Mr. Scot

I confess there's a part of my brain that wants to see Mayfield's commercials change location to BOA

Don't forget that his dad plays golf with Pat McCrory, and doesn't let having passed away nine years ago slow him down

I see the modern drive to start guys immediately as one of the reasons people were talking about a "quarterback crisis" not too long ago. It's gotten a little better, but NFL quarterback is still the most complicated position in sports. More than one team that drafted an athlete and expected them to skate by on those skills until they learned the position has found that approach lacking. I believe coaching matters, including bad coaching.

I don't see too many people taking the idea of Corral as a day one starter too seriously right now. If we go with what we've got, I expect that to be Darnold. If we acquire Mayfield, then it'll likely be him. Garoppolo? Not so sure.

The Drew Brees that kept Philip Rivers on the bench was hardly "hall of famer" Drew Brees. He was dumped by the Chargers not long after. And again, a lot of guys who do end up starting don't do so because it's in the plans. Heck, look at Brady. As I've said all along, either strategy can work. What the smart guys do isn't limited to one approach. They evaluate the situation. The bad, dumb or desperate teams always want the rookie to start whether it's best or not.

"Warming to" doesn't equate to "naming the starter".

That's what I call the lottery ticket approach. "Oh this one wasn't a winner? Okay, let's just buy another ticket" Or you could, you know, actually try to coach them up and build a better team around them.

So he's retiring for the day?

Willis is a prime example of a guy who needs to sit and learn first. Lance, though? I think it was the plan, but I think he's sitting now not just to learn but also because he's not very good.

And smart couches like Andy Reid and others have done the opposite. As mentioned before, I don't think either one is a universal answer. I think you have to take into account the player, the coach, the team around them and other things to decide what's best. And yes, sometimes it's to sit.

Apparently spying for the Bills or the Commanders again...

The team apparently thinks Christensen might be able to after last year.

How many of those guys sat, though? Can't agree. Prime example? David Carr. Carr received some of the worst coaching I've ever heard of during his early seasons (he wasn't taught to read defenses, just throw to a spot). And of course, they did a piss poor job of protecting him as well. I have to believe those mistakes had an effect.

Oh, I'd say when it comes to developing quarterbacks in the nfl, there's a lot of "stupid", with equal amounts of "impatient" and the occasional "desperate" sprinkled in for good measure. Factor in also that some of those early starts weren't the original plan. Both Justin Herbert and Davis Mills were supposed to sit behind Tyrod Taylor but he got injured both years. Likewise, Russell Wilson was expected to learn behind the great Matt Flynn but it didn't work out.

I'd have to look it over to see the validity of that. Don't have the time to do that at the moment but maybe later. And yes, the trend today is to start quarterbacks early. That's not necessarily an indication that it's the best way to go. Again, a lot of those high picks are taken by bad teams, hence why they end up busting.

I don't know about infinitely more. Don't think it's that lopsided. You have to account for the fact that there are also loads of examples of guys starting from the jump who turn out to be total busts. What could have happened if those guys had been able to sit and learn?

I've seen both methods work. You have to go according to the situation: coach, prior starter, the team around them, and of course the player themselves. it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario.

Wasn't the big mistake of last year (and the year before) bringing in a veteran starter who wasn't very good?

Stafford was on a bad team. Mahomes was under Andy Reid. It's not going to be exclusively true, but it is true that the teams who draft those top ten guys tend to be bad, and generally long term bad

I was talking about his evaluation skills. Per what we saw of the offseason, McAdoo was leading the charge to draft Corral.

To really get the validity of that scenario though, you'd have to cross check whether the teams starting guys early are good teams or bad ones

Depends on whether McAdoo is really as good as some think.

Talk is that option is off the table. Granted that could change, but if they hang on to him long enough to see someone else lose a starter to injury, then they have the leverage again.

They did have a first round grade on him. (and no I don't think that's post draft bullsh-t) That, plus Fitterer talking about wanting to build around him (his ideal scenario) makes me think they do believe in him. Whether he can live up to that is yet to be seen.

No argument...