How Important is College Experience at QB?

[Fins4ever]

Yes, it sounds like a dumb question. Logic dictates that the more the experience the better. That would make Tannehill a huge risk with only 19 starts.

But wait a minute! I just read Brady only had 25 starts and if I recall, Chad Henne was a 4 yr. starter at Michigan. With that thinking, Brady should be a backup somewhere and Henne winning SB's.

So, just how important is experience? Apparently as not important as one might think. Consider too that Tannehill is no where close to his peak. 

[MikeO]

Matt Cassell never started in college. Mark Sanchez only started 16 total games. Cam Newton only started 1 year of college ball.

[Fins4ever]

I think it is one of those subjects like the Wonderlic. For every example to prove a point one way, there is another example to prove otherwise. That my friend, is what makes drafting so darn hard. lol

[MikeO]

I think it is one of those subjects like the Wonderlic. For every example to prove a point one way, there is another example to prove otherwise. That my friend, is what makes drafting so darn hard. lol

Totally agree

[masterfins]

Totally agree

+2

[Diehard_Dolfan]

Yes, it sounds like a dumb question. Logic dictates that the more the experience the better. That would make Tannehill a huge risk with only 19 starts.

But wait a minute! I just read Brady only had 25 starts and if I recall, Chad Henne was a 4 yr. starter at Michigan. With that thinking, Brady should be a backup somewhere and Henne winning SB's.

So, just how important is experience? Apparently as not important as one might think. Consider too that Tannehill is no where close to his peak. 

This is why Tannehill's 19 starts doesn't scare me!

I never did care for Henne but, figured him coming from Michigan might make up for my thoughts of him...  I'm not sure how Tannehill is going to turn out... I'm putting my faith in Philbin and Sherman!

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It is one piece of the puzzle.

One relevent fact ought be why didn't he start more.

Was it because you were injured? -- well than said player could be injury prone and thus a risk.

Was it because there was another outstanding QB on the team.  Then he might still be pretty good.  If Cassel was willing to transfer there were plenty of teams that would have let him play.  But he could not beat out two Heisman winners one of whom is a pro-bowler.  That doesn't mean the guy is bad.

OTOH, if said player was a backup to a player that went undrafted,  I would consider that a warning sign. 

In this case, not being able to beat out Jerrod Johnson or Stephen McGee is a bigger problem than not being able to beat out Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart.

Likewise with Brady, the coach that recruited him left and the new coach brought in his "own guy."  So he was a back up because of politics.

I would say the bottom line is look at the film for the games he did play.  If he looks like an NFL quality QB, then it doesn't really matter how many or how few games he played in.  OTOH, a QB that started all four years but didn't have much success then his experience doesn't mean much.

The biggest problem with not having a lot of starts isn't the lack of experience but the lack of film.  I would rather be able to look at 30 games worth of film to determine if the player has the requist skill set then try to determine that from only 5 games worth of film. 

[Dave Gray]

Everyone seems to be on the same page, here, and I agree.

Does a considerable amount of starts mean something?  Yes.  Does it mean everything?  No.

It is cause for concern, but only if there are other factors that lead you to evaluate it.

[MaineDolFan]

Matt Cassell never started in college. Mark Sanchez only started 16 total games. Cam Newton only started 1 year of college ball.

In this example, however, would you not agree the following:

Sanchez is rapidly approaching bust status, the jury is still out on Cassell but he still hasn't really shown much of anything and Newton needs to show he can do what he did for more than one year?

[EDGECRUSHER]

I think it helps, but you have to understand that if a guy started all 4 years, his NFL success may not be because of that. It may be because the guy was obviously talented, as evidenced by the fact that he started all 4 years in college.

[EKnight]

Along these lines, I think "quality" starts should be taken into account. 4 years starting at Hawaii is not the same as 2 years starting at USC or an SEC school. -EK

[Dave Gray]

In this example, however, would you not agree the following:

Sanchez is rapidly approaching bust status, the jury is still out on Cassell but he still hasn't really shown much of anything and Newton needs to show he can do what he did for more than one year?

Yes, but...

Almost all QBs are "busts".  It's really hard to take one stat and apply it to QBs and say it doesn't matter.  With QBs, almost nothing matters.  For every Peyton Manning (a guy with a college pedigree), there are 20 flops.  And every once in a while, a Tom Brady pops up out of nowhere.

It's a position where most people are going to fail, and it's hard to attribute that to a single factor.

[MaineDolFan]

^Agreed.  At the end of the day, Sanchez took the Jets to two straight AFC title games.  He was a stud in the fourth quarter for two seasons in a row, he looked like a different QB.  Cassell looked outstanding prior to his injury.  Newton...you don't need to say much more.  The only issue I have with all three is the "but" coming after all three statements.

[Dave Gray]

I don't give the "but" on Newton.  He has proven that he has the skills to succeed, as and far as a "pick" is concerned, he's a success.  Now, he can always become a head-case, get hurt, or not stay mentally tough and lose it, but I think that it's safe to say that the person credited with making the selection of Newton did their job correctly and picked properly, regardless of what happens from here on out.

[Pappy13]

OTOH, if said player was a backup to a player that went undrafted,  I would consider that a warning sign. 

In this case, not being able to beat out Jerrod Johnson or Stephen McGee is a bigger problem than not being able to beat out Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart.

But he actually did beat out Jerrod Johnson in 2010 who was considered at the beginning of the year to be a dark horse Heisman candidate and who is now a QB for the Steelers. If anything it shows that Johnson was ahead of Tannehill QB wise when Tannehill first went to A&M, but eventually Tannehill overtook him and outplayed him and is now considered a much better prospect than Johson was. That's not a knock on Tannehill, that perhaps shows that Tannehill still has not reached his peak whereas it appears that Johnson peaked early.

Tannehill wasn't really considered for the QB position when McGee was there. He was pretty much told straight up that he would not be competing for the QB position because McGee and Johnson were already there, so he switched to WR and became A&M's best WR. I wouldn't consider that a knock on Tannehill at all, in fact that's one of the reason's why I like him. He's willing to do whatever the team asks him to do without whining, complaining or switching teams. Instead he continued to work his butt off and eventually overtook Johnson.

I believe you have pointed out before that Brady wasn't handed the starting QB spot, he had to work for it. I would think you would appreciate what Tannehill was able to accomplish, or does it only apply to Patriots? That's a rhetorical question by the way.