Now it’s time to get back to the big arguments. The first one made all the time in Cleveland is that not having an offensive line will ruin a QB’s career. The Browns allowed the second most sacks in the NFL this year and lost two of their top three offensive lineman when Alex Mack and Mitchell Schwartz left in the off-season. Yes, I agree the offensive line is very questionable at the moment but the Browns would not be the first team in that situation.
Tennessee allowed 54 sacks, one more than the Browns this season. Last season, the Jaguars allowed a whopping 71 sacks. There is no mention of people saying that Marcus Mariota or Blake Bortles careers are going to be ruined over it.
Bortles even enjoyed a breakout season this year, improving from 11 TDs and 17 INTs to 35 TDs and 18 INTs. Just because they had bad offensive lines didn’t mean that the experience they got doesn’t go a long way for their development.
Most people struggle in the beginning and that first year gets them the experience they need to find areas for improvement and working out the kinks for the following season.
Derek Carr was another QB that didn’t have a lot around him his rookie season but made an improvement this season. He went from 21 TDs and 12 INTs to 32 TDs and 13 INTs and a Pro Bowl. The argument that whoever the Browns pick can’t start because of the talent around them should not be a valid one.
The expectation should be for them to struggle like the entire team because they are only a rookie and the rest of the team isn’t great, but nothing simulates being a NFL QB than actually playing. These guys want to compete and win, not sit on the bench and learn. When the bar is set so low and they have nothing to lose, what’s the harm in trying and seeing if Wentz or Goff can make those around him better?
Now it’s time to look at the idea of sitting a QB to start his career. Everyone has become so fascinated with Aaron Rodgers doing it that he is the gold comparison for everyone. What people don’t understand is he is the exception to the rule as compared to being the rule. To simplify it let’s look at all the QBs taken in the first round over the past five drafts.
Those who started right away include Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, EJ Manuel, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeden, and Cam Newton.
Of those who didn’t, Bortles played in the third game of the season, Manziel didn’t start until week 16 his rookie year, Teddy Bridgewater started week four his rookie year, Christian Ponder came in week six his rookie year, and Jake Locker sat his rookie year.
Numbers wise that’s eight QBs who started immediately and five who didn’t, although three of those five were starting by week six. So to those who want to make the argument for sitting Wentz or Goff the whole year, your argument more recently compares to Manziel and Locker, not Aaron Rodgers.
The last thing Cleveland needs is another Manziel or Locker. It’s also rare to see someone sit for years if RGIII were to excel. The closest example is probably Brock Osweiler who was a second round pick.
He sat for three years behind Peyton Manning, before getting to start for seven games this season before getting benched for Manning late in the season. While he got a giant contract in the off-season, most of that is based on potential and the verdict is still out on him.
Either way, I can’t see the second overall pick wasting multiple years of his career not playing. The expectation is that unless a team can afford a luxury pick late in the first round, that player should be starting day one on that team.
Recent Comments