Rookie Linebacker, Rookie QB: Who''d be the bigger bust?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by enigmatics, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. enigmatics

    enigmatics Go get me a juice box!

    Joined:
    Mar 2004
    Messages:
    7,258
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's an interesting topic.......... Who would be the bigger bust, a rookie linebacker or a rookie quarterback? Let's say that their drafted in the Top 5 or Top 10.

    Personally, it's not even close. Given the massive importance inherently and blatantly placed upon the QB postion, they are by far and away the bigger busts.............this barring that it's not a No.1 pick. Any No.1 pick who doesn't make it is a massive bust.

    This argument was brought to me by another poster in a thread about what we should do with our pick and the LB Derrick Johnson of Texas and QB's Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers were some of the names thrown around.

    So second question I guess, who'd be the bigger bust if they failed........Smith, Rodgers, or Johnson?
     
  2. Nublar7

    Nublar7 Retired Finheaven VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 2003
    Messages:
    35,677
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I would say Linebacker. QBs, even top picks, take a few years to develop.
     
  3. enigmatics

    enigmatics Go get me a juice box!

    Joined:
    Mar 2004
    Messages:
    7,258
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow, really?
     
  4. NIMA

    NIMA Starter

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rookie quarterback, there is just more pressure on them and more for them to live up to. The quarterback basically has to be one of THE best players on the team. In addition, there is much more focus on them for having a mediocre game than if a LB was. I'd say the rookie QB is easily the higher bust in the probability charts.
     
  5. enigmatics

    enigmatics Go get me a juice box!

    Joined:
    Mar 2004
    Messages:
    7,258
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm with you.
     
  6. NaboCane

    NaboCane I'm on my comma

    Joined:
    May 2004
    Messages:
    24,268
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd say they're about equal.

    Think about it: we remember the Aundray Bruces and Brian Bosworths right alongside the Ryan Leafs and Rick Mirers, don't we?

    Maybe you just hit on two of the highest-profile positions in this discussion.
     
  7. enigmatics

    enigmatics Go get me a juice box!

    Joined:
    Mar 2004
    Messages:
    7,258
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that in determing the bigger bust, you have to look at the magnitude of the position. That's why I believe QB would be a bigger bust.
     
  8. rafael

    rafael Hall Of Famer

    Joined:
    Aug 2002
    Messages:
    6,248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My comment was specific to those players, not generalities about the positions. I mentioned specific traits that are predictive of success that those players possessed. If you want to know which player is under more pressure, it's the QB. But pressure doesn't equal bust to me.
     
  9. Jaj

    Jaj What you say?

    Joined:
    Jan 2003
    Messages:
    13,149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Derrick Johnson probably won't be a bust. Outside linebacker relies far too much on talent to produce too many busts.
     
  10. fear-the-d

    fear-the-d Pro Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 2005
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    top 10 drafted rookie linebackers are most probibly starting top 10 QBs will be on back up for alot of the year. Look at eli manning. It has taken hm time to develop but he has and he is going towards being a great QB
     
  11. HybridPHIN 23

    HybridPHIN 23 the N E W Dolphilbins

    Joined:
    Aug 2004
    Messages:
    4,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the long run... no one forgets a QB bust
     
  12. finsnchips

    finsnchips 2005 FinHeaven GM League Champion!!

    Joined:
    Jan 2004
    Messages:
    5,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On top of that look at the impact that Jon Vilma and DJ Williams had on their respective teams last year.
     
  13. painnotpleasure

    painnotpleasure Hall Of Famer

    Joined:
    Aug 2004
    Messages:
    6,955
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Definitely Rookie Quarterback.
     
  14. arsenal

    arsenal Beastin'

    Joined:
    Jul 2004
    Messages:
    8,477
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    anyone picked that high usually will be considered a bust pretty easy if they dont succeed... but a qb def gets it more than any other position, mostly an offensive guy will get it more than a defensive guy...
    who you remember as a bust more ryan leaf or andre wadsworth? they were picked 2, and 3 in that 98 draft... but leaf is the one we remember eventhough they both were busts...
     
  15. finswin56

    finswin56 Guest

    :yeahthat:
     
  16. Spicy Henne

    Spicy Henne Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2003
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think position has anything to do with it. Any time you take a player as high as #2 overall, and give them the large contract that goes with it, either that player becomes a great asset to your team, or that player fails and sets your team back a season or two in the process
     
  17. enigmatics

    enigmatics Go get me a juice box!

    Joined:
    Mar 2004
    Messages:
    7,258
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree due to the nature and massive importance of the QB position in the NFL.
     
  18. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 2002
    Messages:
    48,995
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the way this question is phrased, because of the use of the word ROOKIE, the bigger bust would most DEFINITELY be a linebacker, not a quarterback. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY, expects a rookie QB to do well and lead his team to a championship. Even Peyton, who threw for more TDs I think than any rookie QB ever, he also threw a ton of interceptions and his team went 3-13 his rookie year. Ben Roethlisberger clearly fell off in his production toward the end of the season, and in the end, they won the Jets game despite him rather than because of him, and they lost the Pats game because they depended on him too much.

    On the other hand, if you get a linebacker with the #2 pick in the draft and he doesn't even crack the starting lineup as a rookie? That may be considered the biggest bust in NFL history, at least for one full season it would be. We're talking Tony Mandarich bust.

    I mean, do you consider Phil Rivers to be a bust? He hasn't played a down of meaningful football yet, but I would by no means consider him a bust. But, if you got a rookie linebacker at the #2 spot and he didn't even start, that would be a bust, most definitely.

    Now, on the other hand, which position has potential over their career to be considered more of a bust, I would even argue that they are about the same. Linebacker isn't normally the kind of position worth investing a #2 pick in, there is rarely a player THAT special that you think he's the next Lawrence Taylor. On the other hand, QBs can go #2 in the draft just by default (see this year) because of how important the position is. If you set them both to zero production, as in the linebacker either never successfully cracks the starting lineup, or sucks when he does, and the quarterback never successfully wins a starting job and/or sucks when he does...well, the fact that there's a whole lot of instances of the latter happening, and not too many instances of the former happening, I might even say that the linebacker could be considered a bigger bust because you not only reached for a position that isn't generally considered important enough for the #2 pick, but you failed when you did do it. Using the #2 pick on a QB, even if he does end up failing, is widely considered a more worth it gamble if there's any indication that your #2 pick linebacker may end up not worth it.

    At best, IMO, this question is flawed because what you're really getting at is which position drafted could negatively impact a team more, and the answer is easy a QB. But the reason is not necessarily related to the investment of a #2 pick. If a linebacker turns out to suck you know pretty fast and you can discard him and find someone that can play pretty decently pretty easy. If a QB sucks you're never quite sure whether the light just hasn't clicked on yet, whether he does actually suck, or whether you need to be doing something differently on offense to take better advantage of his areas of strength.

    But as rookies, a linebacker who doesn't start but got selected at #2 would be considered BY FAR to be a bigger surprise bust.
     
  19. miamikid92

    miamikid92 PHINS'09!! :D

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Messages:
    3,219
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    deffenitly a rookie qb theres alot of pressure on him sence he touches the ball every offensive play
     
  20. LarryFinFan

    LarryFinFan Left So Fla, never the Fins...

    Joined:
    Mar 2004
    Messages:
    7,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, most draft guru's will tell you that you have to wait 2-3 years to evaluate players. Even the top picks. Look at this year, Eli was touted as the second coming and had a mediocre-to-poor year. Rivers reported late and didn't get a chance...Big Ben was forced into the lineup and had a pretty good year...It's all a crap shoot...
     
  21. Spicy Henne

    Spicy Henne Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2003
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree that QB is the most important single position, but a bust is a bust. It'd be just as bad if you took a kicker #1 overall and he bombed. The position has nothing at all to do with anything.
     
  22. inFINSible

    inFINSible Don't believe everything you think.

    Joined:
    Sep 2001
    Messages:
    25,552
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With a LBer bust you'll find out within one season or two at the most. A QB bust will almost surely take at least 4 seasons maybe even the full 6 years of his rookie contract before somebody will finally admit he is useless.



    Drew Brees, a second round pick was given three years, before they gave up on him and drafted another QB, Now after what happened with him, what team is going to give up on a QB until after year four?.

    4 years minimally of watching said QB hoping that light will come on....4 long years if that light never comes on. While drafts with more QBs come and go.

    Financially you'd almost have to give a number 2 draft pick a full four years before you could make another major investment in a QB with a high draft pick.

    The time and training wasted on a LBer flop would pale in comparison to a QB flop.
     
  23. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 2002
    Messages:
    48,995
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering the measures Drew Brees took this offseason to improve as a player, I personally believe there is some question as to whether or not Brees improved BECAUSE the Chargers had given up on him...he really underwent some dramatic training and improvement programs....in preparation for this season which would be his free agent season.
     

Share This Page