First off, for you to understand the article, go to Jack'sAxe post and read it.
So, the thing is to look at how these first round QBs did their first year on the field. I'll point out who was a rookie at the end of their description. I just want to see what these fans who think a saviour will come if we draft Manziel, Bridgewater, Bortles, Fales, etc. Let's look at the best QBs of 12 of the past 14 drafts:
Manning = Bad Colts team. 3-13 record and 71 rating. (rookie)
McNabb = Bad Eagles team. 2-4 record and 79 QB rating. (rookie)
Brady = 6th rounder, didn’t play rookie year, he was on a beast Pats team. 2nd year 11-3 record with 86 rating.
Brees = Didn’t play rookie year, played for a decent Chargers team on 2nd year. 8-8 record 77 rating in his 2nd year.
Palmer (to me a B, but let’s put him here) = Didn’t play rookie year, played for a decent Bengals team on 2nd year. 6-7 record on 2nd year. 77 rating on 2nd year.
Rivers = Didn’t play until 3rd year where he got a 14-2 record on an absolute BEAST Chargers team, 92 record, doesn’t fit the (first round, carry the team type of rookie).
Roethlisberger = Had a beast Steelers team, but can’t take away his 13-0 record and 98 rating. He is the exception, definitely not the rule. (rookie)
Eli = Had a very good Giants team to play for, 11-5 record and 76 rating.
Rodgers = Didn’t play until 4th year on a decent packers team, very weird season as he posted a 92 rating but went 6-10.
Ryan = 11-5 record on a stacked Falcons team. 87 rating.
Stafford = 2-8 record on a very bad Lions team. 61 rating.
Newton = 6-10 on a below average Panthers team. 84 rating.
So, the stats for QBs on below average teams or worse, on their first year starting, regardless if he was a rookie or not:
13-35 record and the following ratings: 71, 79, 61, 84.
The other QBs, on average or better teams:
80-40 record and the following ratings: 86, 77, 77, 92, 98, 76, 92, 87.
This just comes to show how QB record isn’t the way to judge QBs, and it comes to show that ANY quarterback, I’m talking about ANY rookie QB will not be very good on below average teams. No matter who it is. Every single QB on the list of QBs on bad teams had basically the same statline McGloin had. Pryor fits that category, but his rating before the game yesterday was 66, and that is absolutely gross. Not comparable, only to Stafford, but Pryor has the advantage that he could run, Stafford struggled because he was a statue on a terrible team, so there’s that.
At the end of the day, McGloin is extremely promising, and you better BELIEVE the only reason people don’t think he can be good is because he was an UDFA. He’s no golden boy, in fact, everyone wants to avoid him as the starter next season. Mark my words, the guy is way better than most of you think. These are pure stats that can relate to the situation every QB is in. McGloin may or MAY NOT be the answer, but using our first pick on a QB who will basically do the same McGloin did his rookie year? No thanks.
Get a cheaper option in FA at QB like Mike Vick, or Josh Freeman, keep Pryor OR draft a later round QB, and get them to compete with McGloin, from that point on, may be best QB win. Vick is perfect for the team, he is a stop gap, he won’t be high priced as he is old and a backup right now, but can be a good stop gap. If McGloin wins the job, or Pryor, or whoever is the 3rd QB sitting behind Vick (FOR EXAMPLE), that QB will have earned it, if not, the FA starts, gives us a better chance to win than most flat-out rookies, and then we can look at the first round class of QBs in 2015. This way, we are assured of having a decent/average QB in 2014, while using our early picks to build a team around the QB that would be drafted in 2015. That, or McGloin/Pryor/later round QB steps up and starts for us and we don't have to worry about drafting QBs at all.
This article is proof that no QB will save this team as a rookie, and that McGloin has a way better shot of being the answer than most would think. He is so comparable to the QBs on the ''below average team, first round QB, first year starting'' label, that he is obviously a potential starter, not a ''backup at best''. Do you think any of those QBs who had bad stats and records were backups at best after their first seasons? NO. The only reason McGloin is viewed differently is that he is not a first round Golden Boy. I'm not even saying start him next season, or that he WILL be as good as those other QBs, I'm just trying to make you all understand that McGloin has a lot of potential and his play doesn't show he is a ''backup at best''. And the point of the article is to point out that that I just mentioned, AND to show how no one will just come on in and change the franchise, if we bring in ANYONE, he will struggle. Until we really have a foundation, NO rookie QB will come in and be good, and this is proof.