The 2nd-Year QB Breakout (1 Viewer)

[Josh the FunkDOC]

Hello all,

While looking through the historical FBG scoring for players, I came upon a noticeable trend that could play a big role this season.

You often hear about the "sophomore jinx" in sports, but with regard to NFL QBs I have found that the opposite is true - they often experience the "sophomore breakout"!

Just looking at the past decade, here are all the examples of 2nd-year QBs finishing in the top 10:

Jake Plummer: Actually not terrible as a rookie, but became the #6 QB in his second season.

Peyton Manning: Had one of the best rookie years ever for a fantasy QB as he finished #9, but stepped it up even further to a #4 placing in year 2.

Daunte Culpepper: Didn't play as a rookie, was THE best fantasy QB as a sophomore.

Donovan McNabb: Crappy rookie season, ranked QB5 in year 2.

Shaun King: Now here's a name I wasn't expecting to see! Gained notice in his rookie season as a guy who "just wins games", and actually finished QB10 in the followup year thanks to his low INT total and 5 rushing TDs.

Aaron Brooks: Took the starting job late in his rookie year, ranked #6 in his second season.

Michael Vick: Ah yes, the one season when he actually was an elite QB in both fantasy AND real football. Got a little playing time as a rookie, nothing spectacular, then busted out with a #3 QB finish and a playoff win.

Marc Bulger: As with Brooks, became the starter part of the way through his rookie campaign, and developed into the fantasy QB6 in his second year.

Eli Manning: Awful as a rookie, then shocked everyone with a QB4 season.

Note that I omitted Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia since they were much older than typical rookies.

Additionally, there were a few other instances where the QB in question improved noticeably and finished in the 11-20 range:

Brian Griese: Sat behind Elway as a rookie, ranked QB15 in year 2. Still his best season to date.

Drew Brees: Threw a few passes in his first year, finished #18 in his second.

Joey Harrington: #28 QB as a rookie, jumped to #19 the next year.

Carson Palmer: Literally never took a snap in his first year, played 14 games and finished QB20 in his second season.

Alex Smith: Followed up one of the worst seasons ever for an NFL QB with a #18 ranking.

Roethlisberger kinda-sorta fits in here, too - he improved in year 2 but just barely (QB21 -> QB19).

And now the last group: Those who got worse or just weren't very good as sophomores!

Cade McNown: Went from QB34 to QB26 and was out of the league.

Tim Couch: Probably not fair to count this, he was injured in his second year. He was actually really good for a rookie (QB17) but never progressed from there.

Akili Smith: Went from #45 to #38. I forget if he actually was the preseason starter, though - if not, I'll drop him from this list.

David Carr: 24th-ranked QB in year #1, dropped a little bit to #27 in the followup.

Kyle Boller: #35 as a rookie, #25 as a sophomore.

Byron Leftwich: Was the #17 QB as a rookie, almost the same (#18) the next year. Remember, he's not in the second group because those guys still improved. Comparing him and Palmer in year 2 really proves the importance of strength of schedule - Lefty's numbers were better, but Palmer faced a vastly tougher slate of opponents and thus was the much better player. In light of this, the difference in their career arcs since then is not nearly as surprising as it would seem.

Charlie Frye: Played a little under half of his rookie season and was QB40, finished QB23 last year.

Note: Ryan Leaf was not included because he lost his entire 2nd season to a preseason injury.

Well, that's everyone I can think of! If I forgot anybody, please let me know and I'll edit the OP!

So, what to say about all this...

Well, obviously, that last group is just striking. The only one who appears to have any chance of redeeming himself is Lefty - others would say Carr, but I don't quite buy it.

The 2nd group is more good than bad. Griese & Harrington never got off the ground, Brees finally reached his potential in year 4, Palmer is a mega-stud, Big Ben is looking good (#10 QB last season in spite of all his problems), and the jury is still out on Smith.

And the first group is of course studly. Shaun King is the only one on there who never developed into a decent QB - well, there is Brooks, but even he was very good in fantasy for a few years.

So what this suggests to me is:

1. QBs who are guaranteed to start in year 2 make excellent late-round backups. The clear majority of them turn out to at least meet their ADP, and a good number of them will outright crush it.

2. This is especially important information for dynasty players. If a young QB has talent, he will almost always show it EARLY. I didn't study this as deeply, but I counted 4 additional QBs who did not start a full season until year 3 and were top 10: Steve McNair, Jon Kitna, Tom Brady, and Phillip Rivers. Matt Hasselbeck didn't play for his first few years, and stunk in his first season as the starter; this suggests it just may take time to learn a new system, since he switched teams to earn his job. Brees is about the only guy I can think of who stuck with the same team and took more than 3 years to develop.

3. The above is not good news for Byron Leftwich, since the breakout usually comes in one's first or second season as the starter. I initially thought he might be a sleeper backup this year, but between this and the still-crappy WRs I am scared.

4. Look at all those running QBs in group #1! This is why I'm targeting Vince Young in almost every draft...rushing skills transfer to the NFL very quickly, and this combined with the standard 2nd-year passing improvement makes these guys deadly. Pocket passers take a bit longer to develop, on average.

5. That said, I really like Leinart's chances this season - he was above-average by rookie standards, he came from the same system as Palmer, he's going to throw a lot, and he has great targets. Cutler also has some upside - his offense figures to be a bit on the conservative side, but not anywhere near the level of Pittsburgh in Ben's first two years.

Well, that's about it! I enjoyed researching this, and hope you enjoy reading it! If you have any questions or comments, bring 'em on! =)

-Josh

 

[beaglemac]

Thanks for the info!

 

[Slingblade]

I thought it was common knowledge that QBs make their greatest strides in their second year.

 

[stevegamer]

I think Leftwich is really a group almost of his own. He's got the best 1st & best 2nd season of anyone in that 3rd group you put him in - tied for rookie year with Couch.

I'd be very comfortable with him as a backup.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I thought it was common knowledge that QBs make their greatest strides in their second year.

It's always nice to see how he wrote it up though. Nice work

 

[David Yudkin]

Trent Green: Didn't play as a rookie with the Skins, became the man in his second year and ranked #7 among QBs.

Green was not even close to a rookie or a sophomore for these seasons.LINK

 

[AnonymousBob]

This is interesting information but I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.

Thank you for your work!

 

[ceo3west]

Trent Green: Didn't play as a rookie with the Skins, became the man in his second year and ranked #7 among QBs.

Green was not even close to a rookie or a sophomore for these seasons.LINK

 

[AnonymousBob]

I thought it was common knowledge that QBs make their greatest strides in their second year.

A lot of VY naysayers seem to think other defenses will now key in on him and he'll regress.

 

[PahtyTom]

 

[SSOG]

I actually looked at the same question from a different angle this offseason. In the Jay Cutler spotlight someone asked how likely it was for a sophomore QB to finish in the top 10, so I did some research and concluded the following:

Off the top of my head, I can think of a lot. I mean, let's just start with the guys who were top 10 last year.#1- Peyton Manning. He finished 9th in his first season and 4th in his second.#2- Drew Brees. Didn't crack the top 10 until his 5th year.#3- Marc Bulger. Ranked 6th in his second season (in 15 games).#4- Michael Vick. Ranked 3rd in his second season (in 15 games).#5- Carson Palmer. Ranked 1st in his second season as a starter (3rd season overall, though).#6- Jon Kitna. Ranked 9th in his third season (in 15 games).#7- Tom Brady. Ranked 9th in his second season as a starter (3rd season overall, though).#8- Brett Favre. Ranked 7th in his second season.#9- Phillip Rivers. Ranked 9th in his second season as a starter (3rd season overall, though).#10- Ben Roethlisberger. Ranked 10th in his third season.In other words, of the 10 most "elite" QBs in the league last year, 90% cracked the top 10 within three years of entering the league (everyone but Drew Brees), and 70% ranked in the top 10 during their second season as a starter. Historically, elite QBs have a strong history of becoming fantasy starters extremely quickly, and typically if you haven't made it in the first three years, you aren't going to make it (Brees notwithstanding).If you look at the 2005 top 10, then 50% (Peyton, Eli, Bledsoe, Vick, and Trent Green) made the top 10 within their first 2 seasons, another 20% (Brady and Palmer) made the list in their second season as a starter but third season overall, and 30% (Kerry Collins, Drew Brees, and Matt Hasselbeck) were "late bloomers".If you look at the 2004 top 10, then a whopping 80% (Peyton, Culpepper, McNabb, Green, Plummer, Favre, Aaron Brooks, and Marc Bulger) all made the top 10 within their first two seasons in the league, another 10% (Tom Brady) made it in his second season as a starter (3rd full season in the league), and the last guy, Jake Delhomme, also made it in his second season as a starter (which happened to be his 5th in the league).If you look at the 2003 top 10, then 60% (Peyton, Culpepper, Green, Bulger, Brooks, Favre) cracked the top 10 within 2 seasons in the league, another two (McNair and Kitna) made it in his second season as a starter (third season overall), and 20% (Hasselbeck, Brad Johnson) were late bloomers.If you look at the 2002 top 10, then 70% (Peyton, Culpepper, Vick, Bledsoe, Brooks, Green, Garcia) cracked the top 10 within 2 seasons in the league, another two (McNair and Brady) made it in their second season as a starter (third season overall), and only one (Rich Gannon) was a late bloomer.Basically, this is not a 1-year aberration here. Historically speaking, if you think that Jay Cutler is *EVER* going to make the jump and become a top-10 QB, even if only for a single season, then this is the year he's most likely to do it. Over the last 5 years, out of the 50 top 10 QB finishes, 31 belonged to a QB who finished in the top 10 within 2 seasons of entering the league (62%), and a remarkable 41 of the 50 finishes belonged to a QB who was top-10 by the end of his second season as a starter (that's 82%), meaning only 18% of top-10 QBs over that span have been late bloomers.Once again, if you think that Jay Cutler is *EVER* in his entire career going to finish in the top 10, for any reason, ever... then historical numbers suggest that he's four times as likely to crack the top 10 this season as he is to miss it.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

2. This is especially important information for dynasty players. If a young QB has talent, he will almost always show it EARLY.

Nice work and good thinking.This part is the problematic part for me. Off the top of my head, Bradshaw, Plunkett, Aikman, Fouts, Steve Young, Rich Gannon all took a bit to learn the position. Also, guys who had productive seasons later: Testeverde, Grbac, Beuerline, Hostetler, and Bobby Herbert. So, while your rule is solid, there are some pretty big exceptions.

 

[SSOG]

2. This is especially important information for dynasty players. If a young QB has talent, he will almost always show it EARLY.

Nice work and good thinking.This part is the problematic part for me. Off the top of my head, Bradshaw, Plunkett, Aikman, Fouts, Steve Young, Rich Gannon all took a bit to learn the position. Also, guys who had productive seasons later: Testeverde, Grbac, Beuerline, Hostetler, and Bobby Herbert. So, while your rule is solid, there are some pretty big exceptions.

Terry Bradshaw was the #4 QB in fantasy football in his second season. He had talent, but he showed it early.
Jim Plunkett was the #6 QB in fantasy football in his rookie year. He had talent, but he showed it early (actually, he had 3 top-10 finishes in his career, and they all came in his first 4 seasons)
Troy Aikman had two top-10 finishes in his entire career (4th place and 10th place). He may have been a talented NFL QB, but for fantasy purposes, he was a scrub.
Dan Fouts took 6 years to crack the top 10. He's the first legitimate counter to the "Stud Fantasy QBs show it early".
Steve Young didn't crack the top 10 until his 7th year in the league... but he had been a backup, and that was actually his second year AS A STARTER. In addition, he ranked 7th despite only playing 11 games. He actually fits in the "Stud QBs show it early" rule, since he broke out in his second season as a starter.
Rich Gannon didn't crack the top 10 until his 11th season. He's the second legitimate counter to the "Stud Fantasy QBs show it early" rule.
Vinny Testeverde only cracked the top 10 twice in his entire career. Like Aikman, for fantasy purposes, he was essentially a scrub with two fluke years. Most of the time in dynasty leagues, he was dead weight on the roster.
Elvis Grbac had two top-10 seasons (10th and 6th). He was never a stud.
Steve Beuerlein had one top-10 finish in his career. He was never a stud.
Jeff Hostetler had three top 10 finishes (3rd, 10th, and 8th) and 9 finishes outside of the top 20 in his 12 year career. For the most part, he was dead weight in Dynasty leagues.
Bobby Hebert never finished higher than 7th in his career. He was a dynasty QB2 at best.Off the top of your head you provided 11 QBs... but only two of them actually went against the "Stud QBs show it early" rule (Fouts and Gannon). The rest were either never Dynasty QB1s (Aikman, Testeverde, Grbac, Beuerlein, Hostetler, Hebert), or else they actually cracked the top 10 within their second year as a starter (Young, Bradshaw, Plunkett).

Yes, there are counterexamples to the "Stud QBs Show It Early" rule, but they are very, very, VERY rare. In fact, very few rules in fantasy football prove to be as reliable as this one. If Vince Young or Matt Leinart are ever going to be legitimate Dynasty QB1s, then this year is almost certainly going to be a breakout year for them. If Jay Cutler is ever going to be a legitimate Dynasty QB1, then this year or next year is almost certainly going to be a breakout year for him (since the rule is generally that true QB1s crack the top 10 within their first two seasons as a starter, and Cutler had very minimal starting experience last season).

 

[rabidfireweasel]

2. This is especially important information for dynasty players. If a young QB has talent, he will almost always show it EARLY.

Nice work and good thinking.This part is the problematic part for me. Off the top of my head, Bradshaw, Plunkett, Aikman, Fouts, Steve Young, Rich Gannon all took a bit to learn the position. Also, guys who had productive seasons later: Testeverde, Grbac, Beuerline, Hostetler, and Bobby Herbert. So, while your rule is solid, there are some pretty big exceptions.

Terry Bradshaw was the #4 QB in fantasy football in his second season. He had talent, but he showed it early.
Jim Plunkett was the #6 QB in fantasy football in his rookie year. He had talent, but he showed it early (actually, he had 3 top-10 finishes in his career, and they all came in his first 4 seasons)
Troy Aikman had two top-10 finishes in his entire career (4th place and 10th place). He may have been a talented NFL QB, but for fantasy purposes, he was a scrub.
Dan Fouts took 6 years to crack the top 10. He's the first legitimate counter to the "Stud Fantasy QBs show it early".
Steve Young didn't crack the top 10 until his 7th year in the league... but he had been a backup, and that was actually his second year AS A STARTER. In addition, he ranked 7th despite only playing 11 games. He actually fits in the "Stud QBs show it early" rule, since he broke out in his second season as a starter.
Rich Gannon didn't crack the top 10 until his 11th season. He's the second legitimate counter to the "Stud Fantasy QBs show it early" rule.
Vinny Testeverde only cracked the top 10 twice in his entire career. Like Aikman, for fantasy purposes, he was essentially a scrub with two fluke years. Most of the time in dynasty leagues, he was dead weight on the roster.
Elvis Grbac had two top-10 seasons (10th and 6th). He was never a stud.
Steve Beuerlein had one top-10 finish in his career. He was never a stud.
Jeff Hostetler had three top 10 finishes (3rd, 10th, and 8th) and 9 finishes outside of the top 20 in his 12 year career. For the most part, he was dead weight in Dynasty leagues.
Bobby Hebert never finished higher than 7th in his career. He was a dynasty QB2 at best.Off the top of your head you provided 11 QBs... but only two of them actually went against the "Stud QBs show it early" rule (Fouts and Gannon). The rest were either never Dynasty QB1s (Aikman, Testeverde, Grbac, Beuerlein, Hostetler, Hebert), or else they actually cracked the top 10 within their second year as a starter (Young, Bradshaw, Plunkett).

Yes, there are counterexamples to the "Stud QBs Show It Early" rule, but they are very, very, VERY rare. In fact, very few rules in fantasy football prove to be as reliable as this one. If Vince Young or Matt Leinart are ever going to be legitimate Dynasty QB1s, then this year is almost certainly going to be a breakout year for them. If Jay Cutler is ever going to be a legitimate Dynasty QB1, then this year or next year is almost certainly going to be a breakout year for him (since the rule is generally that true QB1s crack the top 10 within their first two seasons as a starter, and Cutler had very minimal starting experience last season).

Excellent rebuttal. Just a few nit to pick. THe phrase I quoted was "If a young QB has talent, he almost always shows it early."- not "If a QB will be a stud FF player." Everyone I listed made a probowl, so I think they qualify as talented.

 

[Mike Herman]

This article was just posted earlier today: Life of a Stud.

Based on the way I set things up, the most common breakout years for stud QBs was their 2nd year, followed closely by 3rd or 5th seasons.

 

[BLOX]

Aaron Brooks spent two years in Green Bay before he was traded. No way he could have been a top QB his sophomore year.

Still makes a case for 2nd year as starter imo.

 

[Warhogs]

I don't want to seem like I am trying to disprove anything here but I just wanted to point out that it seems this is looking only at those who improved in year 2. I wonder how long the list would be of QBs who did not improve into a solid QB in year 2?

 

[SSOG]

I don't want to seem like I am trying to disprove anything here but I just wanted to point out that it seems this is looking only at those who improved in year 2. I wonder how long the list would be of QBs who did not improve into a solid QB in year 2?

That'd be pretty long, too. Just in recent years, you're looking at guys like Kyle Boller, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch, Alex Smith, J.P. Losman, Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Byron Leftwich, etc. A lot of total busts, a lot of middling NFL players, and not much fantasy value. In addition, you have the category of players who "broke out" in their second year, but still never amounted to much of anything- guys like John Kitna (top 10 in his 3rd year as a starter, but in the following 7 seasons only made the top-10 twice while failing to crack the top-24 three times). Some speculate Eli Manning's going to be on that list pretty soon, too.Really, this "trend" or "rule" has two main applications. The first application is in redraft- if you are absolutely convinced that a sophomore QB is going to one day be a fantasy stud, then generally that day is going to be today, in his second season as a starter. If you think Leinart is going to go Carson Palmer on the NFL, then this is the year to draft him and use him as your QB1. If you think he's going to be the next Eli Manning, instead... then not so much. Another guy that fits the mold is Jason Campbell this season.The next big application is in dynasty leagues, as a guide for when to buy and when to sell. This theory means that it's very valuable to trade FOR QBs coming off of their first season, especially if their first season was disappointing. It also means that, if your dynasty QB prospect has sat on your roster for two seasons and not done anything yet, it might be time to consider trying to sell high. If he's sat on your roster for THREE seasons, especially if he's started at least two of the seasons, then it's almost certainly time to start seeing what you can get for him. It's always possible that you miss out on the occasional Drew Brees, but over the last 5 years, 82% of the top-10 QBs were guys that had made the top-10 within their first three seasons in the league.

 

[Warhogs]

Good job SSOG. It probably does more suggest that it does not generally pay to be patient with a young QB past their 2nd season as a starter. Generally, you can make a decision after their 2nd season as a starter on whether they will become a stud vs. average or bust.

 

[dgreen]

I don't want to seem like I am trying to disprove anything here but I just wanted to point out that it seems this is looking only at those who improved in year 2. I wonder how long the list would be of QBs who did not improve into a solid QB in year 2?

That'd be pretty long, too. Just in recent years, you're looking at guys like Kyle Boller, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch, Alex Smith, J.P. Losman, Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Byron Leftwich, etc.

To be fair, there are guys like Alex Smith and JP Losman whose 2nd years as a starter did not follow a full 1st year. Smith only started 7 games in this "first years as a starter" and Losman only 8. Is that something to consider?Losman's PPG was more than 2 PPG higher in the second half of last season than the first half. Smith's was about 1 PPG lower.Jason Campbell is one player whose "first year" may not be complete enough to make a judgement from his "second year". Romo and Leinart each saw significant action in 11 games, so they might be borderline here.

 

[dgreen]

I don't want to seem like I am trying to disprove anything here but I just wanted to point out that it seems this is looking only at those who improved in year 2. I wonder how long the list would be of QBs who did not improve into a solid QB in year 2?

That'd be pretty long, too. Just in recent years, you're looking at guys like Kyle Boller, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch, Alex Smith, J.P. Losman, Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Byron Leftwich, etc.

To be fair, there are guys like Alex Smith and JP Losman whose 2nd years as a starter did not follow a full 1st year. Smith only started 7 games in this "first years as a starter" and Losman only 8. Is that something to consider?Losman's PPG was more than 2 PPG higher in the second half of last season than the first half. Smith's was about 1 PPG lower.Jason Campbell is one player whose "first year" may not be complete enough to make a judgement from his "second year". Romo and Leinart each saw significant action in 11 games, so they might be borderline here.

Some other QBs who were in similar situations:John Elway only played in 11 games his rookie year, giving him an incomplete first year. His second year, he finished QB13 and his third year he finished QB5, his first of 11 seasons in the top 10.Jim Everett only played in 6 games his rookie year, throwing 147 passes. Year two he played in 11 games, finishing QB21. Year 3, after only 17 career games and 449 pass attempts, he finished QB2. He went on to 5 other top 10 finishes.Steve McNair and Randall Cunningham have similar stories.

 

[SSOG]

I don't want to seem like I am trying to disprove anything here but I just wanted to point out that it seems this is looking only at those who improved in year 2. I wonder how long the list would be of QBs who did not improve into a solid QB in year 2?

That'd be pretty long, too. Just in recent years, you're looking at guys like Kyle Boller, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch, Alex Smith, J.P. Losman, Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Byron Leftwich, etc.

To be fair, there are guys like Alex Smith and JP Losman whose 2nd years as a starter did not follow a full 1st year. Smith only started 7 games in this "first years as a starter" and Losman only 8. Is that something to consider?Losman's PPG was more than 2 PPG higher in the second half of last season than the first half. Smith's was about 1 PPG lower.Jason Campbell is one player whose "first year" may not be complete enough to make a judgement from his "second year". Romo and Leinart each saw significant action in 11 games, so they might be borderline here.

Losman and Smith still have a little bit of leeway, since as I said, 82% broke the top-10 by their third season. Campbell may not have had a complete first year, but almost all of the "second year as a starter" crop broke out by their third season. I wouldn't give him too much more leeway if he doesn't produce this year... but then again, he could definitely change my mind if he really shows me something this year.Obviously this isn't a science here, but if it were me, I'd give Losman/Smith/Campbell this year to produce, and if they fail then I'd actively seek to move them while their value was still relatively high. Also, I'd send out some feelers right now to see what Losman/Smith might command in trade, and if I liked what I was seeing, I'd move them now instead of waiting a year.

 

[SSOG]

I don't want to seem like I am trying to disprove anything here but I just wanted to point out that it seems this is looking only at those who improved in year 2. I wonder how long the list would be of QBs who did not improve into a solid QB in year 2?

That'd be pretty long, too. Just in recent years, you're looking at guys like Kyle Boller, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch, Alex Smith, J.P. Losman, Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Byron Leftwich, etc.

To be fair, there are guys like Alex Smith and JP Losman whose 2nd years as a starter did not follow a full 1st year. Smith only started 7 games in this "first years as a starter" and Losman only 8. Is that something to consider?Losman's PPG was more than 2 PPG higher in the second half of last season than the first half. Smith's was about 1 PPG lower.Jason Campbell is one player whose "first year" may not be complete enough to make a judgement from his "second year". Romo and Leinart each saw significant action in 11 games, so they might be borderline here.

Some other QBs who were in similar situations:John Elway only played in 11 games his rookie year, giving him an incomplete first year. His second year, he finished QB13 and his third year he finished QB5, his first of 11 seasons in the top 10.Jim Everett only played in 6 games his rookie year, throwing 147 passes. Year two he played in 11 games, finishing QB21. Year 3, after only 17 career games and 449 pass attempts, he finished QB2. He went on to 5 other top 10 finishes.Steve McNair and Randall Cunningham have similar stories.

In all 4 cases (Elway, Everett, McNair, Cunningham), the player reached the top 10 within his first three seasons in the league. In fact, all four wound up reaching the top 5 within their first three seasons. I see nothing from this example to adjust my expectations for Losman, Alex Smith, or Jason Campbell. If you haven't done it by your third year, the likelihood of you ever doing it drops dramatically.

 

[dgreen]

I don't want to seem like I am trying to disprove anything here but I just wanted to point out that it seems this is looking only at those who improved in year 2. I wonder how long the list would be of QBs who did not improve into a solid QB in year 2?

That'd be pretty long, too. Just in recent years, you're looking at guys like Kyle Boller, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch, Alex Smith, J.P. Losman, Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Byron Leftwich, etc.

To be fair, there are guys like Alex Smith and JP Losman whose 2nd years as a starter did not follow a full 1st year. Smith only started 7 games in this "first years as a starter" and Losman only 8. Is that something to consider?Losman's PPG was more than 2 PPG higher in the second half of last season than the first half. Smith's was about 1 PPG lower.Jason Campbell is one player whose "first year" may not be complete enough to make a judgement from his "second year". Romo and Leinart each saw significant action in 11 games, so they might be borderline here.

Some other QBs who were in similar situations:John Elway only played in 11 games his rookie year, giving him an incomplete first year. His second year, he finished QB13 and his third year he finished QB5, his first of 11 seasons in the top 10.Jim Everett only played in 6 games his rookie year, throwing 147 passes. Year two he played in 11 games, finishing QB21. Year 3, after only 17 career games and 449 pass attempts, he finished QB2. He went on to 5 other top 10 finishes.Steve McNair and Randall Cunningham have similar stories.

In all 4 cases (Elway, Everett, McNair, Cunningham), the player reached the top 10 within his first three seasons in the league. In fact, all four wound up reaching the top 5 within their first three seasons. I see nothing from this example to adjust my expectations for Losman, Alex Smith, or Jason Campbell. If you haven't done it by your third year, the likelihood of you ever doing it drops dramatically.

I agree and I'm not arguing against anything you've said. I'm just throwing out there that one may want to be careful of how they define "first year." If one wants to say that Losman's first year was 2005, one must be careful to recognize that it was different than, say, Carson Palmer's first year in that it was half the time.IMO, as long as you've played at least 16 games over two seasons, you can probably consider that next year to be the "third year" for purposes of this rule.ETA: So, I'd have a problem with saying Campbell is entering his second year in 2007. However, as long as he plays about 10 games this year, I'd have no problem with considering 2008 his third year.

 

[Josh the FunkDOC]

Just remember, guys: This was a spur-of-the-moment thing I did last night, and I was pretty sure I forgot some things. That's why I said I'll edit the OP with info.

I started this because some people actually still believe in the "sophomore jinx" bit, and not many seem to be aware of just HOW good QBs can get this quickly. I personally have VY ranked in the same tier with Brady, Palmer, etc., and this is some really strong evidence in favor of that. It was also interesting to me that you often CAN spot a bust after year 2, given how people always tend to make excuses for the young guys.

pro-football-reference does not take note of seasons where a guy never played a down. I remembered this for Palmer, because it looks like '04 was his rookie year, but forgot about Green, so good catch!

Something else interesting - I remembered that Pro Football Prospectus has an article on this. They highlight the year 2 thing, of course, but also found out that year 5 is a common one for QBs to take another step up. This helps Leftwich's cause, and he *was* a top 10 QB until he got hurt last year - but it's the "he got hurt" part that still leaves me leery. I don't necessarily think he's a bad backup, but I do think Leinart and Roethlisberger (he falls pretty darned far in mocks, anyway) are BETTER backups.

Thank everyone,

Josh.

 

[SSOG]

I agree and I'm not arguing against anything you've said. I'm just throwing out there that one may want to be careful of how they define "first year." If one wants to say that Losman's first year was 2005, one must be careful to recognize that it was different than, say, Carson Palmer's first year in that it was half the time.IMO, as long as you've played at least 16 games over two seasons, you can probably consider that next year to be the "third year" for purposes of this rule.ETA: So, I'd have a problem with saying Campbell is entering his second year in 2007. However, as long as he plays about 10 games this year, I'd have no problem with considering 2008 his third year.

I've actually got a fairly simple definition- the year after you get drafted (or first sign with an NFL team as an Undrafted Free Agent) is your first year. 82% of "Dynasty QB1s" are going to have a top-10 finish within 1,000 days of signing their first NFL contract. Actually, thinking about it, I should probably define "first year" as the first year you make a 53-man roster, just to account for any former practice squadders.

 

[David Yudkin]

The following numbers clearly are flaVVed for a lot of reasons, but . . .

There have been 77 QBs that saw action as second year QBs since 1970 that threw at least 200 passes and played in at least 14 games. 22 of them scored at least 250 fantasy points (which IMO is the threshold of being considered starting worthy in this era).

Just food for thought and no real opinion either way here.

 

[PsychoMan]

Grossman should be primed for a breakout year then

 

[dgreen]

I agree and I'm not arguing against anything you've said. I'm just throwing out there that one may want to be careful of how they define "first year." If one wants to say that Losman's first year was 2005, one must be careful to recognize that it was different than, say, Carson Palmer's first year in that it was half the time.IMO, as long as you've played at least 16 games over two seasons, you can probably consider that next year to be the "third year" for purposes of this rule.ETA: So, I'd have a problem with saying Campbell is entering his second year in 2007. However, as long as he plays about 10 games this year, I'd have no problem with considering 2008 his third year.

I've actually got a fairly simple definition- the year after you get drafted (or first sign with an NFL team as an Undrafted Free Agent) is your first year. 82% of "Dynasty QB1s" are going to have a top-10 finish within 1,000 days of signing their first NFL contract. Actually, thinking about it, I should probably define "first year" as the first year you make a 53-man roster, just to account for any former practice squadders.

Oh, didn't realize that's where you were coming from and that's what you used to get your 82% number.So, when applying this 3rd year rule, Losman and Smith can now be judged (and failed) and Campbell can be judged after this year.

 

[AnonymousBob]

The following numbers clearly are flaVVed for a lot of reasons, but . . .There have been 77 QBs that saw action as second year QBs since 1970 that threw at least 200 passes and played in at least 14 games. 22 of them scored at least 250 fantasy points (which IMO is the threshold of being considered starting worthy in this era).Just food for thought and no real opinion either way here.

How many qb's actually become viable fantasy options? When you consider all the busts, I'm not sure your number means much of anything one way or the other. I think what this data *possibly* shows is that IF you are going to be a stud, you're highly likely to do it within your first three years. But just because you make it to three years doesn't mean you'll be a stud.Great job Josh. While you said it's a work in progress, it gives us material for a great discussion. :(

 

[AnonymousBob]

Grossman should be primed for a breakout year then :(

Because this is his fifth year? Or do you dismiss the first three seasons because he was injured?

 

[David Yudkin]

The following numbers clearly are flaVVed for a lot of reasons, but . . .There have been 77 QBs that saw action as second year QBs since 1970 that threw at least 200 passes and played in at least 14 games. 22 of them scored at least 250 fantasy points (which IMO is the threshold of being considered starting worthy in this era).Just food for thought and no real opinion either way here.

How many qb's actually become viable fantasy options? When you consider all the busts, I'm not sure your number means much of anything one way or the other. I think what this data *possibly* shows is that IF you are going to be a stud, you're highly likely to do it within your first three years. But just because you make it to three years doesn't mean you'll be a stud.Great job Josh. While you said it's a work in progress, it gives us material for a great discussion.

I thought the numbers here were somewhat self explanatory. There were 77 guys IN THEIR 2ND YEAR that played enough to be considered as fantasy options. 22 of them did well enough to start in today's game. (There may have been more that could have started in other eras.)If we change the parameters to 2nd year QBs since 1990 with at least 300 passing attempts, there are 43 players in that data set and 14 that scored 250 fantasy points. Almost one third of those players were in the hunt to be a fantasy QB1.

 

[AnonymousBob]

The following numbers clearly are flaVVed for a lot of reasons, but . . .There have been 77 QBs that saw action as second year QBs since 1970 that threw at least 200 passes and played in at least 14 games. 22 of them scored at least 250 fantasy points (which IMO is the threshold of being considered starting worthy in this era).Just food for thought and no real opinion either way here.

How many qb's actually become viable fantasy options? When you consider all the busts, I'm not sure your number means much of anything one way or the other. I think what this data *possibly* shows is that IF you are going to be a stud, you're highly likely to do it within your first three years. But just because you make it to three years doesn't mean you'll be a stud.Great job Josh. While you said it's a work in progress, it gives us material for a great discussion.

I thought the numbers here were somewhat self explanatory. There were 77 guys IN THEIR 2ND YEAR that played enough to be considered as fantasy options. 22 of them did well enough to start in today's game. (There may have been more that could have started in other eras.)If we change the parameters to 2nd year QBs since 1990 with at least 300 passing attempts, there are 43 players in that data set and 14 that scored 250 fantasy points. Almost one third of those players were in the hunt to be a fantasy QB1.

Okay, for whatever reason I wasn't reading that correctly.

 

[SSOG]

I agree and I'm not arguing against anything you've said. I'm just throwing out there that one may want to be careful of how they define "first year." If one wants to say that Losman's first year was 2005, one must be careful to recognize that it was different than, say, Carson Palmer's first year in that it was half the time.IMO, as long as you've played at least 16 games over two seasons, you can probably consider that next year to be the "third year" for purposes of this rule.ETA: So, I'd have a problem with saying Campbell is entering his second year in 2007. However, as long as he plays about 10 games this year, I'd have no problem with considering 2008 his third year.

I've actually got a fairly simple definition- the year after you get drafted (or first sign with an NFL team as an Undrafted Free Agent) is your first year. 82% of "Dynasty QB1s" are going to have a top-10 finish within 1,000 days of signing their first NFL contract. Actually, thinking about it, I should probably define "first year" as the first year you make a 53-man roster, just to account for any former practice squadders.

Oh, didn't realize that's where you were coming from and that's what you used to get your 82% number.So, when applying this 3rd year rule, Losman and Smith can now be judged (and failed) and Campbell can be judged after this year.

Alex Smith has only been in the league for two years, just like Jason Campbell- both of them are just now entering their "do or die" 3rd season. I forgot that last season was Losman's third year- I was thinking it was still his second, in which case he'd still have a year to prove himself. I'm thinking now might not be a bad "sell high" time on Losman. Sure, it LOOKS like there's still a chance he'll become decent, but then again, if it didn't look that way, it wouldn't be selling high, now would it? If I could trade away J.P. Losman and get Alex Smith in return, straight up, I would be all over that.

 

[dgreen]

I agree and I'm not arguing against anything you've said. I'm just throwing out there that one may want to be careful of how they define "first year." If one wants to say that Losman's first year was 2005, one must be careful to recognize that it was different than, say, Carson Palmer's first year in that it was half the time.IMO, as long as you've played at least 16 games over two seasons, you can probably consider that next year to be the "third year" for purposes of this rule.ETA: So, I'd have a problem with saying Campbell is entering his second year in 2007. However, as long as he plays about 10 games this year, I'd have no problem with considering 2008 his third year.

I've actually got a fairly simple definition- the year after you get drafted (or first sign with an NFL team as an Undrafted Free Agent) is your first year. 82% of "Dynasty QB1s" are going to have a top-10 finish within 1,000 days of signing their first NFL contract. Actually, thinking about it, I should probably define "first year" as the first year you make a 53-man roster, just to account for any former practice squadders.

Oh, didn't realize that's where you were coming from and that's what you used to get your 82% number.So, when applying this 3rd year rule, Losman and Smith can now be judged (and failed) and Campbell can be judged after this year.

Alex Smith has only been in the league for two years, just like Jason Campbell- both of them are just now entering their "do or die" 3rd season. I forgot that last season was Losman's third year- I was thinking it was still his second, in which case he'd still have a year to prove himself. I'm thinking now might not be a bad "sell high" time on Losman. Sure, it LOOKS like there's still a chance he'll become decent, but then again, if it didn't look that way, it wouldn't be selling high, now would it? If I could trade away J.P. Losman and get Alex Smith in return, straight up, I would be all over that.

Oh yeah, forgot Smith only has two years in.

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

I agree and I'm not arguing against anything you've said. I'm just throwing out there that one may want to be careful of how they define "first year." If one wants to say that Losman's first year was 2005, one must be careful to recognize that it was different than, say, Carson Palmer's first year in that it was half the time.IMO, as long as you've played at least 16 games over two seasons, you can probably consider that next year to be the "third year" for purposes of this rule.ETA: So, I'd have a problem with saying Campbell is entering his second year in 2007. However, as long as he plays about 10 games this year, I'd have no problem with considering 2008 his third year.

I've actually got a fairly simple definition- the year after you get drafted (or first sign with an NFL team as an Undrafted Free Agent) is your first year. 82% of "Dynasty QB1s" are going to have a top-10 finish within 1,000 days of signing their first NFL contract. Actually, thinking about it, I should probably define "first year" as the first year you make a 53-man roster, just to account for any former practice squadders.

Oh, didn't realize that's where you were coming from and that's what you used to get your 82% number.So, when applying this 3rd year rule, Losman and Smith can now be judged (and failed) and Campbell can be judged after this year.

Alex Smith has only been in the league for two years, just like Jason Campbell- both of them are just now entering their "do or die" 3rd season. I forgot that last season was Losman's third year- I was thinking it was still his second, in which case he'd still have a year to prove himself. I'm thinking now might not be a bad "sell high" time on Losman. Sure, it LOOKS like there's still a chance he'll become decent, but then again, if it didn't look that way, it wouldn't be selling high, now would it? If I could trade away J.P. Losman and get Alex Smith in return, straight up, I would be all over that.

There has been some excellent thought and analysis in this thread. I really do mean that. But, sometimes I think one can rely on the numbers too much. The numbers should certainly be used as a tool, and a very meaningful one at that. But, at the end of the day, it's still Losman vs. Smith. It's not all of one set of players vs. all of another. The differences in their abilities and situations mean more than an arbitrary cut-off point in years played.I'm not proclaiming Losman to be the better player in any shape, way or form. I'm just saying that if I had to decide between the two, I wouldn't rely too heavily upon any 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 16th year rule.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good posting, SSOG. Slight correction:

#9- Phillip Rivers. Ranked 9th in his second season as a starter (3rd season overall, though).

Rivers hasn't had his second season as a starter yet.

 

[SSOG]

There has been some excellent thought and analysis in this thread. I really do mean that. But, sometimes I think one can rely on the numbers too much. The numbers should certainly be used as a tool, and a very meaningful one at that. But, at the end of the day, it's still Losman vs. Smith. It's not all of one set of players vs. all of another. The differences in their abilities and situations mean more than an arbitrary cut-off point in years played.I'm not proclaiming Losman to be the better player in any shape, way or form. I'm just saying that if I had to decide between the two, I wouldn't rely too heavily upon any 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 16th year rule.

I get what you're saying, and I agree to a large degree- every player is different, and should be treated as such. With that said, analysis like this just gives me another arrow in my quiver. If 100% of 4th-year QBs who hadn't made the top 10 would never in their careers make the top 10, and "conventional wisdom" said that 4 such QBs would finish this season in the top 10, then I would say that "conventional wisdom" was dramatically overrating these QBs and try to sell them high while I could. Even if I personally liked these QBs and thought they were in for a good year, the numbers would give me pause and cause me to think "Hmm, obviously more is going on here than meets the eye". Now, obviously this isn't 100% here, but it's 82%, which is a pretty darn strong percentage. Part of winning in fantasy football is staying ahead of the curve, and analysis like this helps you stay ahead of the curve by telling which "chic pick" players you might be overrating (and which you might be underrating).

Good posting, SSOG. Slight correction:

#9- Phillip Rivers. Ranked 9th in his second season as a starter (3rd season overall, though).

Rivers hasn't had his second season as a starter yet.

That got spotted in the Cutler spotlight, too, and I forgot to fix it. Then, of course, I just copied everything over.