The Case For Sitting: Volume 3 - Greatness Breakdown
Volume 1 - Good Duels, Bad Duels
Volume 2 - Their Time Is Gonna Come
The raw numbers may not mean anything. Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers sat on the bench for their first two NFL seasons. They are currently two of the elite quarterbacks in football. Peyton Manning played, and struggled, in his rookie season but turned out to be one of the greatest passers ever. Matt Ryan took Atlanta to the playoffs his rookie season, made a pro-bowl his third, and has never posted a losing record. Ben Roethlisberger went undefeated his rookie year before winning two Super Bowls in the following four campaigns.
John Elway started after six games. And despite his current tenuous commitment to Tim Tebow, Elway himself did not impress statistically his first two seasons. But a strange thing happened to the Broncos in those years, they were 16-8 with Elway's 52% completion percentage and 27 total touchdowns. In only a third of the games Tebow is 5-3 with a 46% completion percentage and 21 scores. Is that any suggestion that Tim Tebow will ever be compared with John Elway? No. Is that a implication that John Elway would have been treated differently in a 24-hour sports culture. Yes, absolutely.
Even the great Joe Montana, a third round pick, struggled in his second year. He was not the 49ers quarterback until nine games into that season. Despite featuring a significantly strong completion percentage, especially for the early 1980's, his team was 2-5 under his watch. The following year, the legend would begin.
Dan Marino should be considered the exception: twenty touchdowns, six interceptions, a seven and two record. His rookie year would be a statistical anomaly for any mere mortal. Perhaps Cam Newton or Andy Dalton will ascend to those heights, but it's unlikely. Even Sam Bradford's strong rookie year doesn't compare to the nine games Marino started in 1983.
Have we come to the death howls of an exercise in futility? Is there any legitimate case for sitting a young quarterback beyond a few games? What separates the Matt Ryans from the David Carrs? There are successful franchise field generals who have sat behind other quality passers, protected by the barrier of the sidelines while learning the ropes. Yet there are equally proficient passers who were cast into the autumn fields to learn on the job as the only hope of their franchise.
There's a chance we have looked at this question incorrectly these entire volumes. It may not be the media, or impatient fans, or even a quarterback's inexperience which create the biggest problems. A recent piece on Yahoo described how a perfect storm of poor organization has affected Colt McCoy. The article focuses on the hazing of the young quarterback. The telling portion is how the Browns' passer is described as unwelcome by the coaches since he had been chosen by the new management. Tim Tebow has faced a similar regime change. However his organization seems to be handling it with a slight bit more tact.
The strongest argument for sitting a future franchise quarterback for an extended period of time features Aaron Rodgers. The Green Bay quarterback is a Super Bowl Champions, a pro bowl player, the current leader in most passing categories, and was selected twenty three places after the first quarterback taken in 2005. That quarterback was Alex Smith. The 49ers' passer has a sub .500 record, low completion percentage, and slightly more touchdowns than interceptions. Unlike Rodgers, he started seven games his rookie campaign. In his second season, Smith played in all sixteen for San Francisco. Since then he hasn't finished a full season. Whether it's been the injuries, the three different coaches or seven different offensive coordinators, Alex Smith has never led the 49ers to the playoffs.
Would anything have changed if Rodgers started and Smith have sat? Perhaps the only difference would be if Rodgers was starting for the 49ers and Smith was sitting for the Packers. Colt McCoy's struggles, much like Smith's, can be explained by an organization in flux. St. Louis's Sam Bradford has yet to undergo a head coaching change, but he's on his second offensive coordinator. Cleveland and St. Louis have similar circumstances beyond young quarterbacks. The Browns and Rams haven't had more than one winning season in the last eight, both have had more than three coaches in that time, and neither has more than half of their last ten 1st round draft picks still on their roster.
It isn't Rodgers' and Rivers' success that defines the case for sitting. It isn't Ben Roethlisberger's or Peyton Manning's success that can help make a case for starting a young quarterback. The most important facet of developing a franchise quarterback is how stable the franchise is to begin with. The next time an owner wants to determine if he's getting the next Matt Ryan or David Carr, he should consider whether or not he's been wanting to fire anyone.
Volume 2 - Their Time Is Gonna Come
The raw numbers may not mean anything. Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers sat on the bench for their first two NFL seasons. They are currently two of the elite quarterbacks in football. Peyton Manning played, and struggled, in his rookie season but turned out to be one of the greatest passers ever. Matt Ryan took Atlanta to the playoffs his rookie season, made a pro-bowl his third, and has never posted a losing record. Ben Roethlisberger went undefeated his rookie year before winning two Super Bowls in the following four campaigns.
John Elway started after six games. And despite his current tenuous commitment to Tim Tebow, Elway himself did not impress statistically his first two seasons. But a strange thing happened to the Broncos in those years, they were 16-8 with Elway's 52% completion percentage and 27 total touchdowns. In only a third of the games Tebow is 5-3 with a 46% completion percentage and 21 scores. Is that any suggestion that Tim Tebow will ever be compared with John Elway? No. Is that a implication that John Elway would have been treated differently in a 24-hour sports culture. Yes, absolutely.
Even the great Joe Montana, a third round pick, struggled in his second year. He was not the 49ers quarterback until nine games into that season. Despite featuring a significantly strong completion percentage, especially for the early 1980's, his team was 2-5 under his watch. The following year, the legend would begin.
Dan Marino should be considered the exception: twenty touchdowns, six interceptions, a seven and two record. His rookie year would be a statistical anomaly for any mere mortal. Perhaps Cam Newton or Andy Dalton will ascend to those heights, but it's unlikely. Even Sam Bradford's strong rookie year doesn't compare to the nine games Marino started in 1983.
Have we come to the death howls of an exercise in futility? Is there any legitimate case for sitting a young quarterback beyond a few games? What separates the Matt Ryans from the David Carrs? There are successful franchise field generals who have sat behind other quality passers, protected by the barrier of the sidelines while learning the ropes. Yet there are equally proficient passers who were cast into the autumn fields to learn on the job as the only hope of their franchise.
There's a chance we have looked at this question incorrectly these entire volumes. It may not be the media, or impatient fans, or even a quarterback's inexperience which create the biggest problems. A recent piece on Yahoo described how a perfect storm of poor organization has affected Colt McCoy. The article focuses on the hazing of the young quarterback. The telling portion is how the Browns' passer is described as unwelcome by the coaches since he had been chosen by the new management. Tim Tebow has faced a similar regime change. However his organization seems to be handling it with a slight bit more tact.
The strongest argument for sitting a future franchise quarterback for an extended period of time features Aaron Rodgers. The Green Bay quarterback is a Super Bowl Champions, a pro bowl player, the current leader in most passing categories, and was selected twenty three places after the first quarterback taken in 2005. That quarterback was Alex Smith. The 49ers' passer has a sub .500 record, low completion percentage, and slightly more touchdowns than interceptions. Unlike Rodgers, he started seven games his rookie campaign. In his second season, Smith played in all sixteen for San Francisco. Since then he hasn't finished a full season. Whether it's been the injuries, the three different coaches or seven different offensive coordinators, Alex Smith has never led the 49ers to the playoffs.
Would anything have changed if Rodgers started and Smith have sat? Perhaps the only difference would be if Rodgers was starting for the 49ers and Smith was sitting for the Packers. Colt McCoy's struggles, much like Smith's, can be explained by an organization in flux. St. Louis's Sam Bradford has yet to undergo a head coaching change, but he's on his second offensive coordinator. Cleveland and St. Louis have similar circumstances beyond young quarterbacks. The Browns and Rams haven't had more than one winning season in the last eight, both have had more than three coaches in that time, and neither has more than half of their last ten 1st round draft picks still on their roster.
It isn't Rodgers' and Rivers' success that defines the case for sitting. It isn't Ben Roethlisberger's or Peyton Manning's success that can help make a case for starting a young quarterback. The most important facet of developing a franchise quarterback is how stable the franchise is to begin with. The next time an owner wants to determine if he's getting the next Matt Ryan or David Carr, he should consider whether or not he's been wanting to fire anyone.
Comments