The Real Reason Coaches Do Not Start Rookie QBs
Jun 1, 2024 9:20:19 GMT -6
Funkytown, HunterMorrow, and 6 more like this
Post by whoskmoon on Jun 1, 2024 9:20:19 GMT -6
In the 2024 draft the MN Vikings made franchise history when they drafted JJ McCarthy in the top ten. It was a massive investment in the QB position, so of course a bunch of fans do not want to see that investment play significant snaps for the Vikings as a rookie. Why? Well, if you ask these fans and media personalities it is because that is the best way to develop a QB. Do NFL coaches believe that though? Some might, Andy Reid had nothing in front of Donavan McNabb and McNabb only started six games as a rookie. He also sat the best QB in football for all the meaningful games of his rookie year, but it should be noted that Alex Smith had arguably the best season of his career to keep Mahomes on the bench. Most do not believe in that philosophy though, and the numbers back that up. Since the year 2000, there have been 51 QBs drafted in the top 15 picks of the draft, and of those 51, 43 either started 7+ games or would have if not for injuries. That leaves just 8 QBs out of 51 who got the “sit and learn” treatment that many fans would have you believe is norm. Clearly head coaches don’t believe that is the right way to develop quarterbacks or why would so many risk such a massive investment by playing them as a rookie?
So if like every other position in football, playing QBs is the best way to develop them, why doesn’t every team start the season with their highly drafted QB out on the field? There is a very good reason for it, and it is a very simple reason: rookie QBs suck.
Not every rookie QB sucks of course, just like not every rookie edge rusher, corner back or left tackle is a liability, there are some who enter the league better than the average starter. CJ Stroud just showed us all what a rookie QB can do in a best case scenario, but most of the time you start a rookie QB game 1 and it ends up like Bryce Young. Since 2000, there have only been 8 QBs out of 37 selected in the top 15 who ended the season with a .500 or better record in their rookie seasons (starting 9+ games). You start a rookie QB, you are probably going to lose more football games than you win. Looking at other QB stats, and rookies just aren’t very good compared to QBs in their 2nd and 3rd seasons:
Numbers for QBs drafted in the top 15
The difference between a rookie QB starting and a 3rd year QB is picking in the top 15 again and making the playoffs. The jump in production from year 1 to year 2 is pretty significant, and from year 1 to year 3 even more so across all the major passing statistics.
Knowing this, it is actually pretty surprising that so many coaches are willing to throw away a season on a rookie QB, and we begin to understand why coaches will at least try to start a veteran QB before giving up on a season. A veteran just gives you a better chance at succeeding than a rookie does and some coaches, especially ones on a hot seat, might not be willing to give up on a season before it even starts to develop a rookie QB. Looking at these numbers it is also not surprising that once it is pretty clear the season is lost, why so many coaches are quick to throw in a rookie versus letting him "sit and learn". They don't want year 2 to look more like year 1 and know experience, more than watching football, is the best way to develop a QB.
So if like every other position in football, playing QBs is the best way to develop them, why doesn’t every team start the season with their highly drafted QB out on the field? There is a very good reason for it, and it is a very simple reason: rookie QBs suck.
Not every rookie QB sucks of course, just like not every rookie edge rusher, corner back or left tackle is a liability, there are some who enter the league better than the average starter. CJ Stroud just showed us all what a rookie QB can do in a best case scenario, but most of the time you start a rookie QB game 1 and it ends up like Bryce Young. Since 2000, there have only been 8 QBs out of 37 selected in the top 15 who ended the season with a .500 or better record in their rookie seasons (starting 9+ games). You start a rookie QB, you are probably going to lose more football games than you win. Looking at other QB stats, and rookies just aren’t very good compared to QBs in their 2nd and 3rd seasons:
Numbers for QBs drafted in the top 15
The difference between a rookie QB starting and a 3rd year QB is picking in the top 15 again and making the playoffs. The jump in production from year 1 to year 2 is pretty significant, and from year 1 to year 3 even more so across all the major passing statistics.
Knowing this, it is actually pretty surprising that so many coaches are willing to throw away a season on a rookie QB, and we begin to understand why coaches will at least try to start a veteran QB before giving up on a season. A veteran just gives you a better chance at succeeding than a rookie does and some coaches, especially ones on a hot seat, might not be willing to give up on a season before it even starts to develop a rookie QB. Looking at these numbers it is also not surprising that once it is pretty clear the season is lost, why so many coaches are quick to throw in a rookie versus letting him "sit and learn". They don't want year 2 to look more like year 1 and know experience, more than watching football, is the best way to develop a QB.
Really? Do you not know how many bad NFL QBs have made great coaches? Or the number of them were bad QBs in college? McCown was a better QB than the majority of current coaches and lasted until he was 40. This is the same logic as "John Elway will be a great GM because he was a great QB!" that Broncos fans fell for. 
... and neither is this Chris guy.