I would argue that there is overwhelming evidence...hence the reason I attached the list. I don't have time to make a detailed count, but of QBs drafted in the 1st round since 1990, at least 16 (and that is a conservative count) have been outright busts...the majority of which played right away. Your argument seems to be based upon flawed fatalistic approach...either the player is going to be good or bad. I would agree, in the case of Ryan Leaf, that this would be true. The biggest difference in starting Leaf in year 1 or in year 3 is that you find out he stunk much earlier. That being said, Leaf is one extreme of the spectrum. Peyton Manning is another. So, the bottom line is that we can't go back in time to handle players differently. However, if you throw Leaf and Manning out of the equation of extremes, you are left with a lot of QBs like Vinny Testerverde...guys whose careers could have gone either way had they had the time and been coached up. If Vinny had a coach such as Parcells or Walsh at an earlier stage in his career, we may be talking about a HOF QB. But he didn't...but then again not many QBs have had the benefit of playing under HOF coaching. Guys who sat on the bench in year one and had quality coaching (maybe those things go hand in hand?) were much better suited than guys who didnt. Out of all the QBs since 1990, only 2 QBs have successfully stepped in and played basically full-time right away...Peyton and Big Ben...both of their performances as rookies were pretty remarkable. In Peyton's case he was the "team" his rookie year and the Steeler's carried Big Ben his rookie year. The most successful model has been that of exposing a rookie QB to the league in small doses...such as with McNair, McNabb, Vick, etc. If you go through that list, I don't think it is coincidence that the better QBs had time to slowly break into the league. Everybody who was thrown to the wolves...no matter what the reason...are flipping burgers at Wendys.
I paid very close attention yesterday and don't agree with you. The two games prior to yesterday I agree his passes were floating. Yesterday, in deplorable conditions he made some very nice throws. He used touch when needed and zip when needed. The pass to McCareins was a bullet, the one that LC should have caught was whipped in there, not to mention a couple of the out patterns to Cotch and the one in the middle. He threw the ball very well yesterday in rainy, windy conditions....
While we are all concerned with the direction and future of the QB position, I have a thought on this debate with 3rd. If we bench Penny after the Bears game, it will send a horrible message to the rest of the team (ie, we are done. it's time to think of 2006). Furthermore, I think it impedes the development of other players on the team (the rookies, cotch, etc). You can argue whether it hurts or helps Clemens to play at this point is a debate that goes on with each rookie QB. It's hard to say either way. But, I think it would hurt players like Cotch, Mangold and D'Brick to have a rookie calling signals behind them. The offense would not function as smoothly and the line wouldnt get the help it needs from the QB. I realize that Chad doenst help DBrock shut down a DE, but his presence changes the way the game is run and the whole offense learns the whole playbook with a mature leader behind them. We would have to run a third of the plays with a rook signal caller. Clemens can learn over the next year and step in ala Phillip Rivers (no limitations). I guess I am making two points - 1) If you bench Penny too early, you hurt the team psyche and could have a divided lockerroom which will destroy team morale on offense and defense and you potentially weaken your head coaches future with the team. None of us want that kind of mess. 2) Penny helps the younger players on the team develop with his leadership presence and experience. He is a teacher in the huddle who helps every player in the huddle. I think Clemens would reverse that in the short term and may impede others progress while he learns play by play. mud
What does a list of all the QB's drafted show us? Give me a comparison of the washout rate of QB's who played right away and those who sat for a year compared to the overall washout rate for QB's. You'd probably have to go by first round picks only because there are several starters in the league that were drafted later and obviously wouldn't have had a chance to start year 1 given their draft positions.
Good post, mud. You are not the only one thinking it is more a detriment to bench him. In my mind we only bench him if he really full-on tanks, or if we are out of the playoff hunt down the stretch. You can at least in the latter scenario admit to trying to keep Pennington healthy and give your backup some much needed experience. However, a healthy Pennington, helping us win games is better in the game than on the bench. I don't care how much quacking everyone hears. A win is a win.
Agree %100. Sadly I think it's because mediocrity is typically a 'good' year for the Jets. It all starts in the front office, but this regime feels a bit different then the usual though. I don't think for a second that Mangini would play Penny unless he truly believed he was the best option. That said, the best option does not equal the best player possible. He's our best option, but win or lose the rest of the year, I really think Mangini will be looking for a long term solution less Chad steps it up a bit. The Bears game should be interesting.
Dude, this is the only direction you can go - afterall, the "Chad hasn't beaten any quality teams" argument becomes a lot weaker after this past Sunday's win. Granted, some are trying to push the "Pats have slid a long way down and no longer really any good" argument. This talk is all bitching for bitchings sake indeed. :up:
The list I provided includes ALL QBs drafted since 1982 by team & round. The reason I didn't go back past the first round is that I simply don't have the time to provide you with a detailed statistical analysis. If you would like to look at all the picks, please do so as they are all there. I included the list as a FACTUAL reference. I know this is quite abnormal here on the TGG.com where people like to post unsubstantiated assertions...otherwise known as "opinion." However, even a casual review of the list will discern what I am talking about...QBs that were given the time to develop were much better suited to the NFL game than those who weren't. You are free to review the list at your leisure...but the bottomline remains, that with very few exceptions, QBs that had time to grow into the job performed better. Draft position, like you are alluding to, does play a part, but not in the way you think. Granted QB picks below the 1st round don't have a reasonable opportunity to start in year 1...but in the long run they benefit by not having that pressure and having the time to learn the nuances of the position. This of course actually further proves my point. But nothing speaks better than than the facts... RIGHT NOW, QBs drafted below the 1st round since 1990 account for 12 CURRENT STARTING QB jobs...and with a couple of back-ups starting now, that number rises to 14...guys who all sat and waited there first few years. And these aren't punks either... Brett Farve Brad Johnson Mark Brunell Trent Green Jake Plummer Matt Hasselback Mark Bulger Tom Brady Drew Brees David Garrad Chris Simms Seneca Wallace Charlie Frye Andrew Walter That is half of the NFL's current starters.
Not to mention that nearly every QB who has ever played the game says it's an advantage to learn by watching in most cases before stepping right in. It makes sense if you think about it.
Starters in their first year you didn't bother to mention: McNabb (small doses? He played in 12 games his rookie year, 6 of which he started) Brees (only 1 game, but he played his rookie year) Carr (his team sucks, but he is the owner of 89.5 passer rating right now) Grossman Eli Manning Leftwich McNair All of these guys are starters in the league right now, and arguably, all stars. If a guy is talented, he is talented. Leinart looks better than I thought he'd be. Young as well. To compare anyone on this list to Vinny Testaverde is insane. Vinny sucked from day one, and always sucked. He threw interceptions. Easy ones. That's not coaching, that's a mindset. He had a rocket arm, but zero aim. Give me Chad's head on Vinny's body, and I will hand you multiple Super Bowls. Sorry, but you're just wrong.
I see lots of speculation here and not so much fact. So the QB's drafted after Round 1 are good because they have time to sit on the bench and don't have pressure on them? Huh? You can't just look at a couple years and blithely declare that not starting right away somehow makes a QB better. By the way, at this point there are only 3 names that jump out at me from that list as being highly desirable QB's. Maybe 4.
You managed to find 4? Brett Farve (if he were 8 years younger, sure.) Brad Johnson (if he weren't Brad Johnson.) Mark Brunell (hahaha) Trent Green (I'd keep him as a backup if I had a good starter.) Jake Plummer (Lot's of potential, never lives up to it.) Matt Hasselback (No Alexander in the backfield = no success.) Mark Bulger (Better than average, but average in the NFL today isn't good.) Tom Brady (Who wouldn't kill for this guy to be your starter?) Drew Brees (Another guy I would start in a heartbeat.) David Garrad (Ummm, when Leftwich returns, Garrard revisits the bench.) Chris Simms (Pre-spleen explosion? Nope, not even then.) The last three don't even warrant a smart-ass comment Seneca Wallace Charlie Frye Andrew Walter So of that list, as of right now, there are exactly 2 guys I would want as my starter.
You wear your name well AliotheFool. You should get your facts straight before you jump in. I mentioned in my second post...one that you obviously didn't bother to read...that the most successful model was to introduce QBs to action in very small does ala McNabb, McNair and Vick: The rest of the QBs are as follows - Brees - As you said, one game his rookie year. Grossman - 3 games in rookie year, missed basically 2 full seasons since then. Carr - Appeared in 16 games as a rookie with QB rating of 62.8. Career rating of 75.9...hardly Canton material. Manning - Appeared in 9 games with QB rating of 55.4. Career QB rating with 25 additional games...73.5...no need to add another wing on in Canton. I didn't through in Brees or Grossman in my initial list because their first year impact was negligble. As for Carr and Manning, they both haven't demonstrated anything that would knock your socks off. And in Carr's case, I would argue that he is the poster boy for a QB who should have sat for one year. Time for you to go back to the drawing board.
1st off, let me say this is a really great thread. Now, lets look back to training camp. Wasn't we like 28th on the power rankings? Nobody gave us a chance. But we're 5-4. One game behind the Pats for the division leader. Yet, guys like 3rdand15 wants to start Clemens after the Bears game. What? AliotheFool is calling Chad a noodlearm again. What? The Jets are in the playoff hunt with JAX, CIN and KC (not to mention all 3 of these teams lost yesterday). 3rdand15 is so concerned with the future, but why at the same time do you want to neglect the present. We're in playoff contention. Even if we lose next week, we are still contenders. What makes you think Clemens won't learn anything from the sideline? Steve Young did, Tom Brady did, and Chad Penny did. The benefit from being on the sideline is you get to watch how the game is supposed to be played. There are 3 rookie QBs playing this season. One in AZ, one in TN, and one in TB. All 3 of these teams suck. Plain and simple. If not now, eventually these teams will realize their season is done. We couldve started Clemens but we have something different here. This is a very young team and they need a leader. Someone who knows the game and is known to make great decisions out there on the field. Thats what Chad is. I know Chad is not our future, but he's our Mr. right now. This team is doing what every team should be doing: Investing in the future while taking care of the present.
Look at a couple of years? I went back to 1990 and I didn't include guys that had started for a good stretch in their career but have since retired. That is hardly "blithely declaring" anything. Sorry 3rdand15, you need to come up with some better material to support your flippant comments. How about you spend a bit of time to back up your claim. Take that list and pull every QB that started more than 8 games in his first season and show me what their career looks like. You can't and won't find much to support you assertion.
Wait a minute here. What exactly is your criteria for being a successful QB? You list Vick as an example of the way to do things, meanwhile he's a horrendous passer. But he wins games. If you want to play that card, fine. But then you mention Eli(who's been alot better then Vick) and say "no need to add another wing in Canton". He wins games too. So which is it? It's also worth mentioning that McNair was mediocre to bad his first 4 years as a starter even after being "brought along slowly" for 2 years. And other then that 5th year and his excellent 2003 season he's been mediocre to bad his entire career.
Oh look! You win the ribbon for originality for using my name against me. You are winner #1,346 of this prestigious award. Thank you, come again! And you are right, I did skip over the list you originally posted, since I don't bother clicking links on this site that people post. My bad. Once I realized it, I had already posted, and didn't want to look like I was just trying to save face. You do have my apologies for that. The reason I mentioned Brees and Grossman is because I didn't realize the part about small doses. I would never condone throwing a QB to the wolves, but 3rd isn't exactly saying to start Clemens from day 1. It's mid-way through the rookie campaign for him. As for Carr, like I said, the guy has a ton of talent. If you are basing judgement on him solely on his record, which most people do, then you aren't making a valid argument in my book. Carr on any team bound for the playoffs this year puts them over the top. It's hard to throw passes when you spend most of your time figuring out that a cloud overhead looks like an elephant. Eli is a good QB too. When his weapons are actually in the game, he plays very well. Unfortunately for him, someone is almost always on the sidelines while he is under center. And you totally ignored Leftwich and McNair.
Lets not try to re-frame the argument here now that you are running out of steam. My point was and is that QBs that sit & wait a year have a higher probablility of success than QBs who are thrown into the fire. I have demonstrated that through several occasions here, punching holes in your theory that QBs need to start right out of the box. Don't come back with the "well what is the criteria for a successful starting QB" crap. Go ahead, keep posting...you haven't provided one shred of fact to back up your claim, yet you continue to bash mine...and now want to change the argument. Once again, proof that the TGG.com has turned into more style over substance.
Excuse me? At no point have I EVER called Chad noodle arm. Please get your facts straight, thank you. Second, I didn't even say his current problem is physical. Honestly, I don't know if it is his shoulder, or he just doesn't have the same confidence he had 4-5 weeks ago. I haven't noticed his mechanics sliding backwards, so I'm pretty sure that's not the problem. So that leaves either his shoulder, or his head.
