That's true. Every single one of the 5 of them the last 8 years. And before that, just 2 of the previous 8 #1 QBs started week 1. Why is that? Were those QB's not prepared properly by their head coaches? Was there a change in 2008 or 2009 that made starting a #1 QB imperative? I'm sure the money QBs get these days isn't anywhere near what Bradford got 6 years ago. And why just "#1 QBs"? Is there really such a huge difference between a QB taken #1 and a QB taken #2 or #3? I'd think if a QB is taken in the top 3, he's got to be deemed to have "it".
Okay. If you want to change it to top 5, you have 13 QBs dating back to 2007.(i.e. the past decade) Of those 13 QBs, every QB but Bortles and Russell started Week 1.(and now Goff) Russell held out until September 12th. The Jaguars planned for Bortles to sit the entire year to fix mechanical issues (he ended up starting the third game).
Was there a change? Yes. There's clearly a change. NFL coaches have changed philosophies on whether or not to sit QBs. My guess? Rule changes have made it easier for rookie QBs to succeed and the evolution of offenses have made it easier to prepare them to start early in the season.
So now we return to my question, why were 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't holdout through Week 1 "up to speed" and Goff is not? Who should that blame fall on?
I think the norm these days is forcing a QB into the starting lineup. None of them are really "ready". Otherwise they would win right from the get go.....like #18 pick Joe Flacco or #1 pick Andrew Luck. I don't buy the "it's only a 4 year contract so the team has to get the production right from the get go for the money invested", even if the teams get a 5th year option. Eli Manning got a 4 year 84 million deal with 65 mil guaranteed and he didn't start until week 11. Winston got a 4 year 25 mil contract with 16 guaranteed and started right away. And Blake Bortles, going #3 in 2014 got almost as much (22 mil/13.3 guaranteed) as Luck going #1 in 2012 (22 mil/ 14.5 guaranteed). Bortles didn't start week 1, while Luck did.
And yet, of these 9 QBs forced to play Week 1, all but Stafford and Sanchez had solid or better rookie years. And even with Sanchez's poor play, the Jets made the playoffs.
And no, they wouldn't "win" from the get-go. That puts all of the responsibility for the team's success and failure on the QB. Flacco was significantly outplayed by both Jameis Winston and Cam Newton as rookies. Flacco's team made the playoffs his rookie year because they had a strong defense. Winston's and Newton's teams did not because they lacked a strong defense.
In fact, if you look at Flacco's performance in the preseason, you'd say that Flacco wasn't "ready" to start.
I don't believe a guy has to start from the get go, though everybody concerned would love him to do that AND I don't believe a kid being ready for week 1 depends on the ability of the head coach to "get him ready". Of course he may change his parameters or have very low expectations from the beginning to allow the QB to start from day 1. Or he may maintain his parameters and have high expectations for the rookie QB, yet not start him from day 1. Who among us can really say what those parameters should be and whether or not the head coach should start him regardless of that?.....unless we're just anxious for the franchise QB to start leading the franchise back to respectability!
I don't believe Goff has to start Week 1 either. I believe it's the best move for the Rams.
Who among us can say what those parameters should be? Every single one of us. This is a Rams board. I come on here to give my opinion on the Rams.
Sure, by your standards.
If we're speaking in absolutes, I'll say the situation is being handled expertly.
Yes, by my standards. It's an opinion, not a factual statement.
The situation was handled poorly.