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

Visionman

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2017
Posts:
7,995
Liked Posts:
4,451
Exactly...

Watson had a garbage OL his first year (actually most of his years starting). Sage (a veteran QB) was starting and couldn’t operate behind that porous OL. They put Watson in behind the same OL (his first NFL game) & he never looked back. I’m not saying every good QB will have the success Watson did behind a trash OL but they will still make plays & not be ruined (unless injured permanently). The Bears have always drafted the QBs that need everything around them to be perfect (which means they are just game managers tops).
Watson’s success came basically with the “chuck and duck” strategy to the best WR in the game at that time. Like Stafford did for much of his career in Detroit with Calvin Johnson. Once that great WR was taken away (even though he still had decent WRs left) he was nowhere near as good.
 

MikeDitkaPolishSausage

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 12, 2013
Posts:
8,559
Liked Posts:
7,713
Location:
Black Rainbow’s Grandma’s house.
Watson’s success came basically with the “chuck and duck” strategy to the best WR in the game at that time. Like Stafford did for much of his career in Detroit with Calvin Johnson. Once that great WR was taken away (even though he still had decent WRs left) he was nowhere near as good.
Ummm Watson had the best year of his career in 2020 without Hopkins.
 

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
35,563
Liked Posts:
43,535
Watson’s success came basically with the “chuck and duck” strategy to the best WR in the game at that time. Like Stafford did for much of his career in Detroit with Calvin Johnson. Once that great WR was taken away (even though he still had decent WRs left) he was nowhere near as good.
This is what happens when you evaluate QBs solely based on wins.

Are the Trubisexuals incapable of objectivity?
 

BearClaw55

SELL THE TEAM
Donator
Joined:
Aug 13, 2010
Posts:
2,081
Liked Posts:
1,782
Watson’s success came basically with the “chuck and duck” strategy to the best WR in the game at that time. Like Stafford did for much of his career in Detroit with Calvin Johnson. Once that great WR was taken away (even though he still had decent WRs left) he was nowhere near as good.

Bull shit!
 

Hbkrusso

Objective Fanboy
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
17,627
Liked Posts:
13,260
Location:
wv
There's lots of talk about how starting a rookie QB their first year can ruin them, so I figured I'd take a look at the QBs drafted in the first round the last 20 years to take a look and see if that was really the case. I only included first rounders since they are the guys that expected to make an immediate impact on the team. It would be expected that a QB taken in the 2nd round or later would take time to develop. When I call a player a bust, it's because they were not able to put together a single successful season and/or were out of the league in a hurry. Even though players like Trubisky, Bradford, etc. are considered busts, they still put together at least one productive season.

Here's a list of guys that were day one starters for their team. I also included Watson because he played in game 1, even though he didn't start.
Joe Burrow
Justin Herbert
Kyler Murray
Baker Mayfield
Josh Allen
Deshaun Watson
Carson Wentz
Cam Newton
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Ben Roethelisberger
Ryan Tannehill
Jameis Winston
Sam Bradford
Sam Darnold
David Carr
Marcus Mariota
Brandon Weeden
Kyle Boller
EJ Manuel
From this list, 12 of them had good careers albeit the careers of Murray, Herbert, and Burrow are short, they started out well and don't really see a reason why they will fizzle out. Bradford had his career derailed by injury, but was productive when he played. Tannehill didn't start out great, but did develop after a few years. The jury is still out on Darnold, IMO. He had issues with injuries, had a poor start, but flashed productivity. Winston is a mixed bag: great numbers but also lots of mistakes. Carr didn't play like a #1 overall pick, but managed to stick around in the NFL for a while. Mariota produced, but below expectations. Weeden and Boller just didn't pan out. Many considered Manuel a reach in the 1st round in a terrible QB class of 2013. So out of 20 QBs, 12 had good careers, 5 stuck in the NFL but played below expectations, and 3 were flat out busts.

Here's a list of guys that did not start the majority of games their rookie year. Some may have sat out the whole year, while others came in towards the end of the season.
Patrick Mahommes
Aaron Rodgers
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Alex Smith
Michael Vick
Jay Cutler
Chad Pennington
Rex Grossman
Jason Campbell
Jake Locker
Tim Tebow
Paxton Lynch
Johnny Manziel
J'Marcus Russell
Brady Quinn
JP Losman
Jordan Love
At the top of the list you have some all pro players. a handful of decent QBs, and then a list of colossal busts. The jury is still out on Love, but reports don't speak well of his development. The guys at the top of the list had the benefit of being behind great QBs like Favre, Warner, Smith, and Brees. Although not all-pro, Kitna had a decent year for CIN while Palmer sat on the bench and watched. Smith took a while to hit his stride after it looked like he hit an early ceiling. Vick changed the possibilities of the QB position. Cutler put up some numbers and flashed, while Pennington was a good game manager. Grossman did get to a Superbowl before fizzling out, and Campbell flashed some promise. The rest were busts. I know Tebow won a playoff game, but I put that on God and the running game, not Tebow. That's the only way his awful throws could ever result in a win. From this list of 19 you have 7 QBs that had great careers, 4 that were mediocre to decent, and 8 that were flat out busts.

Here's a list of QBs that started the majority of games their rookie year, but were not the day 1 starter.
Andrew Luck
Matthew Stafford
Lamar Jackson
Jared Goff
Vince Young
Robert Griffin
Daniel Jones
Tua Tagovailoa
Teddy Bridgewater
Mitchell Trubisky
Blake Bortles
Byron Leftwich
Matt Leinart
Christian Ponder
Joey Harrington
Patrick Ramsey
Dwayne Haskins
Josh Rosen
There's quite a mixed bag in this group. You have some productive QBs and guys that have won some games at the top, and some mediocre ones in the middle, and some busts at the bottom. Luck and Stafford put up numbers consistently, while Jackson is a play maker, and Goff took his team to a Superbowl. Young and Griffin had some stellar seasons, but fizzled. Jury is still out on Jones and Tagovailoa. After those guys, you have a bunch of mediocre QBs that flashed some potential but never could put together any consistent success. Bridgewater, Trubisky, and Bortles all had one decent season, but not much else. Bridgewater looked promising until injury, and Trubisky until regression. But to their credit, they are still in the league. Leftwich stuck around in the league for a while, but did not live up to his first round billing. The rest wound up being busts. So out of this list of 18 QBs, you have 3 good QBs, 3 that had inconsistent careers, 6 that were mediocre or jury is still out on, and 6 busts.

I know I'm making generalizations, and not taking every factor into account. But, I wanted to get a general feel for whether history shows that starting a QB in their first year will actually ruin them. So, by looking at these QBs, the group that had the most busts were those that did not start the majority of games their rookie year, followed by those that did start the majority of games but did not start day 1. The least number of busts were those that were day one starters (3). The group that had the most productive players was those that started day one. Even if you exclude the young careers of Murray, Burrow, and Herbert, they still have the most productive players. In terms of quality, those that sat for the majority of the season wins. It's hard to argue with Mahommes, Rodgers, Manning, Rivers, and Palmer. But, that group also has the most busts and mediocre players. Those that were not day 1 starters, but started the majority of games their rookie year happen to be the most mixed bag. It has some good QBs, but a lot of inconsistent careers, and unmet expectations as well. Another item to note is that the majority of QB busts that were day one starters or started the majority of games their rookie year were drafted over 10 years ago.

Some conclusions I've made:
- Sitting on the bench and learning the game in and of itself does not contribute significantly to the success of a QB.
- Sitting on the bench behind a good QB, team and coaching staff gets better success. The QBs that had that benefit went on to have good careers, while those that didn't busted.
- It's more about the player than when they started their first game. More of those that were deemed NFL ready on day 1 went on to have better careers than those that didn't. Quite often those things that made a player not ready continued to follow them throughout their career. Sitting on the bench did not help with the maturity of Russell and Manziel, the weak arm of Quinn, the mechanics of Tebow, or the cluelessness of Lynch.
- The QBs that made their first start during the season usually were on losing teams, which probably affected their initial success or failure. I think that's why that group has mixed results.
- The college game has produced more NFL ready QBs in the last 10 years than the 10 before it. Except for 2013, that QB draft absolutely sucked.
- The number of QBs that succeeded after being thrown into the fire exceed those that were ruined by it.
- If Justin Fields shows in training camp, he should be the day 1 starter.
Nope they should keep him on the bench for at least 5 years while they rebuild the team
Game set match
Thats how ya win 25d chess boyos im 200 moves ahead of all of yall
 

run and shoot

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
16,007
Liked Posts:
3,263
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
What if not starting him early hinders his growth?
More QBs that sat out the season or a majority of the season busted than those that started day 1.
I will admit that Carr playing behind that turnstyle in HOU made him see ghosts, and affected his ceiling. But, I think because cases like this stick out in our minds, we apply it to more situations than there actually are. Guys like Tannehill and Winston had their question marks when they came into the league, and never seemed to develop out of them. Not sure if a season of sitting on the bench would have made Tannehill's arm stronger, but it may have helped with Winston's decision making. It would be interesting to see what he could do after sitting behind Brees.


A lot of whether a rookie Qb succeeds is based on him getting decent coaching. The next component is his own intangibles i.e. leadership, becoming a student of the game, the burning desire to win and improve as a Qb. Yes and team talent i.e. OL.
I wouldn't mind Fields sitting, then being eased in slowly.
You mentioned Winston, he had a eye problem back then ( which has been corrected).
 

jive

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 10, 2014
Posts:
1,887
Liked Posts:
2,915
It really does come down to the player and coaches. Sitting a rookie QB in and of itself doesn't ensure their success. If that was the case, there wouldn't be so many busts from that group and every team would do it. I think because pundits see the massive success of guys that sat out a year like Mahommes and Rodgers, it really sticks out in your mind and makes you think it happens more than it actually does. The truth is that more often that not, those guys bust.

It's really just a matter if they are ready to play and have the tools. Sitting on the bench won't make a weak arm stronger, a slow QB faster, or a dumb brain smarter. I think the reason why there are more QBs that had success as day 1 starters and less busts is because those guys were ready for the NFL. The reason why so many bust even when they spend considerable time on the bench is because they weren't ready for the NFL in training camp, and still not ready a year later.

Sitting and waiting doesn't always motivate, especially when the one waiting in the wings is vastly superior. When you don't utilize the best on your team, not only will it demotivate the best, but all the rest. If Justin Fields blows them away in training camp and we don't start him day 1, it will send a terrible message to the locker room. When politics or philosophy trump talent and ability, a lack of motivation is inevitable.

If Justin Fields is to be the future of the franchise, he needs to take snaps with the 1s. It's crucial for his development and for the offense to gel. Having a QB come in mid season without reps with the 1s after a failing QB with the pressure to turn the season around can affect their development as well.
 

Adipost

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Sep 28, 2014
Posts:
8,616
Liked Posts:
10,212
Location:
Chicago, IL
A lot of whether a rookie Qb succeeds is based on him getting decent coaching. The next component is his own intangibles i.e. leadership, becoming a student of the game, the burning desire to win and improve as a Qb. Yes and team talent i.e. OL.
I wouldn't mind Fields sitting, then being eased in slowly.
You mentioned Winston, he had a eye problem back then ( which has been corrected).

LMAO. Winston wore contact lenses off the field since before college. He just preferred not wearing them during games. If it actually made any difference at all on the field, if he couldn’t see his receivers or the coverage, he would have just worn them for games. College and pro. Or Bruce Arians would have forcefully put them into Winston’s eyes himself. You discounting all of his issues due to this is hilarious.
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,241
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
There's lots of talk about how starting a rookie QB their first year can ruin them, so I figured I'd take a look at the QBs drafted in the first round the last 20 years to take a look and see if that was really the case. I only included first rounders since they are the guys that expected to make an immediate impact on the team. It would be expected that a QB taken in the 2nd round or later would take time to develop. When I call a player a bust, it's because they were not able to put together a single successful season and/or were out of the league in a hurry. Even though players like Trubisky, Bradford, etc. are considered busts, they still put together at least one productive season.

Here's a list of guys that were day one starters for their team. I also included Watson because he played in game 1, even though he didn't start.
Joe Burrow
Justin Herbert
Kyler Murray
Baker Mayfield
Josh Allen
Deshaun Watson
Carson Wentz
Cam Newton
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Ben Roethelisberger
Ryan Tannehill
Jameis Winston
Sam Bradford
Sam Darnold
David Carr
Marcus Mariota
Brandon Weeden
Kyle Boller
EJ Manuel
From this list, 12 of them had good careers albeit the careers of Murray, Herbert, and Burrow are short, they started out well and don't really see a reason why they will fizzle out. Bradford had his career derailed by injury, but was productive when he played. Tannehill didn't start out great, but did develop after a few years. The jury is still out on Darnold, IMO. He had issues with injuries, had a poor start, but flashed productivity. Winston is a mixed bag: great numbers but also lots of mistakes. Carr didn't play like a #1 overall pick, but managed to stick around in the NFL for a while. Mariota produced, but below expectations. Weeden and Boller just didn't pan out. Many considered Manuel a reach in the 1st round in a terrible QB class of 2013. So out of 20 QBs, 12 had good careers, 5 stuck in the NFL but played below expectations, and 3 were flat out busts.

Here's a list of guys that did not start the majority of games their rookie year. Some may have sat out the whole year, while others came in towards the end of the season.
Patrick Mahommes
Aaron Rodgers
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Alex Smith
Michael Vick
Jay Cutler
Chad Pennington
Rex Grossman
Jason Campbell
Jake Locker
Tim Tebow
Paxton Lynch
Johnny Manziel
J'Marcus Russell
Brady Quinn
JP Losman
Jordan Love
At the top of the list you have some all pro players. a handful of decent QBs, and then a list of colossal busts. The jury is still out on Love, but reports don't speak well of his development. The guys at the top of the list had the benefit of being behind great QBs like Favre, Warner, Smith, and Brees. Although not all-pro, Kitna had a decent year for CIN while Palmer sat on the bench and watched. Smith took a while to hit his stride after it looked like he hit an early ceiling. Vick changed the possibilities of the QB position. Cutler put up some numbers and flashed, while Pennington was a good game manager. Grossman did get to a Superbowl before fizzling out, and Campbell flashed some promise. The rest were busts. I know Tebow won a playoff game, but I put that on God and the running game, not Tebow. That's the only way his awful throws could ever result in a win. From this list of 19 you have 7 QBs that had great careers, 4 that were mediocre to decent, and 8 that were flat out busts.

Here's a list of QBs that started the majority of games their rookie year, but were not the day 1 starter.
Andrew Luck
Matthew Stafford
Lamar Jackson
Jared Goff
Vince Young
Robert Griffin
Daniel Jones
Tua Tagovailoa
Teddy Bridgewater
Mitchell Trubisky
Blake Bortles
Byron Leftwich
Matt Leinart
Christian Ponder
Joey Harrington
Patrick Ramsey
Dwayne Haskins
Josh Rosen
There's quite a mixed bag in this group. You have some productive QBs and guys that have won some games at the top, and some mediocre ones in the middle, and some busts at the bottom. Luck and Stafford put up numbers consistently, while Jackson is a play maker, and Goff took his team to a Superbowl. Young and Griffin had some stellar seasons, but fizzled. Jury is still out on Jones and Tagovailoa. After those guys, you have a bunch of mediocre QBs that flashed some potential but never could put together any consistent success. Bridgewater, Trubisky, and Bortles all had one decent season, but not much else. Bridgewater looked promising until injury, and Trubisky until regression. But to their credit, they are still in the league. Leftwich stuck around in the league for a while, but did not live up to his first round billing. The rest wound up being busts. So out of this list of 18 QBs, you have 3 good QBs, 3 that had inconsistent careers, 6 that were mediocre or jury is still out on, and 6 busts.

I know I'm making generalizations, and not taking every factor into account. But, I wanted to get a general feel for whether history shows that starting a QB in their first year will actually ruin them. So, by looking at these QBs, the group that had the most busts were those that did not start the majority of games their rookie year, followed by those that did start the majority of games but did not start day 1. The least number of busts were those that were day one starters (3). The group that had the most productive players was those that started day one. Even if you exclude the young careers of Murray, Burrow, and Herbert, they still have the most productive players. In terms of quality, those that sat for the majority of the season wins. It's hard to argue with Mahommes, Rodgers, Manning, Rivers, and Palmer. But, that group also has the most busts and mediocre players. Those that were not day 1 starters, but started the majority of games their rookie year happen to be the most mixed bag. It has some good QBs, but a lot of inconsistent careers, and unmet expectations as well. Another item to note is that the majority of QB busts that were day one starters or started the majority of games their rookie year were drafted over 10 years ago.

Some conclusions I've made:
- Sitting on the bench and learning the game in and of itself does not contribute significantly to the success of a QB.
- Sitting on the bench behind a good QB, team and coaching staff gets better success. The QBs that had that benefit went on to have good careers, while those that didn't busted.
- It's more about the player than when they started their first game. More of those that were deemed NFL ready on day 1 went on to have better careers than those that didn't. Quite often those things that made a player not ready continued to follow them throughout their career. Sitting on the bench did not help with the maturity of Russell and Manziel, the weak arm of Quinn, the mechanics of Tebow, or the cluelessness of Lynch.
- The QBs that made their first start during the season usually were on losing teams, which probably affected their initial success or failure. I think that's why that group has mixed results.
- The college game has produced more NFL ready QBs in the last 10 years than the 10 before it. Except for 2013, that QB draft absolutely sucked.
- The number of QBs that succeeded after being thrown into the fire exceed those that were ruined by it.
- If Justin Fields shows in training camp, he should be the day 1 starter.
As you stated you can't make generalizations that mean much from this.

The main thing wrong with using this data is "selection bias" in how it was acquired.

Namely, that the groups were self selecting often based on skill. Meaning that a day 1 starter like Peyton Manning was a day 1 starter because of certain traits that then also led them to be successful. It's likely the day 1 group started out higher in team investment, initial skill, and traits of talent.

We might say it's a good omen if Fields shows the abilities to learn plsybook, beat competition, and lead team on day one though.

Whether it's good for the QB or not is another story and harder to ascertain from this data.
 

baselman1974

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Sep 26, 2014
Posts:
3,038
Liked Posts:
3,024
Location:
Palos Hills, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
LMAO. Winston wore contact lenses off the field since before college. He just preferred not wearing them during games. If it actually made any difference at all on the field, if he couldn’t see his receivers or the coverage, he would have just worn them for games. College and pro. Or Bruce Arians would have forcefully put them into Winston’s eyes himself. You discounting all of his issues due to this is hilarious.
It depends what kind of contact lenses Winston wears. If it’s the soft contact lens, He can wear those no problems, even if they pop out, they should have a box full them to replace.

No if he wears the hard gas permeable ones, then Winston will have problems. Sweat alone makes wearing them unbearable unless he has wetting solution when he gets on sidelines. Same with windy days and lots swrling debris. Those days wants me to rip my eyes from my sockets. Not only that, those lenses are $40 each one. Winston probably buys them in bulk because they pop out often. Good luck finding your lenses on a football field.

IUeyedoc probably has more information about lenses than I do. I’m just going on my own personal experiences.
 

run and shoot

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
16,007
Liked Posts:
3,263
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
A lot of whether a rookie Qb succeeds is based on him getting decent coaching. The next component is his own intangibles i.e. leadership, becoming a student of the game, the burning desire to win and improve as a Qb. Yes and team talent i.e. OL.
I wouldn't mind Fields sitting, then being eased in slowly.
You mentioned Winston, he had a eye problem back then ( which has been corrected).




LMAO. Winston wore contact lenses off the field since before college. He just preferred not wearing them during games. If it actually made any difference at all on the field, if he couldn’t see his receivers or the coverage, he would have just worn them for games. College and pro. Or Bruce Arians would have forcefully put them into Winston’s eyes himself. You discounting all of his issues due to this is hilarious.

You never played Qb or you'd know how important depth perception is when throwing down field. I have other articles (in addition to the one below) from eye specialists on the severity of nearsightedness.

Jameis Winston shares how his vision has improved since ...




Also read baselman1974's post>>>#73
 

KittiesKorner

CCS Donator
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jan 4, 2011
Posts:
46,065
Liked Posts:
40,792
Location:
Chicago
I suppose I meant just quote the post you want to quote instead of linking to it. Makes for a better user experience
 

KittiesKorner

CCS Donator
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jan 4, 2011
Posts:
46,065
Liked Posts:
40,792
Location:
Chicago
I mean, yeah, tbh, just quote the quote, don't link to it. I already have 74 tabs open and it's hard to navigate back.
 

run and shoot

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
16,007
Liked Posts:
3,263
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
I mean, yeah, tbh, just quote the quote, don't link to it. I already have 74 tabs open and it's hard to navigate back.


Lol....they changed the format. I can only use one quote. It's harder to put additional quotes in a post.
If had more I thought it would be easier to click the post link, see the what was said, then click the back arrow.....and go back. Are u on phone or desktop?
 

Top