don't know how he would turn out if he sat. But you can look at it from the other side. Palmer, he sat and later became one of the best QBs in the league. If the Bengals had to do it again, would they start Palmer immediately? Should they? The sitting method resulted in the complete turnaround of their franchise and just like the Peyton situation, you can't say starting him would've been better b/c you don't know.

My point: Both methods have success and failure stories. There's no way to tell which one is the best way for a QB.

You're not making any valid arguements at all.

Just speculation. Maybe Palmer would be more developed. Maybe Manning would have 5 SB if he sat.

Manningbowl is right. And the thing with Big Ben is that he started because Maddux got injured! He wasn't even going to start yet! Sure he did a great job but the Steelers didn't put him in because they felt that Maddux gave them the best chance to win and wanted Big Ben to learn more. It's a toss up no matter what you do though which is what Manningbowl said and he's right.

Two words: Alex Smith

/thread

really good topic peacebringer ;)

coaches have their reasons and to avoid sounding rude, I'll stick to that PC perspective.All bs aside, why would you draft a player, even if he was the punter, and not actually give him play time?! :? not only is it mighty moronic, but it sends a strange message to a young star who is dying to prove their worth and instead spends a majority of time on the bench.

Maybe these young stars pulled a Lienhart and had to be taught a lesson...

I agree. Why the hell would you draft a first round QB, let alone a top 10 that you feel is not ready to play yet??? That's just dumb. I don't get it. digiram79

Because you think even if he's not ready now, he'll be great later. That's why 18 and 19 year olds are regularly drafted in the top 5 in the NBA. Potential. T-Mac toiled on the bench for a few years after coming out of high school as a 13th overall pick. Look at him now.