If you believe QBs need to sit in order to be successful, you're basically a retard.

[SmootsDaddy89]

After seeing so many posters spam this argument in every Cam or Blaine Gabbert thread because they saw Don Shula say it in a nursing home while he was pooting himself, I'm going to analyze and explain why this is the worst possible argument for not taking a QB #1 overall.

First, and perhaps most importantly, there is ONE reason, and one reason alone why rookies in the NFL start: Because you have poo all at that position. Look at our own history:

2002: We had Rucker and nothing else at DE. Peppers starts

2003: Chris Terry finally beat his wife enough to get cut. Gross starts.

2004: Gamble BARELY beats out ARTRELL fugING HAWKINS to start

2007: Who did we even have at LB other than Morgan and Diggs? Anyway, Beason was clearly better than any of them.

2008: It was either Otah or Omiyale. So yeah.

If Cam Newton were to be our pick, there's nothing suggesting he wouldn't start from day one (barring a vet coming in) so lets turn our attention to why this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

There are two first-round QBs who are consistently brought up as shining examples as to why its best to sit a rookie QB for a few years: Aaron Rodgers and Phillip Rivers. I'll start with Rivers first.

Rivers sat for ONE YEAR before taking over for Brees. Rivers had an above-average season in 2006 followed by a mediocre 2007 season. Reminder than a lot of Chargers fans considered Rivers to be a bust heading into the 2008 season. What does this mean? Well, basically Rivers still had some growing pains even after sitting for a year. Pains he could have went through a year earlier if he started as a rookie.

Well clearly, Rivers just needed to sit for THREE years. That's the magic number that keeps being spit out. Because Aaron Rodgers did.

Yes, Aaron Rodgers sat for three years before becoming Green Bay's starter in 2008. he put up great stats his very first season. But if you look at his 2008 season compared to his 2009 season, he STILL improved from his first season to his second. So even after sitting for three years trying to decipher hick gibberish from Brett Favre, he still had SOME growing pains to go through.

You could also make the argument that if they had decided to tell Favre to fug off and started Rodgers as a rookie, he could have been just as good as he was last year and in 2009, but in 2007 instead. (ie much earlier) And since Rodgers isn't a gun-slinging moron, the Packers could have won their first super bowl in 2007, and another last year, instead of just one this past season. The point that I'm trying to make is the assumption that it "paid off" for the Packers is impossible to substantiate, because we can't know how it would have turned out in any other situation. Maybe it was the best decision. Maybe it was the worst. But making assertions one way or the other with any sense of finality is laughably stupid.

In summation, we could sit Cam Newton for 10 years and he's still going to go through a lot of the same problems that a rookie does. The only real benefit is more practice with the players and knowing the playbook better, both of which he could gain through actual playtime during the regular season.

Also, when you're talking about sitting rookie QBs, keep in mind that both Aaron Rodgers and Phillip Rivers sat behind established, veteran QBs, so you can quit acting like this was some sort of ingenious move by Marty Schottenheimer and Mike McCarthy based on some deeply embedded philosophy they both shared, when it could just as easily have been happenstance.

If you read all of this, and still feel that it's best to sit a rookie QB, take the same theory, and apply it to other positions.

Would D-Will have been a bust if he wasn't buried behind Foster for two seasons?

The End.

[Peppers90 NC]

If Cam is picked, I hope he wins the starting job from day 1. I've never said or believed he should sit, if indeed he is our pick. It's a new day in the NFL, highly drafted rookie QB's are expected to start.

[CarolinaNut]

the only way to get experience and learn is by starting...not saying they have to be on the field week 1 but i don't think they need to sit an entire season...it all comes down to how well they know the playbook...if they know the plays they need to be on the field getting that experience

[jasonluckydog]

How severe retardation are we talking about?

[pantherfan49]

Rivers sat for 2 years.

[thefuzz]

This is one of the worst posts I have ever seen on the Huddle.

Rivers sat for 2 years, and Rodgers for 3. Rivers' first year starting the team went 14-2, and was in the AFC Championship game. No Chargers fans thought that he was a bust.

Rodgers sat for 3 years and took over for a QB that is legend in Green Bay and went on to win a Super Bowl.

You said that you could make the arguement that either could have played from day 1, well you really can't because it didn't happen. What you can argue is that both of them sat for an extended amount of time and turned out to be 2 of the best QB's in the league.

Awful Post.

[Peppers90 NC]

I wouldnt expect a 4th round QB to come in and start as a rookie, would anyone else?

[Ricky Spanish]

you gave examples of positions that aren't Quarterbacks as reasons to start a rookie QB...

I would have understood if you argued with matt ryan or joe flacco or even mark sanchez, but you gave examples of positions that aren't QB's... None of those positions have remotely the same learning curve as the quarterback position...

you sir, seem to be the retarded one.

[Highlandfire]

Rivers sat for 2 years.

Rogers for 3. For THIS CLASS of QB's sitting is definitely best. There is not one QB in this draft that should see the field for at least a year if you want him to be successful.

Now if you can't understand why you are not retarded, just really damn stupid.

[TheRealDeal]

Are we talking full retard?

[Jangler]

Depends on the QB and the staff around him. Do you now trust the staff around "Cam" to start and get better?

[SmootsDaddy89]

This is one of the worst posts I have ever seen on the Huddle.

Rivers sat for 2 years, and Rodgers for 3. Rivers' first year starting the team went 14-2, and was in the AFC Championship game. No Chargers fans thought that he was a bust.

Rodgers sat for 3 years and took over for a QB that is legend in Green Bay and went on to win a Super Bowl.

You said that you could make the arguement that either could have played from day 1, well you really can't because it didn't happen. What you can argue is that both of them sat for an extended amount of time and turned out to be 2 of the best QB's in the league.

Awful Post.

Considering you're one of the most consistently useless posters on this forum, I'll take that as a compliment.

And yes, I evidently can't count. But Rivers sitting for two seasons and still having two mediocre to above-average seasons afterwards just further proves my point that QBs are going to struggle at first whether they sit or not.

And I don't care what the Chargers' record was in 2006. It's a team sport. LT set records that year and they had a top 10 defense. But sure, Rivers did it all by himself. HE WAS SO GOOD!!!!

And you clearly weren't lurking San Diego's message boards before our game against them in 2008. There were a number of people who considered that to be his "make or break" year.

Feel free to go visit Fukushima in swim trunks now.

[TheRealDeal]

[Mother Grabber]

What about Brady? He came right in and won a Superbowl...