NFL

It’s a cyclical thing I guess. Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, RG3, Justin Herbert (once he began starting) were all recent examples of guys who had exceptional rookie seasons.

Then you had a few start slowly, like Lawrence, Josh Allen, Goff (maybe not the best example, he was so up and down), etc. who took a while to hit their stride.

I think the lesson here isn’t that they’re going to have less time to prove themselves, it’s that regardless of how quickly they get it (or don’t), you need to be patient.

I generally think a first year is a learning year, the second year is going to give you a relative idea of a prospect’s ceiling and floor, and by the end of the third year he’s either getting it or he’s not. There are of course exceptions to this, but that’s generally how I’ve seen it.

Yeah this is the first time a rookie QB has ever been good, it's totally gonna change the league

Well it’s obvious now Andrew Luck was a system quarterback

There have always been rookies that were exceptional and others that became good after like 3 years. Eli Manning was considered a disappointment until the 2007 playoffs. I think you hold onto your guy as long as he keeps improving. If he plateaus as only about the 20th best starter, move on.

CJ is an exception to the rule. No one should ever be compared to the exception. It’s bullshit people are already calling Bryce a “bust” - like what? He’s struggling and it makes more sense to struggle as a rookie QB than it does to play well IMO.

Go back to Minecraft nephew

No, but the margin of error has shorten.

A Rookie QB likely isn't long for being a starter with a bad first season depending on circumstances (see Trevor Lawrence), especially with disasters like Zach Wilson being a prime example for years to come.

Let me answer your question with another question.

Do you think Mr. Irrelevant QBs are gonna have higher expectations upon them after last year?

CJ Stroud? How about Brock Purdy?

Purdy: 16 regular season starts, 13-3, 32 TDs, 10 INTs, 69.1 Completion %, 110.5 Passer Rating

Stroud: 10 starts, 6-4, 17 TDs, 5 INTs, 62.8 Completion %, 99.3 Passer Rating

I think that's been the consistent direction that the league's going in and, frankly, I think it's a bad thing. In the pursuit of success teams are dumping players really early and I think it's why we see a lot of late-career breakout stars because these players are capable of playing at this level, they just don't get the right environment (both time to learn and good coaches to learn from) to succeed.

NO, you know why? Because the league will not go back in time to ground and pound and defensive slopfests currently featuring in the AFCN, for example. The ratings are as good as they've ever been, but they're not going to take this lying down.

This is like the neutral zone trap in hockey or the bully ball in basketball both about 2 decades ago, and both those leagues came to their senses slowly without a lot of analytics and internet comments.

This time, the NFL will not wait around. Not only because high scoring games are more fun for casual fans, not only because they're more fun to bet on, but because they can't market defensive players the way they can market Mahomes, Wilson, Rogers, Brady, Allen, Manningses, Tua, etc.

The only counter argument I can see is that they really hate guaranteed contracts, and they want QBs to flail around until that goes away. But there's no math in that imo.

They'll wait to see if it's a statistical fluke, and I'm sure they're happy to return some physical play back, but no way there isn't a course correction.

It is silly to think an anomaly should drastically change the idea that it takes more than a season to see what you have at qb. Stroud is in an incredibly rare group of rookie qbs who did well out of the gate. Any gm thinking that should be the standard, probably shouldn't be a gm.

It is also a misconception that the Texans were some dark pit of despair that Stroud walked into. Absolutely nothing suggested Stroud was going into a horrible situation if you actually followed the Texans and not the media.

Stroud was going into a team with some question marks that had been improving. Our line had been playing better heading into this season, we made smart moves on offense and defense, and we clearly tried to make an environment comfortable for a rookie qb. We didn't just draft a qb and pretend we had all the tools, we actively attempted to make a home for him.

People have short memories of how the NFL works. Your goat of today becomes the has-been of tomorrow rather quickly. Hell, Stroud could never come close to living up to this season and in two years, Levis and Young could be the next Manning-Brady, because it does take more than a season for a rookie qb.

I think a ton of potentially good qbs are never given the chance to grow due to the teams that draft them. Between switching OCs or HCs every year, teams not getting rookies help, and general dysfunction, there's no real chance for some rookies to be able to grow. They are thrown into the fire while management keeps pouring gasoline on the flames.

No, but there is something to be said about teams that have expensive middling QBs giving an experienced mid-late round Rookie a chance.

Purdy + Dak are great examples of how a disciplined, collegiately experienced QB can be a real value to an already good roster.

Getting cheap at QB and better at other spots is likely the new strategy.

I am looking right at the Seahawks when I say this. They could add 2 more significant pieces if they go rookie QB next year and be a legit roster. Similar story with the Vikings.

I don’t think so. The entire reason Stroud is getting so much praise is because he’s playing so abnormally insane

Herbert didn't change anything so???

I think young QBs have more time to prove themselves now than they did before the rookie cap was put in place.

I’ll make a counterpoint for the sake of discussion - why shouldn’t more teams try what the Cardinals did with Rosen then Murray? I get the contract of two top 15 first round picks but probably still a bargain compared to a Burrow-Herbert or even 1-years Cousins contract.

I get wanted to prove development but what if rookie first round QB year 2 (e.g., Murray) hits (compared to 2 year QB first round year 1 (Rosen))

Sure, you’re wasting getting a first round good edge, WR, CB or OT but what if the QB gamble hits - makes year 1 step up their game or year 2 outcompete year 1

Again, just a counterpoint why not discussion based on n=1 Arizona situation.

No

No one is going to take a first year at face value because they have three years to make a financial decision, in terms of making a big money decision. But I could see a team like the Colts cutting ties with Richardson after 2-3 years because of injury concerns.

I’m already seeing a lot of rumblings on social media

Cursed phrase