Give me examples of QBs who played in their first and second years, were bad both years, weren't busts, and aren't named Alex Smith.
Your criteria is wrong. There are plenty of Qbs that did not play there first two years and ended up very good that would have sucked if they played there first two years. Top of my head Stafford, Aikman, Goff, Manning I will concede there is a level of suck that there is no coming back from.
Stafford doesn’t count. He got hurt year 2 after starting off the year very well and absolutely crushed year 3. Eli, meh. He went 11-5, threw more touchdowns than interceptions and 235 yards/game just before the NFL passing game started to explode. He also commanded the line of scrimmage like very few young quarterbacks can do and he always did that. Goff was nearly a MVP candidate in year two. Huh?
Now how many first round QBs have been drafted and played right away since these guys played? The number is about 20 even if you only go back to 2017. I don't have time to look all of it up but the number going back further has to be like 80+. Three success stories out of 80 isn't exactly something to hang your hat on and pray it miraculously happens again.
These aren't good examples: Stafford: 6 TD, 1 INT, 91.3 rating (only played 3 games due to injury) Aikman: 11 TD, 18 INT, 66.6 rating (he was bad, but you're going back to 1990) Goff: 28 TD, 7 INT, 100.5 rating, Pro Bowl Peyton Manning: 26 TD, 15 INT, 90.7 rating, Pro Bowl Eli Manning: 24 TD, 17 INT, 75.9 rating (this was almost league average in 2005)
That wasn't his point in his original post. He asked for examples of QB's who have "sucked" for their first two years, and weren't "busts" not named Alex Smith.
Why doesn't Aikman count again? cause he played in 1989 and 90? That's a weak argument even you would agree if you're being truthful.
Yeah but the larger conversation is about how concerned we should be if Wilson has another bad year. The answer, according to the data, is very concerned - for the same reasons we should've moved on from Darnold after year 2. The point is that while there are some examples that buck the trend (QBs who play badly their first two years and end up being good), the vast majority of QBs who play badly their first two years never end up being good. It's legitimately 95% of them.
The NFL game was very different in 1990. Plus if you're going back to 1990, then you have to add another God knows how many busts to the list.
This threads narrative has seem to changed into what a certain QB has done in his first two years. Ok, but shouldn't we let Zach finish his second year to make a full observation?
We can all go by metrics and all, but in the end it's all speculation or hope when it comes to Zach both ways. He just has to complete his second season for us to know. I'll hold off judgement till then.
Aikman in all honesty was the most comparable as far as the situations. New coach, new regime, crappy talent around him as they are rebuilding, and just having to take his lumps and bounce back from them. I was going primarily from that aspect, and to me the time period is irrelevant. If you stink then you just stink period like Sam Darnold.
Lots of QBs have had a bad first two years while dealing with bad situations, and they ended up being busts (look at Geno Smith and Sam Darnold). My point is this. Give Zach a chance to prove himself this season. If he plays respectably, give him a third year; even being say the 20th best QB this year would suffice. But if he's a bottom 5 QB again, we're probably going to be picking in the top 5, and our odds of getting an elite QB will be much higher by drafting a new one than hoping Zach will be a once-in-30-year exception.
Aikman counts and his stat output was pretty bad. He also lead 4 fourth quarter comebacks and 6 game winning drives, both of which lead the league which counts for something.
For every Troy Aikman there are 30 Blaine Gabberts that have the ol’ shitty situation thing backing up their poor performance.
I'd like to see what he can do, too. It remains to be seen whether he has the talent/skill to be on an active roster, but there's only one way to find out. What the tape already shows is that Streveler is relishing his time on the field, and his fellow third/fourth/fifth stringers respond to his energy. Again, not sure if that will translate to the first team, but the Jets owe it to themselves to find out.
