Starting a young QB in FOF

[Darkiller]

Always a nice topic which I wanted to rejuvenate...
In FOF, here you have this young QB and you want to test him in real game conditions. How do you process ? do you wait a year or two (or more) before throwing him to the wolves...or do you play him right away in his rookie season ?
Personnally, in all of my years playing FOF (I sound like a 28-year old grandpa saying this), I have obviously had many different situations and all of them have had their pros and cons.
I had Hall of Fame QBs who started from day 1 to Hall of Fame QB that didn't start until their 3rd seasons...
These decisions are, of course more often than not, dictated by the salary cap and the fact that if your QB is a 1st round draft pick, you have the pressure to start him fairly soon. If the QB i a lower draft pick, then you can afford to groom him, even for a certain number of years.

So here is yet another good old fashion debate about everyone's strategies regarding the game's glamourous and arguably most important position on the field.

Any inputs from your own personal FOF experiences ?

[stevew]

Start him in year one if he can play more than 7 formations, and if he's at least a 40 in current ratings.

Check out my current protege, a starter from day one

[KWhit]

Get him a mentor and start him from day 1.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Get him a mentor and start him from day 1.

Definately a mentor.

[gottimd]

I'd cut him, his kick holding is only 50!!!

[SackAttack]

Is it possible for QBs to have conflicts with each other?

[st.cronin]

I've been wondering if there is any benefit to not starting a promising young rookie qb, as you often see in real life, even on bad teams.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Get him a mentor and start him from day 1.

I thought that mentors don't affect young players if the youngster is starting?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Is it possible for QBs to have conflicts with each other?

no.


And I agree, get a mentor and start him from day 1.

[Darkiller]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I've been wondering if there is any benefit to not starting a promising young rookie qb, as you often see in real life, even on bad teams.

On this matter, one thing that could be nice to see implemented is the so-called "fear factor" of young QB making their first starts where the game goes so fast and they are lost, they lock-on one receiver and can't make their 2nd or 3rd reads and of course, are usually not nimble enough to avoid the pass rush...
Basically, you decide to start a rookie QB on a bad football team and he ends up being rattled up all day long, getting sacked a lot...and this ends up destroying his confidence and him losing some of his natural abilities (that would translate for a rating drop in his red/green bars).

If he gets rattled, than you have a shot at losing him confidence/ability wise.
I think that could end up being a good "cons" of starting a rookie QB.

[PackerFanatic]

Wow, that is apretty insane QB.

Screen passes are a little low though....

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

no.


And I agree, get a mentor and start him from day 1.

Like Jeeber said before, doesn't that contradict what you found in that study you did a while back?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Like Jeeber said before, doesn't that contradict what you found in that study you did a while back?

No. You guys must have read very, very poorly.

[vex]

Steve has just been waiting for the perfect thread to pimp his new QB

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

No. You guys must have read very, very poorly.

Well sonuvabitch.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Darkiller

On this matter, one thing that could be nice to see implemented is the so-called "fear factor" of young QB making their first starts where the game goes so fast and they are lost, they lock-on one receiver and can't make their 2nd or 3rd reads and of course, are usually not nimble enough to avoid the pass rush...
Basically, you decide to start a rookie QB on a bad football team and he ends up being rattled up all day long, getting sacked a lot...and this ends up destroying his confidence and him losing some of his natural abilities (that would translate for a rating drop in his red/green bars).

If he gets rattled, than you have a shot at losing him confidence/ability wise.
I think that could end up being a good "cons" of starting a rookie QB.

I thought it was. I mean, Peter Fulton's rookie season wasn't just him playing down to his talent level, right?

Right?

Aw, crap.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by vexroid

Steve has just been waiting for the perfect thread to pimp his new QB

Well, i started a new career with TN. And i had a bit of dilemma the second season, as there were 3 very good QB's to draft with my #2 overall pick. I took screenshots of them all and was gonna post a poll here, but didnt have time. The one I ended up drafting did fairly well his rookie season, and got us into the playoffs. But then the next year i saw this guy still on the board at #25, he was something like 40/77. So i drafted him, and traded our current starter(and ate like a 10 million dollar bonus). Oddly enough, one of the 3 Qb's i almost took the year before was still on the board, as he had held out all year.

I just gave Humphrey a 54 million dollar bonus in a new 7 year deal, so he better not get hurt.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

His name... is... KUNTA KINTE!!!

I dont get it?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Wow, that is apretty insane QB.

Screen passes are a little low though....

Screen passes are for sissies.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Screen passes are for sissies.

You're not gonna like what you see from the Dawgs on Saturday, then.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by VPI97

You're not gonna like what you see from the Dawgs on Saturday, then.

I've been concerned about what I'm seeing from 'em all year long offensively, other than that beautiful, beautiful final drive against Tennessee.

Perhaps this week Richt will discover that:

1. running out of the shotgun is a bad idea

and

2. you can actually TOSS the sweep from time to time.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

No. You guys must have read very, very poorly.

Hmmm...interesting, because I had the same impression. I genuinely thought that you found the development to be relatively similar between a player who is playing and has a mentor and a player who is riding the pine and has a mentor.

I'll have to go back and re-read to see where I got my signals crossed.

[MizzouRah]

stevew's QB is from none other than, Chesterfield, Missouri baby!!

[Warhammer]

My take on QBs:

1) What is his intelligence rating? If it is low, you are better off getting him as much PT as possible. If it is high, go to #2.
2) What does your current QB look like? If you expect to win with your current player, stick with him, otherwise start the rookie.
3) If your current QB a mentor? If he is a mentor, let the young QB sit for a year or two. His ratings will still go up, and you will not have any decrease in performance from the position.

Now, I tend to draft a QB every year, even if it is a lower round pick. I do this for a few reasons (these apply to both SP and MP):

1) I've never complained about having two high quality QBs.
2) A top flight backup can be used as trade bait when it gets too expensive to have both QBs on the roster. Usually this will result in a high draft pick.
3) It is useful insurance in case your starter has a CEI or is fragile.

I once had 3 HOF QBs on my roster! One was my superstud Buddy Everhart, one was his eventual replacement Bernie Doyle, and the last was a boom taken in the seventh round, can't remember his name since he was traded for some picks.

[Dutch]

Here's the short answer to the question,

Singleplayer
80% - Start the Young Gun
20% - Depends on situation

Multiplayer
100% - Depends on situation

[Ben E Lou]

My soul! Reading comprehension is on the decline. The jbdisease is spreading.

[QuikSand]

One small bit of new information here -- since we have recently had a revelation that a QB's total number of 4th quarter comebacks is itself a factor in his ability to lead further 4th quarter comebacks... this lends a little more weight to the "start him now" camp. Even if the team stinks, your guy is bound to tally a few comebacks -- which he can't get on the bench.

[Kodos]

Go Jackie Williamson!

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

One small bit of new information here -- since we have recently had a revelation that a QB's total number of 4th quarter comebacks is itself a factor in his ability to lead further 4th quarter comebacks... this lends a little more weight to the "start him now" camp. Even if the team stinks, your guy is bound to tally a few comebacks -- which he can't get on the bench.

Yep. That was a very interesting little nugget of information from Jim.

[Raiders Army]

I heard Jon Kitna is a good mentor.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

My soul! Reading comprehension is on the decline. The jbdisease is spreading.

Hey now, if someone can't make a proper sentence if their live depended on it, that doesn't mean they can't read well either...

[Pyser]

its still tough not to shake your head when you see a qb like that falling to the 25th pick of the first round, when he wasnt a "boom".

[dubb93]

With the new information that the total number of 4th quarter comebacks affects the QB's ability late in the game I may be more willing to start them on day 1, but with that said I've seen no difference.

I've had guys struggle for a year or two playing and go on to be hall of famers, and I've had guys(atleast 1 that I can remeber) ride my pine for as much as 7 seasons, develop to 74/74 despite never starting a game in that time and win the super bowl his first year as a starter. It just doesn't seem to matter as far as I can tell.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Pyser

its still tough not to shake your head when you see a qb like that falling to the 25th pick of the first round, when he wasnt a "boom".

Why would that make you shake your head? Drew Brees was a 2nd round pick, and although some may make the case that he was a boom, I would say it was coming. Give Aaron Rodgers some time and I think he'll be a great quarterback...and not a boom.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

my conclusions:

• A Mentor has to be active to have any effect
• A player must be active (but not necessarily on the depth chart) to receive any benefit from a mentor
• Active backups will progress even without playing time in the presence of a mentor.
• Without a mentor, players do not progress at all without playing time.
• There doesn't appear to be a limit to the number of active players who can receive the benfits of a mentor

my thoughts:

The effects of mentors on starters have probably been vastly overrated. The more trials i ran, the more confident I became that the rate at which a player develops is largely specific to that individual player. One glance at the two different starting QBs in the major examples here shows us that one progressed faster whenever in the same role (be that starter or backup). Some players are simply going to develop faster than others - mentor or no mentor.

The primarily value in mentors may actually be in developing your backup players. It allows you to give them the effect of playing time (thought not at a 100% rate apparently), without them actually having to be in a game.

Ok, I don't think I was crazy for thinking that a mentor had minimal impact on a starter and that being on the bench with mentor was similar to getting game experience.

[JeeberD]

Thanks for looking that up, Buzz. I knew I wasn't crazy...

[cthomer5000]

:shurg: I feel like you guys are seeing what you want to see in those statements. I certainly never said that mentors have no effect on players who are starting, and a couple people here seem to have believed that.

edit: Also, please note the clear distinction between "my conclusions" and "my thoughts" (which are quite obviously my personal opinions).

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by stevew

Start him in year one if he can play more than 7 formations, and if he's at least a 40 in current ratings.

Check out my current protege, a starter from day one

Kick ASS!!! IM BORN AND RAISED IN CHESTERFIELD MO!!!! MAYBE IM HIM!!!!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Pyser

its still tough not to shake your head when you see a qb like that falling to the 25th pick of the first round, when he wasnt a "boom".

An 80 potential guy(who was drafted #4 overall the year before and didnt sign) was drafted at 1(31). He's no Toby, but there's no way he should have dropped that far.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

My soul! Reading comprehension is on the decline. The jbdisease is spreading.

[RailsFS]

Get some team logos or helmets, damnit!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RailsFS

Get some team logos or helmets, damnit!

Link plz

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by stevew

Link plz

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=16523

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

:shurg: I feel like you guys are seeing what you want to see in those statements. I certainly never said that mentors have no effect on players who are starting, and a couple people here seem to have believed that.

edit: Also, please note the clear distinction between "my conclusions" and "my thoughts" (which are quite obviously my personal opinions).

My impression was that a mentor would help a starter, but only to a minimal degree. IOW, a starter might gain an extra few points vs. starting w/o a mentor. Likewise a starter w/o a mentor might only gain a few points more than a backup with a mentor. That was just how I remembered the study from my intitial post.

I've since gone back and re-read the thread to refresh my memory.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Why would that make you shake your head? Drew Brees was a 2nd round pick, and although some may make the case that he was a boom, I would say it was coming. Give Aaron Rodgers some time and I think he'll be a great quarterback...and not a boom.

i see what youre saying...but drop that qb in a multiplayer draft, and let me know when he gets picked.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Pyser

i see what youre saying...but drop that qb in a multiplayer draft, and let me know when he gets picked.

But that is all relative. If I have a 65/65 rated QB that is signed for another 4 years and has performed well, I'm not going to draft a 32/85 QB, because I have other holes on my team. Granted, I would try to trade down.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But that is all relative. If I have a 65/65 rated QB that is signed for another 4 years and has performed well, I'm not going to draft a 32/85 QB, because I have other holes on my team. Granted, I would try to trade down.

ok, thats you. what about the 23 other teams that passed on him?

for whatever reason, qb is HUGELY undervalued in FOF. let me know the quality of QBs left in the 4th-7th rounds.

I love the game, but I hope Jim jacks the value of QBs way up in the next version.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by RailsFS

Get some team logos or helmets, damnit!

I heart RailsFS!!!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Pyser

ok, thats you. what about the 23 other teams that passed on him?

for whatever reason, qb is HUGELY undervalued in FOF. let me know the quality of QBs left in the 4th-7th rounds.

I love the game, but I hope Jim jacks the value of QBs way up in the next version.

One time i literally drafted 2 70 potential QB's in the 7th. I should have taken a screen shot, cause i couldnt believe it. IIRC, both did end up busting, as they were very undeveloped.