Starting Rookie QBs Can Harm Their Development (1 Viewer)

[Bob_Magaw]

there is a school of thought that it is better to let rookie QBs sit & learn by observing for a year or two... examples are cited of QBs like mcnair & palmer where this appeared to work very well... and the converse, QBs that for whatever reason started almost immediately and crashed & burned, supposedly crushing their confidence...

this question naturally arises when looking at the early success of VY, leinart & gradowski, who have sparked their teams and at times played like 2-3 year vets...

there were always counters to the above line of thinking... QBs like elway & aikman took their lumps in rookie season but didn't seem any worse for it, & if anything it probably accelerated their learning curve...

some things that aren't generally mention with above argument is that in case of QBs that watched from sidelines & waited turn for season or two... for all we know palmer may have done well in his rookie season...

and maybe some of the players that were thrown into the fray early only to later get chewed up & spit out supposedly due to shattered confidence... maybe they just weren't that good, and even if they had a season or two reprieve, they still may ultimately have failed due to fundamental, underlying lack of talent?

in other positions, when players learn playbook & are ready to play, they play... they make mistakes but if they are capable of growth that can be seen early on by correcting mistakes & gradually but steadily improving...

maybe the way college offenses have evolved & grown more sophisticated in recent years (lot of cross-pollinization of pro & college with likes of carroll, saban, charlie weiss, etc) has better prepared QBs like advanced & mature QB class of 06 (we should include cutler & later good looking prospects like tarvaris jackson) for the complexities & intricacies of NFL offenses...

* i'm not trying to make too broad or sweeping a generalization from one class... maybe this is just an aberration & anomaly... leinart was part of one of the longest winning streaks in ncaa history, & VY beat him in championship game & carried similar or even higher grade by some scouts... gradowski set state record for career passing yards in PA (unitas, namath, montana, marino, kelly short list of QBs from PA) and NCAA record by having 70% completion percentage two years in a row...

it is possible there are hybrid cases... maybe some QBs, depending on their nature, really could have gone in either direction depending on how they were used initially...

** i'm definitely not talking about holding a player back if they are slow to learn playbook... in that case, that is a simple matter of not putting them in a position where they are more likely to fail...

 

[Mr. Black]

I beleive you learn how to play by playing and not sitting. IMO if a guy can play it will show and if he can't then he will be a backup or out of the league. There is my .02

 

[MLBrandow]

It still does, but case by case basis.

Guys like Leinart and soon Brady Quinn coming from more pro-style systems will not have the same quantum leap to make as per say Vince Young and Aaron Rodgers.

Starting Rodgers or Harrington or guys like them off as rookies would likely destroy any talent they have, so it's a delicate balance.

A young bright-eyed QB can only take so much pounding and losing and crap before his confidence busts.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

It still does, but case by case basis.Guys like Leinart and soon Brady Quinn coming from more pro-style systems will not have the same quantum leap to make as per say Vince Young and Aaron Rodgers.Starting Rodgers or Harrington or guys like them off as rookies would likely destroy any talent they have, so it's a delicate balance.A young bright-eyed QB can only take so much pounding and losing and crap before his confidence busts.

is there anything that could have told in advance which was which, such that coaching staff would have known not to start harrington but OK to start leinart (as you said, & i agree it should be looked at on case by case basis)... or you just find out as you go along... but that would run the risk of damaging the confidence of harrington (which may have happened)... maybe sitting him for a period of time after he failed to progress could have alleviated his downward spiral... than again, maybe harrington just isn't that good? he sure looked good in college, but that is a cliche how some collegiate athletes can be stars at that level & out of the league in a few years once they get to pros (ware, klingler, akili smith)...another point relevant in this context is that there could very well be some variance, just as there is in QBs talent & ability to retain info & rate at which they can (talking football smarts more than knowing hermeneutics & semiotics), there is also no doubt variance in coaching staffs, with some better than others at bringing their QBs up to speed... or not! some QBs (any position) fail because they aren't as receptive to being coached up... also they may suffer from over confidence in natural ability, talent & athleticism, & fail to work hard, improve fundamentals and mechanics, as well as become a better student of the game & able to break down defenses...

 

[coolnerd]

I think the real elite or near elite can't have the goodness beaten out of them. Manning and Aikman survived horrible rookie years. I believe the McNabbs or Palmers could have been thrown into the fire and still had successful careers. These are the guys who understand how to adjust to situations and for the most part make improvement the situation over time.

Once you are talking the Qbs who are just good solid NFLers, I think putting those guys in a bad situation early does more damage. The Harringtons etc are more dependant on thier surroundings. An early start here w/o a solid cast does more damage because this guy does not have the same ability to adapt or improve the situation. Here the situation defines the player.

Finally, the guys who just don't have it (Ryan Leaf), it won't matter just like the first group. They are going to flop no matter when they start or what type of team is around them. They are the problem.

The issue, of course, is that it is difficult to figure what one of these guys that a team has. The organizations who are able to figure it out will over time benefit.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

 

[SSOG]

I think a lot of it is very dependent on the QB. Some are more fragile than others, for instance.

I suppose the big question I have is this... can anyone think of an instance where a QB was drafted as the future of the franchise, sat for one or two years, and then busted when he finally got the start? I really can't think of any example (although the sample size is much smaller). Not one. That's a pretty impressive statement to make- of all the QBs who were drafted, not one of them sat for a year or two and then became a bust. Tons of QBs have started right away and become a bust, but none have sat and then become a bust.

That might also have to do with the quality of the team they go to (QBs who sit tend to be on better teams, QBs on better teams tend to perform better), but still, it's something to consider.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Everyone remembers the qb's like Aikman and P Manning, who survived horrible rookie seasons and became studs.

But what about guys like Akili Smith, who got destroyed early and were never the same? Was it that 'he just sucked'? Many qbs who are later successful looked like they suck as rookies Or did playing for a horrible team damage their development? Not an easy question to answer.

 

[-OZ-]

Interesting points all around. Off hand, I'd be more likely to start a rookie QB, everything else being equal, if the team has a good offensive line. Nothing worse IMO than getting your rookie QB killed because he doesn't have the time to make the reads.

David Carr seems to have adjusted, finally, but the pounding he took for a few years couldn't have helped.

Few top picks or elite QB prospects go to a team with a good OL, so maybe this isn't able to be borne out statistically, but it makes sense to me.

 

[thayman]

Also you must consider that when a rookie QB starts opposing defenses don't have much film to go on. A bit harder to learn their tendancies strengths/weaknesses. I've always felt this is the biggest reason for the "sophmore slump" we see quite a bit.

 

[Bull Dozier]

FWIW, I did a vary amateurish study on the careers of QB drafted in the first two rounds, and compared the success rate (based on career success) of QBs who played significantly in their rookie season, and those who did not. The QBs that started in their rookie season actually had a higher rate of career success than those who did not. Of course the sample size is probably statistically insignificant, and it ignore the case by case analysis as stated above, but it does, to me at least, underscore the point that you learn by playing and dispells the myth that failure in your rookie season will destroy your confindence going forward.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I like Aikman's theory on this, although he may be biased under the circumstances.

In a nutshell, he thinks that if a rookie QB has his confidence shaken because of a rough start, that QB has no business being in the NFL.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

We see all the time where quarterbacks get pressured a few times and in the same game soon start unloading the ball way too early even when they're not under pressure. Why can the same not happen over a span of weeks/years rather than minutes?

 

[videoguy505]

Also you must consider that when a rookie QB starts opposing defenses don't have much film to go on. A bit harder to learn their tendancies strengths/weaknesses. I've always felt this is the biggest reason for the "sophmore slump" we see quite a bit.

This is my theory as well, it was pretty controversial in the DTBC thread, but I think that quarterbacks who come in mid-season have a better chance to fare well in their first handful of games, until opposing Ds have enough chances to see what schemes they don't handle well. Those QBs that start the season don't do as well because there's more preseason film to study (rookie QBs playing in week 1 usually play deep into preseason games to get the experience). Leinart, Gradkowski, both doing well for now, even against the Chicago D Leinart held up... we'll have to see if it lasts past a handful of games.

 

[boubucarow]

Not sure if this was started by seeing that 1998 NFL Films show about this subject recently shown on NFL Network (yesterday, I believe). I do think the general consensus with rookie QB's is that if you think their confidence can take it and you are a bad team anyways, let them up early and learn. But in that show, they brought up an additional point. A player like Troy Aikman has a tremendous career but would that career have ended like it did without the beating he took his first couple years in Dallas. Same thing for Steve Young in Tampa Bay and David Carr's head will be feeling those weekly beatdowns at the end of his career.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

Not sure if this was started by seeing that 1998 NFL Films show about this subject recently shown on NFL Network (yesterday, I believe). I do think the general consensus with rookie QB's is that if you think their confidence can take it and you are a bad team anyways, let them up early and learn. But in that show, they brought up an additional point. A player like Troy Aikman has a tremendous career but would that career have ended like it did without the beating he took his first couple years in Dallas. Same thing for Steve Young in Tampa Bay and David Carr's head will be feeling those weekly beatdowns at the end of his career.

it was spurred by a thread on a broncos homer board about how well VY, leinart & gradkowski are doing... many in that forum want to see cutler... whether because he is being shackled or not by skeletor (itself a bad sign), they think that cutler couldn't do an worse and might be a big improvement...the dissenters pointed out that TEN, ARI & TB are in a different position than DEN relative to how there season is developing & their playoff hopes... cutler & tarvaris jackson are also very promising looking imo, from what is shaping up to be a really good looking class of 06...SSOG made an interesting point about not being able to recall QB that was drafted to be the starter & allowed to sit for 1-2 seasons thereafter busteding... i guess it would be hard to define "drafted to be the starter"... seemingly an unambiguous quantitative measure would be draft round pedigree...in the limited study bull dozier did, his findings aligned with the perception that not waiting & getting baptism by far DIDN'T stunt development... that would be great if you remembered & listed a few of the QBs you looked at in your sample set, how far back you went...good point in preceding thread about beating aikman & young took early in career possibly impacting on end... i hadn't thought of that... young had some years on the bench behind montana, but as a running QB he did absorb extra punishment at times due to that... didn't chris miller's career end prematurely due to concussions (former falcon & ram, i think)? i forget if he started first season or not, but i don't think so (behind bobby hebert at first?)... maybe like some other ambiguous, open-ended questions here... maybe some players are just more susceptible to a big shot or two that tips there career over, independent of earlier beating... though certainly concussions are known to have a cumulative effect... i just think if marvin hagler had abeen a QB he may never have gotten a concussion regadless of how he was used earlier in career ( )... this is a very important point, though as you said separate from the question of whether QBs confidence is shaken by the experience of starting early... aikman & young did very well despite the horror show they had to endure in formative stages of their pro careers...

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Good points, everyone.

Bob, this is the most interesting topic I've seen posted on here in a long time.

Nicely done, yet again.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Also you must consider that when a rookie QB starts opposing defenses don't have much film to go on. A bit harder to learn their tendancies strengths/weaknesses. I've always felt this is the biggest reason for the "sophmore slump" we see quite a bit.

 

[NatronIsMean]

This article is MADE for this thread (or vice-versa ):

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cl-a...o&type=lgns

A lot has been made of the appropriate time to play a young quarterback. How do you know when a rookie quarterback is ready to get the starting nod?

It truly is a case-by-case situation. There are three progressions to a quarterback's development.

The first is learning the offense and understanding defensive fronts and coverages in a classroom setting. Until you understand what's going on, you will not recognize it on the field.

The second progression is to take what's learned from the classroom to the practice field so the recognition skills can be developed with live moving personnel. Knowing it is one thing but applying it is another. Much like a sales executive must first learn his product then develop his or her presentation skills, the same thing applies to football players.

The third and most important progression is taking it from the practice field to live game action where the speed is at its quickest. If a player has not properly progressed in the first two steps, then the game speed will be too overwhelming to have any modicum of success.

How much time is needed to progress through these steps is different for each player. For instance, Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning went through the first step very quickly and the second step by midway through his first preseason. At that point, all he needed was to adjust to game speed by getting more repetitions in game action.

I was involved with the drafting of Steve McNair from Alcorn State. It took considerably more time for him to learn Steps 1 and 2. Had we played him too soon, he could have had some success using his athletic skills but likely would have never developed the correct habits initially that eventually led him to becoming a good quarterback. Playing a player before he adequately develops through the first two stages will only encourage bad habits that must later be broken.

So, when you hear individuals claim that a quarterback cannot learn anything from the sideline or holding a clipboard, you know that is only the case if they have successfully progressed through the first two steps of development.

It's also important to note that if a player is rushed too quickly or improperly developed initially, it doesn't mean that it will ruin their career; just provide a roadblock that you must work through later. Quarterbacks like Steve Young, Trent Green, Rich Gannon, Matt Hasselbeck, and Jake Delhomme were all misevaluated early in their careers. Not enough time was dedicated to the development process before making the final evaluation decision.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

outstanding find, natron...

that is an interesting lens with which to look at this question...

it prompted me to think of a few additional areas of importance...

1) level of competition... mcnair went to alcorn state, whereas VY & leinart went to big time programs... cutler went to vandy, which if it isn't a big time program is definitely in a big time conference... not sure if gradowski neatly fits in here, as toledo isn't generally thought of as big time program... yet the MAC has been a QB factory of late, with pennington, leftwich, roeth, frye & grad... we might expect players from big time programs to be more used to NFL speed, practicing against faster, quicker & more explosive athletes on regualr basis & playing against them during season...

2) quick release... marino had the best rookie season ever for QB (individually... big ben did win a super bowl)... he also had the quickest release probably ever, which helped him get rid of the ball & deliver it on time... leinart looks to have a quick release, & despite critics of his funky throwing motion, VY also has a lightning quick slingshot-style delivery that helps him get ball out before pass rush converges on him... i also like way marino would back straight back so it was almost impossible to blindside him... he had such a cannon he could just bring the ball up to his ear & fire it from that position (ultra-compact motion... he was a former third baseman for Pitt in college)... if leinart hadn't had his back turned to mark anderson, the fumble/TD return might have been prevented... but few QBs have that marino-esque, textbook, picture perfect form (otherwise there might be more marinos), so i wouldn't hold leinart to that standard...

3) pocket sense... here also, leinart, VY, gradowski, cutler, tarvaris jackson seem to have IT, whatever it is that helps them to be aware & sense what is going on around them while maintaining focus on WRs downfield, & having athleticism & movement skills to sidestep the rush to buy extra time needed to unload the ball... some of these attributes almost seem innate... as are some others...

4) accuracy - self explanatory (perhaps this is mechanics issue that can be improved... though i would think early accuracy without having to be broken down & rebuilt from ground up would be more likely to bode future success)...

5) timing - timing routes, hitting WRs out of their breaks...

leinart doesn't seem to need to be brought along slowly for lack of last two traits... he is already pretty accurate & has excellent sense of timing for developing routes as they unfold...

6) ability to process information quickly (as jaws would say )... lets face it, the act of being a QB is greatly complicated by the fact that it is a moving picture... besides the QB there are 21 other people on field, sometimes 6'8" OL now (trueblood pretty tall RT for gradowski, not sure if that tall) that block vision, QBs have to have ability to throw it between defenders breaking on the ball with very little separation at times, & in between levels (over LB & in front of safety)... so they not only have to "see where everybody is" (probably not possible, but seemingly another trait variably distributed... montana was a master of this & could see more of the field than most of his contemporaries & peers... as do brady & palmer now)... but where they will be in a second... multiple defenders moving at different rates of speed, processed by QB in an instant of decisiveness... leinart seems to have this attribute (some QBs never get this)...

7) playcalling... gruden would expect to give gradowski more 3-5 step drops (or roll outs to avoid rush, some shotgun, contrary to his preference but aligns with his rookie's strengths) to avoid hits... a game plan that puts young QB in best position to succeed can probably help with development, & put them in better position to suceed early on... presumably VY is working with scaled down playbook... leinart played in amore sophisticated passing office, so is probably experiencing less constraints in how much of the larger offensive scheme he can implement right away...

 

[SSOG]

SSOG made an interesting point about not being able to recall QB that was drafted to be the starter & allowed to sit for 1-2 seasons thereafter busteding... i guess it would be hard to define "drafted to be the starter"... seemingly an unambiguous quantitative measure would be draft round pedigree...

Easiest way would be to say that any QB drafted in the first two rounds was "drafted to be a starter". You don't blow a first or second round pick hoping to get a career backup. The third round is a bit iffy, and could go either way- anecdotally, it seems that teams draft 3rd round QBs hoping they'll step up, but if they don't they just cut their losses and grab another QB in the future. I can't recall seeing a 3rd rounder ever sit for a year or two and then wind up getting the starting job for any reason other than injury (i.e. management never INTENDED to start him, they were forced to). Any second day pick was obviously just a roll of the dice.Another way to define it would be to look at every QB who1. Had been in the NFL with his current team for at least 1 yearand2. was handed the starter job for a reason other than an injury to the guy ahead of him.That should create a pretty objective and fair set of criteria, although it would arguably exclude Rivers (did he get the start because Brees got injured, or would SD have traded Brees even if he hadn't gotten hurt just to see what they had in Rivers?).

 

[Doug Drinen]

I suppose the big question I have is this... can anyone think of an instance where a QB was drafted as the future of the franchise, sat for one or two years, and then busted when he finally got the start?

There's a lot of room for interpretation on "drafted as the future", "sat for one or two years", and also "busted", but here are some guys that might fit the bill (or might not):J.P. Losman

Jim Druckenmiller

Tommy Maddox

Dan McGwire

Andre Ware

Kelly Stouffer

Chuck Long

Also, it certainly will be interesting to see what becomes of Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

excellent find, doug (i knew there had to be some but couldn't think of any off top of my head... forgot about mcgwire... & for staisticians & historians i wonder how many successful 7 footer QBs there have been... but i digress... thought of ware but didn't know if he started right away... corp klinger is another guy i wasn't sure if he started immediately, though he certainly was an epic, collossal bust)...

might be a bit early to write off losman, but totally agree with everybody else on list... pretty much if your nickname is DRUNKENmiller, that probably isn't a good sign for your HOF chances...

 

[Doug Drinen]

J.P. Losman

Jim Druckenmiller

Tommy Maddox

Dan McGwire

Andre Ware

Kelly Stouffer

Chuck Long

How could I forget Todd MarinovichAgain, I'm not sure if all (or even any) of these guys exactly fit the spirit of SSOG's query. I'm just throwing out possibilities.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Chris Landry gave a great answer:

A lot has been made of the appropriate time to play a young quarterback. How do you know when a rookie quarterback is ready to get the starting nod? ADVERTISEMENT It truly is a case-by-case situation. There are three progressions to a quarterback's development. The first is learning the offense and understanding defensive fronts and coverages in a classroom setting. Until you understand what's going on, you will not recognize it on the field. The second progression is to take what's learned from the classroom to the practice field so the recognition skills can be developed with live moving personnel. Knowing it is one thing but applying it is another. Much like a sales executive must first learn his product then develop his or her presentation skills, the same thing applies to football players. The third and most important progression is taking it from the practice field to live game action where the speed is at its quickest. If a player has not properly progressed in the first two steps, then the game speed will be too overwhelming to have any modicum of success. How much time is needed to progress through these steps is different for each player. For instance, Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning went through the first step very quickly and the second step by midway through his first preseason. At that point, all he needed was to adjust to game speed by getting more repetitions in game action. I was involved with the drafting of Steve McNair from Alcorn State. It took considerably more time for him to learn Steps 1 and 2. Had we played him too soon, he could have had some success using his athletic skills but likely would have never developed the correct habits initially that eventually led him to becoming a good quarterback. Playing a player before he adequately develops through the first two stages will only encourage bad habits that must later be broken. So, when you hear individuals claim that a quarterback cannot learn anything from the sideline or holding a clipboard, you know that is only the case if they have successfully progressed through the first two steps of development. It's also important to note that if a player is rushed too quickly or improperly developed initially, it doesn't mean that it will ruin their career; just provide a roadblock that you must work through later. Quarterbacks like Steve Young, Trent Green, Rich Gannon, Matt Hasselbeck, and Jake Delhomme were all misevaluated early in their careers. Not enough time was dedicated to the development process before making the final evaluation decision.

 

[Doug Drinen]

And if we're allowed to count second rounders, then Browning Nagle might be a good example.

Kordell Stewart is an interesting possibility.

There are also tons of second rounders who never played much at all, but I gather that's not what you're looking for.

 

[oukurt]

I like Aikman's theory on this, although he may be biased under the circumstances.In a nutshell, he thinks that if a rookie QB has his confidence shaken because of a rough start, that QB has no business being in the NFL.

He would know for sure. I have never seen a QB take so much punishment as he did in his rookie year. I was worried he wouldn't survive that 1-15 season. One year later they were a .500 team, the year after they kicked the #### out of the Bills in the Super Bowl.

 

[WhoDat]

Good stuff, Bob.

I think much of the rookie's failure and our success has as much to do with his team's ownership; coaching staff; support group and day to day environment as it does his talent; intellectual capacity, heart and desire.

I hate the Cowboys but...

The Aikman situation is a prime example. There were some damn good...DAMN good...coaches on that staff, as well as talent evaluators and team ownership. Aikman had what was perceived as cannot miss human intangibles/tangibles. He landed on a team that had the backing of an extremely competitive owner; bleeding edge scouting staff and superior coaching hiearchy. There was a plan. There was patience. There was the right people to execute the strategy. There was a winning attitude and atmosphere and folks had a purpose.

I cannot say the situation for many of the QB mentioned was anywhere near as pristine. The Bengals, Lions, Cardinals...that is essentially the who's who of football incompetence for most of the 80's and nearly all of the 90's. (Hey, the Bengals get a pass for the time being given what Lewis has done. Personally, I am still worried about the what will become of Leinart with the Cardinals, given that franchise's operating rhythm. My beloved Lions still and, well, will continue to blow until many people are fired and the team is sold but I digress...) I would hedge my bet that, if a few teams make different picks and rookies are in different situations, circumstances and direction, things would be different.

You get the idea. That's just what I see.

 

[SSOG]

I suppose the big question I have is this... can anyone think of an instance where a QB was drafted as the future of the franchise, sat for one or two years, and then busted when he finally got the start?

There's a lot of room for interpretation on "drafted as the future", "sat for one or two years", and also "busted", but here are some guys that might fit the bill (or might not):J.P. Losman

Jim Druckenmiller

Tommy Maddox

Dan McGwire

Andre Ware

Kelly Stouffer

Chuck Long

Also, it certainly will be interesting to see what becomes of Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell.

Great list. I was hoping that you or Chase would weigh in, since you two seem to remember random inane stuff like that. Taking a brief look at the list, here are my thoughts.

J.P. Losman- Fits the criteria perfectly, but too early to call a bust in my opinion. We'll keep an eye on him.

Drunkenmiller- No dice. He saw absolutely no playing time after his first season, so he can't count as a QB who was brought along slowly- he's a QB who was never brought along.

Maddox- Again, I'd say no dice. He wasn't "brought along slowly", he was never brought along- he didn't get his first non-injury-related NFL start until a decade after he was drafted.

Dan McGuire- Not familiar with him, actually, but looking at his career stats he doesn't have the look of a player brought along slowly, either. It's hard to say exactly without knowing the backstory or seeing the game logs.

Andre Ware- Never more than 86 pass attempts, so again I have a problem with classifying him as a player who was "brought along slowly" as opposed to never brought along in the first place.

Kelly Stouffer- Another one I'm not familiar with, but I couldn't help but notice that he was drafted by the Cards and only ever played for the Seahawks. Again, that doesn't look like a player who was brought along for a year by St. Louis.

Chuck Long- this guy definitely looks like a winner (loser?). Pretty much no PT his first season, heavy PT his second season, total bust.

Marinovich- I can't believe I forgot about Marinovich (who was definitely more Vich than Marino). Another good qualifier.

Browning Nagle- Another winner (loser). Great find!

And if we're allowed to count second rounders, then Browning Nagle might be a good example.

Kordell Stewart is an interesting possibility.

There are also tons of second rounders who never played much at all, but I gather that's not what you're looking for.

Re Kordell Stewart- If you're *EVER*, for any reason, getting legitimate MVP consideration at the end of the season (no matter how spurious or misguided), you are disqualified from any "bust" conversation. He was actually pretty phenominal for a first-year starter (relatively speaking, of course). Not many first-year starters can lay claim to 3500 yards of offense @ 6.9 per pass and 5.4 per rush, to go along with 32 total touchdowns. His first year was probably his best, which might actually indicate that even MEDIOCRE QBs can look pretty good if you let them sit for a while.

 

[Ilov80s]

I believe it totally depends on the player. Some people learn better in a hands-on situation. Other people learn better from watching, studying, and listening. Some learn better by being tossed right into the deep end. Others need to start at the shallow end and move gradually.

Just like students in school or workers at a job, each will have their own unique learning style.