Sit or Play: The Rookie Quarterback Debate

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Where do you stand on this? We have examples like Peyton Manning starting from his first game in the NFL and being wildly successful. We also have Carson Palmer who sat for a few years to learn the offense before he was thrown in there and he was very successful. The past few years we have also had names like Flacco, Sanchez, Ryan, and Russell all play in their rookie years and all went in different directions. We also have Sam Bradford this season and the debate has begun. So which way do you go? Sit your franchise QB fro awhile, or throw him to the wolves and hope for the best?

Obviously there are different situations that come into play here but humor me.

Me, well I learned to swim by being thrown into the lake. That's how I handle it. Put Sam in and let him learn on the fly.

 

[Big Sexy]

There really isn't a right or wrong answer. It all depends on the situation the quarterback is in and whether or not he seems ready enough. If a rookie doesn't do that well in training camp or the pre season then it would be in the best interest to wait a little. You also the potential "David Carr" scenarios where a teams offensive line is so bad that you'd basically be feeding him to the sharks.

Obviously the better the team is, the easier it will be for a quarterback to transition and get experience. Carson Palmer waited 1 year and it worked out. Phillip Rivers waited a couple years and it worked. Then you have guys like Peyton, Flacco, and Matt Ryan who were able to come in right away and learn quickly.

A team just shouldn't throw a guy in there if he isn't ready just because he is the future, but if a rookie is ready to play then by all means put him in there and let him learn. There is no substitute for actually playing.

 

[The Holy One]

I think it all depends on the situation the team is in. If the team can do well without the rookie, then they should bench him and let him learn. However, if they are already in the bottom of the league. I think you have to put them in there whether they're ready or not. I look at my Falcons as a perfect example. When Ryan started in 2008, the team had no expectations and were picked to finish last in the league, so why not go ahead in put the rookie in so he can get some experience and learn from the year. He was able to pick up the game very quickly much like his fellow rookie Flacco and predecessor Manning. Then you have guys like Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell who were in the same position and failed. Now some say it's not smart to throw them in the waters like this, but I believe if they have no shot or chances you might as well b/c you have nothing to lose and if things to work out it's not like you was going anywhere in the first place.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Its not a situation where you use a formula, its unique in every circumstance. What type of offense is being played -adjustment or not? The supporting cast. If you have a new coach, you want to make sure the QB is ready to maximize your own success to keep your job long-term.

The main thing is whether or not the man shows he's ready to play. If you earn your job, you should play. But there's no magic formula, because we'd obviously still not continue this debate.

 

[justinsayne]

Like everyone else I think it depends on the situation, if we're looking at the St. Louis/Bradford situation, I would would say you really don't have much to lose by just throwing him in there, St. Louis really doesn't have many other options at the QB, and it's not like people are expecting them to turn shit around in one year and make a solid run toward the playoffs this year, so you don't have much to lose by throwing Bradford to the wolves so to speak, if say you had a another QB with a bit more of a proven track record than having him sit for a a bit to learn the offense, and shit would make sense, but given St. Louis's current situation, I see no reason not to start Bradford

 

[gd]

If I had to choose, I'd lean to the "start him right away" side, as long as that seems to be a possiblity. For instance, I'd definetly start Bradford this year, as the Rams really have nothing to lose by doing it. They're not going to win this year anyway, why not give Bradford some experience?

My thought is, if the QB can't handle the difficulites in the first year, they don't have what it takes to be your franchise QB in this first place.

 

[TwistofRKO]

If I had to choose, I'd lean to the "start him right away" side, as long as that seems to be a possiblity. For instance, I'd definetly start Bradford this year, as the Rams really have nothing to lose by doing it. They're not going to win this year anyway, why not give Bradford some experience?

My thought is, if the QB can't handle the difficulites in the first year, they don't have what it takes to be your franchise QB in this first place.

Somewhat, but its a confidence thing as well. If you have a terrible supporting cast, then you're not getting out of it what you put in. This is a tough league to survive in. Of course you want everyone like Joe Montana, where he's immune to pressure, but these are real people and a loss of confidence is a shot to an athlete, and can side-track a potentially successful career.

 

[The People's Peep]

I think he needs to be on the sidelines for at least 4 weeks. I dont have a problem with a rookie starting, but I dont think they should be thrown on the field right away.

By having the guy on the sidelines for a little bit, he has time to watch and study the game up close. Learn about the speed of the game and anything else that is different from college football. You might say that that is what preseason is for, but lets face it; preseason is not the same as the regular season. After a few weeks of watching, I think they should have learned enough to start.

 

[gd]

Somewhat, but its a confidence thing as well. If you have a terrible supporting cast, then you're not getting out of it what you put in. This is a tough league to survive in. Of course you want everyone like Joe Montana, where he's immune to pressure, but these are real people and a loss of confidence is a shot to an athlete, and can side-track a potentially successful career.

I don't buy this, actually. What did Peyton Manning do his first year, win like 1 game or something? It was dreadful. But, he turned out just fine. Same looks to be true for Stafford, as far as I can tell.

Sure, some guys, like David Carr, started immeadiately and had bad years, but I'm pretty sure if David Carr waited till his 4th year to start, he wouldn't have been any better. I see no harm in starting a rookie right away.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I don't buy this, actually. What did Peyton Manning do his first year, win like 1 game or something? It was dreadful. But, he turned out just fine. Same looks to be true for Stafford, as far as I can tell.

Sure, some guys, like David Carr, started immeadiately and had bad years, but I'm pretty sure if David Carr waited till his 4th year to start, he wouldn't have been any better. I see no harm in starting a rookie right away.

Not his 4th season, but in his case, and a like situation with Tim Couch, they had no supporting cast and were killed. Carr, especially. He was sacked, what, 80 times as a rookie? He was never the same. That's an area you have to evaluate.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Sam Bradford coming off of two major injuries and missed nearly the entire season. He's your number one pick whom you have invested 50 million into. He's either your savior, or the killing blow to your franchise. In a season which he is not equipped with any weapons outside of Steven Jackson, I sit Sam Bradford. I don't want him out there taking hits when he has little to gain by it. A 22 year old kid has plenty of time to get game experience. He can stand on the sideline and study the game. Next year, bolster the offensive line, grab another top pick, sign a receiver for Bradford to throw to and give him the keys.

 

[goodlay]

I think it all depends on the team and the situation. With guys like Flacco and Ryan, there was really no one else to play QB, and they felt like they could come in and produce for the team, so they put them in Week 1.

On the other hand, with guys like Leinart and Palmer, you had an established guy at QB already, and the young guy could sit on the side lines and learn the playbook and see how the game works in the NFL.

Like Big Sexy said, there is no right or wrong answer. It just all depends on the team and the situation they have at QB, and if they feel the young guy can come in and produce as a rookie.

 

[Stormtrooper]

It has been said a million times already, but I'll say it again. In some cases it makes sense, in others it does not. The main reason for this is the team around him, and more importantly, the Offensive Line. Sometimes, playing your best player at QB isn't the best move for a franchise. Lets look at 3 rookie QBs this decade.

David Carr is a great example of a situation when you don't want to start a rookie. Carr was forced to play as a rookie (first overall pick, nobody better on the roster), and during his entire tenure in Houston, he had a bad offensive line. Couple that with his tendency to hold the ball a little too long and he got annihilated, to the point that his entire career was ruined. Had they let someone else take the beating that Carr took, then maybe they would have fixed the O-Line and Carr could have had a more successful career.

On the other hand, look at guys like Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez. Both teams were good teams, with solid Offensive Lines, and the QBs were able to start and perform adequately, without getting knocked around. After making it through their successful rookie season, they are both poised for solid NFL careers.

To me, the question should not be "is the rookie good enough to play?" rather, it should be "is the team good enough to allow a rookie to play?"

 

[Megatron]

From a fan who's had this type of situation happen a few times lately, I've always thought that the QB should get some playing time during the season, but not right away. Last year I thought that Stafford should've had some time on the sidelines and get a feel of the game for the first few weeks, since we weren't gonna give a playoff run anyway, before bringing him along after the bye week, unless by a miracle that Culpepper was leading the Lions to a remarkable run, which obviously wasn't gonna happen. The Lions protection was weak, and I didn't want Stafford to become the second coming of Harrington. However, he proved that he was ready for the NFL and those games that he played in will help his improvement as a top QB in the league.

So, if you're rookie is the best option at hand, I think you should play him. Matt got smacked around a lot last year and missed a few starts because of injury, but there's no doubt that he had a lot of improvement from last year to this year. Obviously not everyone's gonna be as ready or as tough as Stafford is (Carr) but if the guys the best option, give him a chance to get a feel for the game and make improvements during the season. It's all a learning experience the first year, so mistakes are to be expected, but you hope those mistakes translate into the QB being ready and having improvements for the following season.

 

[People's Champ]

The only time I would sit a rookie is if he was at risk of being hurt. And I don't mean some crake fluke play or landing wrong. I mean if he's at risk of getting punished week in and week out because of a bad O line or if he has trouble avoiding pressure or holding onto the ball too long.

He probably someone you've invested a lot of money in, and to put your "savior" at risk just to get him use to playing, isn't the smartest decision. Better him wait and learn or wait til you can upgrade before just throwing him out there. Other than that though, I say put him out there.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

Good Question here....i don't know if Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco can count i mean Flacco got drafted to a very talented team and Atlanta brought in some great Talent to help Ryan...then you have Joey Harrington, David Carr, and JaMarcuss Russell who flopped huge...now the sit ones are also big especially if the sit behind a Legend (exception Matt Leinart)...Aaron Rodgers is one the best QB's in the league and likewise with Phillip Rivers...and they sat behind people who taught them very well (Brett Farve and Drew Brees)....the jury is still out on guys like Kevin Kolb (Donvann McNabb & Mike Vick), Matt Cassel (Tom Brady) and Chad Henne (Chad Pennington)...my personal reference if i were a coach would sit them if i had the resources let him get some garbage time to sorta get a feel of the game and not have so much pressure..cause the risk-reward of sitting is far better than starting right away...were you can either have Peyton Manning or JaMarcus Russell....but not all teams can do that a la Detriot and St. Louis

 

[LSN80]

I don't think there's a right answer to this question. There are so many different situations that a QB could walk into, and depending on that situation, they should sit or play.

If a QB is coming in to a bad team, with a QB whose not the face of the franchise, I say let him play and take his lumps. The QB is arguably the most important position on the team, and if the team is towards the future, then they should let the rookie play in order for him to gain the experience, leadership, and trust of his teammates that he needs. They also need to determine if he is indeed the future of the franchise they believe he will be. As long as the offensive line can hold up, and you're not risking injury, then let him play from the start. But you can't let a rookie start, get annihilated, and ruihis confidence and career as a result.(See Carr, David, or Quinn, Brady.)

On the converse, if the QB is walking into a good situation, like Ben Roethlisberger did with the Steelers, then he should sit and only play in the case of injury, or the starter faltering badly. Of course, this did happen in Pittsburgh, and all Ben did is go 14-0 in his rookie season. But he's usually the exception, rather then the rule. Most QB's walking into good situations should sit and learn, rather then play immediately, possibly disrupting the flow of the team.

So it really depends on the situation. If a QB is walking into a bad team, like Sam Bradford, then he should play right away in order to become as good as he can right away, barring the risk of injury. But if he's walking into a good team, let him sit, listen, and learn.

 

[Yuridius]

I believe it really depends on what you have around the quarterback. For the case of Sam Bradford, I believed you show should start him. However, with the case of like Colt McCoy and when Matthew Standford it wasn't in their best interested.

I thought Sam Bradford could start because, while the team overall was bad, the Rams has Steven Jackson which gave Sam Bradford an out in almost anycase. With Colt McCoy, he does not really have that so it is best to make sure he is ready to get rushed by NFL defenses, because if he is not ready for it, you could very well have the next David Carr, and no franchise wants that.

 

[The Crock]

If he's physically and mentally ready, start him. No doubt in my mind. If you have a guy coming into your system and he looks GREAT, don't hesitate to start him. If he can handle it, then you know you've found something really special. Hell, sometimes it's best to start a rookie to just light a fire under the rest of your team's ass and show them that their jobs aren't safe. I don't see why you shouldn't start a rookie, he'll learn some things, gain some experience and even if you have to bench him and then bring him back the next year, if he learned something from starting... then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

The only time I wouldn't start a rookie is when you have a seasoned vet, a good QB, who he can learn from. Especially if the vet still has something in the tank. It wouldn't hurt a guy to learn from the sidelines either, although I think letting him start would be your smartest move.