I'd be quite interested in seeing that data as well. "Incredibly more success"? I'd like to see the names of these QBs used in the research & the researchers' criteria as to what is considered "success". I can't envision the conclusions being very objective. There are far too many variables to be taken into consideration.
I actually started compiling some of the data myself but after about 5 players I realized it doesn't matter. Each QB has a different situation. There is no cookie cutter mold for developing a QB. I'm sure if McCarthy blows the staff away in training camp and preseason he can win the job. Some QBs are successful that way. If he needs more time that's ok, that route has worked for a lot of QBs too.
My assumption is that when KOC says he needs McCarthy to "check all of the boxes" it means knowing the ins and outs of the playbook and being able to execute them all. Being confident enough in himself to lead the offense. Maybe even cleaning up his mechanics and getting used to the speed of the game, that kind of stuff.
If he started learning the offense as soon as he was drafted on April 25th he's had less than 2 months to learn it at this point. If he actually has to earn his way up the depth chart (I think all players should) I can't imagine he even knows what going on enough yet to challenge for the #2 spot. Hopefully by the end of pre-season he's at least #2, that would be good to see. If not though, I don't think it's a future indicator of anything.
A guy called WhosKMoon shared the info I was talking about in the PurplePain forums. https://purplepainforums.com/thread/783 ... qbs?page=7
It was in a thread called The Real Reason Coaches don't Start Rookie QBs. The link I gave is for page 7 where this was being debated. There is no, none, zero, zip, zilch questions that QBs who start several games their first year have better careers than QBs who don't and the difference is MASSIVE despite Patrick Mahomes MASSIVELY skewing the numbers. The research was sorted by draft position to eliminate that as a factor. Correlation does not prove causation, but it can be a pretty good indicator.
CharVike wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:26 pm
There's no particular path that can be used as a guide. Without looking anything up if your team sucks then the QB has very little if any chance to have a great career. Andrew Luck is an example that sticks out to me. His team ignored the OL and he paid a heavy price. We are following the same path. That's a path I would never take. But I'm not a HC or GM.
And that gm (Ryan Grigson) is executive vp of player personal with us now.
Thank you for that information. I thought for sure a guy that basically wasted a very talented QBs career would no longer be in the NFL in a position that has anything to do with personal. He probably helped with the Ingram selection.
VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:56 pm
A guy called WhosKMoon shared the info I was talking about in the PurplePain forums. https://purplepainforums.com/thread/783 ... qbs?page=7
It was in a thread called The Real Reason Coaches don't Start Rookie QBs. The link I gave is for page 7 where this was being debated. There is no, none, zero, zip, zilch questions that QBs who start several games their first year have better careers than QBs who don't and the difference is MASSIVE despite Patrick Mahomes MASSIVELY skewing the numbers. The research was sorted by draft position to eliminate that as a factor. Correlation does not prove causation, but it can be a pretty good indicator.
Sorry VV. I looked through that thread & WhosKMoon's data doesn't really prove anything. I actually found the opposing arguments to be more compelling. Basically, that thread only reinforces my belief that there is no right/wrong way to develop a QB. Not all circumstances are equal. There are just too many variables. I think WhosKMoon wasted a lot of time collecting "selected" data from a limited sample size to prove absolutely nothing one way or the other.
For the record, I'd love for McCarthy to win the starting QB position & solidify our starting QB position for the next 10-15 years. And from what I've read & seen...that young man is way too driven to not win that job before the end of 2024. He's probably a first one there/last to leave the facilities type of player. And I'm damn sure he'll be working & doing film study when he's at home. If he doesn't make it in the NFL it won't be because of work ethic.
His data proves exactly what I said it did. QBs that start a good number of games their rookie year have a much better record than those who don't. It wasn't cherry picked in any way. That doesn't prove that it's better to start rookie QBs than redshirting them, but it's a very strong correlation.
Interesting side note, Jj has went from +1400 (when we first drafted him) to + 900 (current) to win offensive rookie of the year. Fairly big increase especially after KOC named Sam the starter for training camp.
“I remember my mistakes more than my success.” - Adrian Peterson
Tommy TarkenKapp wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2024 6:57 am
Brad Johnson - 1992 - did not play in year one.
Daunte Culpepper - 1999 - held a clipboard in year one. Saw a little mop up duty.
Tarvaris Jackson - 2006 - primarily held a clipboard in year one. Started last two games of 2006.
Christian Ponder - 2011 - started 10 games year one.
Teddy Bridgewater - 2014 - started 12 games year one.
There it is. A mix of starting QBs drafted by the Vikings. Two sat year one. One saw two starts. Two started the majority of year one. What does any of this mean? Damned if I know. What's it about? Allow me to quote George Costanza..."Nothing. It's about nothing".
I think every situation is unique, but most teams that draft QBs in the first round tend to have an immediate need for that QB and no identified starter at the position. There are exceptions, of course, and some of the QBs on your list (Culpepper) were drafted when the team had an identified starter at the position (Cunningham/George) but expected to move on soon from that starter. While others on the list (Ponder and Bridgewater) joined the Vikings when the team had no identified starter.
So the real question for the Vikings this upcoming season is does this team have a clear starter at QB, and I would say the answer is no. Sam Darnold and Nick Mullens are both capable of starting, but both have largely been journeymen backups as pros. I would say that there is a real opportunity for McCarthy to win the starting job given that, but he's got a tall hill to climb to get there given his relative youth and inexperience. But I don't think its an impossible hill to climb if he puts in the work and shows the coaches he understands the system and they can trust him to execute it.
McCarthy seems like a smart guy who is willing to work hard. He has the leadership qualities of a starting QB. I think the odds of him winning the starting job out of training camp this year are 50-50.
VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2024 3:11 am
His data proves exactly what I said it did. QBs that start a good number of games their rookie year have a much better record than those who don't. It wasn't cherry picked in any way. That doesn't prove that it's better to start rookie QBs than redshirting them, but it's a very strong correlation.
From what I read, no data for QBs drafted outside of the top 10 was used. That's "cherry picking". But, just for fun. I'm gonna do a little "cherry picking" of my own. Let's use only QBs drafted by the Vikings from the 90's to present. And they have to have started a minimum of 20 games for the Vikings. I'm only providing the year they were drafted & their status for year one. I figure Vikings' fans will remember all of these guys quite well & can draw their own conclusions as to whether their careers were successful or not.
Brad Johnson - 1992 - did not play in year one.
Daunte Culpepper - 1999 - held a clipboard in year one. Saw a little mop up duty.
Tarvaris Jackson - 2006 - primarily held a clipboard in year one. Started last two games of 2006.
Christian Ponder - 2011 - started 10 games year one.
Teddy Bridgewater - 2014 - started 12 games year one.
There it is. A mix of starting QBs drafted by the Vikings. Two sat year one. One saw two starts. Two started the majority of year one. What does any of this mean? Damned if I know. What's it about? Allow me to quote George Costanza..."Nothing. It's about nothing".
He compiled top 10 picks data since McCarthy was a top 10 pick, he compiled first round pick data since McCarthy was a first round pick and he compiled all drafted QBs since McCarthy was a drafted QB. In every case QBs that started games year one did better than those who didn't. You may not have found that just looking at the one page. What you did was extreme cherry picking. Obviously the further into the draft you go the worse the average QBs will be. That's why he sorted by draft position. To compare apples to apples, but any draft position you sort by QBs that start more games year one have better careers than QBs that start less games year one. It's an incredibly strong correlation. All it proves is the correlation. Nothing else. Correlations are usually good indicators, but not always.
allday1991 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2024 11:02 am
Interesting side note, Jj has went from +1400 (when we first drafted him) to + 900 (current) to win offensive rookie of the year. Fairly big increase especially after KOC named Sam the starter for training camp.
That's very strange. After another guy is called the starter the odds should have got longer and not shorter.
He compiled top 10 picks data since McCarthy was a top 10 pick, he compiled first round pick data since McCarthy was a first round pick and he compiled all drafted QBs since McCarthy was a drafted QB. In every case QBs that started games year one did better than those who didn't. You may not have found that just looking at the one page. What you did was extreme cherry picking. Obviously the further into the draft you go the worse the average QBs will be. That's why he sorted by draft position. To compare apples to apples, but any draft position you sort by QBs that start more games year one have better careers than QBs that start less games year one. It's an incredibly strong correlation. All it proves is the correlation. Nothing else. Correlations are usually good indicators, but not always.
I still feel that not much can be ascertained from this "research". Correlations or otherwise. Not all situations that QBs are drafted into are equal. There are just too many other factors. Coaching, supporting cast, etc. It's not like placing lab rats in a controlled environment. I still see no real advantage or disadvantage for starting a rookie QB or having him watch & learn year one. The only certainty I can convey is if the rookie QB clearly demonstrates he's the better QB then he should start. And that's how it should be.
I never said the research proved anything other than the results from starting early were better than the results from starting later. That isn't absolute Proof that McCarthy should start over Darnold. I sure hope he does though. Here's some other research. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/hist ... y-succeed/
Tommy TarkenKapp wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2024 6:57 am
Brad Johnson - 1992 - did not play in year one.
Daunte Culpepper - 1999 - held a clipboard in year one. Saw a little mop up duty.
Tarvaris Jackson - 2006 - primarily held a clipboard in year one. Started last two games of 2006.
Christian Ponder - 2011 - started 10 games year one.
Teddy Bridgewater - 2014 - started 12 games year one.
There it is. A mix of starting QBs drafted by the Vikings. Two sat year one. One saw two starts. Two started the majority of year one. What does any of this mean? Damned if I know. What's it about? Allow me to quote George Costanza..."Nothing. It's about nothing".
I think every situation is unique, but most teams that draft QBs in the first round tend to have an immediate need for that QB and no identified starter at the position. There are exceptions, of course, and some of the QBs on your list (Culpepper) were drafted when the team had an identified starter at the position (Cunningham/George) but expected to move on soon from that starter. While others on the list (Ponder and Bridgewater) joined the Vikings when the team had no identified starter.
So the real question for the Vikings this upcoming season is does this team have a clear starter at QB, and I would say the answer is no. Sam Darnold and Nick Mullens are both capable of starting, but both have largely been journeymen backups as pros. I would say that there is a real opportunity for McCarthy to win the starting job given that, but he's got a tall hill to climb to get there given his relative youth and inexperience. But I don't think its an impossible hill to climb if he puts in the work and shows the coaches he understands the system and they can trust him to execute it.
McCarthy seems like a smart guy who is willing to work hard. He has the leadership qualities of a starting QB. I think the odds of him winning the starting job out of training camp this year are 50-50.
I hope you're right, but I got the odds at 20% he starts game 1. I have odds at 60% he's starting by game 7 or earlier.
