Is there a set time needed to evaluate a QB?

[slickdtc]

Too situational.

Depends on if your team is built around the young QB to win now or next year, or if it's still a few years off. Is it the end of the line for a veteran team and a rebuild is needed? And at what point is there too much leeway for a starter?

I think young guys don't get enough time, while old veterans hang on for too long based on their past reputation. A good example of that is Donovan McNabb... I think Philly traded him away at the perfect time. He wasn't going to get any better, only worse. He needed an absolutely perfect fit, and about the only place that is is where there are already franchise QB's in place.

I look at the Tebow situation and think that the Broncos really have nothing to lose. This team isn't built for this year, and it's probably not built for the next 2 or 3 years either. Meanwhile in Minnesota, the Vikings have Ponder who has played well for a rookie. But they know Adrian Peterson's clock is ticking as a running back and guys like Jared Allen and Chad Greenway aren't going to be on that defense forever, either.

Each situation is unique.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by slickdtc

I think young guys don't get enough time, while old veterans hang on for too long based on their past reputation. A good example of that is Donovan McNabb... I think Philly traded him away at the perfect time. He wasn't going to get any better, only worse. He needed an absolutely perfect fit, and about the only place that is is where there are already franchise QB's in place.

I think part of that is there's too much money tied into it. In the past a guy like McNabb would gradually ease into becoming a very serviceable backup who can be brought in when called upon and win a few games here and there. With the money tied to the QB position you can't really do that as much nowadays because the star QB is so used to having things go his way. Now you could point to other QBs in the past that stuck around too long as a starter BUT in most of those situations a lot of people knew the clock was running out and were just taking one last shot. After the season the QB realizes the situation or the team says "hey it's not working out" and he either becomes a backup or outright retires.

You really don't see that much anymore and in a perfect world McNabb would've retired with most of his integrity intact after last season.

[rdnk]

2/3 years of starting. Usually you can tell by then if he'll be a stud, an ok starter, a bust or a backup.

[bccards13]

There are some quarterbacks that are just too sporadic to really judge from one year to the next. After about 3 or 4 seasons you can usually tell if a quarterback is good or not, but some guys just aren't like that.

Some qbs are just system quarterbacks so really even then you can't tell if a qb is good or bad after a few years because they've been in the same system for all those years. The same goes for a bad qb. Maybe if he gets put in the right system he can succeed but then again he may not.

Thats why some great college qbs like Colt Brennan and Troy Smith end up having short or uneventful NFL careers. And I'm sad to say this but Case Keenum probably will end up going down the same path as Colt Brennan.

[mburke2]

For young or rookie QBs, in my opinion, you won't have a good enough idea of how he plays until he gets at least 2 full seasons worth of games under his belt. I think that's a sizeable enough sample to see whether he's doing a few things well or not so well:

1. Picking up the offensive system. Obviously you want your QB to be comfortable in your system ASAP but with young players learning how to play NFL football some time is required to study and learn about the nuances of the offense.

2. Learning to read defenses. As with learning the playbook, it may take a young QB up to 2 seasons worth of games/practices to fully understand coverages and blitz schemes. NFL defenses are much much faster and more complex than college defenses, for the most part, so a learning/adjustment period of 2 years should be expected.

I'm really starting to dislike what fans and media do nowadays with proclaiming rookie QBs as HOF'ers or "busts" within the first year of being a pro. IMO you can't make an accurate assessment until about year 3 of a QB's career.

BTW all of this is from the perspective of a coach or team executive (not that I am one) in trying to determine whether that QB will be successful in YOUR system. I think to try and evaluate a QB's success in the NFL in general is dependent on each individual player and situation, but evaluating potential success in a certain offense, a 2-3 year window is appropriate.

[kjcheezhead]

Situational imo. So many things go into a qbs success and it's very hard to judge sometimes. Are they tucking and running too soon and failing to make reads or is their offensive line forcing the issue? Did the kid struggle with learning the system or was it because the team kept changing their systems every year? Does he have a running game that keeps defenses honest? Does he have a decent wr corps that can get open?

Coaches have to consider at all these things and then some. It's why guys like Rick Mirer and Rex Grossman have fairly long stints in the NFL while top picks like Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell are completely out of the NFL after 2-3 years.

[lonewolf371]

In the past, it would take 3-6 seasons before you could finally get a handle on whether the QB was going to be NFL quality. Terry Bradshaw was drafted #1 overall in 1970, started for a few years, actually lost the job to Joe Gilliam in 1974 (the Steelers' first Super Bowl year), and when he won it back he won it for good. So it wasn't until halfway through his fifth season that Bradshaw really showed what he was going to be. Len Dawson started two games during his first five years in the NFL, finally winning a starting job in 1962 and went on to become a Hall of Famer. Roger Staubach took until his third season to win the job.

Now with guys like Roethlisberger, Flacco, Newton, Rivers, Rodgers playing so well in their first seasons as starters, I think you can tell whether a guy is going to be good much earlier.

[Nza]

I think a team knows early when they've got a good one - due to his practice performance, work habits, leadership and film room ability. Whether it all pans out is another matter, but lets just say I think the Raiders knew early Russell was a long shot, and I think the Packers knew early Rodgers showed some great potential to build around. Another factor often involved is head coaches and front offices make their bed with the QB they pick in situations like this so they ride it out - it's their only hope.

The real world influence here is contract. With Russell, he probably only lasted as long as he did because of his contract. On the other hand, the time given to QBs showing some promise may typically coincide with when their rookie deal ends - if they haven't reached the next level by the time the last year is rolling around, the team may look to bring someone else in for a transition, like the 49ers just recently (I wonder if they'd like that 2nd round pick back given how good 2011 is going for them). This will make for some interesting decisions in the coming years as rookies look to sign shorter deals so their 2nd contracts come around sooner - since rookie deals are now much cheaper. Teams like the Titans, Jaguars, Vikings and Bengals will have to decide pretty soon if they extend or move on from their new QBs. Maybe that's why 3 of the aforementioned didn't hesitate to start their rookies so early.

This is no sure thing though - you'll have Brees', Alex Smith having his best year so late, etc etc. Contract status is a natural way to force a team's hand on a QB but it will sometimes backfire. Locker, Ponder, Gabbert, Dalton etc could easily be still unproven by year 3, facing their final year under contract, and move onto other teams, only to develop into all pros in year 5 or 6 etc.