To start or sit a rookie QB?

[KoryMac5]

Matthew Stafford(notes) won the Lions’ quarterback derby. Daunte Culpepper(notes) didn’t lose the job.

That’s what Detroit’s new coach, Jim Schwartz, emphasized Monday when he made the No. 1 overall draft pick the starter for Sunday in New Orleans, when the Lions try to win for the first time in 21 months.

“I’ve had a lot of very tough decisions in the last few days—guys making the 53-man roster or not making it—but none more difficult than at quarterback,” he said. “We announced to our team this morning that Matt Stafford is going to be our starting quarterback.”

With Detroit naming Stafford starting QB and the Jets naming Sanchez the starter, it brings up the important question of whether or not you should start a rookie QB?

Personally I think you need to look at what you have around the player when making this decision. You would like each one to turn into Flacco or Ryan but unfortunately for every success there is a failure like David Carr. I like what the Bengals did with Palmer in letting him watch for a year behind Kitna.

[Caveat Emperor]

Real question, though, is do you think anything would have been different if the opposite tactic would have been used?

Would David Carr be a better QB right now if he had sat?
Would Palmer or Rivers be busts if they'd played immediately?
Would Aikman or Manning not have been as effective if they HAD sat?

The very real fact is that there is no such thing as a surefire QB pick. Guys who bomb out of the NFL (see: McNown, Cade -- Couch, Tim -- Smith, Akili -- etc.) bomb out because they can't hack it. My guess is that they wouldn't be able to hack it even if they had spent time learning the game as a rookie. Really, if your psyche is that fragile that a year of getting smashed around and taking lumps does your career in, you probably weren't destined for greatness to begin with.

I think, as a QB, you are who you are. Get the rookie into the game and find out if he has it -- every snap he takes gets you closer to figuring that out. The longer a bad #1 QB lingers on a roster, the further back a franchise falls in the "rebuild" cycle.

But really, there's no right answer to this debate.

[Captain Hook]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

My guess is that they wouldn't be able to hack it even if they had spent time learning the game as a rookie. Really, if your psyche is that fragile that a year of getting smashed around and taking lumps does your career in, you probably weren't destined for greatness to begin with.

I think, as a QB, you are who you are. Get the rookie into the game and find out if he has it -- every snap he takes gets you closer to figuring that out. The longer a bad #1 QB lingers on a roster, the further back a franchise falls in the "rebuild" cycle.

But really, there's no right answer to this debate.

What are you talking about?You just gave us the right answer.

I would only add that there are plenty of opportunity for a QB that washes out as a 1st or 2nd year starter to catch on with another team and get things right.Most of the time you don't see that happen though.Like you said."as a QB, you are who you are".

[Hoosier Red]

I think the key to a successful rookie starting quarterback is to establish the precedent that barring injury, he is the starter. End of discussion. There is no chance the backup has to take the job back from him.