Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SinceXVI:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SinceXVI:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SinceXVI:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by SinceXVI:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by RickyRoma:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Right. That's why no rookie should play. It worked out for joe. He won a super bowl in year three with ricky patton earl cooper lenvil elliot and charlie young carrying the load.of course joe worked for true pass game genius who invemted the foundations of modern possession passing. So there's that.
Peyton Manning 'shouldn'tve' played in 1998?
My point exactly. No.
Ben Roethlisberger went 15-1 in his rookie year and won an SB in his 2nd year.
Before his arrival, the Steelers were perennial contenders with excellent defenses, run games, and skill players who couldn't get over the hump because of mediocre QB play. Sounds familiar.
Trey was drafted to get the Niners over the hump, if he isn't ready then it's not go back to Jimmy, it's ship both QBs out & bring in Brady to finally get ring #6.
But that isn't the case, Trey is prepared to start and run Shanahan's offense.
Here's a comparison of Jimmy's 3rd year stats that made him a hot commodity vs. Lance's rookie year.
Jimmy Year 3:
43-63 68.3% for 504 yards and 4 tds and no int. 113.3 QB rating.
2-0* against 7-8-1 Cardinals and 10-6 Dolphins
*injured shoulder in 3rd quarter of Dolphins game and missed the next 2 games of Brady's suspension.
Lance Year 1:
41-71 57.7% 604 yards 5 tds 2 ints 2 running tds 97.3 QB rating
2.5 games against 7-10 Seahawks, 11-6 Cardinals, and 4-13 Texans. 1-1 starter record.
Claiming Lance isn't ready and that rookies shouldn't play, goes against evidence to the contrary.
If you say boss
Whatever, don't make weak arguments that can easily be shot down.
I see.
you pick the one qb who has won a super bowl in his second year in the past century and you have "easily" eviscerated my "weak" argument that almost without exception rookie qb's would improve their career development by sitting their first year.
No flies on you.
Other posters have also cited Russell Wilson and Joe Burrows. Mahommes could arguably be added to that list, he was ready day 1.
There's a lot of variables that determine a rookie QBs success, most notably the roster around them, coaching, and how familiar they are with the new scheme.
There's a precedence for successful rookie QBs who go on to win the SB in year 2 & 3.
The point is mute as Trey is in his second year. If you look at Brady or Kaep, they sat almost their entire rookies years, but took their teams to the SB on year 2.
That's the expectation for Trey as he was drafted to put the team over the top.
If you believe otherwise then provide credible support, otherwise you're making stuff up to suit whatever bias you may have.
"Precedent"?
You mean "exceptions that prove the rule."
Here's the article that lays out the age of starting qb's in the super bowl. Very interesting
It's proves beyond a doubt its more likely for an iceberg to hit the earth than trey to win the super bowl at his age.
He would be a full !!!!--->1+<-----!!!!!! years younger than roethlesburger at the time of next years super bowl!!!
Big Ben was the youngest player in the history of the NFL to win a super bowl.
TREY IS 21-320+ DAYS OLD NOW!!!!!!! PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE AND LISTEN TO REASON.
He needs to learn and not be rushed. And, yeah, it's a great thing he sat last year. Best favor we could have done him.
It's chimerical to talk about "second year guys" without taking into account their chronological age.
Not only were they all three years older than trey, they had a heck of a lot more snaps under their belt.
None of this has to actually do with the original point that it's better to sit than play your rookie year.
I just think that guys who start early and take it on the chin like aikman, jones, manning Luck etc all could have had higher career trajectories if they didn't start so early.
I put burrow in that category too, who is getting beat to s**t.
The link didn't work. Please share the url.
The age of a QB is irrelevant, it's the player's maturity level and playing experience that matters, that and the supporting roster and coaching.
And again, he was drafted with the expectation of immediately leading a talented veteran team to a SB.
Shanahan and Lynch obviously don't share your opinion on how to develop a young QB.
thehttps://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/joe-burrow-super-bowl-youngest-qbs-to-win-bengals/jcir0mifm6ofamklhivns2mc#:~:text=Super%20Bowl%20QBs%20by%20Age&text=The%20average%20age%20of%20a,for%20the%20sixth%2Dmost%20age.
Thanks for posting.
Good article, but it doesn't state or conclusively show that a QBs age is a determining factor for a team to win a SB. It's just a correlation that has other variables involved.
If anything it shows that a talented young QB can win immediately if they are drafted by a team that's already contending as was the case with Brady, Roethslisberger, Mahomes, Wilson, and Kaep.
That's what Shanahan and Lynch were betting on when they drafted Lance.
And more importantly, there was nothing in Lance's performance last year, warts and all, to suggest they were wrong.
