Starting a rookie QB in his rookie season.

[phinfan2003]

If we look at this year's playoffs, there were 5 young quarterbacks playing. Only one of those QB's made it out of the 1st round and all of them except for Roethlisberger had their share of struggles (I'm not counting Palmer in this category since he only had one pass). Out of those 5, only Leftwich and Roethlisberger started more than 7 games in their rookie season.

With this in mind, it seems to me that rookie or young QB's are more successful in their 2nd year as a starter (especially if they started most of the games in their 1st year). Now I know that Leftwich struggled just as bad as the other QB's not named Roethlisberger but he was coming off of a major injury.

So here's my question: If we drafted a rookie QB, would you be in favor of having him start most or all of the season in his rookie season (even though he'd probably struggle and we'd most likely not make the playoffs) so that he could get the experience and put him in a position to have a breakout season in year 2?

 

[Lappy]

wow great question!

I think PT is all any player needs to get better. Some just improve faster than others.
So he should be more confident year two, better, who knows it depends on the kind of guy he is.

It would be interesting to see the stats on QB's; the rounds they entered in and the years it took them to start and be successful.

 

[phinfan2003]

wow great question!

I think PT is all any player needs to get better. Some just improve faster than others.
So he should be more confident year two, better, who knows it depends on the kind of guy he is.

It would be interesting to see the stats on QB's; the rounds they entered in and the years it took them to start and be successful.

Here's a small sample:

Roethlisberger (obviously he's the exception here):

Year 1-13 starts 66.4% 2621 17 11
Year 2-12 starts 62.7% 2385 17 9

Leftwich

Year 1-13 starts 57.2% 2819 14 16
Year 2-14 starts 60.5% 2941 15 10
Year 3-11 starts 57.9% 2123 15 5

Simms

Year 1-no starts
Year 2-2 starts 57.5% 467 1 3
Year 3-10 starts 61.0% 2035 10 7

Palmer

Year 1-no starts
Year 2-13 starts 60.9% 2897 18 18
Year 3-16 starts 67.8% 3836 32 12

E. Manning

Year 1-7 starts 48.2% 1043 6 9
Year 2-16 starts 52.8% 3762 24 17

 

[Metal Panda]

I'd say let them sit the first year (barring an injury to the starter) and come in in the second. There've been a few QBs that seem to not need that extra step but most do.

even Carson waited until his second year.

 

[Caps]

It all depends on the QB you have. If, for instance, we drafted someone like Omar Jacobs, who would need to have his mechanics torn down and rebuilt from scratch, it would be stupid to start him from day 1. He would go out there and suck and have his confidence totally shattered. So it all depends. I'd say generally, most rookies aren't ready to start for the majority of their first year.

 

[Nappy Roots]

If we look at this year's playoffs, there were 5 young quarterbacks playing. Only one of those QB's made it out of the 1st round and all of them except for Roethlisberger had their share of struggles (I'm not counting Palmer in this category since he only had one pass). Out of those 5, only Leftwich and Roethlisberger started more than 7 games in their rookie season.

With this in mind, it seems to me that rookie or young QB's are more successful in their 2nd year as a starter (especially if they started most of the games in their 1st year). Now I know that Leftwich struggled just as bad as the other QB's not named Roethlisberger but he was coming off of a major injury.

So here's my question: If we drafted a rookie QB, would you be in favor of having him start most or all of the season in his rookie season (even though he'd probably struggle and we'd most likely not make the playoffs) so that he could get the experience and put him in a position to have a breakout season in year 2?

depending on who it was. If it were Leinart, i would have no problem starting him from day 1. If its Cutler, or someone else, no. I believe the Romeo Crennel used the best formula this year. Start a vet, until the rookie is definitly ready. Even if the Vet is struggling, and the rookie isnt completely ready, you dont start him. If the Vet is playing great like Kitna was a could years ago, you continue to let the rookie sit.

 

[phinfan2003]

I'd say let them sit the first year (barring an injury to the starter) and come in in the second. There've been a few QBs that seem to not need that extra step but most do.

even Carson waited until his second year.

You're right. Carson did wait until his second year to start but look at his stats in his 2nd year as a starter. I know it's just speculation here but I wonder if he would have been able to get those stats or similar when he was in his 2nd year in the league instead of his 3rd.

 

[Metal Panda]

You're right. Carson did wait until his second year to start but look at his stats in his 2nd year as a starter. I know it's just speculation here but I wonder if he would have been able to get those stats or similar when he was in his 2nd year in the league instead of his 3rd.

I think he would have lost a lot of confidence his first year and probably struggled if he didn't get to learn behind Kitna for a year.

Lots of QBs in recent years have been miserable early on when forced into the fray too early.

 

[Dolfan2788]

If you have an O-line that can consistently be great and not put your rookie under pressure all the time then I think that you could probably start a lot of rookies.
I would start Leinart, Cutler, Whitehurst, Young. I wouldn't start someone like Jacobs though as he has to learn a throwing motion that can be successful in the NFL.

 

[Ohiophinphan]

It not only depends on the rookie but the quality of the team they are playing for. How many of you think Rothlisberger would have been as great if he was starting for Detroit? or Houston? A rookie starting for us with Brown and Williams to hand off to will do better than someone starting for a team which went 2-14 the prior season.

 

[nopony]

It's a good way to ruin a promising young rookie. Not saying that it will, just that it is always a risk. Happens a lot in baseball when teams rush starting pitchers because they are so primosing... boo, ruined career.

Far better to bring in a FA or trade for a Vet and let the rook sit for at least a year. Give them a little experience without giving them the pressure.

 

[phinfan2003]

If you have an O-line that can consistently be great and not put your rookie under pressure all the time then I think that you could probably start a lot of rookies.
I would start Leinart, Cutler, Whitehurst, Young. I wouldn't start someone like Jacobs though as he has to learn a throwing motion that can be successful in the NFL.

Good point about the O-Line. That is what helped Brady and Roethlisberger early in their career.

 

[phinfan2003]

It's a good way to ruin a promising young rookie. Not saying that it will, just that it is always a risk. Happens a lot in baseball when teams rush starting pitchers because they are so primosing... boo, ruined career.

Far better to bring in a FA or trade for a Vet and let the rook sit for at least a year. Give them a little experience without giving them the pressure.

Even though it's a way to ruin a promising young rookie, I hope and I believe that Saban and co. will draft a QB that is not only talented, but mentally and physically tough. If so, I'd be ok with starting him next year even if it means we don't go to the playoffs. It will make him that much better in 2007 IMO. After all, what do you think our chances of going to the SB are w/ Frerotte or some other re-tread?

 

[PublixSubsRule]

i would be in favor of throwing him to the dogs right away...that way he can learn from his mistakes and we cant get much worse production from our qb, also worse comes to worest we get a high draft pick next year and draft that qb a great wr from the corps. that are comeing out next year notably d. jarret and calvin johnson. man that would be great.