Is there a set time needed to evaluate a QB?

[alifeincomplete]

I apologize if this is the wrong forum and kindly request it to be moved to the correct one/closed if it's a duplicate, but I had an interesting debate at work yesterday. Is there a set time that you feel a NFL needs to give ("owes") a quarterback as the starter before giving up on him and moving on? Note that while I am not passing judgement one way or another in this thread (as that is not what this thread is meant to be for) on these players listed below, these are some current situations to consider:

- Kevin Kolb. Injury is keeping him away from the game right now so it's perhaps unfair to comment, but a number of people are starting to speculate if this trade was worth it/how much time he should be given, given their poor performance so far.

- Colt McCoy. I'm personally surprised by this, but a number of online pundits seem to want McCoy's head, calling him ineffective and not good enough of a quarterback to start.

- Tim Tebow: We all know the story here. I don't want this to turn into the Tebow thread 2.0; we have one of those... but it's a fair inclusion because he fits the mold of this thread. If you're John Elway, how long is enough time to judge what you have?

Numerous draft choices throughout the years also fit this bill. They are given a couple of starts, are ineffective, and the team moves on (typically with a veteran or a new draft pick when a new coaching regime takes over). I am a firm believer in the idea that a starting QB, no matter how much established success he has had, should be constantly evaluated for the betterment of the team around him. For the younger players who are given the keys to (often struggling) offenses, how long do you feel is enough time, enough starts, to get a good enough handle on whether or not you have something with this player? Certainly it's situational, but is there any kind of 'hard-and-fast' rule of thumb you would adhere to if you were the one calling the shots on personnel?

[Kruza]

Usually significant progress is expected to be made from the young quarterback by the third year or 30 starts into his career... whichever comes last. But that was the normal timeline for grooming a young starting QB under the old CBA. Now under the new CBA rules teams can afford to be more lenient and give their young QB more time/starts to develop before making a decision on him since not as large of an investment is being made to keep him on their roster for a prolonged period of time.

Kruza

[JayBee74]

Gotta go with I don't think you can measure it. It's too specific, too situational. Look at Aaron Rodgers-he was on the bench for three years.

[stlpimpmonsta]

the should be but also shouldnt be. I mean if there were, Alex Smith would be outta the league by now besides having his best year.

[ProfessaPackMan]

It's usually at least 2-3 years while showing gradual progress each year(or after each start) but nowadays people are ready to call QBs "busts" after like 4-5 games now, as ridiculous as that sounds.

You WANT to be patient with them but people want instant results right away which sometimes leads to throwing a QB out there who isn't ready too soon or replacing him too soon.

[Lupe]

Quote: Originally Posted by stlpimpmonsta

the should be but also shouldnt be. I mean if there were, Alex Smith would be outta the league by now besides having his best year.

Exactly. He had to deal with so many diff coordinators/systems during his progression. It's similar to Jason Campbell's situation. Who knows what he would be at this point in his career with some stability.

[av7]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lupe

Exactly. He had to deal with so many diff coordinators/systems during his progression. It's similar to Jason Campbell's situation. Who knows what he would be at this point in his career with some stability.

Thank you for taking time today to play "Can I get around a ban?". adminssuckweiner, VikeKing, DaBears83

[SPTO]

I didn't notice the "too situational" option but I'll stick to what I picked which is 1-2 seasons. Now i'm talking FULL seasons so 32 starts under a QB's belt. I think that's a good number to generally see how a QB will pan out. There'll be ups and downs for sure but you'll get an idea of how the guy can function in an NFL offense even if the results aren't totally there.

Back in the old days a QB would generally get 3 years and an evaluation was made but the CBA that created modern free agency in the NFL shot that all to hell which led to the itchy trigger fingers of fans and management alike. I'd like to think that with this new CBA and the slotting for draft picks that things will trend towards the way it used to be.

Last but not least, I do have to make mention of the last option in the poll and the one i'd likely have picked if I saw it. I think that's true for the most part though the QBs that make it through the cracks and turn it around despite poor performances in the first couple years of their careers at least showed something to keep themselves in the league as a viable and valuable piece. Usually it's circumstances that created their stunted growth (Alex Smith having a million and one OC's in his ear, David Carr getting knocked silly in Houston etc etc) but they usually turn it around to some degree or another to be in the league for quite some time.

Aaron Rodgers is probably the last of the classically brought along QBs though even there the circumstances were slightly unique as he'd probably have been given the baton sometime in his 2nd year rather than waiting 3 full seasons. Rodgers' situation wasn't unique back in the day when guys like Steve McNair and Philip Rivers were given time to get themselves fully acclimated into the NFL and work on their mechanics/figuring out defenses in practice. This is something that, whether you think he's good or not Tim Tebow needs badly however fan pressure and such has forced Denver's hand big time much to the detriment of Tebow's career I think.