When I see the success of some of the NFL quarterbacks who were allowed to sit and learn for a year or two, I am coming around to believe it is the best way to develop the player. Aaron Rodgers, Jordan Love, Patrick Mahomes, Steve Young, Tom Brady, etc., all sat and learned at the beginning of their careers. Not saying it can’t happen by starting an NFL rookie quarterback right away, nor that sitting a few years is some kind of magic elixir, but there does seem to be some advantages in letting a young man learn the NFL game without the added pressure of fans expecting him to play like a 10 year vet right out of the shute .
2 Likes
Hooker prefers to stand. 
So we are all set for the future.
I do agree though throwing rookies to the wolves can end in disaster. If the team has a good oline and a supporting cast the rook may have a good shot.
By if you can’t run the ball. And the rook is taking a beating early in his career… sometimes they lose confidence and it’s game over
2 Likes
For sure. I look at Justin Fields and Jordan Love. Fields, in my opinion, has much more ability and raw athleticism, but isn’t nearly as polished as Love. Now, he could take off in year three and change the narrative. But right now Love looks like the better long term prospect. Fans and coaches can be impatient. I get it, everyone wants to play with the new toy. There’s a lot invested in that typically high draft pick quarterback and everyone wants to get their ROI. By the time I was 22 years old, I had just learned to stop shitting my pants. But these guys are expected to come in and perform at the highest level. The pressure has to be immense.
PS… I’m hoping they both fail miserably. 
Bit of a late bloomer I see…
Another reason to sit a qb is hits add up. Fields for example has taken a beating already. Whereas Jordan Love is feeling fresh. Didn’t take a hit for 3 years while learning
Oh, I was in full bloom
There’s no one right way to do it. Burrow, Allen, P. Manning, Stafford, Watson, Herbert, Dak, Roethlisberger, Russ, Goff, Matt Ryan, Luck, Cam all had/are having good careers despite (basically) starting right away. Stroud looks like he’ll be another. And that’s without going back an era to Marino, Elway, Aikman, etc…
Yep, I agree that there’s good examples both ways. But it does seem to me that the QBs who are sat at the beginning come out having more success in their first year of starting than those who started right away. I don’t have hard fax to back that up. Understandable, Right? They’ve experienced things in practice that gave them a leg up. For myself, I would like to see any high, drafted quarterback for the Detroit Lions to sit for at least one year before throwing them out there. Again, just my opinion. I think it pays dividends most often. It gets players used to the speed of the game, reading complex defenses, and just learning what it takes to be a pro. I think they start with a high confidence level, or at least higher than they would have as a rookie. Again, no right or wrong answer. Just opinions.
Sure, it’s understandable that they hit the ground running faster (though again, Stroud).
BUT, on the flip side, the team doesn’t get to take advantage of having a QB on a rookie contract. You’d take that trade off all day if sitting a QB ensured he became good, but no one can do that, and it’s absolutely a check in the cons column. The reason the Niners are so stacked right now is cause they’re paying their QB 250K/year or something like that.
So there’s some pros and cons to both approaches. I personally believe that those QBs who sat would have been good even if they’d started right away. If a guy isn’t able to overcome struggles as a rookie then he probably wasn’t gonna make it anyway. You gotta have mental fortitude to play QB in the league. In fact I kind of like the trial by fire aspect of throwing them to the wolves right away.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.