PDA

View Full Version : rookie QBs aren't suppose to start



RonPaul2012
10-26-2013, 01:03 PM
Am I crazy for thinking this? Idc how good. 1st pick or whatever. Should be backup for at least a year...okay maybe not the if hes the first pick

Youppi
10-26-2013, 01:10 PM
why shouldn't they start if they are the best on a roster?

scotyg
10-26-2013, 01:13 PM
if they are good they start. if not they dont



the worst thing is throwing a rookie QB to the wolves who isnt ready

chlaxman
10-26-2013, 01:15 PM
You're not crazy. Naive and ignorant, maybe.

jross2021
10-26-2013, 01:33 PM
Depends.. obviously luck, rgiii, etc should have


Wilson, probably not but that turned out fine. If theyre the best on the roster, they get the spot.

wickedman
10-26-2013, 01:35 PM
Think 1/2 of it is how "ready" they are: Luck vs. Jamarcus, and the other half how good the team is: Seattle vs. Jagoffs.

Lazlo1
10-26-2013, 01:43 PM
Agreed. Hate when teams throw their rookie QB's to the wolves. Blaine Gabbert was young as chit when he came in the league and the Jags already had a established starter when they drafted him. Who knows how he could have turned out if he had a few years to sit behind Garrard


As far as this upcoming draft of QB's, I believe that they all should sit a year but I know that Tampa and Jacksonville are going to draft QB's and expect them to save their franchises right away so that wont be the case.


EJ Manuel has no business starting now. Mike Glennon doesn't either. Geno Smith is doing decent but he happened to walk into a situation with a lameduck coach, lameduck starting QB and a apathetic fanbase so he works.

Would much rather go the Aaron Rodgers route with handling my young QB's. Denver and New Orleans should be thinking about their future QB's in this QB heavy draft.

Terelle Pryor sat for a few years and he looks decent this year.

FAH_Q
10-26-2013, 01:54 PM
Have no problem with it at all. Depending on the situation. If your team has a crap QB and they draft one high in the draft then why not start him? Matt Ryan came in with terrible QB's in front of him. I am glad he started

RonPaul2012
10-26-2013, 02:02 PM
why shouldn't they start if they are the best on a roster?

well look at hoyer...might sound silly but I blame that slide on him being inexperienced aka rookie. Also EJ manuel...


Agreed. Hate when teams throw their rookie QB's to the wolves. Blaine Gabbert was young as chit when he came in the league and the Jags already had a established starter when they drafted him. Who knows how he could have turned out if he had a few years to sit behind Garrard


As far as this upcoming draft of QB's, I believe that they all should sit a year but I know that Tampa and Jacksonville are going to draft QB's and expect them to save their franchises right away so that wont be the case.


EJ Manuel has no business starting now. Mike Glennon doesn't either. Geno Smith is doing decent but he happened to walk into a situation with a lameduck coach, lameduck starting QB and a apathetic fanbase so he works.

Would much rather go the Aaron Rodgers route with handling my young QB's. Denver and New Orleans should be thinking about their future QB's in this QB heavy draft.

Terelle Pryor sat for a few years and he looks decent this year.

yea isn't Tom Brady a prime example? Of a QB that sat out and watched first few years?

PatrickBateman1
10-26-2013, 02:03 PM
brb disagreeing with yourself in your original post lol.


Sure as hell didn't work out for Luck, RG3, Wilson, Tannehill, Newton, etc though.... not srs.





What a stupid phucking thread.

BEASTMODE420
10-26-2013, 02:04 PM
you tell russell wilson that OP and see what happens!


























he'd prob give ya a big hug and slip ya a 20

shibby19
10-26-2013, 02:05 PM
They pay these first round picks too much money to sit on the bench for a year or two. I completely agree though, rookies should sit behind a vet for atleast a year. Even if they're the best option on the roster, I'd rather let them develop and learn the game at the higher level.

RonPaul2012
10-26-2013, 02:11 PM
brb disagreeing with yourself in your original post lol.


-__-


They pay these first round picks too much money to sit on the bench for a year or two. I completely agree though, rookies should sit behind a vet for atleast a year. Even if they're the best option on the roster, I'd rather let them develop and learn the game at the higher level.

I think its why this season has gone full retard at the QB standpoint

Messiahtype
10-26-2013, 02:17 PM
well look at hoyer...might sound silly but I blame that slide on him being inexperienced aka rookie. Also EJ manuel...
Hoyer has been in the league for 4 years...wtf?



And rookie QBs don't make anything anymore. Sam Bradford was the last rookie qb to make real money. Now half of them make decent backup money, because the rookie salary cap is in place.

Lazlo1
10-26-2013, 02:19 PM
brb disagreeing with yourself in your original post lol.


Sure as hell didn't work out for Luck, RG3, Wilson, Tannehill, Newton, etc though.... not srs.





What a stupid phucking thread.


Andrew Luck is a prodigy. Was literally the best prospect since Elway
RG3 and Cam Newton were Top 3 draft pics and expected to come right in and save their franchises
The initial plan for Russell Wilson was to have him sit but Matt Flynn was so bad that he prematurely took away the starting position from him
Tannehill was a pleasant suprise

evilsteve02
10-26-2013, 03:23 PM
Am I crazy for thinking this? Idc how good. 1st pick or whatever. Should be backup for at least a year...okay maybe not the if hes the first pick

It depends on a lot of factors. Who else is on the roster, maturity of the player, system they are playing, talent level. I think it benefits them to sit a year, but a lot of times they don't just because they are flat out better than any other option on the team.

Phil9
10-26-2013, 03:27 PM
Matters the situation. Most 1st/early 2nd round QBs go straight to teams that are desperate for a starting QB because what they have isn't working.

bigcc
10-26-2013, 04:13 PM
The initial plan for Russell Wilson was to have him sit but Matt Flynn was so bad that he prematurely took away the starting position from him


surely it had nothing to do with Wilson's ability

Phil9
10-26-2013, 04:14 PM
surely it had nothing to do with Wilson's ability


Or Flynn's lack of...

bigcc
10-26-2013, 04:27 PM
Or Flynn's lack of...

he also beat out T-jack

BrawnySwoleman
10-26-2013, 04:29 PM
if they are good they start. if not they dont



the worst thing is throwing a rookie QB to the wolves who isnt ready100% this. OP you sound like those stick-up-their-ass baseball writers who think no one should get into the HOF on the first ballot.

RonPaul2012
10-26-2013, 10:10 PM
100% this. OP you sound like those stick-up-their-ass baseball writers who think no one should get into the HOF on the first ballot.

I never watch baseball lol

rubivision
10-26-2013, 10:18 PM
Lol ok. Sit teddy bridgewater behind blane gabbert for a year and watch how much he learns.