How long did you wait before starting your #1 pick QB ?

[Darkiller]

Just curious about each and everyone's habit.

Of course, the situation changes according to one club's situation (aka if you already have a veteran QB on the roster, or an All-League QB, or if you have no one etc..)
Actually, my question focuses more on how long did it take you (your own personal record) to insert your #1 pick QB in the starting slot, thus anointing him the starter for good.

For example, although in my Real49ersFootball career QB Brock Sheriff (1st round #12) got to play right from day 1 of his rookie year...I have examples of n°1 pick QBs that I have had waiting for their turns for an extensive period of time:
In the Village Challenge II, Hall of Famer Sammy McNight did not start until his 3rd pro season....(not a good example since he was a 2nd round pick.). Back to the Real49ersFootball career, my current QB Eric Misner (1st round #8) is the league's MVP and a future HOFer but he, also, did not start until year 3.
And guess what, I have just drafted a QB #1 overall...Cris Buggelli, and I don't plan him to be "the man" until at least two years...maybe even three if Misner doesn't retire and continues to play well.

Therefore, this has me wondering :

Have you ever had a #1 pick QB (either #1 overall or let's say : high 1st rounder) whom you didn't start for a few years ??? I struggle with the fact that I am going to pay Buggelli #1 pick money and he's not going to play for -at least- the next 2 years. Did this ever happened to you ?

Also wanted to reload a good old fashioned FOF QB discussion...don't bite me for this ;-)

[Anthony]

Dean Houston didn't start till his 3rd year in the league, and that's because i didn't want him on my team at first cuz i picked him #2 overall and the team with the #1 overall picked the guy i really wanted.

[flere-imsaho]

Also, Dean Houston was too busy slapping kids in his first two years to actually start.

[Noop]

I wait about two years but I give them about 3 starts...

[Eaglesfan27]

I wonder if I'm an anomaly. I rarely pick QB's high, but when I do, I tend to start them either from day 1 if I'm desperate, or by midway through the 1st season. I have had quite a few start on day 1 with varying results..

[MIJB#19]

Day one, the earlier the better, if you ask me. Playing time = experience, so you need that(/those) first year(s) of contract to reach the guy's potential as soon as possible.

Or can you really waste a player bystarting him early in FOF?

And then there are circumstances under which I would draft the QB to be trade bait for the next draft, but those situations are very rare...

[Darkiller]

Dean Houston didn't start till his 3rd year in the league, and that's because i didn't want him on my team at first cuz i picked him #2 overall and the team with the #1 overall picked the guy i really wanted.Great stuff, I didn't know that story HA.
On my side, the funny thing is that I had drafted a bust #9 overall the year before and so the very next season, I am sitting in the war room saying to myself "if this Sheriff guy comes to me at #12, I'll pick him, no matter if that makes it 1st round QBs in back-to-back years..however, due to us getting a bust the year before, I won't trade up or make any further efforts to get him".

I took a big risk and quite incredibly, Brock fell to the 49ers at #12 and the rest is history...


Back to the discussion :
Same here, I have had mixed results by playing a QB right away. Of course Sheriff won the SB in his rookie year but he is a phenom. Others tend to struggle (my most recent example is my current IHOF QB Mario Hudson, who seems to have regressed in his 2nd year despite being the starter from day1 and thus gaining supposedly valuable experience).
More often than not, sitting my young stud for one or two years proved to be a wise decision.

I guess 75% of the GM's reflection as to wether play or not play the top pick QB right away depends on the current state of his team's quarterbacking.
You can't be too confident starting the young QB from Day 1 if your team is a Bowl contender and already has a good experienced veteran.
However, let's say your team is in disarray or you really have nothing more than backup materials on the roster : starting the rookie QB looks like the thing to do.

[QuikSand]

I doubt I'd take a QB with an early #1 pick, unless my team was particularly empty at the position, in which case I'd be drafting him to start right away.

[Darkiller]

And then there are circumstances under which I would draft the QB to be trade bait for the next draft, but those situations are very rare...
It's something I pretty much do/plan to do all the time.
I will -90% of every draft- pick a QB at some point. And even if I'm loaded, I'll use a late pick (5th, 6th, 7th rounder) on one because "you never know".

1- The late round QB can turn out to be a surprise and eventually be a top backup...or more.

2- He can, as you say, become very valuable trade material and you can be rewarded by a higher pick/a player a couple years down the road.

3- in the worst cases, he can serve as roster filler, taking the spot of your former #2 or #3 QB whom you've just traded for better compensation.
All of this makes it very appealing in my opinion to systematically select a QB at some point in the Draft.

[Senator]

My records are always too good to have that high a pick. :)

[Calis]

I just had a #4 pick QB wait about 1.5 years to get his first start.

Might not be the smartest thing to do rating wise for him, but I had a veteran QB..and I couldn't see just benching him because he was old, was going to let him start to finish out his career, but he ended up injuring himself.

I usually end up letting rookie QB's sit for a while, unless I'm REALLY weak at QB. No real game reason for it, more of a roleplaying reason on my part. ;)

[MIJB#19]

My records are always too good to have that high a pick. :)And when you think you just traded the #26 overall for next year's #1, it turns out to be the #15 overall. :P

[Senator]

It got me RB Michael Fau, for which I am happy. But you did win that trade.

[Franklinnoble]

If I draft a QB in the first round, it's usually because he has greater potential than my current starter - in which case, I'll play him right away.

Any QB drafted later is slated for backup duty, unless I'm doing an empty cupboard dynasty or something.

[oykib]

It's usually based on contract with me. I give him a couple years behind a mentor, ideally. I try and get a good renegotiation after a couple of years before I make him the full time starter.

Either that or I start him right away. The goal is to get a good four years of production out of him.

[Bonegavel]

I usually wait until my solid veteran has at least 2-3 years remaining on his contract and then i draft as good a QB as I can and then when the vet is in his last year I start this draft pick knowing that I have the vet to stand back on in case he busts or is injured.

After this, if the new QB does well or seems to have potential I'll see what the vet wants for money and if it is high I let him go. However, if the n00b QB sucks badly and his ratings aren't what I'd hoped they would be I'll swallow my pride and resign the vet and give him an apology contract and immediately start looking for a QB in the next draft to start all over again.

With that, I rarely pick up a used QB from FA. I always try to fish them out of the draft. Not sure why i do this, but I do the same thing with my RBs.

I will consistently draft a high RB every year looking for the break out and just let the previous draftees wither on the vine. The remainder of my crew I have no problems going to the FA pool.

[MIJB#19]

Off topic alert.
It got me RB Michael Fau, for which I am happy. But you did win that trade.Nah, I was just kidding, that pick gave a left guard that might never contribute as much as Michael Fau did, despite his ecent run blocking. Besides, counting all down, the #15 for the #28 and a 4th rounder, it still makes a pretty even trade.

Although, I keep saying to myself I picked a QB with that pick, I've traded the guy already...

[Dean Houston]

Indeed, it took me a while to see the light of day with the Browns. I don't know why they just didn't draft another position if management was that angry not to get the QB drafted #1 overall - Carlos Buchanan. I still remember that wild day like it was last week.

All in all, like Chad Pennington of the Jets I gained a lot of insight into the game that proved to be invaluable years later. It took a lot of patience, but judging by the wing that is dedicated to me in the HOF I'd say it was all worth it.

[Pyser]

I doubt I'd take a QB with an early #1 pick, unless my team was particularly empty at the position, in which case I'd be drafting him to start right away.

i dont really get this. qb is far and away the most important position in the game...why not take one high?

i understand waiting in single player. you can get a 70 rated qb in the 4th round sometimes. but in multiplayer you employ the same philosophy?

[Warhammer]

I say it depends. The best situation for me was in one of my single player careers I had an awesome team, but let my QB go because his salary demands were something like $25 mil per year, and he would not come down. I have two picks in the first round, something like #17 and #32. There were two outstanding QBs, so I picked both of them.

One went on to be a 78/78 player, first year led the Rams to a 15-1 record, a championship, and go on to the HOF. The other was 72/72 guy who never really played up to his ratings. He had a career rating of 78 and won one MVP award. But, he just never lived up to the hype, despite playing on some good teams. I considered renaming him Jeff George, but resisted the urge.

[Warhammer]

i understand waiting in single player. you can get a 70 rated qb in the 4th round sometimes. but in multiplayer you employ the same philosophy?

I tend to have a high rate of success in drafting breakout QBs, CBs, and WRs, so I tend to look for those players in any round. However, I focus on OL, DL, LB, RB, and TE early since I do not seem to have great luck in finding the gems there.

[QuikSand]

but in multiplayer you employ the same philosophy?

Tough to say, I suppose not.

In one of my MP leagues, I liked a rookie QB, and moved up (to the moddle of round one) to select him. He has now served two seasons as my backup, behind a venerable but quality starter. So, in that case, I went QB without an immediate need -- but it was a pretty specific circumstance. That team is built around the passing attack, and I had nothing behind the starter, who was old enough that he could go at any time (plus, he has turned out to be a bit brittle, meaning my youngster gets a couple starts a year anyway).

But in general, my point is not that I don't want to take a good QB, but rather that I prefer not to take a QB until I need to -- if I have a high draft pick, I'm ordinarily looking to help my team immediately, and I'd be more likely to fill an immediate need and have the rookie step right in than select for a spot down the road a few seasons.

[QuikSand]

qb is far and away the most important position in the game...why not take one high?

Another point -- playing single player, I ususally follow some sort of rules restricting my ability to make trades.

I think it's too easy to pick up, develop, and trade decent QBs in the game -- so I usually create a rule to stem that. So, it doesn't work for me to draft a guy at QB, knowing that I can trade my current starter for a couple high picks. That's a perfectly effective strategy, I just prefer to play more realistically, and avoid taking advantage of what I perceive to be an AI weakness.

[totoro]

I had my #1 overall pick QB start at the 1st day of the season. Mainly because I have a young team and no good QB in roster. Playoff to me is a little bit far.... :) So why wait!! FYI, he progressed quite good so far.

[Bonegavel]

I just prefer to play more realistically, and avoid taking advantage of what I perceive to be an AI weakness.
I am a very average FOF player and I never make/accpet trades in the game as I perceive it as too mechanical. I.e., being that it is a game there is a algorithm behind the trades that is too bereft of the weighting of the intangibles and whatnot for me to feel "good" about any trade that I make.

[Cap Ologist]

I usually try to have a decent supporting cast before I start a young quarterback, it seems that in some of my careers, quarterbacks develop quicker when they perform well. Not sure if this was a fluke of some sort, but I've drafted pretty similar quarterbacks in similar positions in different careers. When I had a pretty solid team, my quarterback developed really well, when my team pretty much stunk, my quarterback never developed either.

I've often wondered if performance affects development in anyway. Has anybody done any indepth study on this?

[QuikSand]

I never make/accpet trades in the game as I perceive it as too mechanical. I.e., being that it is a game there is a algorithm behind the trades that is too bereft of the weighting of the intangibles and whatnot for me to feel "good" about any trade that I make.

In my judgement, the in-draft trading capability is very good and sound -- I generally feel like the trades I can make withint the immediate year's draft are pretty fair and balanced.

If you start to include picks in future years, there's a big exploit possible (getting top picks from lousy teams, knowing they have a chance to be very high selections) but if you stay within the current year, the system seems awfully tight to me.

[cthomer5000]

I doubt I'd take a QB with an early #1 pick, unless my team was particularly empty at the position, in which case I'd be drafting him to start right away.
Same here. I'm either drafting a QB because I need one (and there are no viable/affordable options in free agency) or because my starter is quite clearly on his last legs (in his 18th year, etc).