I never said it's the only way to do it. I said it's the best way to do it. There will never be any evidence either way because, as I said in another response, you can't try it both ways with the same player. But I really struggle to see how anyone can think it would ever be the best way to throw a college kid into the starting line-up of an NFL team. It might not backfire - clearly it hasn't backfired on many occasions - but it is a huge risk. And with such a big investment.
Some guys are better learning by being put into the fire, and others are probably better getting eased into it from the sideline. I don’t think any one way is better than the other, or NFL teams would always choose the correct option, and they clearly don’t as of now. It’s the team’s job to decide if the rookie they have would be better off playing or sitting, given all of the information they have leading up to week 1.
Having a vet QB is not all about playing. Is helping understanding the playbook help understanding how to break down tape and hep trusting what they are seeing on the field. A good QB room helps the starter tremensely
Impatience, desperation, the need to turn a team around or risk losing their jobs, or flat-out poor evaluation of the player... there are many reasons a team might roll the dice and hope their rookie QB swims rather than sinks.
I don’t disagree. But that’s poor decision making if a QB is rushed on to the field for anything other than them proving they’re ready to go. I think if a QB shows he’s ready to go as a rookie and you think the team can support him, then by all means go for it.
Best way to learn is by playing. You’ll never convince me Rodgers or Mahomes are only good because they sat. But to me it’s all about competition. If the rookie is the best QB and if he’s ready to play, he should play. Different for every player.
I agree with this. I am all for giving a rookie a drive or two per game to get a feel for the NFL. I have difficulty accepting that letting them start, with all the pressure that comes with it, is the best way, but it's fine to have a different opinion. I'm not trying to convince you of that.
How are you going to play the guy a drive or two, that’s not really fair to the starter. And like I said, he should only play if he wins the job and is ready to play. Many QB in this era are ready to play. Herbert? Playing Tyrod over him was insane. Burrow looked great. Kyler. It’s very rare that a top pick sits these days
If a HC is on the hot seat he'll play to win no matter what, even if he gets his rookie QB killed. But Saleh has time on his side and will play to develop Zack while protecting him from getting killed. For example, if we're playing a team with a great front 4 that can get after the QB, call a run heavy offense, even late in the game when down by 21 points. Don't put the rookie in a position where he's forced to throw for 300 yards and 3 TDs to win the game.
I'm not arguing with that either. Anyway, I respect your opinion and I don't want this to just go on and on forever. Let's agree to disagree. And I know we both hope our new QB works out, whichever approach the coaching staff takes.
I believe in Joe Douglas but this is one thing he kinda screwed up. We have no back-up/vet to pair with Wilson. Who's left out there-- Mullens? Bridgewater? The rookie will have to start week 1 and if he gets injured, we're toast.
What did the Jets waste a 4th round pick on James Morgan I really like to see him compete for the job he sat for a year. Anybody see this Kid play they know he can play so much that Belichick wanted him. I say let Morgan and the rookie battle it out instead of wasting a spot on the roster for another scrap QB.
Well, since Gase and Nogains thought Morgan sucked, they never gave the kid any shot to play. With all the hoopla over Wilson, unless Morgan did like Josh Allen and throw 10K passes to get his game dialed in, he'll never see the field in a Jets uniform. Just the way it worked out here for the Kid. Plain unlucky.
