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

[bleys]

1st round picks don't sit 2-3 yrs in today's NFL.......they only sit for years when they behind pro bowl or HOF QBs.

so I'm told..

however, I disagree that is an effective method.

what a few teams have done doesn't really impact my philosophy that it is best for a guy to sit 1-3 years..

[CRA]

so I'm told..

however, I disagree that is an effective method.

what a few teams have done doesn't really impact my philosophy that it is best for a guy to sit 1-3 years..

it if was best then wouldn't teams do it more?

Peyton, Ryan, and Freeman would be better if they sat? Or is getting out there early just part of the learning process so they will be legit QBs sooner for their team?

[carolinarolls]

the guy that is the current SB winner sat for three

[Squirrel]

Good grief, Starting rookies isnt smart but if we do start Cam or Gabbert the way to do it is like Pittsburgh did with Roethlisberger. It can be done but you need to limit the QB on the play callings and have a good running game and Defense.

[CRA]

the guy that is the current SB winner sat for three

only b/c there was HOF QB playing the position.....

[Peppers90 NC]

To start a rookie QB, he has to be mentally tough. The ones that were successful were tough, Clausen and others, weren't. There are big questions concerning Cam about his "head."

[Mr. Scot]

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.

You post that quarterbacks don't need to sit to be successful, and then support your argument by posting examples of two quarterbacks who were successful after sitting? :sosp:

Wouldn't it have made more sense to cite Flacco, Sanchez or Bradford?

And to be clear, no other position is the same as quarterback. Suggesting that a quarterback can start on day one because runningbacks and defensive ends can imakes no sense at all.

[Sword]

the guy that is the current SB winner sat for three

Rodgers did have some spot duty for Favre during those years but I always remember him getting seriously injured(broke his foot once) and not being able to have a chance to show much..Who's to say he wouldn't of played sooner if he wasn't getting hurt.

I am just under the personal opinion that great players aren't made from sitting on the bench..they either have it or they don't..no amount of sitting on the bench is going to magically turn them into something they are not. I really don't think QBs sit because they should..they sit because someone better(perceived) is in front of them.

[Mr. Scot]

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

Brady sit his first year and would have sat longer if Drew Bledsoe hadn't gotten hurt.

[carolinarolls]

only b/c there was HOF QB playing the position.....

that does not prove anything..He learned in his time sitting. He learned so much that GB pushed that HOF QB out the door.

ALmost all QB's need to sit at least a year. Especially since so many colleges run spread this and stretch that offenses.

It will vary and there will be superstars that will come along but as a rule a college coach recruiting at the highest level would like to red shirt as many kids as possible and the same goes for a pro coach when handling his rookies, especially the QB's.

I don't think you can make such a general statement about it.

[CRA]

To start a rookie QB, he has to be mentally tough. The ones that were successful were tough, Clausen and others, weren't. There are big questions concerning Cam about his "head."

mental toughness is a question mark for Cam?

did you miss him winning the Hesiman and National Championship under a microscope last year?.....he seemed to handle it almost flawlessly. It would have been easy to crack with all the drama the media was creating....

[Mr. Scot]

I don't necessarily agree with everything the OP said.

But it is true that we can't determine whether the success of Rivers and Rodgers would have never materialized if they started from day 1.

For all we know they could have started day 1 and been just as successful.

Despite having said that I don't really think Cam should start day 1 (assuming he is our pick) nor do I think he will have to sit 3 years.

For all we know David Carr, Akili Smith and Tim Couch might not have been busts if they hadn't been thrown to the wolves early.

It works both ways.

[Mr. Scot]

1st round picks don't sit 2-3 yrs in today's NFL...

Our head coach thinks they should.

[teeray]

For all we know David Carr, Akili Smith and Tim Couch might not have been busts if they hadn't been thrown to the wolves early.

It works both ways.

No doubt. That is why neither side can say with any certainty that the other is wrong/right.

You just start him when he is ready to go.