Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Rookie QB's - Development Time

Texas_Thrill

Texas_Thrill

Veteran
How long do you think it takes a QB to be comfortable with the game?

Some want to start rookie qb's right away and see if they can handle the fire.

Others prefer to sit them 2 or 3 seasons.

I ask this b/c I see so many people wanting to get rid of Carr but regardless of how you feel about him prepping a new QB takes time.

Even Grossman playing in the superbowl has been in the league a bit and is still all over the place at times.
 
i think 1 season should be about right as far as learning from the sidelines. it's different for every qb and every team, but i think that gives adequate time to learn and see light backup time, while taking in all the changes his starter makes throughout the course of a season. after the second training camp and preseason, he should be ready (if he's talented enough of course).

there's always more to learn, but there comes a point that you have to learn through experience.

i'm content with sage or plummer starting for that one season.
 
rookie qb time line is individual case by case, depending how quick they pick-up the system, team need & pace of developing a program suited for that player based on what the coaching staff feels is best (could be long term or short term) :twocents:
 
:crying: David Carr has been here too long and is still playing high school football, like he doesn't have a clue. I'm of people making excuses for him. Big Ben and Rex Grossman been in the league for only a short time. They both went places, did big plays, and look at where they are a threat b/c both QBs are playing grown man football. Yes it comes to the individual to develop but how long is it going to Carr to develop. We don't have that time. Look at V. Young, M. Leinart, R. Bush, heck Leinart is struggling but did better than Carr in his rookie season. I'm tired of the rookie David Carr!!:crying:
 
its simple............if your QB is good play em quick...........if he stinks you will know that youll need a new QB by yr three...............sitting a QB is an excuse.
 
Bongo59 said:
its simple............if your QB is good play em quick...........if he stinks you will know that youll need a new QB by yr three...............sitting a QB is an excuse.
Click to expand...

i disagree. Carson palmer wasn't sat for a year as an excuse, he sat because he needed a year to learn. That worked out fairly well didn't it? Vince sat for 4 games, it probably had a lot to do with his success...Aaron Rodgers? Still sitting....
 
Bongo59 said:
its simple............if your QB is good play em quick...........if he stinks you will know that youll need a new QB by yr three...............sitting a QB is an excuse.
Click to expand...

mcnair turned out just fine. quarterback is the most difficult & complicated position in football. very few are ready to go right away, and as david carr has shown, it can turn very badly if they're thrown in before they're ready.
 
I think it mostly has to do with the offense they ran in college. A guy like Quinn will come in and be ready to play earlier than a guy like Kolb, because ND's offense is more easily translated to pro style than the UH offense
 
Bongo59 said:
its simple............if your QB is good play em quick...........if he stinks you will know that youll need a new QB by yr three...............sitting a QB is an excuse.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Back in the olde days, QB's like Unitas frequently got several years to sit on the bench and learn. McNair had several years to learn which is unusual for today. Today, people usually throw them into the fire too soon. If you get in there and don't know what you're doing, it's really easy to pick up bad habits and then later, it's hard to unlearn them. I think that's what happened with Carr.

In the right situation with the right QB (eg., Aikman, Manning), it's perfectly fine to throw them into the fire. But with other QB's and other situations, it's better that they sit at least a year (eg., Brady, McNair, Palmer, Montana, Favre.)
 
Unless there is an elite QB prospect, who truely understands the game and has top notch physical talent...I would sit my rookie QB for 1 - 1.5 years. If said phenom rookie were to land on our team (there isn't one this year), I will consider letting them play half-way through the season if it becomes obvious he is substantiously better than the incumbant QB.
 
ya but you cant say there isnt one withonut knowing that and you ont know that until they play.....if i were a coach but im not just like everyone else...lol......i would let them play the 1st game of the season and see how they do....unless you have a good qb and ant them to learn...in our situation i would teach him fast and let him try.....i would game plan as to what he can do best and what our team is well with.....not try to force them into learning a system that doesnt fit their style of play.....but thats just me.........
 
Titan "Tack" Fan;588948 said:
Vince and Leinart are two great examples of how fast a rookie quarterback can adjust. Some are ready, some aren't.
Click to expand...

leinart went 4-8 (and got manhandled because of a poor o-line). cutler went 2-3 and IMO cost the broncos a shot at the playoffs. vince young, as much as i am a fan of, got lucky. none of the above had a positive TD-INT ratio or any respectable statistic. while they're getting praise, i dont think any of these quarterbacks should've been starting this season.
 
it could go either way. i don't think any player has turned out to be a bust because he was started when he "wasn't ready" or anything. or vice versa. players who turn out to be successes would've been no matter what.
 
I think the college program has a lot to do with how quickly QB's are assimilating into the NFL now. While still a vastly different game, college ball is becoming more familiar to pro ball than it was years ago.
 
swtbound07 said:
i disagree. Carson palmer wasn't sat for a year as an excuse, he sat because he needed a year to learn. That worked out fairly well didn't it? Vince sat for 4 games, it probably had a lot to do with his success...Aaron Rodgers? Still sitting....
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the QB, and the team situation.

In 2003, the Bengals were on the fence..... most of their games were close, and most of their "pieces" were in place. In the AFC North in 2003, anybody could have made it, and "earn" a playoff spot. They went 8-8, and the division went to Baltimore at 10-6....... & like I said, they lost a lot of close ones.

In 2006, the Titans had KVB, Pacman & David Givens. They weren't expecting to do too much. They were 0-4 before Vince took his first snap, loosing two games by 30 points.

The way I see it, the best place to learn is on the field, and if you aren't expected to win a bunch of games anyway, throw the rookie out there and let him start learning..... while you are out of contention.

Which was why I thought it would be a good idea to cut our loses with YKW, and go forward with new QB in '06. If the best we were going to do was 6-10..... why not start grooming a Young(pun intended) QB.

Phillip Rivers sat because Brees gave them the best chance to win.... Same with Eli & Warner.

Had the Titans thought they had enough of a team to win, they would have found a way to make it work with McNair(it made more sense to give Mcnair $30 million than it did to give David $8 million)..... & Vince never would have seen the field in '06.
 
Scooter said:
leinart went 4-8 (and got manhandled because of a poor o-line). cutler went 2-3 and IMO cost the broncos a shot at the playoffs. vince young, as much as i am a fan of, got lucky. none of the above had a positive TD-INT ratio or any respectable statistic. while they're getting praise, i dont think any of these quarterbacks should've been starting this season.
Click to expand...


I watched VY and ML play quite a few times this past season, and a stat line doesn't show how well they played....
 
The only true stat that matters for a QB is how many wins. A few years back with Michael Vick was winning there wasnt a problem with him runnin around or how bad a passer he was. Now that he doesnt win (all be it his recievers cannot catch the football) there are concerns if he is the franchise QB people thoght he was years ago.
 
Scooter said:
leinart went 4-8 (and got manhandled because of a poor o-line). cutler went 2-3 and IMO cost the broncos a shot at the playoffs. vince young, as much as i am a fan of, got lucky. none of the above had a positive TD-INT ratio or any respectable statistic. while they're getting praise, i dont think any of these quarterbacks should've been starting this season.
Click to expand...

IMHO, Shanahan cost the Broncos their play-off spot...... He should have stuck with Jake when they were only one game out of the division lead. I understand Jake wasn't playing very well.... but he was bound to turn it around... If they weren't close.... sure throw in the rook. But as close as they were, didn't make sense to m e.

But regardless of their W-L records, and their stats.... both Lienart & Young looked like the real deal..... Poised..... that's the word.

Cutler..... IMHO did a couple of stupid things that you'd rather not see. Not your average rookie mistakes, like running out of bounds to stop the clock when you have the other team on the ropes, but things like trying to get rid of the ball as you're taking a sack......... & not the trying to make a forward pass kinda thing, but tossing it to the nearest person.... lineman..... defense, whatever... like he thought it was a hot potato or something.

Has there ever been a rookie QB with a positive TD/INT ratio?? Looking at Lienart, & Young.... & IMHO Gradkowsky... they're ready to play.... they need to get better, but it isn't going to happen on a bench.
 
Year ...Team ...G ..Att ...Cmp ...Cmp% ...Yds ...Yd/A ...TD ...Int .....Sacked.. Yds ...Rating
1983 ....Den ...11 .259 ....123 ...47.5 .....1663 ...6.4 ...7 ..14 ....28 .....218 ...54.9


Who's rookie stats are these ?
 
bah007 said:
Elway
Click to expand...

And these ?

Year ...Team ..G ....Att... Cmp ....Cmp% ..Yds... Yd/A ...TD ...Int ...Sacked ..Yds ..Rating
1985 ....TB ....5 .....138 ....72 .....52.2 ....935 ......6.8... 3 ......8 .....21 .......158 ..56.9
 
mexican_texan said:
Steve Young?
Click to expand...

correct.

Year ....Team.... G ....Att ....Cmp ...Cmp% ......Yds ...Yd/A ..TD ...Int ..Sacked...Rating
2006 .....Ten ....15 ...357 ....184.... 51.5 .......2199 ....6.2 ...12 ...13 ....25 ...... 66.7
 
stats dont matter only wins stats mean nothing its all about winning who cares about stats winswinsiwnns tats meneting notihnnfgianiait sbauto stats ngnrgainwning aintotihn gabga rusdf
 
Lucky said:
Yeah, plenty. Cutler is one of them (9 TDs/5 INTs, 5 games).
Click to expand...

Look at that... had he thrown the ball 357 times this season, he would have had 23 TDs, and 12 Ints....... not bad at all.

To make it easier to compare these QBs, I turned a few stats into percentages. & I threw in a certain Veteran's rookie numbers so we can see where these guys might project in the future.....(there is a little sarcasm here)

comp % As rookies,

..David: 52.5%
.Cutler: 59.1%
Leinart: 56.8%
..Vince: 51.5%
David Y5: 68.3%

Atts/game,

..David: 27.75
Leinart: 34.27
.Cutler: 27.4
..Vince: 23.8
David Y5: 27.6

yards per completion:

..David: 11.12
.Cutler: 12.3
Leinart: 11.9
..Vince: 11.9
David Y5: 9.16

sacks/Att
..David: 17%
.Cutler: 9%
..Vince: 7%
Leinart: 5.5%
David Y5: 9%

Int/Att

..David: 3.3%
..Vince: 3.6%
.Cutler: 3.6%
Leinart: 3.2%
David Y5: 2.7%

TD/Att

..David: 2.0%
.Cutler: 6.5%
..Vince: 3.4%
Leinart: 2.9%
David Y5: 2.5%
 
swtbound07 said:
i disagree. Carson palmer wasn't sat for a year as an excuse, he sat because he needed a year to learn. That worked out fairly well didn't it? Vince sat for 4 games, it probably had a lot to do with his success...Aaron Rodgers? Still sitting....
Click to expand...

That there thing was a reach. Vincent still plays QB as he has since grade school. And "that" will never change. Might get him to the SB one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top