My rookie year predictions for all 6 QBs

pattersaur wrote:

Completely agree that should be priority 1. But is sitting him all year the best way to do that? Time will tell, to a degree.

I do think some are being unrealistic with the "sit him all year" thing though.

Jordan Love was sitting behind the literal MVP.

Mahomes was sitting behind Alex Smith, who had KC in the playoffs.

The list of top 10 QB picks who sat for a full season behind a shaky starter is not long. If Darnold has us in the playoff hunt then absolutely keep him in there and ride that lightning. If not? Everyone is gonna be antsy and JJM is gonna see a lot of time.

It's not as much about who the starter is as it is about the complexity of the offense (very) and the team's philosophy on QB development. And I think the Vikings are going to be extremely patient. 

I think what Kwesi said after the draft is telling: "When we go back over history, we say these quarterbacks that missed, there’s a lot of hands that are dirty in that regard. We’re going to make sure that our hands are clean and give the best opportunity."

This is the 1st top 10 QB the Vikings have taken in their entire history. The last thing they're going to do is put him in before he's ready. Even if they have to sign a QB off the street to prevent that they will IMO.

If I believe what they say, W/L record will have no bearing on when JJ sees the field. Thats just made-up pressure from fans/media.

If they are as methodical about rearing a young QB as they were about the draft scenarios, then JJ wont see the field till their key criteria are met. 

Now, that's if I believe them...Which (in May) I am inclined to do.

MaroonBells wrote:

It's not as much about who the starter is as it is about the complexity of the offense (very) and the team's philosophy on QB development. And I think the Vikings are going to be extremely patient. 

I think what Kwesi said after the draft is telling: "When we go back over history, we say these quarterbacks that missed, there’s a lot of hands that are dirty in that regard. We’re going to make sure that our hands are clean and give the best opportunity."

This is the 1st top 10 QB the Vikings have taken in their entire history. The last thing they're going to do is put him in before he's ready. Even if they have to sign a QB off the street to prevent that they will IMO.

At the bold- this would be nutso in most scenarios. I suppose if it's the first couple weeks of the season maybe-- as a temporary solution-- but beyond that, come on.

I'm not sure how coddling McCarthy like a baby bird is preferable to letting a football player play football. Just don't agree.

In your scenario where we sign a guy off the street and start him 3 days later: Are we trying to win football games or not? Because to me the guy in house who knows at least some of the offense seems highly preferable to trading picks we don't have for a fill-in or signing a practice squad QB.

Keep in mind as recently as last season this team has prioritized winning games on a week to week basis above all else, including at times common sense.

pattersaur wrote:

At the bold- this would be nutso in most scenarios. I suppose if it's the first couple weeks of the season maybe-- as a temporary solution-- but beyond that, come on.

I'm not sure how coddling McCarthy like a baby bird is preferable to letting a football player play football. Just don't agree.

In your scenario where we sign a guy off the street and start him 3 days later: Are we trying to win football games or not? Because to me the guy in house who knows at least some of the offense seems highly preferable to trading picks we don't have for a fill-in or signing a practice squad QB.

Keep in mind as recently as last season this team has prioritized winning games on a week to week basis above all else, including at times common sense.

No, the Vikings wouldn't likely sign a starter to play ahead of McCarthy. I'm just exaggerating to emphasize my point: that I don't want to see him play at all this year. It's just too important, and we absolutely cannot afford to fuck this one up. Handle this kid with care, keep him in the playbook and away from sharp objects, hot stove tops and live bullets. Call it coddling all you want; I call it the smart play. 

Smart people can disagree on the best way to develop a QB. I know Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner believe that young QBs learn best by playing. Other NFL people argue that it depends on the QB and the situation, that if you're not careful, you can breed enduring bad habits by playing a QB before he's ready. I especially disagree with Manning and Warner when the QB is barely old enough to buy a beer, trying to learn a notoriously complicated offense that took Kirk Cousins 8 months to fully grasp. 

It really comes down to the individual QB IMO. Some rookie QBs start Day 1 and have success right away (Wilson, Dak, Herbert, and Stroud are recent examples). Then you have some successful QBs who started on the bench their rookie years, came in and played well enough and have become successful QBs (Mahomes, Burrow, Hurts for some recent examples).

But then on the flip side, you have a mountain of busts who started right away, played parts of their rookie year, etc. It's just too hard to predict...

That said, I think we'd have less (how many is debatable) busts if teams let more guys get acclimated their rookie year before throwing them into the fire. I think JJ is mature and confident enough to handle the pressure of playing right away. However, I'm firmly in the camp of letting him take all the time he needs to get comfortable. There is no risk in letting him sit and learn. A lot more development happens in practice than it does in games.

StickierBuns wrote:
And here comes the expected cliches....and Payton's continual dick measuring contests. My rookie is better than yours. And Nix is 24 years old.

Sean Payton: Bo Nix farther along than most rookies would be. https://t.co/IFup1IubWV

— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) May 23, 2024

The NFL is so predictable.

MAD GAINZ wrote:
There is no risk in letting him sit and learn. 

You can't damage a QB by sitting him, but you can by playing him too early. Vikings seem to have the right mindset when it comes to this, so I'm not worried.

the teams that seem to burn through QBs are the ones that typically push their rookies into action early, teams that take a little time seem to get more from their guys when they get the opportunity, they may not all end up being franchise guys, but the ones that are brought along more slowly do seem to stick in the league longer as they tend to be the more complete QBs and not just running on raw athleticism, never really getting to the point of refining their skills before they break down and dont have those skills to fall back on.

Manning and Warner come from a different time, defenses were slower, the college game more reflected the pro game and as such the QBs that came in were generally more prepared IMO, their situations and opinions formed on what they came from are quite a bit different than today IMO.