QB who were Great from the Start - Does it Take 3 Years?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

OK, here's a question for you experts and students of the game (and anyone else, for that matter).

 

This is spurred by a post in the Pennington thread quoting him as saying it just takes 3 years to develop an NFL QB. (He sat for 2 and was good the 3rd)

It was commented on that yeah, but nowadays teams lack the patience.

 

But what if it just takes that long? What if, absent a handful of anomolies, teams better just pencil that in and work around it?

 

So that led me to ask: what QB, good or great, were asked to play as rookies and were really good right out of the box their rookie season?

 

So many of the former great QB were given a couple years to develop or had time to develop playing in another league - Montana, Steve Young, Kelly, Aikman played but kind of sucked his first 2 years, Warner in Arena League then sat for a year...it took Warren Moon and Drew Bledsoe their 4th season to stop throwing more INTs than TDs.....Rodgers sat for a while...in fact, of the QB I regard as really tops over the last 30 years I'm having trouble thinking of QB who were really "all that and a bag of chips" right from the start.

 

Let's limit ourselves to relatively modern - let's say 1983 or so.

What great or even good QB can you recall who started as rookies and were great their first year?

Or even their second year?

 

1st year greats:

Marino - he was "Dan the Man" from the start, 58.4% completion wasn't bad in 1983 and 20 TD to 6 INTs was pure gold.

Luck - too early to call him a great, but >4000 yds passing and 23 TD to 18 INT in his rookie year must be acknowledged

Wilson - I'm tempted to asterisk him because I think their offense is designed to help him succeed, but he was good from the go

 

2nd year greats:

Elway - shaky rookie year with 2x the INTs to TD and then solid

Boomer Esiason - similar, shaky rookie year then solid

Manning - he threw 56.7% completions and 28 INTs his rookie year but from then on he was gold

Farve - sat his rookie year for ATL, got to Green Bay and never looked back

Brady - sat his rookie year, started his 2nd year and never looked back.

 

Who else comes to mind?

Remember it must be considered that 20-30 years ago better than mid-50s completion was very good

 

I seem to recall digging into this fairly methodically a while back and concluding that there's a rare "1st tier" of QB who can be really good within 2 years. Then there's a crop of QB who seem to need the equivalent of 3 seasons worth of games to find themselves, if they do find themselves. Then there are those who never quite get there.

 

Hope this turns into a good thread...

 

OK, let's hear your thoughts.....

Edited March 3, 2015 by Hopeful

[Beef Jerky]

Thing is even in those "bad" starts you could see throws and decisions that showed they can play.

 

With EJ I saw lots of "How did he miss that guy" or "why did he do that".

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I think you answered your won query.

 

some times you strike gold on the first try and the vein holds out.

some times you strike gold on the first try and nothing past that.

 

some times you need to sit and work for a few years to find that gold nugget

 

 

 

what you shouldn't do is dig and move, dig and move......

Edited March 3, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[KDIGGZ]

Jim Kelly was good his rookie year. it just wasn't in the NFL!

[Wayne Cubed]

I'd say you would have to throw into the mix that the passing game has changed. It favors offenses and QBs much more than it did even 10 years ago.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Thing is even in those "bad" starts you could see throws and decisions that showed they can play.

 

With EJ I saw lots of "How did he miss that guy" or "why did he do that".

 

Sir! Excuse me, Sir? I believe you're looking for the many EJ threads on this board. Straight ahead to the double doors, turn left.

 

Or of course, you could share your thoughts on great QB who were really good out of the box or in their 2nd years.

I'd say you would have to throw into the mix that the passing game has changed. It favors offenses and QBs much more than it did even 10 years ago.

 

Meaning what? That it's easier or that it's harder to succeed? Defenses have changed too...more variants, more complexity.

[Thrivefourfive]

To the OP, RGIII was very good from the start. And very bad thereafter.

 

Flacco was pretty solid and Ben was good for a rookie too. Their careers may have plateaued, but it's a nice place to be.

 

I believe starting as a rookie was pretty unheard of before Manning. Jeff George did it I think, but that guy had an absolute cannon, and could make every throw imaginable.

 

I would like to see a history of ALL rookie starters and how their careers ended up, or are still pro/regressing. If anyone is looking for a homework assignment..

Edited March 3, 2015 by Thrivefourfive

[BuffaloHokie13]

As much as I dislike him, Matt Ryan had a pretty good start.

 

2008: 61.1% Completion, 3,440 Yards, 16 TD's, 11 INT's

[Thrivefourfive]

As much as I dislike him, Matt Ryan had a pretty good start.

 

2008: 61.1% Completion, 3,440 Yards, 16 TD's, 11 INT's

 

Yeah he did. I think he's got everything it takes, except that below average arm. I think he losses confidence down the stretch because of it. After watching Hardknocks I was really impressed with his ownership of that lockerroom.

[OldTimer1960]

Drew Bree's was nothing special his first few years, either if I recall correctly.

[maddenboy]

There's a BIG difference between:

 

"QBs who were great from the start," and

 

"QBs who had great stats from the start."

 

The 2 are not the same, and its a timeless debate on TBD and elsewhere. IMHO, Stats dont tell the story of grasping the offense, leadership, "it," showing potential, improving over time, and improving such that you show a HIGH ceiling for which fans should be patient.

Edited March 3, 2015 by maddenboy

[Hapless Bills Fan]

To the OP, RGIII was very good from the start. And very bad thereafter.

 

Flacco was pretty solid and Ben was good for a rookie too. Their careers may have plateaued, but it's a nice place to be.

 

I believe starting as a rookie was pretty unheard of before Manning. Jeff George did it I think, but that guy had an absolute cannon, and could make every throw imaginable.

 

I would like to see a history of ALL rookie starters and how their careers ended up, or are still pro/regressing. If anyone is looking for a homework assignment..

 

Interesting category I hadn't thought of - "One and Dones"

 

I was more thinking of great QB who were good from the start, and I'm not quite sure I'd call Flacco and Roeth "greats", but they're definitely good, as is Matt Ryan for that matter, and yeah, they were good out of the gate.

 

I'll leave the homework assignment for someone else. I can tell you that at the top of the 1st round of the draft, the overall success rate for a QB is about 60-70%, dropping to 50% at the bottom of the 1st, and 30% in the 2nd round or later, with success being defined as "competent NFL QB" not nebulous "Franchise Guy". So it would be statistically complicated to tease out how starting the 1st year as opposed to sitting impacts the chances of long-term success.

 

Before Peyton Manning? Nah, Marino started as a rook, Elway did, Aikman, Warren Moon. I suppose it comes in fads, Class of 83 had a bunch so it became fashionable for a while.

 

Jeff George, oy, talk about a guy with a million dollar arm and a 10 cent head

As much as I dislike him, Matt Ryan had a pretty good start.

 

2008: 61.1% Completion, 3,440 Yards, 16 TD's, 11 INT's

 

Yep, good catch. Ryan, Roethlisberger, Flacco.

[chris heff]

Drew Bree's was nothing special his first few years, either if I recall correctly.

You are correct sir. Brees was bad enough that they drafted Manning, who had already told them he wouldn't play there, hence the trade with Giants for Rivers.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Drew Bree's was nothing special his first few years, either if I recall correctly.

 

No, no he was not, good point out- he sat his rookie year then it took him about 4 years to have a really good season.

There's a BIG difference between:

 

"QBs who were great from the start," and

 

"QBs who had great stats from the start."

 

The 2 are not the same, and its a timeless debate on TBD and elsewhere. IMHO, Stats dont tell the story of grasping the offense, leadership, "it," showing potential, improving over time, and improving such that you show a HIGH ceiling for which fans should be patient.

 

It's no argument that stats don't tell the whole story. And there are some stats that are fairly meaningless or even negative when it comes to predicting good outcomes.

 

But it's hard to find a guy who is playing well consistently and grasping the offense but who has bad stats in certain categories. Turnovers and completion percentage are two of those. If you turn the ball over a lot and miss a lot of open guys while trying to show your teammates you've got "it", you typically get, er, so to speak "pickled" (not that I have a certain player in mind here or anything)

 

When it comes to "showing potential" "improving over time" "showing a HIGH ceiling" well...I'm afraid IMO too often those are in the eye of the beholder and determined by hindsight, after the jury's back in one way or the other. It's easy to see flashes of potential and attribute crap throws to the high quality of our own D LOL when we're watching a guy play us, but agonize over every overthrow and miscue when it's our guy. It becomes an emotional issue, IMO; Bradford shows flashes, leadership and potential as a rookie, Manning shows flashes, leadership and potential as a rookie - 4 years later one of them's on the way to a HOF career, one of them's on the bubble, see what I mean?

Edited March 3, 2015 by Hopeful

[billsfan89]

Matt Ryan was pretty good his first year (3500 yards, 16 TD's to 11 INT's, led the Falcons to a playoff game). He has since gone on to be a top 10 QB in the league. Matthew Stafford really caught on in his third year after struggling on the field and with injuries. Cam Newton was pretty good his rookie year (4000 passing yards and 21 TD's to 17 INT's along with 700 rushing yards), Newton looks like he will develop into a pretty good QB although he seems to have been a little up and down the past few years.

 

Tony Romo sat his first year and then played well his second year and really broke out in his third year. Aaron Rodgers sat his first three years and then played well out of the gate. Phillip Rivers sat for two years and played pretty well out of the box. Ben Rothlisberger played in a Wilson like system where he wasn't asked to carry the team and then grew into a much better QB in his 4th season. Just a few more examples.

[Damian]

One that I could think of is Don Majikowski with Green Bay. Split time at QB his rookie year (he was a 10th round pick) and led the NFL in yards his second year. Tore his rotator cuff the third year and career was over. His replacement, some guy named Brett Favre, took over. It was Favre's second year as a pro (he was a backup with a total of 4 pass attempts, 0 comps, 2 INT's and a sack at Atlanta). Favre rocked from then on out.

[Wayne Cubed]

Meaning what? That it's easier or that it's harder to succeed? Defenses have changed too...more variants, more complexity.

No matter how complex defenses have become the rules have been deliberately changed to help aid the offense. To help them score more. To protect the QB. You can't deny that. And the proof is in how many records are being broken and how much longer QBs are playing for.

[johnwalter]

you mentioned him briefly, but luck comes to mind. that kid is so f*cking special. the colts went 2-14 in 2011, changed almost nothing with the exception of adding andrew luck, then go 11-5 the following year. that roster is still so barren of talent with the exception of luck, he doesn't have half the team brady, manning, wilson, or rodgers have and still delivers on a weekly basis. blows my mind to think what he'd do on the bills. barring injury, he's already almost a lock for the HOF.

[Chuck Wagon]

Brees was pretty solid in his first year starting- 60% / 3,284 / 17 tds / 16 picks. He got hurt in 2003 and the Chargers had little around him (especially defensively) and they ended up in a position to take a QB during a rich QB draft. There were long term concerns about Brees health so they took Rivers.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

you mentioned him briefly, but luck comes to mind. that kid is so f*cking special. the colts went 2-14 in 2011, changed almost nothing with the exception of adding andrew luck, then go 11-5 the following year. that roster is still so barren of talent with the exception of luck, he doesn't have half the team brady, manning, wilson, or rodgers have and still delivers on a weekly basis. blows my mind to think what he'd do on the bills. barring injury, he's already almost a lock for the HOF.

 

Can't disagree with the Luck love.

"Changed almost nothing" with the exception of new HC, OC, DC, changed center and Rt side of OL, changed WR, added a TE and running back, changed defensive scheme and a bunch of linemen and LB....I don't follow them closely enough to comment on their talent level relative to NE or GB (I think Wilson has a more talented team esp on D) except that their D does seem to have improved quite a lot, and to say they "changed almost nothing" is IMO highly misleading.

[johnwalter]

 

Can't disagree with the Luck love.

"Changed almost nothing" with the exception of new HC, OC, DC, changed center and Rt side of OL, changed WR, added a TE and running back, changed defensive scheme and a bunch of linemen and LB....I don't follow them closely enough to comment on their talent level relative to NE or GB (I think Wilson has a more talented team esp on D) except that their D does seem to have improved quite a lot, and to say they "changed almost nothing" is IMO highly misleading.

 

I admit my error. When I said "changed nothing," what I should have said was "upgraded nothing" - the exceptions being T.Y. Hilton and, to some extent, Coby Fleener (T.Y. might be able to sneak into the discussion as a top-10 WR / Fleener is knocking on the door of being a top-10 TE, but certainly is not yet). I suppose Arians was an upgrade at OC, but I don't think that the rest of the coaching an upgrade. RB and OL were and are some of the worst in the league. Their defense is lousy, don't let the stats fool you, I watch ~half of colts games and the numbers are very misleading. I think it's a situation like the Cowboys defense where the quality of the offense covered a lot of defensive deficiencies simply by keeping them off the field and allowing them to play with a lead. Playing against the Titans and Jags twice a year each doesn't hurt either.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

No matter how complex defenses have become the rules have been deliberately changed to help aid the offense. To help them score more. To protect the QB. You can't deny that. And the proof is in how many records are being broken and how much longer QBs are playing for.

 

That's true that there have been rule changes to protect the QB and the WR, W**3 but what I'm asking is how you interpret the impact of the change on early QB success? Positive or negative?

 

Because which way it goes isn't clear to me....the bar is higher now...a QB needs to complete more passes, throw more TDs, pass more often to be considered a success. And defenses have compensated for the rule changes that prevent them from wrapping up the wideouts and body-slamming the QB with more complexity, requiring more ability to read the D.

 

Trivia point: between 1994 and today, any idea how the rule changes have increased the league average ppg? Answer: 2.3 pts per game. Less than a FG, on average. Interesting, eh?

[OldTimer1960]

No matter how complex defenses have become the rules have been deliberately changed to help aid the offense. To help them score more. To protect the QB. You can't deny that. And the proof is in how many records are being broken and how much longer QBs are playing for.

But the standards for what good QB play have also changed (at least in terms of statistics). It used to be > 50% completion rate and 200 yards per game were very good, now that gets you benched. So, while it is true that rules have changed in favor of the offense, the definition of what a good QB is is relative to the current crop of QBs and they are all playing under the same rules - QBs of the past also all played under the same rules (at their time).

 

If you are arguing that the current rules make it easier for young QBs to succeed relative to their more veteran peers, then I wonder why there is such a dearth of good young QBs.

Edited March 3, 2015 by OldTimer1960

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

I admit my error. When I said "changed nothing," what I should have said was "upgraded nothing" - the exceptions being T.Y. Hilton and, to some extent, Coby Fleener (T.Y. might be able to sneak into the discussion as a top-10 WR / Fleener is knocking on the door of being a top-10 TE, but certainly is not yet). I suppose Arians was an upgrade at OC, but I don't think that the rest of the coaching an upgrade. RB and OL were and are some of the worst in the league. Their defense is lousy, don't let the stats fool you, I watch ~half of colts games and the numbers are very misleading. I think it's a situation like the Cowboys defense where the quality of the offense covered a lot of defensive deficiencies simply by keeping them off the field and allowing them to play with a lead. Playing against the Titans and Jags twice a year each doesn't hurt either.

 

Fair enough point on "improved defense by offense", since you can improve the offense by defense turn-about is fair play

 

I didn't think they had such a bad OL. I'll admit I don't watch them much; I saw their D in the playoffs and thought "whoa, they actually have some defense now" but maybe they were especially amped.

But the standards for what good QB play have also changed (at least in terms of statistics). It used to be > 50% completion rate and 200 yards per game were very good, now that gets you benched. So, while it is true that rules have changed in favor of the offense, it the definition of what a good QB is is relative to the current crop of QBs.

 

Yes, exactly the point I was trying to make but you said it better, thanks!

[CardinalScotts]

It depends on what you have around your QB...Marino a gifted passer to say the least but as a rookie he broke 250 yds twice but they had the #1 ranked defense and played to it. Very very few qb's came in and consistently carried their team the successful ones always had a kick butt defense an/or a running game.

 

Where im at with EJ I almost throw last season out based on not trusting the prior coaching staff. It's go time bring a capable vet as a safety net and let EJ play his way in or out of Buffalo this camp. The highest ceiling is EJ arrives as a qb but yest its almost the deepest basement.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

cam newton and russell Wilson had great rookie years.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

cam newton and russell Wilson had great rookie years.

 

I agree, my thinking was they're young QB, a bit soon to be judging on the "great" vs "good" but they're certainly both on a strong track.

 

I haven't done the homework but I'm wondering if this might be one of those cyclical things, where a couple of strong draft classes yield QB who walk right in and play.

Then it becomes an expectation and a handful of classes have multiple QB crash and burn because they aren't ready

[Thrivefourfive]

 

Interesting category I hadn't thought of - "One and Dones"

 

I was more thinking of great QB who were good from the start, and I'm not quite sure I'd call Flacco and Roeth "greats", but they're definitely good, as is Matt Ryan for that matter, and yeah, they were good out of the gate.

 

I'll leave the homework assignment for someone else. I can tell you that at the top of the 1st round of the draft, the overall success rate for a QB is about 60-70%, dropping to 50% at the bottom of the 1st, and 30% in the 2nd round or later, with success being defined as "competent NFL QB" not nebulous "Franchise Guy". So it would be statistically complicated to tease out how starting the 1st year as opposed to sitting impacts the chances of long-term success.

 

Before Peyton Manning? Nah, Marino started as a rook, Elway did, Aikman, Warren Moon. I suppose it comes in fads, Class of 83 had a bunch so it became fashionable for a while.

 

Jeff George, oy, talk about a guy with a million dollar arm and a 10 cent head

 

Yep, good catch. Ryan, Roethlisberger, Flacco.

 

Great point on the draft and Marino, Elway, Aikman, Moon. Big misconception is that you'll get a franchise guy after mid 1st round. That's unlikely. Brady and Wilson are exceptions, obviously.

 

I'm 37 and the first SB I remember is XX. Not even thinking one and dones. Just one and whatever. The list can't be that long, right? How about the guys from the 70s? Bradshaw sat for a while I think.

 

I'd love to see this list and the success rate on first year starters. I have a gut feeling that more failed than succeeded, or maybe it was close to 50/50, Manning/Leaf type deal. When I have time, I'll work on it. Promise, students.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

That's true that there have been rule changes to protect the QB and the WR, W**3 but what I'm asking is how you interpret the impact of the change on early QB success? Positive or negative?

 

Because which way it goes isn't clear to me....the bar is higher now...a QB needs to complete more passes, throw more TDs, pass more often to be considered a success. And defenses have compensated for the rule changes that prevent them from wrapping up the wideouts and body-slamming the QB with more complexity, requiring more ability to read the D.

 

Trivia point: between 1994 and today, any idea how the rule changes have increased the league average ppg? Answer: 2.3 pts per game. Less than a FG, on average. Interesting, eh?

 

I think the perception by fans, maybe by teams as well, is that with all the rule changes QB's should succeed faster. I'm not sure if that is true or not, without doing some research. I do believe there are more "good" QB's in the NFL now as opposed to 20-25 years ago. Look at the top 15 QBs in terms of passing from 20 years ago, 1995.

 

1. Brett Favre*+ GNB

2. Scott Mitchell DET

3. Warren Moon* MIN

4. Jeff George ATL

5. Jim Everett NOR

6. John Elway DEN

7. Erik Kramer CHI

8. Jeff Blake* CIN

9. Dan Marino* MIA

10. Dave Krieg ARI

11. Drew Bledsoe NWE

12. Stan Humphries SDG

13. Troy Aikman* DAL

14. Steve Young* SFO

15. Jim Kelly BUF

The best from that group are obviously: Favre, Moon, Elway, Marino, Bledsoe, Aikman, Young and Kelly (even though he was on the backside of his career). I suppose you could make an argument for George. There's 4 SB winning QB's in that bunch plus Kelly and Marino both played in a SB. Now look at the top 15 from this past year:

1. Drew Brees* NOR

2. Ben Roethlisberger* PIT

3. Andrew Luck* IND

4. Peyton Manning* DEN

5. Matt Ryan* ATL

6 Eli Manning NYG

7. Aaron Rodgers*+ GNB

8. Philip Rivers SDG

9. Matthew Stafford* DET

10. Tom Brady* NWE

11. Ryan Tannehill MIA

12. Joe Flacco BAL

13. Jay Cutler CHI

14. Tony Romo* DAL

15. Russell Wilson SEA

 

I'd say just about everyone of them are good except maybe Cutler, Tannehill and maybe Stafford. Still an argument could be made for them because for both Cutler and Stafford. There are 8 Super Bowl winning QB's in that bunch.

[GunnerBill]

 

Now look at the top 15 from this past year:

1. Drew Brees* NOR

2. Ben Roethlisberger* PIT

3. Andrew Luck* IND

4. Peyton Manning* DEN

5. Matt Ryan* ATL

6 Eli Manning NYG

7. Aaron Rodgers*+ GNB

8. Philip Rivers SDG

9. Matthew Stafford* DET

10. Tom Brady* NWE

11. Ryan Tannehill MIA

12. Joe Flacco BAL

13. Jay Cutler CHI

14. Tony Romo* DAL

15. Russell Wilson SEA

 

I'd say just about everyone of them are good except maybe Cutler, Tannehill and maybe Stafford. Still an argument could be made for them because for both Cutler and Stafford. There are 8 Super Bowl winning QB's in that bunch.

 

 

There are but there is also some age. 9 of that list came into the league 2006 or earlier and 2 of the 6 that didn't are in your "jury still out" category.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

There are but there is also some age. 9 of that list came into the league 2006 or earlier and 2 of the 6 that didn't are in your "jury still out" category.

 

 

That's true, but look at the list from 95. Marino, Kelly, Moon, Young, Elway and Aikman, who are the best of that bunch, had already been in the league by 95 for 10 years.