NFL ROOKIE QUARTERBACKS: Doing It Right And Wrong

Having an efficient and difference-making Quarterback (QB) is still, for every NFL team, the single most important ingredient for success on the gridiron. In the past, prospective stars throwing the ball were routinely scooped up early in drafts in the hopes that in a couple of years or so they could become "seasoned" enough to lead the team. In recent years, rookie QBs have been earning starting jobs even in their first seasons. This year it has been Ryan Tannehill, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin, Brandon Weeden, and Russell Wilson, and this week we will see Nick Foles start for the Eagles. "Considering they are rookies" each of these starters are doing well.

But is this a good strategy, overall? When is starting a rookie QB a good move, and when is it a bad one? Is there a formula?

The question to ask first is "why." Why do you want to start the rookie? There are only two main answers to this question: 1. "Our current QB is not very good." This was the case, this year, with all the teams starting a rookie, with perhaps the exception of Seattle, where we still haven't found out what their off-season addition of Matt Flynn can do, and possibly in Philadelphia, but we have yet to see what Foles can do. And 2. "He is too talented to sit," which is/was the presumed case with RGIII and Andrew Luck only. This has been the prevailing mentality for years and doesn't tell us much. What we want to know is the probability that our newly drafted shiny QB will make a difference on the football field. For that, I suggest you pay attention to one thing only, and that is, what is the state of the rest of the team?

If your team is strong and is only missing a piece, even talent not so special will be all the difference making you need. Take for a now-and-then example the drafting and continued starting of Joe Flacco in Baltimore and Russell Wilson in Seattle. When Flacco got the starting gig Baltimore was already a formidable team lacking one ingredient. He is for them still today adequate if not a difference-maker. He is somewhat successful because of the system he is in. While the jury is still out on the long-term, Russell Wilson seems this year's Flacco, falling to a team with all the ingredients for success and not having a big name to beat out for the job. Don't get me wrong, I've liked Wilson since college and think he is special. But the point is he, like Flacco, doesn't need to be too much of a difference-maker to help his team get better.

If you have a weak team, however, and are looking for a cleated savior to change your whole team around, the going gets a bit more difficult. We can only speculate as to how many at least serviceable QBs were never given a chance because they had no offensive line to protect them, or no running game, or defense to help out. This year, Tannehill and Weeden are examples. They might be good enough on the Ravens or Steelers, but not on the current Dolphins or Browns, they simply do not have enough talent around them to blossom in such a short period of time, and certainly not enough to make up for all the overall team deficiencies. Thinking about it, how many good QBs have fallen by the wayside due to bad coaching, schemes, teams, and so on?

Now, Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III also fit into this latter category, both of whom who were drafted by comparatively weak teams. Luck has seemed to have more single-handedly turned his team's fortunes around than has RGIII, which is precisely the difference I would like to point out. If you are sure, as a GM, that you can land that once-a-decade type difference maker at QB - like a Marino who changed the Dolphins, a Montana who changed the Niners, a Brees who brought success to New Orleans, a Manning to Indy - THEN it is a good plan to play him right away. Think of the other Manning in NY. IS he a good QB? Yes he is. Is he the difference maker we're talking about? I think not. While I admit he has been clutch in recent years, I do not for a second think Eli is the special kind of player and difference maker that was, and still is, Peyton. The Giants were strong before Eli, as one could argue the Patriots before Tom Brady, possibly even the Packers before Aaron Rodgers.

Most football seasons these natural difference-makers are too few and far between. Teams fail, and their QBs possibly never get to achieve their potential, because the rest of the team is not very good. Let me put this another way. Recently, rehashing a bashing that comes from time to time, Ryan Fitzpatrick has come under fire in Buffalo and "NFL expert" circles as "not a franchise QB." Even the owner of the team admitted as such to the media. Here is a classic case of making the mistake of thinking your QB is your savior, the special difference-maker, once-a-decade type that we're taking about, when he is not. Fitz is a gamer, who plays hard and holds his own, and who could have already taken a good team to the playoffs numerous times. The problem is what you mean by "franchise QB" as that definition seems a bit obscure. Old Fitz is usually pounced upon by defenders before he even sets up in the pocket. Mike Vick, a natural runner, was told by yet more "experts" that he should stay in the pocket, become a pocket passer, when all his instincts and what made him special was his being decidedly not that. They pretend it is to save him from hits, when he never took hits when he ran like he takes now, too, before he even sets up. All this comes from asking too much from, or trying to get something different out of, what it is you have. You're better off letting Tebow be Tebow and see where it leads you.

In summary, a rookie QB, unless his is that rare breed (props to Anthony Calvillo), should never be started on a bad team. It is bad for both him and the franchise. With all due respect to RGIII, I think only Andrew Luck has been, so far this season, that special-type of player; he has managed to bring his previously bad team needed victories.

PS: Still fuming over last night's Charley Casserley mumbo-jumbo "Bs for everybody" PC rankings so fit for the NFL network ( just let everybody win once..don't hurt anyone's feelings...somebody please shut him up), here is a list of current QBs with my rankings, "A" being a franchise QB, "F" being not even a good backup. Let's call it QB Ode To Casserley:

1. Drew Brees: A (could turn a losing team around on his own).
2. Tom Brady: B (might be able to turn a losing team around).
3. Cam Newton: C (needs a team's help)
4. Joe Flacco: B-C 
5. Blaine Gabbert: F (nice kid but really, a starter?)
6. Jay Cutler: D (doesn't make much difference even on a good team)
7. Ryan Tannehill: D
8. Ryan Fitzpatrick: C
9. Mark Sanchez: F
10. Jake Locker: B
11. Brandon Weeden: D, possibly C (we'll see...)
12. Ben Roethlisberger: B
13. Andy Dalton: C, possibly B
14. Matt Schaub: C-D
15. Andrew Luck: A
16. Peyton Manning: A
17. Philip Rivers: C
18. Carson Palmer: C
19. Matt Cassell: D
20. Robert Griffin III: B, could be an A if that line doesn't get him killed
21. Mike Vick: A had he been allowed to do his thing; as is, D
22. Tony Romo: C, once thought he could be a B
23. Any current Arizona QB: F
24. Christian Ponder: too up and down, D
25. Matthew Stafford: B
26. Aaron Rodgers: B
27. Josh Freeman: C
28. Matt Ryan: Always thought C, might be a B
29. Eli Manning: C
30. Sam Bradford: C
31. Alex Smith: D
32. Russell Wilson: C, working on a B, could end up being an A

Let's hear those bleats!