Do We Start A Rookie QB Right Away? (MET and please learn from it)

[pilsburypgh]

There is a lot of misconception in this thread about Atlanta from people who just don't want to give credit to Matt Ryan.

In 2007, with Harrington and Redman under center, they gave up 47 sacks.

In 2008, with Ryan under center, they gave up 17.

Everyone takes this as proof that the OL was drastically improved for Ryan.

What did they do?

They drafted Sam Baker at 21 but he only played 5 games so that doesn't have a big effect.

They plugged in a 34 LT, they kept the same LG (a 2nd year 2nd round draft pick), went with the same C who was 32, plugged in a new RG (a 2nd year undrafted player), and kept the same RT (also a 2nd year guy, also undrafted).

So the big "upgrades" were an old LT, and an undrafted RG with little game experience. The other guys were the same ones they had in the year before that gave up 47 sacks.

So how exactly did they build a solid OL in front of Ryan?

And if everyone calls this "building a solid OL to let a rookie QB succeed", what makes you think we can't do a similar switcheroo if we draft a qb at 4?

I agree, Usually its JC fans that somehow seem to blaim every rookies success on their team and never give the rookie QB any credit. To JC fans the QB position is not that important at all.

[pilsburypgh]

I agree. We don't need to put the rookie QB in until the line can protect him. With no protection they will end up like Ramsey.

Lol maybe ramsey wasnt a franchise QB has that ever dawned on you.

[SKINSFAN87]

I would like to see the rookie compete with the presumed veteran starter all the way through training camp and the preseason games. I would want him playing with the starters and not the career backups. If the rook does well and beats out the veteran, than I would start him right away. That's the only way I would play the rookie qb, if he can be out the veteran, otherwise sit him for a year or two and let him develop that way.

[Aireskoi]

You play the guy when he's ready to be out on the field. The Shanahans will know when a young QB will be ready to run their offense. You play the guy who gives you the best chance to win.

It's different for each guy.

[polywog999]

While you definitely have bust possibiity with the first round, the greatest likelihood for a 3rd or fourth round QB having success is almost nil. Often, you are lucky to get a 2nd string QB out of that...

http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2009/11/18/1163525/first-round-quarterbacks-not-among

First round QB is the worst kind of a crap shoot.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/470454/nfl_quarterback_drafts_more_bust_than.html?cat=14

[terpfan44]

Soooooo if we were to draft a QB with the #4 pick, that automatically means we don't address the O-line in free agency or the rest of the draft pics???

there are enough free agent O-linemen on the market this season from Denver and Houston playing in Kubiak/Shanahan's system to make this team rock right away

[wilco_holland]

Depends on what you have and what you want.

I would personally just start him right away, he learns more from playing the game then studying the game. Unless he really doesn't get a ***** of the off., then you should start a vet.

I rather have a young QB that is learning but makes mistakes and loses the first 4 games then, winn the first 4 games with a veteran.

Let the rookie trow 20+ INT, he will learn from that and come back stronger the next year (or be a bust and keep trowing INT).

The young QB needs to be the future of the team, let the future start today. Not tomorrow or next year, no today.

Only probleme could be the o-line, the rooky probaly needs to run for his life to not get sacked. So with that in mind Tebow would makes sence, he is the only QB who can handle the big hits. Bradford, Pike, McCoy and Clausen aren't going to survive a hole season of hits and sacks.

[Perky72]

I dislike sitting top QB picks. It seems to work out more rarely than it's simply a waste of time and money. Steve McNair worked out, but he may've been good if he'd started off the bat. Most other times the QB is behind a vet who arguably gives the team a great chance. But then guys like JaMarcus Russell--why sit him? If he's too terrible to start for a year or two, don't draft the guy.

And just because a starting top QB pick may struggle doesn't mean he's going to continue to struggle. Nor does sitting him a year or two mean he's not going to struggle. Sitting him just seems to delay the learning process, and he's either going to be a good QB or bad QB regardless.

It's particularly vexing when bad teams do this. You get a top pick because you suck, and think you have the luxury of sitting that pick, taking a year or two off his playing-life, because you want to groom him? It doesn't make much sense. QBs aren't some sacred reincarnation of a buddha that has to pass a test before you can trust in them. Just throw them into the mix like every other position player, they'll earn that trust with their play, or earn further years of developing their skills.

Protecting the QB doesn't make much sense either. Outside of a career-ending injury, who cares if he gets hit? It also arguably has an upside--if the QB can learn to still make plays under severe pressure, or to ignore big hits and increase his toughness, that'll make him that much better when he finally does get a good O-line. And even when he has a good O-line, on the plays where it still gets beat. He won't be a deer in the headlights after learning what to do in those situations.

[Perky72]

Really, the only concern of mine with throwing a rookie qb in, is having him get sacked and lose all confidence like David Carr. I am no scout but having a qb lose confidence because of a lot of sacks is more mental than anything and I think you should be able to tell if a qb has the mental fortitude to withstand it before drafting him. For every Carr or Ramsey, you have someone who overcomes the sacks (i don't feel like looking up stats for examples but there has to be someone right?)

I know your point is realistic, but I can't help just thinking the QB should suck it up. If he's going to get a head-case from being sacked he's likely to be a bust anyway, and the sooner you know the better. Plus we don't do this for other positions--do we sit a top 10 pick WR a whole year because the QB is still tossing balls in dangerous spots over the middle?

Other positions have to either deal with getting hit or wash out, and pampering QBs in particular by riding the bench a year doesn't seem very wise. It also may give them a false impression, that they can only produce well if they have great protection. And it gives fans (and coaches) a whole other year of wondering whether the guy is actually going to show some talent or not.

For an example of a rookie QB that had a pretty lousy statistical season behind a mediocre O-line, but had the opportunity to show amazing determination, toughness and leadership (and promise for the future) because he was starting, Matt Stafford:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVEN74CAHqk

[mbws]

Sit and learn for the first half of the season then start the second half. It's the best of both.

[Perky72]

Sit and learn for the first half of the season then start the second half. It's the best of both.

I wouldn't mind that too much. But it's not necessarily the best of both, it's possibly a wasted half-season or whole season if the rookie turns out to be better (better meaning giving the team a greater chance of winning) than the vet.

[kvarlo12000]

with the payscale now you have to start them right away.

[GIBBS LIVES]

There is little doubt that the new QB will have to sit the first year. And that is the way most QB were groomed back in the day. Marino's, Mannings, Ryan's, Flacco's are the exeception and not the rule.

Draft Bradford, let him sit, let the O-line develope.

[Laxpunk2006]

I'm a little late in the game for this thread but I'll take a shot anyway. It depends a lot on how the coaches feel not only about the QB but the rest of the roster. If he doesn't seem mentally or physically prepared to start from day 1 we don't want him to lose his confidence or get shell shocked. If our line is still in shambles and we lack a running game or solid recieving threats we don't want him taking the beating guys like David Carr or Patrick Ramsey had to. Those kind of seasons can ruin careers. The majority of young QB's who are able to step in and have success early are being drafted by teams with a good supporting cast. NYJ and Baltimore both have top tier offensive lines and running games. Even Atlanta had a great running game to go along with a solid line. Unless Washington figures out these other areas I think it would be best for the kid to sit back, collect a fat paycheck, and learn from the sideline.

[GIBBS LIVES]

It's the safest way. I'd hate for him to get shell shocked the way David Carr did.

[darklight1216]

There is little doubt that the new QB will have to sit the first year. And that is the way most QB were groomed back in the day. Marino's, Mannings, Ryan's, Flacco's are the exeception and not the rule.

Draft Bradford, let him sit, let the O-line develope.

It's not the exception any more. Four rookies have helped their teams get to the playoffs in recent years. Since this is a copy-cat league; you're going to see it more an more.

Roethlisberger, Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, and Sanchez outnumber Rodgers, other Manning, and Rivers.

[TotalRecall]

A long time ago I read an article where a prominent GM had his staff evaluate what characteristics the top 30 NFL QBs in the history of the game had in common.

The list read like this:

1. Toughness

2. Instincts

3. Accuracy

4. Work Ethic

5. Maturity

Work Ethic is definitely the key to the rest.

[36HAMMER]

if we can get a good and solid oline togethr and Shananhan is comfortable with it then by all means.but usually i like a year to ride the pine so the offense is understodd and theres not much thought about the plays,just the plaing speed.also is depends on the qb selected as well.but if our oline is suspect then to put a rookie qb in there would do more damage than good.get the oline fixed then the qb,we made this mistake under casserly when we selected Schuler instead of an olineman or trading down.he did it again down in texas with thetexans when he took Carr and never got the oline fixed.if you select a qb with the expressed thought that he become your franchise qb.then you had better have a solid oline to protect him ,too many times we have seen these young qb's thrown to the sharks like chum and devoured.never to become the qb's they could have.aafter all the punishmen they are shell shocked and looking for defensive players instead of qr's or te's.Schuler was on thoug i admit he wasn't any good to begin with.there was another "Ramsey.better to get a journeyman qb to lead the team as you build the olien than to sacrfice your qb.alot of pundits and people are saying the Skins will take Bradford,he's a smallish qb with an already damaged throwing shoulder.that scares me off if i am a head coach.If they select a qb with the 4th pick they cannot i repeat cannot miss on him or as we all know it will set this franchise back even further.Unless Shanahan is dead set againt Campbell and soo crazy about one of the qb's coming out then either take an olineman withthe fourth pick or trade down and get enough pciks to get a whole young line to work with as they grow togehre like the skins did in 1981.

[RandyHolt]

It depends on the makeup of the rest of the team. If we have no chance for the playoffs, toss the kid into the fire. Nature vs Nurture, Nature always wins.

Speaking of learning, why havent mods learned to prevent users creating threads by limiting it to someone with lets say, over 1000 posts. And if they make a duplicate thread or two, ban them from new thread starting for another 1000 posts. How many mets will it take.

[Commander Adama]

If we did go that route of drafting a QB I would rather him sit at least till we have a reliable O line so we know he won't die back there, especially a QB with a history of injury like Bradford

Couldn't agree more. You could ruin a Quarterback behind the line that we had. That being said, I think it was a testament to Jason Campbell to walk away with his life. While I am not sold on JC, I do not think he is crap either. So, no we couldn't do that to Bradford.

[Warhead36]

Some QBs can handle it. Some can't. Bradford seems like the type who you could play early on and it wouldn't really affect him mentally if he struggled. Clausen on the other hand seems like the type who'd be best served sitting and waiting.

[mcarey032]

So, lets fast forward past the 2010 draft. Lets say we've gotten rid of Campbell. Lets say the Redskins draft a rookie QB, and it's the right QB, one that we all like, one Shanny likes, etc.

We obviously want him to be the QB of the franchise for a long time coming, so here comes my question. Do we start the rookie QB right away? and hope that he'll be like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez(depending on who you ask), or any other greats, and have success under center because he is still fresh and in the routine of football. Or do we sit him and make him the backup while we groom him and train him to start, 2-3 seasons down the line like we did wit Campbell? The only time i've seen this work wonders is when there is a living legend grooming the rookie like Favre did Rodgers, like Bledsoe did Brady, etc.

So I'd like your guys opinion, which method is better, and which method do we want to take if we draft a rookie QB this year? Start the rookie fresh out of college and training camp? Or sit him and groom him until he is ready?

-Chief

What running game are we going to have to keep a rookie QB, much less a veteran QB upright? You have to have a line to experience a modicum of success for a rookie QB in the NFL. The Redskins don't have that type of line in place and a rookie is going to get killed back there attempting to learn how to play in the NFL. Shanahan and Allen are smarter than that. They are going to build a line and then worry about the QB, whether it is a rookie or Jason Campbell. My tendency is to lean to keeping Campbell and then they can draft a Colt McCoy or someone like that lower in the second round

[texasthunder]

:DI will give it the obliged "what ever Shanahan thinks" reponse.

But if we did draft a qb at #4, and set up our line with some good lineman, they dont have to be pro bowlers, just good solid guys, then I would not be opposed to starting him. That is provided he won the job in an open qb competiion during training camp.

I dont think he should get the start just because he was the #4 pick and making 30 mil.

I looked back at the Jets, since they have a rookie qb.

there ol is as follows:

RT-Woody 32 yrs old, 2nd year with the Jets

RG- Moore 29 yrs old, 7 years with Jets

C- Mangold 26 yrs old, 4 yrs with Jets

LG Fanaca 33 yrs old, 2nd yr with Jets

LT Fergusen 26 yrs old, 4 yrs with Jets

So they really dont have a very young line.

BTW- they also run a 3-4 defense, which was #1 this past year.

DE= Ellis, 32 yrs old

NT= Pohua, 30 yrs old

DE= Douglas, 32 yrs old.

Again, some "experienced" lineman.

So if we could pick up some beef for the line, it would be safe to say that the rookie qb could survive and learn alot.

[Gregpeck99]

No way our expensive rookie QB sits ... get him in there from day 1 a la Mark Sanchez. Shanny will protect him with a scheme and new beef. I want the Skins to have a brand new identity under the Shan ... the old one sucks.

[texasthunder]

No way our expensive rookie QB sits ... get him in there from day 1 a la Mark Sanchez. Shanny will protect him with a scheme and new beef. I want the Skins to have a brand new identity under the Shan ... the old one sucks.

While I agree with you, I dont know if Shanahan will.

He drafted Cutler in the first round, but didnt start him till December.