Fitzpatrick Named Week 1 Starter

[masterfins]

Holding a clipboard for a year to learn the speed of the game and give the O-Line time to gel so you don't get killed can be extremely valuable.

Exactly how is he going to "learn the speed of the game" when he's not playing?  This statement makes zero sense.

I don't mind Tua not playing a few games until the O-line has a chance to gel, but I would have been alright with him starting.  If he's everything that some people say he is, then sitting on the sidelines watching games for a year aren't going to make much of a difference.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think there are a LOT more successful QBs who were thrown into the fire on day 1, especially if you're talking about top 10 picks.

Of QBs to play in a SB the last decade, Peyton, Flacco, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton, and Matt Ryan all started Week 1 of their rookie seasons.

Of the QBs to play in the SB in the last decade Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Jimmy G, Goff, Foles, Kap, Big Ben, Rodgers, Brees and Mahomes all didn’t start week 1 of their rookie season.  This list is more than 50% longer.  

[Spider-Dan]

Of the QBs to play in the SB in the last decade Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Jimmy G, Goff, Foles, Kap, Big Ben, Rodgers, Brees and Mahomes all didn’t start week 1 of their rookie season.  This list is more than 50% longer.  

Half of those players weren't even drafted in the first round.  A third-round pick (Wilson) starting Opening Day of his rookie season and eventually making it to (multiple) Super Bowls tells you a lot about Wilson.  A second-round pick (Jimmy G) not even getting an opportunity to start for his first two years doesn't really tell you much at all.

Furthermore, there's a lot of unproven assumptions in there about the benefits of sitting.  You're citing Big Ben - who went 13-0 in his rookie season - as evidence against starting a player too early?  Brady and Kap both went to the SB in their first year as starters, and Mahomes won MVP.  What evidence is there that these players would have been worse had they started earlier?  They're not like Eli, Brees, or Rodgers, who grew into their roles.

[Dolphster]

I don't think there is a One Size Fits All correct answer to the question.  Just like in every other position, some QBs develop, mature into a leadership position, grasp the system, etc. faster/slower than others.  I think it also depends on the quality of the personnel around the QB, particularly the offensive line. 

[Tenshot13]

I don't think there is a One Size Fits All correct answer to the question.  Just like in every other position, some QBs develop, mature into a leadership position, grasp the system, etc. faster/slower than others.  I think it also depends on the quality of the personnel around the QB, particularly the offensive line. 

This is the best answer.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Half of those players weren't even drafted in the first round.  A third-round pick (Wilson) starting Opening Day of his rookie season and eventually making it to (multiple) Super Bowls tells you a lot about Wilson.  A second-round pick (Jimmy G) not even getting an opportunity to start for his first two years doesn't really tell you much at all.

Furthermore, there's a lot of unproven assumptions in there about the benefits of sitting.  You're citing Big Ben - who went 13-0 in his rookie season - as evidence against starting a player too early?  Brady and Kap both went to the SB in their first year as starters, and Mahomes won MVP.  What evidence is there that these players would have been worse had they started earlier?  They're not like Eli, Brees, or Rodgers, who grew into their roles.

You listed QBs that went to the SB that started the first game as “proof” that that is always the best course of action. The list of SB QB that didn’t start is even longer.  There is an even longer list of QBs who started their rookie year and never made it to the SB. Your list proves nothing.  In fact the entire discussion is dumb.

My opinion is you play the QB that gives you the best chance to win that game.  If that is an UDFA rookie than so be it.  If that has the first overall pick sitting on the bench while you play a 40 year old journeyman, then so be it.  Question should not be will benching Tau help his development, but rather which QB gives the team the best chance to win this weeks game. 

[Dave Gray]

In fact the entire discussion is dumb.

My opinion is you play the QB that gives you the best chance to win that game. 

My entire point was that I'm disappointed that the guy who gives us the best chance to win is Fitz.  If he plays well, we don't see Tua.  If he doesn't play well, we see Tua but the team will be bad.

I wish that Tua were the best option, so that we simultaneously had a shot to win and develop our QB at the same time.

[CF DolFan]

My entire point was that I'm disappointed that the guy who gives us the best chance to win is Fitz.  If he plays well, we don't see Tua.  If he doesn't play well, we see Tua but the team will be bad.

I wish that Tua were the best option, so that we simultaneously had a shot to win and develop our QB at the same time.

Be glad. Fitz is better than most QBs who are going to be replaced and with Tua getting much less of a chance than QBS of the past to get acclimated there was little chance he would beat out Fitz to start the season. In fact it would have been a miracle if that had happened.

[Tenshot13]

Not for nothing, but Fitz has had over a 90 QBR the last two seasons combined.

[Spider-Dan]

You listed QBs that went to the SB that started the first game as “proof” that that is always the best course of action.

Should I take your "always" interpretation of my list - a point I never made - to mean that your list is intended to prove that starting the first game is "never" the best course of action?

My point is that many of the most successful QBs in the league have played at a high level since their first game as a starter, and in fact, it is significantly LESS likely for a player that doesn't meet that criteria to ever become an elite QB.