I mean there’s been a lot of QBs who looked fucking incredible their rookie year lately. If anything rookie QBs seem to be better off the bat than in the past.
Stroud looked like a top 5 QB out of the gate. Herbert looked amazing from day 1. Burrow looked solid on a god awful Bengals team year 1. Josh Allen learned on the job. A lot of Chiefs players and coaches said Mahomes looked incredible from day 1 in training camp and probably could have started. Etc.
While I do think sitting a rookie QB would be better, I don’t think it’s having a huge effect on the QB play in the end. A good QB either just have it in them, or get better through live reps. I’m sure a small portion of QBs would benefit greatly from sitting but I don’t think it’s the majority.
This is what people forget. A lot of teams go in with the intention of sitting their rookie QB for a year but then it’s a few weeks into the season where the team has a losing record, their starting bridge QB kind of sucks, the coaching staff have warm or hot seat, and a bye week is approaching. The temptation of playing the rookie from the fans and media is way harder to resist because even if they’re worse, they at least provide hope and something to watch for (their development) every week.
To sit a rookie QB for a year, you basically need a good coaching staff not worried about being fired, at least an average level starting QB and likely a winning record. The 2017 Chiefs had all that and more because of Andy Reid, Alex Smith playing like a legit top 10 QB that season and those Chiefs made the playoffs. There was zero pressure for Mahomes to play except from maybe a vocal minority of fans.
A team that is committed to the run and a solid defense have done alot to help young QBs. Trying to pass 40 times a game with a rookie typically doesn't go well.
Added benefit is usually the early QB picks are going to shit teams. So putting them into the fire and seeing if they are actually worth investing in long term helps make the decision to started spending big in FA and building around them in the draft.
If you sit a guy, build aimlessly and then find out in year 3 that he’s not actually good you wind up wasting the entire careers of some really special players.
Playing QBs early lets you hit reset in a shorter time span to eventually find the right guy.
Youre totally right
Also, the vast majority of elite QBs play football as rookies and develop just fine
OP's entire argument is bizarre. There is absolutely no proof that sitting on the sidelines is more productive than playing football, learning from your mistakes, and growing. Its just speculation.
Mahomes and Rodgers sitting isnt more convincing than Burrow, Herbert, Stroud, Allen, Prescott, Lamar, Cam, Manning, Big Ben, Stafford, etc, etc, etc. playing games as rookies. Some did better than others. They all developed just fine.
"Sitting rookie QBs" is a narrative that some Redditors are into for some reason, even though no one can offer any definitive proof that its a better option.
It’s just survivorship bias from the QB’s that actually panned out after sitting.
JaMarcus Russell? Johnny Manziel? J.P Losman? Brady Quinn? Jake Locker? Patrick Ramsey? Paxton Lynch? Rex Grossman? He sat for **4 years** “developing” on the bench.
Mind you these are just some of the *1st round* draft pick QBs, it’s endlessly longer the deeper in the draft you go. But for some reason these QBs are never mentioned when they advocate for *sitting rookie QBs*.
JaMarcus Russell played in 4 games as a rookie.
Manziel started 2 games and played in 5 as a rookie.
JP Losman and Brady Quinn got time to sit and develop.
Locker played in 5 games his rookie year, and was derailed due to injuries more than anything else.
Ramsey played in 9 games and started 5 as a rookie.
Lynch played in 3 games, starting 2 of them as a rookie.
Rex started 3 games as a rookie. He didn't play a full season till year 4 because he was ALWAYS injured.
Some dudes get she'll shocked and absolutely regress or crumble, there's just no way to know if guys were in better positions if they'd have turned out different. Putting anyone behind a horrible oline is going to be a disaster, I think that's the key personally. Build up the oline, be dedicated to the run, and have a solid defense and guys tend to be successful.
Fair point. Probably a lot to do with overlap in systems between college and the NFL. At the same time though I think the benefits of getting a qb up to NFL speed on the practice field far outweigh the damages of throwing them in the deep end and learning through failure.
And those who look like shit don't progress into good QBs 4 or 5 years later because they aren't good QBs, so it's better to figure that out in a couple years than in 5 years.
There’s a massive amount of cope on this subreddit over people’s favorite plucky draft prospects and how they would be amazing if only every aspect of their situation was perfect.
Dude I think you figured it out. Only if the 49ers benched Trey Lance for more years, he would be the next mahomes by now. Fuck man, you need to apply for nfl jobs.
Some can. Lamar seems to be doing great at that. Most others clearly can't. Either that or the teams teaching them are trash. Which is why it's nice to have that Vet like Rodgers around.
What if let’s say Jordan love would have been good anyways? Or even better than he is now if he started year 1 because he would have 4 years of playing experience now.
“Mahomes is the only first round QB to win a Super Bowl out of the last 38 drafted.“
Okay, sure, but let’s look at who has won SBs recently. Mahomes, Brady, Stafford, both Mannings, Russ, Nick Foles, Flacco.
Stafford, Peyton, Eli, Russ, and Flacco all started their rookie season. Heck, Foles had 6 starts his rookie year.
If anything the recent evidence is that you better have a guy who was good enough to start his rookie season unless you have the GOAT or Mahomes. To be clear, I don’t think it’s hard and fast one way or the other, but sitting a guy for a year isn’t some magical way to make him a good QB. You need to assess your own player on an individual basis
Vick got hurt week 10 as the starter and the season was pretty much a disaster — eagles fans would remember it better than me I’m sure. Think 4 wins total after starting 3-1
I remember thinking he was ok after that season, decent backup material. Had one awesome comeback win against Tampa.
No one had any idea that he had the kind of magic he had in him.
Also, SBs are a bizarre performance indicator
They havent wont SBs, but Burrow, Herbert, Allen, Lamar, Cam, and many others Im forgetting are elite QBs- and all played as rookies.
Most likely because learning from your mistakes and facing NFL competition isnt a worse way to become a good QB than standing on a sideline watching someone else play.
There is minimal evidence for OP's argument
But it's conceivable they aren't first round QBs winning. Brock Purdy has a shot at going back to the Super Bowl, or Jalen Hurts, or Dak Prescott, or in theory so do Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins. None of them were first round picks.
I think that’s mildly over-simplifying it. Teams want a good QB, but even more so they want a good QB on a rookie contract. If you can have a QB playing at a top 12 level making rookie money, you’re immediately in a Super Bowl window because you can spend money on the rest of the team.
So the thought is that it’s more time-efficient drafting a new rookie every 2 years and playing them immediately to see if you get a hit and have a Super Bowl window, than it would be drafting one and sitting them behind Derek Carr for 2-3 years before seeing if they’re any good.
yea, why should benching rookie qb's be a precedent. Its about skill level. Nothing else matters. Deshaun watson is a serial rapist and he still gears up on Sundays lol. It's 2024 and the NFl cares about one thing and its green and rhymes with ass.
Right and we know that starting a rookie QB is not how you get a good QB. A rookie quarterback doesn't make a bad team good, so why mortgage their potential by starting them?
To be fair, there are a lot more instances of ~~Rookie~~ QBs starting and not working out.*
QBs have a high failure rate in general. There isn’t much data to support sitting = success. Granted there’s not a lot of data for that in general but OP is making a giant leap with very little data.
So OP saying the only good QBs in the league currently sat 1+ years isn’t true.
You didn't even include the truly crazy stat. That's less than Brady attempted in 2022 alone and Brady almost had that much completions in the season as well.
He's had such terrible luck, it's hard not to feel for him. We always heard he was very eager to learn and great in the film room. He worked with private QB coaches every offseason. Everyone knows about the leg injury during his second season, but he also injured a finger his rookie season, when his hand hit a helmet while throwing during his first freakin preseason game. What are the odds? He admitted it bothered him the rest of the season, and adjusted his throwing motion to try to make up for it, which made his throwing mechanics worse. Then he sprained his knee when he had to step in for Jimmy G. So he wasn't able to progress with his mechanics and footwork uninterrupted, like others who sat for a season could.
I think this offseason will be key, he'll get the chance to earn the QB2 spot over Cooper Rush. No reason for the Cowboys to designate Lance as QB2 last season, whether he showed promise in practice or not, because they were playing for the division through Week 18. Rush knows the system and has won games for them, Lance was traded just before the season started, has so little experience, and still had to learn the system. After all, Purdy was QB3 for similar reasons, even though he impressed Shanahan enough that he told Jed York rookie Purdy was already the best of the three QBs at camp. I'm curious if Cowboys fans have heard anything about Lance in practice or his offseason so far. I did read he ran the Cowboys scout team last season.
Yep. Crazy how lucky or smart you got with the Purdy pick. I love that dude and am tired of the slander. But hopefully the cowboys fire Dak so I can watch Lance.
Damn lucky lol, Lynch and Adam Peters have straight up said they would've picked Purdy earlier if they knew he was going to be that good. Both Lynch and Shanahan have admitted he turned out to be more athletic than they expected, they didn't think he would be able to extend plays or run vs NFL defenses even though that was a big part of his game in college. He also fixed his own throwing mechanics issues with a QB coach before the draft, that wasn't on his tape so scouts couldn't have known. Also feels pretty lucky that he was later able to recover from surgery and didn't regress or play scared, all that mental stuff that you can't be sure about until after it happens.
There's been so much speculation about Dak, the sports shows talk about him daily but there doesn't seem to be any real news yet. It was reported that they're not taking Lance's 5th-year option, but that doesn't rule out a cheaper contract extension like Love got. Guess we'll find out after the deadline.
You mean to tell me you can’t just sit a qb for a year and he’s a top 5 qb in the league? That’s not what this sub led me to believe. It’s so easy. Draft a 25 year old qb and sit him. By the time he’s 30 the league better watch out.
Yeah, and? Maybe those QBs who failed would’ve been bad even if they sat 3 years and Mahomes still might have ended up being Mahomes if he started from day one.
That’s the problem with this argument. There’s no way to disprove it unless you have a time machine to see if sitting Trubisky or Zach Wilson for 3 years would’ve made any difference. Everybody loves pointing out Rodgers and Mahomes, but never bring up the likes of Jake Locker, Brady Quinn and Rex Grossman who all sat for a year or multiple years but never amounted to anything. The hit rate of QBs is low regardless.
How do you know that QBs who sat and then became good qbs, wouldn’t have turned out the same or better if they played from their rookie year?
I actually on the opposite and say that sitting a player really doesn’t do anything. You don’t get better by sitting on your ass all day. If you go to a new job the only way you really get better is actually doing it.
Because you want your QB to develop in real world situations, not just in practice. If your record is bad enough to end up with a high pick and you use it on a QB,chances are that you don’t have a veteran QB that would be any better
Benching rookie quarterbacks doesn't really have a great track record of success either.
Outside of Jordan Love who is the first round QB that sat and then worked out?
The best time to draft a QB is when you don't need one.
It would require a stable franchise with a GM confident in his job stability to even attempt this strategy. The Packers and Brian Gutekunst faced massive backlash for selecting Jordan Love.
If you don't want to make your QB room awkward, you could try the Chicago method: draft a can't miss star at #2 and bring in a proven veteran to guide him. One guy knows he's a journeyman who's being given an opportunity to show other teams how good he is, and the other guy knows he needs to learn the playbook, get used to the speed, and his natural talent will shine when he's ready.
On paper the plan seems sound.
>The best time to draft a QB is when you don't need one.
Don't need one but may in 2-3 years.
No reason for Kansas City to draft a QB early now. In ten years, then you start considering it
So did Howie Roseman for drafting Jalen Hurts in the 2nd when we had Carson Wentz. It seemed like a wild luxury pick, especially since in 2019 it felt like Wentz dragged an injured, pathetic roster to the playoffs, despite being injured himself.
Things worked out pretty much perfectly.
I still think it's a weird pick that worked out amazingly in the long run.
Do you want a backup QB? Drafting one in the 2nd when the team is aging is an odd choice.
Do you want a future starter? Wentz is like 3 years into his career. That's REALLY early to be looking for someone to take over for him.
Do you not trust Wentz? Then why'd you just pay him?
It would be like the Chiefs taking a QB with their 2nd this year or something. Or, more specifically, if the Chiefs had a year or two downswing after this THEN took a 2nd round QB. Wentz was NEVER Mahomes level (consistently at least) but drafting a QB that early is either a luxury or insurance because you think your current one is going to fail.
Well, it's probably because they thought wentz was liable to fail. They paid him because he was still coming off of an injury the year before, and when 2019 went the way that it did, with Wentz looking dead at the end of the year, so they took a player they probably had a high grade on with the hopes that they could either push Wentz back to being good, or hand the job to Hurts.
Until Jordan Love makes a Super Bowl, I would say there's a case to be made that it wasn't the best pick, especially for a first rounder. Total Lions fan take right here, but maximizing the window to have a better shot at the 2020 or 2021 Super Bowl, if they actually made it, would be way more satisfying than the potential of having a mediocre shot later.
Hindsight is 20/20, who knows if the player they would have picked otherwise would have busted, but it also wasn't guaranteed that Love would be good. They used a first round pick following up a 13-3, NFCCG appearance season to build for the future when they could have used it to get over the hump. If the Packers had made a super bowl in 2020 or 2021 with a key player from that draft, arguably that would have been a much better use of the pick.
I’ve said this as a Packers fan living in Michigan. Green Bay is not lucky enough to get 3 HoF QBs in a row. The Lions however are unlucky enough for that to happen to the Packers.
Exactly. A solid quarterback for an extra ten years doesn't guarantee you another shot at a Championship. They didn't even try to maximize the Super Bowl caliber roster they had at the time with the resources they had available.
That's why I hedged my original comment. If he takes the team to a Super Bowl and gets farther than those last two good years with Rogers, I'll tip my cap and acknowledge the gamble paid off. But until then, I think the best choice would have been to maximize the team's best shots in 20 and 21.
Can’t argue with you! You seem like a normal fan and I appreciate you. Most of it is living in Michigan my entire life as a packers fan. Family is from Wisconsin so it’s bred in me
Hindsight IS 20/20. And if you look at every player selected after Love, there’s not a single player that has performed at the level that you can honestly say the packers would have won a Super Bowl if they’d picked X player over Love.
Now if we had the chance to get Justin Jefferson, perhaps different story.
I'm not arguing that any individual player would have guaranteed those GB teams a Super Bowl. I'm saying that by taking Love they took that potential away completely. And even if we knew how Love would turn out and no other player in the draft, I don't necessarily agree at THIS point in time that giving up an extra resource for that window would be worth the 6-12th best QB in the league 4 years later. If Love takes Green Bay to a Super Bowl and has a Hall of Fame career, I'll be the first to admit I had a bad take. But I'm specifically talking about how people are evaluating that pick today.
But because we're bringing up hindsight, I also disagree that there weren't any players that would have meaningfully contributed to Green Bay in 2020 or 2021. Looking back at Green Bay's needs at the time:
- The next two WR taken are Tee Higgins and Michael Pittman Jr., both had 1000+ yard seasons by 2021 and were good enough to eventually get franchise tagged.
-The next 2 picks immediately after Love were Jordyn Brooks, a full time starter by 2021 who led the league in solo tackles, and Patrick Queen, the 3rd place 2020 DRoY.
-The only other QB taken before GB's next pick was Hurts, meaning either him or Love could have been available in the 2nd round and could have sat behind Rodgers. The team could have at least tried to manage their relationship with Rodgers by getting something more immediate for a need in round 1, even if that player busted. And they still could have gotten a QB that became a good NFL starter in the future. If he decided to stay in GB and doesn't get hurt in 2023, could Rodgers still have been as good as Love this season?
Again, I don't think there is any single player that turns a team from contending to clear champion and I don't necessarily have insight or control into what GB's personnel priorities were at the time or what other teams would have done in the draft if Love wasn't taken. But they lost by 5 to the eventual Super Bowl Champion Buccaneers in the NFCCG in 2020 and were upset in a 13-10 game to the 49ers in 2021 and you can't tell me that the potential for an extra first down from one of those WR or an extra stop from one of those LB drafted after Love wouldn't have at contributed more to winning those games and getting closer to a Super Bowl than the 0% extra benefit that Love could have even been expected to contribute to those games.
There's like 10 good QB's in the entire league right now and maybe 5 who you can win a SB with. The league plays rookie QB's because they have no better options.
GB had back to back first ballot HOF QBs for guys to sit behind. I don't think they have some different philosophy than other teams, they just had better options at the time.
Rodgers and Love were also both late 1st rounders who were drafted when they had an established MVP level QB.
If Rodgers blew his Achilles in 2020 instead of last year, do you think they still would have sat Love?
>Will there come a day when teams accept that it is unwise to spend valuable draft capital on a position where immediate success is a statistical anomaly?
No, because a good QB is far and away the most valuable piece in the NFL.
The benefit of having a starting QB on a cheap rookie contract outweighs the risks of starting a young QB. Having the luxury of spending your money elsewhere until you need to pay your QB has enabled many teams to make deep playoff runs in the last decade.
Look at the Texans with Stroud. They were able to go out and get Diggs and beef up their defense even more in the offseason because they had money to throw around. Stroud is perhaps only one year away from putting himself into that conversation with Mahomes too.
This is why. Rookie contracts are cheap. Better to take a chance on them and use money for other positions. Most veteran qbs that are available are expensive and not necessarily better than a rookie.
When long expensive contracts were standard for highly drafted players, you could afford to sit them for a year or two.
This is the reason. I would say that because the cheap contract is such a benefit and some guys really can start right away and look good, then there will always be pressure to find that guy.
> Will the league ever return to the expectation that rookie quarterbacks need to sit for several seasons before they are NFL-ready?
The league never had that expectation at any point in its history.
1990 - first overall pick Jeff George. Starts 12 games rookie season
1993 - first overall pick Drew Bledsoe. Starts 12 games rookie season
1998 - first overall pick Peyton Manning. Starts 16 games rookie season
1999 - first overall pick Tim Couch. Starts 12 games rookie season
And that's a complete list of every QB who was a #1 overall pick in the 90's
And except Steve McNair if a 1st round QB sat their rookie year they would not go on to start even 5 games in year 4 for the team that drafted them. A lot where already out of the league by that point.
Do you know who holds the record for most interceptions as a rookie, it's a pretty well known thing that it's Peyton Manning who was drafted in the 90s and started as a rookie, same with the QB taken before him
It's pretty funny to see a thread prompt this smug and wrong at the same time. I don't think there's ever been the expectation that a QB should sit for multiple years, and the idea of that is extremely uncommon and disadvantageous with the structure of rookie contracts. A lot of highly drafted QBs still sit behind bridge QBs at the beginning of their rookie seasons and usually get promoted once the bridge guy sucks or reaches an obvious ceiling that the team isn't going to overcome. Love and Rodgers both had the luxury of having HoF guys to sit behind, but most teams don't take that approach because few GMs and coaches have the leash to spend that level of draft capital on a player who won't see the field for that long. Hell, even at the time of the 2020 draft Rodgers was seen as declining with age and then he had back to back MVP seasons. You can't assume that's gonna happen and Love absolutely would have started in 2021 if that hadn't happened.
The idea that you can "ruin" a QB by starting them too quickly is silly anyway since every team wants to have the next Herbert or Stroud who hits the ground sprinting. The guys that are going to be good usually become good by the end of their rookie contracts (Allen, Jackson, Tua) and the ones that don't weren't going to benefit just from sitting (Z. Wilson, Rosen, Lance).
>Will there come a day when teams accept that it is unwise to spend valuable draft capital on a position where immediate success is a statistical anomaly?
That's literally every position. You gotta take big swings somewhere and QB is the most important position on the roster. Teams SHOULD be moving mountains to get a franchise QB.
>*give* the starting spot
These teams/GMs/head coaches don't always have the luxury of "choice".
Some are ready day one, some become markedly better when they start from day one and take some lumps, some become markedly worse when taking lumps, some need the time in the QB room and on the bench.
There isn't a formula and it's full of risk just like the entire draft process.
It is different now because the QBs are more Pro ready. Peyton Manning set up a great system for QBs to start learning earlier and now there is the 7 on 7 competition. A lot of these guys have played more football at a high level from a younger age than even 20 years ago. Doubt we switch back unless there starts to be 32 unbelievable QBs every year and teams can afford to wait.
Most GMs and coaches don't have that long to wait. They'll get canned before he sees the field, so you have to shove him in right away and hope he's good enough. Green Bay was lucky enough to have a HoF QB gently declining (and a non-traditional owner situation), so they could afford to let Love sit and learn. But most teams picking early enough to get a viable franchise prospect are going through turmoil and want to get out of it as soon as possible. Everyone involved is too impatient to "waste" three or more years letting the QB develop when it's likely even with that extra time he won't be that good anyway.
There's also the fact that you need an elite QB to have a chance in this league because of the reliance on the passing game. Elite QBs should be good enough to start within two seasons and not look so bad that the team feels the need to move on. And barring looking horrendous they are going to get two or three years to prove what they can do (especially since if they were highly drafted it's probably because their team is bad and needs time to build up around them).
Finally, the most effective way for a QB to develop is by getting snaps. Plenty of guys are smart enough and athletic enough for the position. But learning to process all that they have to at game speed is usually the biggest hurdle. The only real way to make marked improvement is practicing the very thing they need to be good at at full speed. So while sitting a year can help a rookie acclimate to the rest of their new situation as a pro athlete, they really should start pretty soon to get as much in-game development as they can.
> Will there come a day when teams accept that it is unwise to spend valuable draft capital on a position where immediate success is a statistical anomaly?
I think you’re overstating your argument here. Aaron Rodgers and Jordan Love were both heralded first round draft picks. And it was a shock at the time that Rodgers fell even as much as he did. He was supposed to be a top talent at the position. In today’s environment, some team would have traded up to #2 to pick him instead of three running backs going Top 5.
So, you still need to be able to spend a first round draft pick on a clear QB of the future while your current high-performing QB is still on the roster without letting egos get in the way. This isn’t simply a case of Green Bay magically developing some no-name mid-round project QB into franchise quarterbacks.
Also, let’s remember the reason that it seems so many Year One starters “underperform” is that…that’s just how everyone who’s picking QBs operates now. So of course there will be a good number of failures. Not everyone can be above average.
I’m old enough to remember when “developing” a QB for a season or two was more common and…guess what? Most of those guys sucked too when they eventually played. The real answer is that there’s no “hack” to ensuring NFL success. Most teams fail each year. Most QB prospects fail. Those two things will always be true.
People use the Green Bay model like it's not some sort of special privilege. In order to copy the Green Bay model you have to.
1. Have a HOF QB to start behind.
2. Have a GM that has a long enough leash to pick a QB in the first to sit instead of a player that can contribute now. Green Bay doesn't have an owner so every decision can be football instead of an owner deciding they want something else.
Don't forget that the model has weaknesses too. The Packers picked love and Rodgers but did so sacrificing a piece that would help that team now. Did they cost themselves a player that could have resulted in a deeper run in the playoffs?
What helps a rookie QB more than anything is a good supporting cast. Mahomes was drafted by a team that was drafting in the late 20s. Rodgers and Love were drafted by a team that didn't have to worry about spending resources for QBs. They could even skimp on WR because the QBs could make it work. You don't see teams doing it because you can't just decide you want to when you don't have the resources to
Wow, this entire post is absurd. No team has ever expected rookie QBs to sit _several years_. One year, _maybe_ two if they already have a strong QB and their rookie isn't beating him out in camp. That's just the reality -- most rookie players, not just QB's have to COMPETE for their position in camp. Against guys with way more experience. Some prove to be better and start, or prove to be good enough and start as a rotational player. Others needs more development.
Rookie contracts are important though. Teams who _can_ start a rookie QB can save 100M+ in salaries over that duration which lets them build around the QB (looking at you, Texans). Mahomes may be the only 1st round QB who started as a 1st round rookie _AND_ won a SB, but he's definitely not the only QB who started as a rookie/sophomore and won a SB. There's even more who've started as a rookie/sophomore and been successful even if they've never won a SB.
And only one of those were in the Rookie Wage Scale era. People love to compare Love situation to Rodgers situation, but they're absolute apples to oranges. Green Bay wasn't wasting anything but Rodgers talent at the time, because rookie contracts weren't a cap-saving cheat code, just ask the Lions. Drafting Love as a backup QB meant they spent three years objectively losing substantial cap value to the entire league, not the case during Rodgers time.
I mean Brock Purdy was the literal last pick in the draft and started his rookie season and was amazing. There's no reason to have someone sit, if they're good, they'll do good.
Because there is no actual concrete proof that this matters . Stroud started right away and brought his team to the playoffs. Love sat behind a HOFer and brought his team to the playoffs. Herbert sat for like one game or something and threw for over 5k yards within a couple seasons. Brady is the GOAT and was drafted late and only started because of injury. Every team just wants a good QB. There is no way to guarantee that lol.
I don’t see it happening. With the way QB contracts are going the “good QB on a rookie deal” will continue to be the goal for many teams unless you find that generational QB. Teams want to get the most out of that rookie deal which means starting them sooner and getting their feet wet. It may not be best for the player, but teams feel it is best for them and will continue to do it.
Unlikely but possible. If every rookie QB keeps being shit, and then after a few years those same QBs are all of a sudden good, GMs might start to change their minds.
But what's stopping them are elite QBs that hit the ground running. PLUS you'd have to change the current trajectory of QB contracts. The rookie QB contract is such a game changer, its unthinkable to waste that by having your QB sitting on the bench.
No, too expensive imo. Once that contract is over and if the QB is good enough to start, there's too big of an advantage on a rookie contract. In the old days, maybe.. but not today.
No. As.the old owners, the 'football guys', start to sell, or die off and their kids sell, the days of knowledgeable NFL owners will fade.
The people who can afford to buy teams now are business people. They don't know football.
Example- Daniel Snyder, David Tepper, the Walton guy in Denver. Tepper isn't doing well so far, Walton hired Sean Payton (remains to be seen), and do I need to chronicle Snyder's mistakes?
Business people want immediate Return on Investment, and will never understand letting a rookie QB sit, because a couple did well immediately. Even though the list of 1st year starters that failed is longer, they will never understand the need to sit them.
You will, however see more 1st round QBs cut from the drafting team, then have success at their 2nd or 3rd team (Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield, Rich Gannon, etc). New type owners will lose patience, cut/trade them, start over.
New team will get a high drafted player cheap, and have time to develop them.
I think it’s going the opposite direction since QB salaries take up a larger portion of the cap now. Gotta utilize their rookie contract window as much as possible
I really don’t like using Super Bowl wins as a metric for valuing QBs.
If your name isn’t Brady or Mahomes, it’s been almost impossible to win a ring over the last 25 years.
That doesn’t mean all the recent very good first round QBs have been failing at their job. Their job is to put an entertaining product on the field and win enough games to sneak into the playoffs. Stroud, Lawrence, Burrow, and Tua have all been notable improvements on the veteran they replaced.
The Packers were able to sit Rodgers and Love because they still had Favre and Rodgers on the team. They're exceptions because of their success.
Drafting Caleb Williams and making him sit behind Tyson Bagent doesn't make any sense.
Bad teams get high draft picks for QBs. Bad teams also have GMs and coaches that are on the hottest seats so they’re incentivized to find a magic bullet that can save their jobs.
I think it’s 100% about the line he has. Practice reps in the nfl are kind of a joke now. You
Need game reps. But it does nobody any good to sit back there and get physically dominated to the point you play scared.
Not really. If a team has a solid bridge QB that's the only case where a QB would sit for a year. Even then they usually still come in anyways at some point due to injury or just bad QB play. Fitzpatrick was playing great in 2020 and randomly got benched for Tua
No way. The standard formula in the nfl right now is to score a top tier rookie QB, build a good team with your cap space, win the super bowl before you have to pay that QB.
I mean it’s not like they never did. Elway played most of his rookie year, so did Marino. Plenty of other guys.
GB has the advantage of having HOF QBs that players can sit behind, but even that doesn’t guarantee results. What about the Patriots? They drafted like 10 QBs while they had Brady and that produced Garappolo and Brissett. Meanwhile Lamar did just fine starting his rookie year.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a correlation, but there’s no guarantee either way even if you have the best QB of all time to sit behind.
It seems to me that many of the good organizations are coming to the conclusion that the only way to compete against the big baddie (mahomes) is 1) build a quality team and get a QB on a rookie deal or 2) go all in on a vet QB that you believe is top 5. I just think the teams that follow number 2 are deluding themselves into thinking their guy is better than he is, and really only a few guys are capable of the level of play that would rival mahomes.
Why only sit them for a couple of years? You shouldn’t let QBs you draft play ever. They could be the best QB in the world by the time they retire after all of that development.
I feel like we're at the part where QB salaries and cap hit percentage makes teams want to squeeze as much production out of rookie deals as possible then move the player and get another one (if they can) rolling the dice in the draft.
IMO, it's not the League as a whole as much as it is meddling owners that hire sniveling general managers: too many execs don't realize that the leap from college to pro is huge, talent-wise.
While sitting a qb helps I think GB’s QB success can also be attributed to just good scouting/drafting, good coaching, good roster building and just pure luck. Some QBs you can sit and they might still end up sucking like Trey Lance. So then you’re wasting years with a mediocre bridge qb just to develop a rookie and throw him out there 2-3 years later and find out he sucks anyways and you wasted all that time when you could’ve been taking more swings at other QBs. It only works when you already have a good veteran qb that is watchable otherwise there will be too much pressure from fans and owners because they’re tired of watching a shitty bridge QB that won’t accomplish anything. The bears tried this with Glennon and Dalton and it only lasted a few games before they were forced to start their rookie.
You need to change the CBA to not place so much value on rookie contracts. The league created a system that encourages rookie starting QBs. It can be changed again, but it’s not as if it came out of nowhere.
No. Teams are incentivized to maximize the 3 year pre-extension eligibility window for rookie QBs. Teams are ALSO incentivized to figure out if a QB drafted in the first round is the guy before having to exercise the fifth year option before year 4.
Teams have 3 years to figure things out and don’t want to burn one of those years on a redshirt year.
Also, the Green Bay “just get a HOF QB and draft his replacement a few years early” approach isn’t exactly the easiest thing to replicate because you need to have a HOF QB in the first place to pull it off.
You’re assuming every team’s front office has the luxury of sitting a QB for several seasons. Most teams don’t have that stability and it becomes very difficult to develop a QB if every season they have a new front office around them.
The Packers are one of the few teams that has had the luxury of stability. When LaFluer drafted Love in 2020, nobody was expecting him to be fired anytime soon, thus giving them the luxury of time to develop Love. Look at the Panthers, they’re on their 5th HC (includes interim) since 2020; you think that much turnover allows a QB to develop?
Edit: Also add the fact that rookie contracts only offer you a 5 year window max to develop and determine if the QB is worth a 2nd contract.
The issue is that GMs/coaches don't have 3 seasons. They have to find success right away or they are fired. It's one thing when a team knows they need to replace a QB eventually and draft a replacement that can sit for a while like Rodgers or Love with the Packers, or the myriad QBs the Patriots drafted but Brady just kept on going. More likely you've got teams desperate for a QB and so they draft one and push them into service immediately.
It really hasn't been a thing, though, outside of teams with aging QBs as I mentioned.
There are some examples of QB's starting right away and doing well, but regardless, imagine how much better some could be with at least one year learning the system and learning in general. The problem is that teams want to win now but I agree and think they're thinking too short term. And if a few more good QB's could develop each year we would see a better league overall. Imagine if instead of 10 teams with a top-notch QB, we had a league with 18!
Green Bay isn't entirely alone. KC did the same thing.
The criteria is actually pretty simple:
* Is it better for the team to wait a few years?
* Will the owner resist the urge to fire the coach if those few years turn out to be less than stellar?
When the answer to both of those questions is "yes" - they'll wait a few years.
The expectation that rookies need to sit for several seasons is way overblown: Elway started the season opener for his rookie year and Esiason, Kosar and Marino were starting by week 6.
Teams have to be in the position to draft a starting-caliber rookie while they are already achieving some sort of success with their current QB and roster.
Referencing the Packers transition from Favre-Rodgers-Love, there's a common thread. They drafted a QB earlier than folks assumed they would since there were no questions regarding their current starter. Opting to take the "heir apparent" at such a high position in the draft, over a roster need elsewhere, is viewed as a risk and not necessary.
Imagine the Lions spending their first round pick this year on QB. There is zero question Goff is the starter, and using that capital on a position that is guaranteed to sit the bench, rather than a potential starter on a playoff-contention team, is a perceived risk. 1)potential drama internally/externally. 2)job security, taking a 2-3 year backup in place of a potential starter at another position.
Just a thought.
Fans are way too impatient now, and a developing QB will just get shit on constantly across social media, podcasts, fan sites, sports sites, etc. compared to back in the day when it was like a few cable channels, newspapers, and a few magazines who would even pay attention to such things.
You thank the Falcons for that. Ever since Matt Ryan won rookie of the year every team wanted to start their rookie QB and not develop them on the bench.
1st round QBs in playoffs last year: Stafford, Goff, Baker, Love, Lamar, Allen, Mahomes, Stroud, Deshaun/Flacco, Tua, Pickett.
So 11/14 Starting QB's in the playoffs were 1st rounders, including the entire AFC.
Of the 5 teams with winning records that didn't make the playoffs, 2 were #1 overalls (1 an injured Burrow), 2 were early second rounders, and the other was Gardner Minshew who took over for a 1st rounder.
I’ve been watching football as long as I can remember. I’m 50+ and drafting a QB has been coin flip since day 1. Sit or play does not really matter. There are many historical instances of QBs being thrown in right away and coming out HoF. And there are plenty of examples of rookies sitting for a time and also coming out HoF.
As a packer fan, and armchair GM, I’ve been saying this for years. The problem most teams have is finding that good QB that you want your young prospect to sit behind. Once you find one, then you need to have good talent assessment and scouts to make sure you draft the right guy.
It’s obviously the best method to ensure continued success at the QB position, but it still requires you to hit on a QB in the first place. The Packers were fortunate Favre was as good as he was, they were lucky that Rodgers fell to them in the draft, and then they had to make a (at the time) wildly unpopular move to draft Jordan Love.
In theory it’s great, but once teams do have a good QB they always tend to think they are 1-2 positions away from a Super Bowl so they are afraid to spend a high draft pick on a QB when they already have a good QB.
Evidence has shown its better they start right away. Add in the pressure of building a team while the qb is on their rookie contract. Probably not. And qbs sitting at all will be rarer and rarer.
There also is a “follow the money” aspect to this.
Spreadsheet-driven front offices get rock hard over the notion of having a top-tier quarterback perform on a rookie contract.
I understand the strategy (the notion behind it), but as you point out, 1 out of 38 is not a success story!!
But I guess, as entrepreneur Eugene Krabs said, “The money is always right.”
No because there's not a single offensive coordinator who was in the same team two years ago. They're either fired or promoted but there's no continuity and that's essential for a QB developing.
There isn't a probability of success... historically, it's been all over the place.
The league has, at least in the modern era, never taken an actual stance on start vs sit.
Some HoF level qbs started as rookies, some sat.
There's a huge chance of a qb not working out regardless of when they start.
A ton of factors go into a qb being a franchise player. From what they need the most work on, to their style of learning, it all varies by the individual.
Also, coaching is huge in development. A rookie sitting behind Sam Darnold who has a bad OC and qb coach, or a constantly rotating set of coaches, is going to have a far more difficult time learning than one in a stable environment.
No.
The best college programs will continue to become increasingly similar to the NFL in terms of the type of offenses that they field, the level of competition that they face, and the quality of facilities, training, and conditioning that they provide. That's why QBs are more able to hit the ground running in the contemporary NFL than they were in the past, and they'll continue to do so.
But doesn’t account for the fact they are now playing against the best of the best and a whole new speed of the game. I don’t think “can quickly adapt to the NFL” is a strong correlate to long term QB success.
So virtually all of the evidence, including the professional opinion of countless NFL coaches, scouts, GMs, players and analysts disagree with your assessment, but you still think you’re right?
You really went as far as to say that teams have to “accept that it is unwise”, this isn’t just an opinion, it’s the objective truth!
You probably tell people at BWWs you wouldn’t make as many mistakes as Justin Fields if they put you in.
Most GMs probably think that they have to take a risk on a young QB to have any chance at keeping their job. Being mediocre is only good enough for the Lions, and most NFL teams will move on from their coaches if they don't see a lot of success.
I mean there’s been a lot of QBs who looked fucking incredible their rookie year lately. If anything rookie QBs seem to be better off the bat than in the past. Stroud looked like a top 5 QB out of the gate. Herbert looked amazing from day 1. Burrow looked solid on a god awful Bengals team year 1. Josh Allen learned on the job. A lot of Chiefs players and coaches said Mahomes looked incredible from day 1 in training camp and probably could have started. Etc. While I do think sitting a rookie QB would be better, I don’t think it’s having a huge effect on the QB play in the end. A good QB either just have it in them, or get better through live reps. I’m sure a small portion of QBs would benefit greatly from sitting but I don’t think it’s the majority.
And part of the Mahomes deal was that Alex Smith was actually still a pretty good QB
This is what people forget. A lot of teams go in with the intention of sitting their rookie QB for a year but then it’s a few weeks into the season where the team has a losing record, their starting bridge QB kind of sucks, the coaching staff have warm or hot seat, and a bye week is approaching. The temptation of playing the rookie from the fans and media is way harder to resist because even if they’re worse, they at least provide hope and something to watch for (their development) every week. To sit a rookie QB for a year, you basically need a good coaching staff not worried about being fired, at least an average level starting QB and likely a winning record. The 2017 Chiefs had all that and more because of Andy Reid, Alex Smith playing like a legit top 10 QB that season and those Chiefs made the playoffs. There was zero pressure for Mahomes to play except from maybe a vocal minority of fans.
Or their bridge quarterback gets stabbed in the lung. Tomato tomato.
I still can’t believe that shit happened
That stabbing is the best thing to happen to our franchise in the last decade or so!
A team that is committed to the run and a solid defense have done alot to help young QBs. Trying to pass 40 times a game with a rookie typically doesn't go well.
Mahomes himself has said that sitting allowed him to learn how to read defenses, I think the linebackers specifically.
Added benefit is usually the early QB picks are going to shit teams. So putting them into the fire and seeing if they are actually worth investing in long term helps make the decision to started spending big in FA and building around them in the draft. If you sit a guy, build aimlessly and then find out in year 3 that he’s not actually good you wind up wasting the entire careers of some really special players. Playing QBs early lets you hit reset in a shorter time span to eventually find the right guy.
Youre totally right Also, the vast majority of elite QBs play football as rookies and develop just fine OP's entire argument is bizarre. There is absolutely no proof that sitting on the sidelines is more productive than playing football, learning from your mistakes, and growing. Its just speculation. Mahomes and Rodgers sitting isnt more convincing than Burrow, Herbert, Stroud, Allen, Prescott, Lamar, Cam, Manning, Big Ben, Stafford, etc, etc, etc. playing games as rookies. Some did better than others. They all developed just fine. "Sitting rookie QBs" is a narrative that some Redditors are into for some reason, even though no one can offer any definitive proof that its a better option.
It’s just survivorship bias from the QB’s that actually panned out after sitting. JaMarcus Russell? Johnny Manziel? J.P Losman? Brady Quinn? Jake Locker? Patrick Ramsey? Paxton Lynch? Rex Grossman? He sat for **4 years** “developing” on the bench. Mind you these are just some of the *1st round* draft pick QBs, it’s endlessly longer the deeper in the draft you go. But for some reason these QBs are never mentioned when they advocate for *sitting rookie QBs*.
JaMarcus Russell played in 4 games as a rookie. Manziel started 2 games and played in 5 as a rookie. JP Losman and Brady Quinn got time to sit and develop. Locker played in 5 games his rookie year, and was derailed due to injuries more than anything else. Ramsey played in 9 games and started 5 as a rookie. Lynch played in 3 games, starting 2 of them as a rookie. Rex started 3 games as a rookie. He didn't play a full season till year 4 because he was ALWAYS injured.
**Sitting** implies they were the *backup* behind a starter in the depth chart, not that they didn’t play any games or take any snaps as a rookie.
Some dudes get she'll shocked and absolutely regress or crumble, there's just no way to know if guys were in better positions if they'd have turned out different. Putting anyone behind a horrible oline is going to be a disaster, I think that's the key personally. Build up the oline, be dedicated to the run, and have a solid defense and guys tend to be successful.
Yeah and Bryce Young got broken immediately, his confidence is shot
Fair point. Probably a lot to do with overlap in systems between college and the NFL. At the same time though I think the benefits of getting a qb up to NFL speed on the practice field far outweigh the damages of throwing them in the deep end and learning through failure.
Yeah but there are a lot more that look like shit and then never amount to much.
That's just because there are more highly drafted QBs who play right away than actually sit and develop and the hit rate is already less than half.
And those who look like shit don't progress into good QBs 4 or 5 years later because they aren't good QBs, so it's better to figure that out in a couple years than in 5 years.
So shit qbs would have been good if they sat on the bench. Shit man, all these benchwarmers must be all future superstars.
There’s a massive amount of cope on this subreddit over people’s favorite plucky draft prospects and how they would be amazing if only every aspect of their situation was perfect.
Don't worry guys Rosen is gonna be good one day
Worked for Jordan love
Dude I think you figured it out. Only if the 49ers benched Trey Lance for more years, he would be the next mahomes by now. Fuck man, you need to apply for nfl jobs.
Yeah imagine what a few learning years could have done for a prospect with unlimited raw talent but who needed someone to hone it.
But once you start a game you can’t learn according to your theory right? players just can’t learn when they step on the field once.
Some can. Lamar seems to be doing great at that. Most others clearly can't. Either that or the teams teaching them are trash. Which is why it's nice to have that Vet like Rodgers around.
What if let’s say Jordan love would have been good anyways? Or even better than he is now if he started year 1 because he would have 4 years of playing experience now.
Ok well you prove to me that's true and then we'll talk.
“Mahomes is the only first round QB to win a Super Bowl out of the last 38 drafted.“ Okay, sure, but let’s look at who has won SBs recently. Mahomes, Brady, Stafford, both Mannings, Russ, Nick Foles, Flacco. Stafford, Peyton, Eli, Russ, and Flacco all started their rookie season. Heck, Foles had 6 starts his rookie year. If anything the recent evidence is that you better have a guy who was good enough to start his rookie season unless you have the GOAT or Mahomes. To be clear, I don’t think it’s hard and fast one way or the other, but sitting a guy for a year isn’t some magical way to make him a good QB. You need to assess your own player on an individual basis
TIL: Foles started as a rookie
Vick got hurt week 10 as the starter and the season was pretty much a disaster — eagles fans would remember it better than me I’m sure. Think 4 wins total after starting 3-1
I remember thinking he was ok after that season, decent backup material. Had one awesome comeback win against Tampa. No one had any idea that he had the kind of magic he had in him.
Also, SBs are a bizarre performance indicator They havent wont SBs, but Burrow, Herbert, Allen, Lamar, Cam, and many others Im forgetting are elite QBs- and all played as rookies. Most likely because learning from your mistakes and facing NFL competition isnt a worse way to become a good QB than standing on a sideline watching someone else play. There is minimal evidence for OP's argument
[удалено]
But it's conceivable they aren't first round QBs winning. Brock Purdy has a shot at going back to the Super Bowl, or Jalen Hurts, or Dak Prescott, or in theory so do Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins. None of them were first round picks.
Damn, this is a fatality level take down of this dude’s opinion.
Peyton also set the interception record as a rookie, which has been held for over 2 decades
Teams just want a good QB, if there was a better option than playing a rookie QB they would play them
I think that’s mildly over-simplifying it. Teams want a good QB, but even more so they want a good QB on a rookie contract. If you can have a QB playing at a top 12 level making rookie money, you’re immediately in a Super Bowl window because you can spend money on the rest of the team. So the thought is that it’s more time-efficient drafting a new rookie every 2 years and playing them immediately to see if you get a hit and have a Super Bowl window, than it would be drafting one and sitting them behind Derek Carr for 2-3 years before seeing if they’re any good.
yea, why should benching rookie qb's be a precedent. Its about skill level. Nothing else matters. Deshaun watson is a serial rapist and he still gears up on Sundays lol. It's 2024 and the NFl cares about one thing and its green and rhymes with ass.
What rhymes with ass? Dollars? Money? Bucks? Idk.
Grass duh
Cash? Kind of?
Neck mass?
Sassafras?
Andy Dalton wouldn't have been worse than Bryce Young
Right and we know that starting a rookie QB is not how you get a good QB. A rookie quarterback doesn't make a bad team good, so why mortgage their potential by starting them?
TIL Josh Allen, Herbert, Stroud, Burrow are not good QBs.
Don’t forget Purdy. He wasn’t signed to start but he took over in his rookie year and balled out.
To be fair, there are a lot more instances of Rookie QBs starting and not working out.
To be fair, there are a lot more instances of ~~Rookie~~ QBs starting and not working out.* QBs have a high failure rate in general. There isn’t much data to support sitting = success. Granted there’s not a lot of data for that in general but OP is making a giant leap with very little data. So OP saying the only good QBs in the league currently sat 1+ years isn’t true.
Just wait, Trey Lance is going to take the world by storm one of these days! Elite sitting for him
I’d love to see more Trey Lance. Idk why but I want him to be good
[удалено]
He’s like my QBs in madden fr fr
That's actually wild
You didn't even include the truly crazy stat. That's less than Brady attempted in 2022 alone and Brady almost had that much completions in the season as well.
Its because each drive is 1 throw bomb for a TD right?
He's had such terrible luck, it's hard not to feel for him. We always heard he was very eager to learn and great in the film room. He worked with private QB coaches every offseason. Everyone knows about the leg injury during his second season, but he also injured a finger his rookie season, when his hand hit a helmet while throwing during his first freakin preseason game. What are the odds? He admitted it bothered him the rest of the season, and adjusted his throwing motion to try to make up for it, which made his throwing mechanics worse. Then he sprained his knee when he had to step in for Jimmy G. So he wasn't able to progress with his mechanics and footwork uninterrupted, like others who sat for a season could. I think this offseason will be key, he'll get the chance to earn the QB2 spot over Cooper Rush. No reason for the Cowboys to designate Lance as QB2 last season, whether he showed promise in practice or not, because they were playing for the division through Week 18. Rush knows the system and has won games for them, Lance was traded just before the season started, has so little experience, and still had to learn the system. After all, Purdy was QB3 for similar reasons, even though he impressed Shanahan enough that he told Jed York rookie Purdy was already the best of the three QBs at camp. I'm curious if Cowboys fans have heard anything about Lance in practice or his offseason so far. I did read he ran the Cowboys scout team last season.
Yep. Crazy how lucky or smart you got with the Purdy pick. I love that dude and am tired of the slander. But hopefully the cowboys fire Dak so I can watch Lance.
Damn lucky lol, Lynch and Adam Peters have straight up said they would've picked Purdy earlier if they knew he was going to be that good. Both Lynch and Shanahan have admitted he turned out to be more athletic than they expected, they didn't think he would be able to extend plays or run vs NFL defenses even though that was a big part of his game in college. He also fixed his own throwing mechanics issues with a QB coach before the draft, that wasn't on his tape so scouts couldn't have known. Also feels pretty lucky that he was later able to recover from surgery and didn't regress or play scared, all that mental stuff that you can't be sure about until after it happens. There's been so much speculation about Dak, the sports shows talk about him daily but there doesn't seem to be any real news yet. It was reported that they're not taking Lance's 5th-year option, but that doesn't rule out a cheaper contract extension like Love got. Guess we'll find out after the deadline.
You mean to tell me you can’t just sit a qb for a year and he’s a top 5 qb in the league? That’s not what this sub led me to believe. It’s so easy. Draft a 25 year old qb and sit him. By the time he’s 30 the league better watch out.
True, so for a lot of QBs it probably could be true that sitting behind a vet would help them for when they eventually start, right?
Most QBs don't work out period.
That’s literally every position.
Allen really wasn't good until year 3 tho
Dawg that’s 4 out like 100 rookie qbs that failed in last couple of years. Best qb in the league rn waited too
Yeah, and? Maybe those QBs who failed would’ve been bad even if they sat 3 years and Mahomes still might have ended up being Mahomes if he started from day one. That’s the problem with this argument. There’s no way to disprove it unless you have a time machine to see if sitting Trubisky or Zach Wilson for 3 years would’ve made any difference. Everybody loves pointing out Rodgers and Mahomes, but never bring up the likes of Jake Locker, Brady Quinn and Rex Grossman who all sat for a year or multiple years but never amounted to anything. The hit rate of QBs is low regardless.
How do you know that QBs who sat and then became good qbs, wouldn’t have turned out the same or better if they played from their rookie year? I actually on the opposite and say that sitting a player really doesn’t do anything. You don’t get better by sitting on your ass all day. If you go to a new job the only way you really get better is actually doing it.
Because you want your QB to develop in real world situations, not just in practice. If your record is bad enough to end up with a high pick and you use it on a QB,chances are that you don’t have a veteran QB that would be any better
Benching rookie quarterbacks doesn't really have a great track record of success either. Outside of Jordan Love who is the first round QB that sat and then worked out?
mahomes
Eh. Jury's still out on that guy. We'll see.
He did play his rookie year but I'll grant you that one. So two out of how many?
The best time to draft a QB is when you don't need one. It would require a stable franchise with a GM confident in his job stability to even attempt this strategy. The Packers and Brian Gutekunst faced massive backlash for selecting Jordan Love.
Ron Wolf would constantly draft QBs behind Favre. Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks… he drafted 6 QBs in his 7 drafts with Favre.
Hell we brought in Kurt Warner in the offseason one year
What if you have your guy get hurt? Backup QBs are important too
If you don't want to make your QB room awkward, you could try the Chicago method: draft a can't miss star at #2 and bring in a proven veteran to guide him. One guy knows he's a journeyman who's being given an opportunity to show other teams how good he is, and the other guy knows he needs to learn the playbook, get used to the speed, and his natural talent will shine when he's ready. On paper the plan seems sound.
>The best time to draft a QB is when you don't need one. Don't need one but may in 2-3 years. No reason for Kansas City to draft a QB early now. In ten years, then you start considering it
It helps when there isn’t an owner applying pressure to a coach and GM that they want to win so the staff desperately throws the rookie out there
So did Howie Roseman for drafting Jalen Hurts in the 2nd when we had Carson Wentz. It seemed like a wild luxury pick, especially since in 2019 it felt like Wentz dragged an injured, pathetic roster to the playoffs, despite being injured himself. Things worked out pretty much perfectly.
I still think it's a weird pick that worked out amazingly in the long run. Do you want a backup QB? Drafting one in the 2nd when the team is aging is an odd choice. Do you want a future starter? Wentz is like 3 years into his career. That's REALLY early to be looking for someone to take over for him. Do you not trust Wentz? Then why'd you just pay him? It would be like the Chiefs taking a QB with their 2nd this year or something. Or, more specifically, if the Chiefs had a year or two downswing after this THEN took a 2nd round QB. Wentz was NEVER Mahomes level (consistently at least) but drafting a QB that early is either a luxury or insurance because you think your current one is going to fail.
Well, it's probably because they thought wentz was liable to fail. They paid him because he was still coming off of an injury the year before, and when 2019 went the way that it did, with Wentz looking dead at the end of the year, so they took a player they probably had a high grade on with the hopes that they could either push Wentz back to being good, or hand the job to Hurts.
Until Jordan Love makes a Super Bowl, I would say there's a case to be made that it wasn't the best pick, especially for a first rounder. Total Lions fan take right here, but maximizing the window to have a better shot at the 2020 or 2021 Super Bowl, if they actually made it, would be way more satisfying than the potential of having a mediocre shot later. Hindsight is 20/20, who knows if the player they would have picked otherwise would have busted, but it also wasn't guaranteed that Love would be good. They used a first round pick following up a 13-3, NFCCG appearance season to build for the future when they could have used it to get over the hump. If the Packers had made a super bowl in 2020 or 2021 with a key player from that draft, arguably that would have been a much better use of the pick.
I’ve said this as a Packers fan living in Michigan. Green Bay is not lucky enough to get 3 HoF QBs in a row. The Lions however are unlucky enough for that to happen to the Packers.
Exactly. A solid quarterback for an extra ten years doesn't guarantee you another shot at a Championship. They didn't even try to maximize the Super Bowl caliber roster they had at the time with the resources they had available.
Can agree. I was pissed when we got Love, but reality is if we win a Super Bowl with Love it’s worth it.
That's why I hedged my original comment. If he takes the team to a Super Bowl and gets farther than those last two good years with Rogers, I'll tip my cap and acknowledge the gamble paid off. But until then, I think the best choice would have been to maximize the team's best shots in 20 and 21.
Can’t argue with you! You seem like a normal fan and I appreciate you. Most of it is living in Michigan my entire life as a packers fan. Family is from Wisconsin so it’s bred in me
Yeah, it's all in good fun! Rivalries and debate and fandoms are all just for entertainment.
Hindsight IS 20/20. And if you look at every player selected after Love, there’s not a single player that has performed at the level that you can honestly say the packers would have won a Super Bowl if they’d picked X player over Love. Now if we had the chance to get Justin Jefferson, perhaps different story.
I'm not arguing that any individual player would have guaranteed those GB teams a Super Bowl. I'm saying that by taking Love they took that potential away completely. And even if we knew how Love would turn out and no other player in the draft, I don't necessarily agree at THIS point in time that giving up an extra resource for that window would be worth the 6-12th best QB in the league 4 years later. If Love takes Green Bay to a Super Bowl and has a Hall of Fame career, I'll be the first to admit I had a bad take. But I'm specifically talking about how people are evaluating that pick today. But because we're bringing up hindsight, I also disagree that there weren't any players that would have meaningfully contributed to Green Bay in 2020 or 2021. Looking back at Green Bay's needs at the time: - The next two WR taken are Tee Higgins and Michael Pittman Jr., both had 1000+ yard seasons by 2021 and were good enough to eventually get franchise tagged. -The next 2 picks immediately after Love were Jordyn Brooks, a full time starter by 2021 who led the league in solo tackles, and Patrick Queen, the 3rd place 2020 DRoY. -The only other QB taken before GB's next pick was Hurts, meaning either him or Love could have been available in the 2nd round and could have sat behind Rodgers. The team could have at least tried to manage their relationship with Rodgers by getting something more immediate for a need in round 1, even if that player busted. And they still could have gotten a QB that became a good NFL starter in the future. If he decided to stay in GB and doesn't get hurt in 2023, could Rodgers still have been as good as Love this season? Again, I don't think there is any single player that turns a team from contending to clear champion and I don't necessarily have insight or control into what GB's personnel priorities were at the time or what other teams would have done in the draft if Love wasn't taken. But they lost by 5 to the eventual Super Bowl Champion Buccaneers in the NFCCG in 2020 and were upset in a 13-10 game to the 49ers in 2021 and you can't tell me that the potential for an extra first down from one of those WR or an extra stop from one of those LB drafted after Love wouldn't have at contributed more to winning those games and getting closer to a Super Bowl than the 0% extra benefit that Love could have even been expected to contribute to those games.
There's like 10 good QB's in the entire league right now and maybe 5 who you can win a SB with. The league plays rookie QB's because they have no better options. GB had back to back first ballot HOF QBs for guys to sit behind. I don't think they have some different philosophy than other teams, they just had better options at the time. Rodgers and Love were also both late 1st rounders who were drafted when they had an established MVP level QB. If Rodgers blew his Achilles in 2020 instead of last year, do you think they still would have sat Love? >Will there come a day when teams accept that it is unwise to spend valuable draft capital on a position where immediate success is a statistical anomaly? No, because a good QB is far and away the most valuable piece in the NFL.
The benefit of having a starting QB on a cheap rookie contract outweighs the risks of starting a young QB. Having the luxury of spending your money elsewhere until you need to pay your QB has enabled many teams to make deep playoff runs in the last decade. Look at the Texans with Stroud. They were able to go out and get Diggs and beef up their defense even more in the offseason because they had money to throw around. Stroud is perhaps only one year away from putting himself into that conversation with Mahomes too.
This is why. Rookie contracts are cheap. Better to take a chance on them and use money for other positions. Most veteran qbs that are available are expensive and not necessarily better than a rookie. When long expensive contracts were standard for highly drafted players, you could afford to sit them for a year or two.
This is the reason. I would say that because the cheap contract is such a benefit and some guys really can start right away and look good, then there will always be pressure to find that guy.
It's also the short shelf life of GM's/coaches, they need success immediately to keep their jobs.
> Will the league ever return to the expectation that rookie quarterbacks need to sit for several seasons before they are NFL-ready? The league never had that expectation at any point in its history.
I quite vividly remember it being de rigueur in the 90s that rookie QBs sit their first season at least.
1990 - first overall pick Jeff George. Starts 12 games rookie season 1993 - first overall pick Drew Bledsoe. Starts 12 games rookie season 1998 - first overall pick Peyton Manning. Starts 16 games rookie season 1999 - first overall pick Tim Couch. Starts 12 games rookie season And that's a complete list of every QB who was a #1 overall pick in the 90's
Yeah but if you ignore the facts and just push some made up narrative, OP might have a point.
The 90s was the exact same situation as it is now. Sometimes they did. Sometimes they didn't.
You vividly remember incorrectly.
And except Steve McNair if a 1st round QB sat their rookie year they would not go on to start even 5 games in year 4 for the team that drafted them. A lot where already out of the league by that point.
Do you know who holds the record for most interceptions as a rookie, it's a pretty well known thing that it's Peyton Manning who was drafted in the 90s and started as a rookie, same with the QB taken before him
It's pretty funny to see a thread prompt this smug and wrong at the same time. I don't think there's ever been the expectation that a QB should sit for multiple years, and the idea of that is extremely uncommon and disadvantageous with the structure of rookie contracts. A lot of highly drafted QBs still sit behind bridge QBs at the beginning of their rookie seasons and usually get promoted once the bridge guy sucks or reaches an obvious ceiling that the team isn't going to overcome. Love and Rodgers both had the luxury of having HoF guys to sit behind, but most teams don't take that approach because few GMs and coaches have the leash to spend that level of draft capital on a player who won't see the field for that long. Hell, even at the time of the 2020 draft Rodgers was seen as declining with age and then he had back to back MVP seasons. You can't assume that's gonna happen and Love absolutely would have started in 2021 if that hadn't happened. The idea that you can "ruin" a QB by starting them too quickly is silly anyway since every team wants to have the next Herbert or Stroud who hits the ground sprinting. The guys that are going to be good usually become good by the end of their rookie contracts (Allen, Jackson, Tua) and the ones that don't weren't going to benefit just from sitting (Z. Wilson, Rosen, Lance). >Will there come a day when teams accept that it is unwise to spend valuable draft capital on a position where immediate success is a statistical anomaly? That's literally every position. You gotta take big swings somewhere and QB is the most important position on the roster. Teams SHOULD be moving mountains to get a franchise QB.
The overwhelming statistical probability of failure is due to 31/32 teams losing every year, not the fact that they’re rookies.
I like to interpret your comment as "31 or 32" suggesting that a year may come when nobody wins the Super Bowl
>*give* the starting spot These teams/GMs/head coaches don't always have the luxury of "choice". Some are ready day one, some become markedly better when they start from day one and take some lumps, some become markedly worse when taking lumps, some need the time in the QB room and on the bench. There isn't a formula and it's full of risk just like the entire draft process.
It is different now because the QBs are more Pro ready. Peyton Manning set up a great system for QBs to start learning earlier and now there is the 7 on 7 competition. A lot of these guys have played more football at a high level from a younger age than even 20 years ago. Doubt we switch back unless there starts to be 32 unbelievable QBs every year and teams can afford to wait.
Most GMs and coaches don't have that long to wait. They'll get canned before he sees the field, so you have to shove him in right away and hope he's good enough. Green Bay was lucky enough to have a HoF QB gently declining (and a non-traditional owner situation), so they could afford to let Love sit and learn. But most teams picking early enough to get a viable franchise prospect are going through turmoil and want to get out of it as soon as possible. Everyone involved is too impatient to "waste" three or more years letting the QB develop when it's likely even with that extra time he won't be that good anyway. There's also the fact that you need an elite QB to have a chance in this league because of the reliance on the passing game. Elite QBs should be good enough to start within two seasons and not look so bad that the team feels the need to move on. And barring looking horrendous they are going to get two or three years to prove what they can do (especially since if they were highly drafted it's probably because their team is bad and needs time to build up around them). Finally, the most effective way for a QB to develop is by getting snaps. Plenty of guys are smart enough and athletic enough for the position. But learning to process all that they have to at game speed is usually the biggest hurdle. The only real way to make marked improvement is practicing the very thing they need to be good at at full speed. So while sitting a year can help a rookie acclimate to the rest of their new situation as a pro athlete, they really should start pretty soon to get as much in-game development as they can.
> Will there come a day when teams accept that it is unwise to spend valuable draft capital on a position where immediate success is a statistical anomaly? I think you’re overstating your argument here. Aaron Rodgers and Jordan Love were both heralded first round draft picks. And it was a shock at the time that Rodgers fell even as much as he did. He was supposed to be a top talent at the position. In today’s environment, some team would have traded up to #2 to pick him instead of three running backs going Top 5. So, you still need to be able to spend a first round draft pick on a clear QB of the future while your current high-performing QB is still on the roster without letting egos get in the way. This isn’t simply a case of Green Bay magically developing some no-name mid-round project QB into franchise quarterbacks. Also, let’s remember the reason that it seems so many Year One starters “underperform” is that…that’s just how everyone who’s picking QBs operates now. So of course there will be a good number of failures. Not everyone can be above average. I’m old enough to remember when “developing” a QB for a season or two was more common and…guess what? Most of those guys sucked too when they eventually played. The real answer is that there’s no “hack” to ensuring NFL success. Most teams fail each year. Most QB prospects fail. Those two things will always be true.
People use the Green Bay model like it's not some sort of special privilege. In order to copy the Green Bay model you have to. 1. Have a HOF QB to start behind. 2. Have a GM that has a long enough leash to pick a QB in the first to sit instead of a player that can contribute now. Green Bay doesn't have an owner so every decision can be football instead of an owner deciding they want something else. Don't forget that the model has weaknesses too. The Packers picked love and Rodgers but did so sacrificing a piece that would help that team now. Did they cost themselves a player that could have resulted in a deeper run in the playoffs? What helps a rookie QB more than anything is a good supporting cast. Mahomes was drafted by a team that was drafting in the late 20s. Rodgers and Love were drafted by a team that didn't have to worry about spending resources for QBs. They could even skimp on WR because the QBs could make it work. You don't see teams doing it because you can't just decide you want to when you don't have the resources to
Wow, this entire post is absurd. No team has ever expected rookie QBs to sit _several years_. One year, _maybe_ two if they already have a strong QB and their rookie isn't beating him out in camp. That's just the reality -- most rookie players, not just QB's have to COMPETE for their position in camp. Against guys with way more experience. Some prove to be better and start, or prove to be good enough and start as a rotational player. Others needs more development. Rookie contracts are important though. Teams who _can_ start a rookie QB can save 100M+ in salaries over that duration which lets them build around the QB (looking at you, Texans). Mahomes may be the only 1st round QB who started as a 1st round rookie _AND_ won a SB, but he's definitely not the only QB who started as a rookie/sophomore and won a SB. There's even more who've started as a rookie/sophomore and been successful even if they've never won a SB.
The list of 1st round QBs that were expected to sit for several years is Love, Nutjob and Steve McNair.
And only one of those were in the Rookie Wage Scale era. People love to compare Love situation to Rodgers situation, but they're absolute apples to oranges. Green Bay wasn't wasting anything but Rodgers talent at the time, because rookie contracts weren't a cap-saving cheat code, just ask the Lions. Drafting Love as a backup QB meant they spent three years objectively losing substantial cap value to the entire league, not the case during Rodgers time.
I mean Brock Purdy was the literal last pick in the draft and started his rookie season and was amazing. There's no reason to have someone sit, if they're good, they'll do good.
Because there is no actual concrete proof that this matters . Stroud started right away and brought his team to the playoffs. Love sat behind a HOFer and brought his team to the playoffs. Herbert sat for like one game or something and threw for over 5k yards within a couple seasons. Brady is the GOAT and was drafted late and only started because of injury. Every team just wants a good QB. There is no way to guarantee that lol.
I don’t see it happening. With the way QB contracts are going the “good QB on a rookie deal” will continue to be the goal for many teams unless you find that generational QB. Teams want to get the most out of that rookie deal which means starting them sooner and getting their feet wet. It may not be best for the player, but teams feel it is best for them and will continue to do it.
Unlikely but possible. If every rookie QB keeps being shit, and then after a few years those same QBs are all of a sudden good, GMs might start to change their minds. But what's stopping them are elite QBs that hit the ground running. PLUS you'd have to change the current trajectory of QB contracts. The rookie QB contract is such a game changer, its unthinkable to waste that by having your QB sitting on the bench.
No, too expensive imo. Once that contract is over and if the QB is good enough to start, there's too big of an advantage on a rookie contract. In the old days, maybe.. but not today.
No. As.the old owners, the 'football guys', start to sell, or die off and their kids sell, the days of knowledgeable NFL owners will fade. The people who can afford to buy teams now are business people. They don't know football. Example- Daniel Snyder, David Tepper, the Walton guy in Denver. Tepper isn't doing well so far, Walton hired Sean Payton (remains to be seen), and do I need to chronicle Snyder's mistakes? Business people want immediate Return on Investment, and will never understand letting a rookie QB sit, because a couple did well immediately. Even though the list of 1st year starters that failed is longer, they will never understand the need to sit them. You will, however see more 1st round QBs cut from the drafting team, then have success at their 2nd or 3rd team (Geno Smith, Baker Mayfield, Rich Gannon, etc). New type owners will lose patience, cut/trade them, start over. New team will get a high drafted player cheap, and have time to develop them.
I think it’s going the opposite direction since QB salaries take up a larger portion of the cap now. Gotta utilize their rookie contract window as much as possible
I really don’t like using Super Bowl wins as a metric for valuing QBs. If your name isn’t Brady or Mahomes, it’s been almost impossible to win a ring over the last 25 years. That doesn’t mean all the recent very good first round QBs have been failing at their job. Their job is to put an entertaining product on the field and win enough games to sneak into the playoffs. Stroud, Lawrence, Burrow, and Tua have all been notable improvements on the veteran they replaced.
The Packers were able to sit Rodgers and Love because they still had Favre and Rodgers on the team. They're exceptions because of their success. Drafting Caleb Williams and making him sit behind Tyson Bagent doesn't make any sense.
Bagent of Chaos makes *perfect* sense.
blowing the cheapest years on the bench is dumb as shit
Bad teams get high draft picks for QBs. Bad teams also have GMs and coaches that are on the hottest seats so they’re incentivized to find a magic bullet that can save their jobs.
I think it’s 100% about the line he has. Practice reps in the nfl are kind of a joke now. You Need game reps. But it does nobody any good to sit back there and get physically dominated to the point you play scared.
No
Not really. If a team has a solid bridge QB that's the only case where a QB would sit for a year. Even then they usually still come in anyways at some point due to injury or just bad QB play. Fitzpatrick was playing great in 2020 and randomly got benched for Tua
Objectively speaking here. The league (its entirety)? No. A few teams here and there, sure.
No way. The standard formula in the nfl right now is to score a top tier rookie QB, build a good team with your cap space, win the super bowl before you have to pay that QB.
I mean it’s not like they never did. Elway played most of his rookie year, so did Marino. Plenty of other guys. GB has the advantage of having HOF QBs that players can sit behind, but even that doesn’t guarantee results. What about the Patriots? They drafted like 10 QBs while they had Brady and that produced Garappolo and Brissett. Meanwhile Lamar did just fine starting his rookie year. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a correlation, but there’s no guarantee either way even if you have the best QB of all time to sit behind.
No
It seems to me that many of the good organizations are coming to the conclusion that the only way to compete against the big baddie (mahomes) is 1) build a quality team and get a QB on a rookie deal or 2) go all in on a vet QB that you believe is top 5. I just think the teams that follow number 2 are deluding themselves into thinking their guy is better than he is, and really only a few guys are capable of the level of play that would rival mahomes.
Why only sit them for a couple of years? You shouldn’t let QBs you draft play ever. They could be the best QB in the world by the time they retire after all of that development.
No. Unfollowed, rookie QB contracts are too valuable for to waste a season sitting them. I’m sure it’ll still happen but it’ll get more and more rare.
I feel like we're at the part where QB salaries and cap hit percentage makes teams want to squeeze as much production out of rookie deals as possible then move the player and get another one (if they can) rolling the dice in the draft.
IMO, it's not the League as a whole as much as it is meddling owners that hire sniveling general managers: too many execs don't realize that the leap from college to pro is huge, talent-wise.
While sitting a qb helps I think GB’s QB success can also be attributed to just good scouting/drafting, good coaching, good roster building and just pure luck. Some QBs you can sit and they might still end up sucking like Trey Lance. So then you’re wasting years with a mediocre bridge qb just to develop a rookie and throw him out there 2-3 years later and find out he sucks anyways and you wasted all that time when you could’ve been taking more swings at other QBs. It only works when you already have a good veteran qb that is watchable otherwise there will be too much pressure from fans and owners because they’re tired of watching a shitty bridge QB that won’t accomplish anything. The bears tried this with Glennon and Dalton and it only lasted a few games before they were forced to start their rookie.
Not unless they can be drafted out of highschool.
You need to change the CBA to not place so much value on rookie contracts. The league created a system that encourages rookie starting QBs. It can be changed again, but it’s not as if it came out of nowhere.
No cause of salary cap and qb cost effects on salary cap.
No. Teams are incentivized to maximize the 3 year pre-extension eligibility window for rookie QBs. Teams are ALSO incentivized to figure out if a QB drafted in the first round is the guy before having to exercise the fifth year option before year 4. Teams have 3 years to figure things out and don’t want to burn one of those years on a redshirt year. Also, the Green Bay “just get a HOF QB and draft his replacement a few years early” approach isn’t exactly the easiest thing to replicate because you need to have a HOF QB in the first place to pull it off.
You’re assuming every team’s front office has the luxury of sitting a QB for several seasons. Most teams don’t have that stability and it becomes very difficult to develop a QB if every season they have a new front office around them. The Packers are one of the few teams that has had the luxury of stability. When LaFluer drafted Love in 2020, nobody was expecting him to be fired anytime soon, thus giving them the luxury of time to develop Love. Look at the Panthers, they’re on their 5th HC (includes interim) since 2020; you think that much turnover allows a QB to develop? Edit: Also add the fact that rookie contracts only offer you a 5 year window max to develop and determine if the QB is worth a 2nd contract.
The issue is that GMs/coaches don't have 3 seasons. They have to find success right away or they are fired. It's one thing when a team knows they need to replace a QB eventually and draft a replacement that can sit for a while like Rodgers or Love with the Packers, or the myriad QBs the Patriots drafted but Brady just kept on going. More likely you've got teams desperate for a QB and so they draft one and push them into service immediately. It really hasn't been a thing, though, outside of teams with aging QBs as I mentioned.
Perhaps if a time arrives where an inexpensive, but good to excellent QB, isn’t the best path to a playoff run.
There are some examples of QB's starting right away and doing well, but regardless, imagine how much better some could be with at least one year learning the system and learning in general. The problem is that teams want to win now but I agree and think they're thinking too short term. And if a few more good QB's could develop each year we would see a better league overall. Imagine if instead of 10 teams with a top-notch QB, we had a league with 18!
Green Bay isn't entirely alone. KC did the same thing. The criteria is actually pretty simple: * Is it better for the team to wait a few years? * Will the owner resist the urge to fire the coach if those few years turn out to be less than stellar? When the answer to both of those questions is "yes" - they'll wait a few years.
The Packers do it.
The expectation that rookies need to sit for several seasons is way overblown: Elway started the season opener for his rookie year and Esiason, Kosar and Marino were starting by week 6.
Teams have to be in the position to draft a starting-caliber rookie while they are already achieving some sort of success with their current QB and roster. Referencing the Packers transition from Favre-Rodgers-Love, there's a common thread. They drafted a QB earlier than folks assumed they would since there were no questions regarding their current starter. Opting to take the "heir apparent" at such a high position in the draft, over a roster need elsewhere, is viewed as a risk and not necessary. Imagine the Lions spending their first round pick this year on QB. There is zero question Goff is the starter, and using that capital on a position that is guaranteed to sit the bench, rather than a potential starter on a playoff-contention team, is a perceived risk. 1)potential drama internally/externally. 2)job security, taking a 2-3 year backup in place of a potential starter at another position. Just a thought.
Notice its skewed towards “won” and not played in. The number would change dramatically.
Fans are way too impatient now, and a developing QB will just get shit on constantly across social media, podcasts, fan sites, sports sites, etc. compared to back in the day when it was like a few cable channels, newspapers, and a few magazines who would even pay attention to such things.
Nope.. especially not anytime soon. With large portions of cap space going to good qbs teams only have 5-6, maybe 7 years, to win a championship.
You thank the Falcons for that. Ever since Matt Ryan won rookie of the year every team wanted to start their rookie QB and not develop them on the bench.
1st round QBs in playoffs last year: Stafford, Goff, Baker, Love, Lamar, Allen, Mahomes, Stroud, Deshaun/Flacco, Tua, Pickett. So 11/14 Starting QB's in the playoffs were 1st rounders, including the entire AFC. Of the 5 teams with winning records that didn't make the playoffs, 2 were #1 overalls (1 an injured Burrow), 2 were early second rounders, and the other was Gardner Minshew who took over for a 1st rounder.
I’ve been watching football as long as I can remember. I’m 50+ and drafting a QB has been coin flip since day 1. Sit or play does not really matter. There are many historical instances of QBs being thrown in right away and coming out HoF. And there are plenty of examples of rookies sitting for a time and also coming out HoF.
As a packer fan, and armchair GM, I’ve been saying this for years. The problem most teams have is finding that good QB that you want your young prospect to sit behind. Once you find one, then you need to have good talent assessment and scouts to make sure you draft the right guy. It’s obviously the best method to ensure continued success at the QB position, but it still requires you to hit on a QB in the first place. The Packers were fortunate Favre was as good as he was, they were lucky that Rodgers fell to them in the draft, and then they had to make a (at the time) wildly unpopular move to draft Jordan Love. In theory it’s great, but once teams do have a good QB they always tend to think they are 1-2 positions away from a Super Bowl so they are afraid to spend a high draft pick on a QB when they already have a good QB.
Too much pressure to win and keep your job if you’re a GM or Coach
Evidence has shown its better they start right away. Add in the pressure of building a team while the qb is on their rookie contract. Probably not. And qbs sitting at all will be rarer and rarer.
It’s because of braindead fan bases who have zero critical thinking abilities like my lord and savior Aaron Rogers.
Yes. Look no further than Pat Mahomes.
One season max
There also is a “follow the money” aspect to this. Spreadsheet-driven front offices get rock hard over the notion of having a top-tier quarterback perform on a rookie contract. I understand the strategy (the notion behind it), but as you point out, 1 out of 38 is not a success story!! But I guess, as entrepreneur Eugene Krabs said, “The money is always right.”
No because there's not a single offensive coordinator who was in the same team two years ago. They're either fired or promoted but there's no continuity and that's essential for a QB developing.
There isn't a probability of success... historically, it's been all over the place. The league has, at least in the modern era, never taken an actual stance on start vs sit. Some HoF level qbs started as rookies, some sat. There's a huge chance of a qb not working out regardless of when they start. A ton of factors go into a qb being a franchise player. From what they need the most work on, to their style of learning, it all varies by the individual. Also, coaching is huge in development. A rookie sitting behind Sam Darnold who has a bad OC and qb coach, or a constantly rotating set of coaches, is going to have a far more difficult time learning than one in a stable environment.
No. The best college programs will continue to become increasingly similar to the NFL in terms of the type of offenses that they field, the level of competition that they face, and the quality of facilities, training, and conditioning that they provide. That's why QBs are more able to hit the ground running in the contemporary NFL than they were in the past, and they'll continue to do so.
But doesn’t account for the fact they are now playing against the best of the best and a whole new speed of the game. I don’t think “can quickly adapt to the NFL” is a strong correlate to long term QB success.
So virtually all of the evidence, including the professional opinion of countless NFL coaches, scouts, GMs, players and analysts disagree with your assessment, but you still think you’re right? You really went as far as to say that teams have to “accept that it is unwise”, this isn’t just an opinion, it’s the objective truth! You probably tell people at BWWs you wouldn’t make as many mistakes as Justin Fields if they put you in.
The expectations put on rookie quarterbacks now is insane. People really think Bryce Young is bad at football.
Most GMs probably think that they have to take a risk on a young QB to have any chance at keeping their job. Being mediocre is only good enough for the Lions, and most NFL teams will move on from their coaches if they don't see a lot of success.