rookie or vet

[Mobarak]

lets say you have a rookie QB with a rating of 25/55 and a vet QB rated 42/42. In the interest of giving your team the better chance to win games now, generally speaking the vet would be the option and that's understandable, the question is.. does not playing the rookie during his first year limit his potential gains on his ratings?

I ask because I made this decision in one of my leagues last season and the rookie QB didn't gain much. It would seem pretty lame if not playing the rookie could destroy his future ratings.. but playing him might lose you more games.

I understand experience is experience but I'm referring to his maximum potential.

[Julio Riddols]

I don't think it destroys his future potential unless you just leave him on the bench for years.. But in order to get him up to speed as fast as possible it's often best to start him and have a mentor QB on the roster. With some luck, he will develop fairly quickly and then you won't be looking at a still undeveloped QB when the next season rolls around.

[Mobarak]

Ok more specifically, a player can "creep" in ratings, higher than his current future rating shows.. are you sacrificing any "potential" creep gains by not playing him.. if so it's seems like it would be 100% the wrong move not to play the rookie QB in that case.

I hate the idea of "tanking" or not putting the best guys on the field to maximize your chance at winning.. but I can't see losing out on a guy who "might" develop into something better than he shows by not playing him, especially at the QB position.

I really hope that's not the case.

[Mobarak]

And to be 100% honest, I'd have a hard time believing this hasn't been a researched subject, although I haven't found anything definitive in the month or so I've been looking through posts.

[zsteelers]

I suppose this is one of those things that depend on so many factors that I wouldn't be surprised if no one had systematically tested it before As such, I think it's impossible to give a definitive answer to your question "does not playing the rookie during his first year limit his potential gains on his ratings?". Don't be surprised if you don't get a clear answer.

In my SP league, I've seen at least one case of a QB failing to reach his full potential after not being developed earlier (e.g. QB showing as 38/58 at the start of year 4, and then settling at 45/45.). in this case, I had played the guy 1 or 2 games in his second and third year.

Now, it's hard to say whether the cause of him failing to reach his full potential was the lack of playing time, or not having a mentor, or not having a coach with good Young Dev, or scouting error, or a combination of things above. I think it's fair to say that if you make a 25/80 QB inactive for the first e.g. 8 years, he won't reach his full potential, and if you start playing him right away he would reach it.

how the potential depends on snap counts could be investigated by anyone for a given case -- this would be interesting to see. you could easily setup an SP league, reload the draft stage until a top QB is available, fleece the AI to get the top pick and run a test where you play your QB for different amounts of time.

[garion333]

Originally Posted by Mobarak

And to be 100% honest, I'd have a hard time believing this hasn't been a researched subject, although I haven't found anything definitive in the month or so I've been looking through posts.

That's because people tend to play their players sooner rather than later. Usually raw players only sit for a season. If they're sitting longer than that they're a marginal player to begin with.

I feel like we can safely say this: Sitting a QB for one year is not going to kill any future skill/ability, it will simply take him longer to get where he's going.

Sitting him for three years? Might be bad.

Here's someone Ben drafted and say behind a stud QB who hung around way longer than expected. Fwiw, my scouts never saw his future as anything less than 54 until it disappeared in 2028. My belief then was that the future bar up and died because he had been riding the bench.

The catch is that from 2030-2032 he was a stud. It was only after he dropped in ratings (and numerous injuries) that his numbers came down. When his future ratings died in 2028 did he lose his potential? Or was he always only ever going to be a 45/45 QB? No idea.

[Mobarak]

Originally Posted by garion333

That's because people tend to play their players sooner rather than later. Usually raw players only sit for a season. If they're sitting longer than that they're a marginal player to begin with.

I feel like we can safely say this: Sitting a QB for one year is not going to kill any future skill/ability, it will simply take him longer to get where he's going.

Sitting him for three years? Might be bad.

Here's someone Ben drafted and say behind a stud QB who hung around way longer than expected. Fwiw, my scouts never saw his future as anything less than 54 until it disappeared in 2028. My belief then was that the future bar up and died because he had been riding the bench.

The catch is that from 2030-2032 he was a stud. It was only after he dropped in ratings (and numerous injuries) that his numbers came down. When his future ratings died in 2028 did he lose his potential? Or was he always only ever going to be a 45/45 QB? No idea.

Ok, so in general, it's usually not a problem to let him sit 1 year.. but 2-3 years could/probably lessen his potential growth? Sounds reasonable.

[wustin]

I've had a 25/73 sit on the bench for 4 years and he settled in the 40s.

[Squirrel]

Good example of this here

In game he is 44/67 and exp 2. I've got vets in decline who should start before him, but I'm assuming I need to force him onto the field else I will lose out on development

[garion333]

That looks more like "wait and see who I really am" than "you sat me for too long!". You'll likely know better in a year what he's really meant to be and by playing him you will get there sooner, but I don't think in year 2 you're likely to kill off his future by being a #3 or 4 WR.

I'd definitely get him on the field more than 59 snaps though. Yeesh. Wait, you are STACKED at WR. No wonder you're worried. I wouldn't sweat it. He'll start next year when a vet retires/leaves. Or trade someone next year and then start him. He's got the bars to start.