Why NFL teams rapidly throw their young QBs into the fire? (1 Viewer)

[Faust]

Why NFL teams rapidly throw young quarterbacks into the fire

By Daniel Jeremiah

Analyst, NFL.com and NFL Network

"Watch and learn."

How many times have you heard that phrase from a parent, teacher or coach? It's a pretty simple concept. By watching someone else perform a particular task over and over again, you will eventually gain the necessary know-how to perform the same task on your own. That was the strategy the Green Bay Packers employed to develop Aaron Rodgers, arguably the NFL's premier quarterback today.

After selecting Rodgers with the 24th overall pick of the 2005 NFL Draft, the Packers allowed their young quarterback to sit behind future Hall of Famer Brett Favre for three full seasons. Rodgers was afforded the luxury of learning from both the successes and failures of Favre before taking over the starting role in Green Bay. His first start didn't come until he'd been with the team for 50 NFL games (including the postseason). In my opinion, we will never see another quarterback drafted in the first round wait that long again. And there's plenty of evidence to support my claim.

From 2006 (the year after Rodgers was selected) to 2012, there have been 20 quarterbacks selected in the first round of the NFL draft. Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill and Brandon Weeden are the newest members of this club, and they've all been named Week 1 starters for their respective teams. Assuming all four stay healthy, 18 of those 20 quarterbacks will have started at least one game during their rookie seasons.

Here's a quick look at the group (click on the linked article to see the table):

The two exceptions were Brady Quinn, drafted by the Cleveland Browns in 2007, and Jake Locker, picked by the Tennessee Titans in 2011. Quinn ended up taking over the starting duties in Cleveland halfway through his second season. Locker, who backed up veteran Matt Hasselbeck on a competitive Titans squad last season, was named the team's starter this week.

Barring any unforeseen circumstances, after Week 1 of this season, 10 of the last 20 first-round quarterbacks will have started their very first NFL game. Sixteen of the 20 signal-callers will have made their starting debuts during the first halves of their rookie seasons.

So, why are teams in such a hurry to start their young quarterbacks?

I've come up with four reasons to explain the seeming lack of patience over the last seven years:

1) First-round draft picks offer hope. Nothing energizes an organization, team or fan base quite like a fresh, new quarterback.

2) Head coaches have become more influential in the draft process over the last few years, and they are much more inclined to play a rookie quarterback that they have signed off on.

3) The college game has done a much better job of preparing quarterbacks for the NFL of late. Coaching salaries have skyrocketed at big-time college programs, and that has helped lure dozens of quality NFL assistants to drop down a level. These coaches have provided college quarterbacks with excellent tutelage in the fundamentals of the position while helping them master very complex offensive systems. College quarterbacks are also getting exposed to the same multiple-look defenses that await them in the NFL.

4) Starting a rookie quarterback no longer precludes a team from winning. In 2008, both Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco helped lead the Atlanta Falcons and Baltimore Ravens, respectively, to the playoffs as rookies. That completely changed a long-held perception that starting a rookie quarterback basically meant sacrificing the current season for future returns.

There used to be a financial motive associated with playing young quarterbacks, but that is no longer the case, thanks to the new labor agreement. Rookie salaries are very manageable these days, and shouldn't force organizations to rush young signal-callers.

So, it might be time for everyone to conceive a new phrase. "Watch and learn" is no longer applicable.

What's appropriate for today's NFL?

Play and learn.

 

[FavreCo]

5. If this was the 90's or earlier most of these guys would sit for at least part of the season. Back then they could hit the QB. Now with the QB basically off limits, you don't have to worry about getting him killed. Throw him out there from day 1.

 

[Faust]

New era: Record number of young QB starters in NFL

By Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League editor

We've spent a lot of energy this month talking about young quarterbacks, from the big names like Andrew Luck and Jake Locker to Nick Foles Fever taking over Philadelphia.

If it seems like there are more young quarterbacks making noise in the NFL than ever before, well, the facts bear it out. Our research department points out that the previous high for Week 1 starters in their first or second seasons is five. There will be at least nine this year, and Russell Wilson could make it 10.

The last season in which there were five young starters was 2002, when Quincy Carter, Mike McMahon, Michael Vick, Drew Brees and David Carr all were opening their career. It's safe to say this group will have more success between Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Andy Dalton, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Brandon Weeden, Ryan Tannehill and Jake Locker.

Times have changed. If it's the sophisticated collegiate passing attacks or coaches more willing to bend their schemes, it's obvious that quarterbacks can succeed earlier.

NFL Network and NFL.com analyst Daniel Jeremiah wrote a great piece Wednesday looking at why teams are throwing young quarterbacks into the fire more quickly. Eighteen of the last 20 rookie quarterbacks selected in the first round of the NFL Draft have started at least one game.

Jeremiah points out that coaches have become more involved in the draft process of late, and they are more likely to play "their guy" right away.

That's one reason why we expect Pete Carroll to choose "his guy" Russell Wilson in Seattle to continue the trend of young NFL starting quarterbacks.

 

[Riffraff]

6. With the rookie pay system, it's cheaper to replace them if they don't work out.

 

[DawnBTVS]

7. The NFL has gotten smarter about building and catering gameplans to their rookie QBs. Cam Newton probably wouldn't have had nearly the success he had without the spread option installation of Chudinski in Carolina. On the other hand you had Blaine Gabbert who came from a spread, quick passing system and was asked to take snaps under center and try to throw in 2 WR sets more often than not. He struggled greatly.

This year we already have a gameplan catering to RG3's skill set and a system that closely mirrors what Luck ran at Stanford.

 

[Chazzhawk]

It used to be because of how much they were paying them with the top picks, you could hardly afford to have a starter, and a rookie quarterback, that was picked early in the first round, on your team. Think about the contracts given to Eli, Bradford, Stafford, Sanchez and others. A few of them had great rookie campaigns so now everyone just tells their rookie quarterbacks to sink or swim, even though their is a rookie salary cap so to speak.

 

[Faust]

Excerpt from Peter King's MMQB

Skelton would make it 15, if he gets the nod over Kolb in Arizona.

We're in an incredible time for quarterbacks in the NFL. With offensive systems getting more complex by the season, NFL teams are saying the more precocious the QB the better. Fourteen of the 32 starting quarterbacks in Week 1 (15 if the Cards start John Skelton) will be either rookies or 25 or younger when they take the first snap of the season. That's 44 percent of the starters in the NFL.

The count: five rookies, five second-year players and four third- or fourth-year guys.

 

[SSOG]

It used to be that good teams drafted QBs in the first round. Now, with few exceptions, only bad teams do. It's easy to sit Rodgers when you have Favre, or Rivers when you have Brees, or even Palmer when you have Kitna. It's a lot harder to sit Robert Griffin when the alternative is Rex Grossman.

 

[FavreCo]

It used to be that good teams drafted QBs in the first round. Now, with few exceptions, only bad teams do. It's easy to sit Rodgers when you have Favre, or Rivers when you have Brees, or even Palmer when you have Kitna. It's a lot harder to sit Robert Griffin when the alternative is Rex Grossman.

Not sure when that started. QB has gone to the worst teams for as long as I can remember including 12 of the past 15 years.

 

[trader jake]

Coaches, owners, and fans are all more impatient now.

Luck, RGIII, and Weeden should be starting because the veterans QB's on this teams stink and the surrounding talent is good enough, but I don't believe any of the other rookies (nor Locker) should be. It's in their best long-term development and would also keep fans expectations/allegiances where they should be. The Titans, Dolphins, and Seahawks all have decent veterans that can hold down the fort to start the season. If they win, great. If they get off to a bad start, bring in the kid.

It seems like Tannehill and Locker are being set-up a bit. I'm ok with Russell because at least he seems like he earned it. Did Tannehill clearly outplay Garrard & Moore? Is Locker prepared to face that brutal early schedule like Hasselbeck is?

 

[SSOG]

There have been exceptions. Rodgers fell to 26. Denver traded up to get Cutler coming off the AFCCG. Pitt drafted Roethlisberger when they were a pretty solid team. But yeah, sometime around 2000, bad teams started looking at drafting a QB as some sort of miracle cure that would save the franchise, rather than just one more piece that can't do anything without a supporting cast. Blame Peyton Manning.

 

[Joe Summer]

It used to be that good teams drafted QBs in the first round. Now, with few exceptions, only bad teams do. It's easy to sit Rodgers when you have Favre, or Rivers when you have Brees, or even Palmer when you have Kitna. It's a lot harder to sit Robert Griffin when the alternative is Rex Grossman.

How are you defining "good team" and "bad team"? How are you defining "used to be" and "now"? When Tennessee drafted Vince Young, did they count as a bad team (2 recent sub-.500 seasons) or a good team (11 wins per year for the previous 5 seasons)? What about Baltimore in 2008?You cited the 2005 draft as one of the times when "good teams" drafted QBs, yet 2 out of 3 bad teams drafted QBs in the first round that year.

I'd like to see your research...

 

[Wrigley]

6. With the rookie pay system, it's cheaper to replace them if they don't work out.

DING DING DING

 

[Faust]

Don't jump to conclusions with influx of young quarterbacks

By Jeff Darlington

Reporter, NFL.com and NFL Network

In a scary disclaimer that's nothing to joke about, there's something I should tell you: Predicting the success of quarterbacks isn't my strong suit, a revelation that came largely from six seasons spent covering the Miami Dolphins.

Allow me to explain what happens when you try to fit an optimistic peg into a black hole ...

Trent Green? Oh, yeah. Cleo Lemon? He's the man! Sage Rosenfels? Hey, why not! John Beck? Future Hall of Famer! Daunte Culpepper? Still got it! Chad Henne? The next Marino! Joey Harrington? Gus Frerotte? Tyler Thigpen? OK, let's not go too far.

Needless to say, even as Ryan Tannehill looks like he might really be the answer for the Miami Dolphins this time (seriously, why can't I stop?), a decent dose of cynicism has crept into my Rex Grossman-loving cranium. So no, there will be no predictions about the QB class of 2012, even if I so badly want to say the Cleveland Browns' Brandon Weeden is a rock star.

There's just no reason for me to do to them what I've done to those I've admired (cough, Brady Quinn, cough) in the past. Hey, I'm learning. And if there's one lesson I can pass along in the wake of my own bad experiences (Seriously, Chad Pennington's shoulder will be fiiine!), it is this: Chill out and let it happen.

Yes, we're all aware of the crazy breakdowns regarding the league's quarterback landscape. Now that the Seattle Seahawks have named Russell Wilson their starter, five rookies are set to be under center in Week 1. That means 14 of 32 starting quarterbacks have three years of NFL experience or less. (Check out the table to the right.)

It's a fantastic youth movement -- the start of a potentially great era at the quarterback position. After all, we haven't seen something like this since ... since ... since JaMarcus Russell joined Matt Leinart and Vince Young in the exhilarating QB wave of 2007.

OK, that might be a slight exaggeration. But it's still important to point out that we might be overreacting just a touch to the current influx of young quarterbacks, particularly since most on the list have yet to prove their staying power.

At this point, does the current crop of young guns even deserve to be compared to the group drafted between 2004 and 2005, which includes Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Schaub, Alex Smith, Jason Campbell, Kyle Orton, Matt Cassel and Ryan Fitzpatrick?

Questions already abound regarding the current group of 14 young quarterbacks. It's hard for anyone to say with certainty that the Jacksonville Jaguars' Blaine Gabbert, the Minnesota Vikings' Christian Ponder, the Tennessee Titans' Jake Locker or even the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' Josh Freeman will have long-term careers. And the five aforementioned rookies have yet to even take a regular-season snap.

The point is simple: Youth doesn't equate to legacy. This influx of young guns -- whatever the reason for it -- doesn't mean colleges are doing a better job of developing talent. It just means NFL teams are trying harder to develop new hope.

Ten of the 14 young quarterbacks on our list took over teams that finished with six wins or less the season before. Only two quarterbacks (the New York Jets' Mark Sanchez and Locker) inherited teams that had winning records the previous season. In other words, these quarterbacks aren't exactly beating out Drew Brees or Tom Brady for starting jobs.

Are we on the brink of a very special era at quarterback? Maybe, but it's going to take years to get a true answer. In fact, we might've already entered the era many believe is still on the horizon. It took time for the group from 2004-05 to exert its dominance. Guys like Rodgers, Fitzpatrick and Schaub were backups first. And Smith's legacy is just now on the upswing of its potential, seven years after he entered the league as the No. 1 overall pick.

We all have reason to be excited about the future of the quarterback position. None of this is intended to dampen expectations for the young guys taking the torch.

But before we go crafting busts to fill those spaces next to hallowed names like Elway, Unitas and Montana, perhaps we should step back and let history unfold.

After all, not everyone can turn into a stud like Grossman.