Johnson isn't bad....

[blitz]

If this were a competitive team you wouldn't risk it's season with a very green rookie.   This isn't.   Freeman needs to be on the field. It he's not it's becasue the coach thinks he's so bad he's afraid he'll be called out for his incredible mistake.

If so, this could be worse than the D Jax pick. 

[Skull and Bones]

You can do damage to his development by playing him too early. Things will be happening too fast, defenses too complex, then his ability to process information gets scrambled.

It would be like putting a 6th grader in a calculus class and just expecting him to learn by experience.

Nope, you can't break him if he's mentally strong enough to be an NFL QB so maybe playing him tells you that at least.

He's palyed football all his life and started 3 years in college.  His father was in the NFL.  He had all off season and 6 games to learn.  He shouldn't be that overwhelmed.  If he is then he will be a bust.

[Robb22]

dr3z,
So you can tell JJ won't be a good QB just from his press conf??? Cmon man!!!
Yes experience matters!
Yes lack of preseason reps matter!
Will he get better with time and game experience, yes!
Will he be a good QB, ?
Will he be better then Freeman, ??

No one can truly answer this questions without letting him play and learn. And you really can't tell by watching a press conf!!!

Aikman went 1-15 his rookie year with more int the td's

Now in no way am I comparing JJ with Troy, just saying goota give a 2nd year QB starting only his 3rd game on a BAD team a little bit more time before you can make a fair assessment.

I have yet to watch todays game, so I'm just going by what I saw last week and have read in here, but I'm willing to give the guy some more time to learn and improve.
Witch might not happen since we all know where Freeman was picked means its really ;6's job and JJ just keeping it warm.

Its not like JJ plays for the Saints and playing like this.
Its a bad team with questionable coaching, no expeince and no leadership.

[ufojoe]

Aikman went 1-15 his rookie year with more int the td's

But he gave one hell of a press conference each week! Dr3z knew he would be a star because of those pressers.

Start Freeman after the bye. I thought he was going to get a shot today.

Is JJ able to throw the ball deep?

[CyberDilemma]

Why couldn't JJ become another Antwaan Randle El type guy if they eventually go with Freeman?

[dalbuc]

Why couldn't JJ become another Antwaan Randle El type guy if they eventually go with Freeman?

JJ has some valuable skills. As a backup type I want mobility since they won't get a ton of reps, they need to make things happen outside the offense but as a starter he appears to be to skitish, too conservative and too turnover prone.

[BuccinTex]

I was starting to wonder why a few people said JJ will get better with experience.   Then I started to wonder why you think that?   It's not a given.   Then I realized he's got to get better.   He couldn't really get much worse.   Anyone trying to make a case for him starting after this game has their head in the clouds and is taking the underdog feel good story too far.   

Troy Aikman comparisons?  Really?   The kid had 6 more completions then fumbles....that's just insane.     Tack on that INT you're down to counting the difference on one hand.   I can't even believe someone is talking about not going to Freeman cause he might get damaged.   That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.   Let's keep going to the 5th round turnover machine cause we don't want to damage the psyche of our first round pick.   You may be on to something.   I don't know why every team doesn't sit their first rounders on the bench to protect them.   Too valuable of a commodity and laundering the extra uniforms could be costly.   Best to keep them pristine on the bench.   I don't even think we should let Freeman practice....he could get hurt.   

[ufojoe]

I don't know why every team doesn't sit their first rounders on the bench to protect them.   

Plenty of teams have done that in the past. It's nothing new.

[BuccinTex]

I don't know why every team doesn't sit their first rounders on the bench to protect them.   

Plenty of teams have done that in the past. It's nothing new.

You're spinning my words which were tongue in cheek anyway.   Ok I'll play Joe.   Name one team that kept sitting a rookie just so he wouldn't get mentally or physically damaged.    Can't just be your speculation either.  The coach had to give that reason.   Anything else is just your guess.     One time where a team didn't want to replace a guy who was sucking horribly because their first rounder might get "damaged".    That doesn't mean they didn't feel he just wasn't ready.   Not even close to the same thing.   Actually continuing to bench a first rounder because he might get either physically or "mentally" damaged.   If you can find an example like that, which you claim plenty of teams have done, I'd love to read about it.   

[Robb22]

I have no idea if JJ will get any better with experience. he may have topped out, I don't know.
But I also know you can't say he won't after just 3 games!

I don't know why he's fumbled so much, or why he continues to make bad decisions on his int's!  Or why he scrambles when he should have thrown down field.  Maybe that will be his ultimate undoing, or maybe after all of last weeks drops he is trying to hard to make the play himself.

I don't know if he will get better, get worse, be better then Freeman or Freeman better then him.
I personally can't tell after just 3 games.
I see a lot of people calling for Freeman saying he needs the game experience for next year.
If there saying that for Freeman why not believe JJ doesnt need that same experience?

[BuccinTex]

I see a lot of people calling for Freeman saying he needs the game experience for next year.
If there saying that for Freeman why not believe JJ doesnt need that same experience?

Because the reality is one guy is a fifth round pick from a Division 1 AA school and the other is your first round pick that has been called the future of your team by more then just the coaches.    People want to act like they are on a even playing field but the truth is they aren't.   Freeman is making the kind of money and going off the hype of his potential so he will be given longer to show his skills.     Once they start Freeman you won't see JJ this season again unless you have an injury.   

[warrenfb12]

I see a lot of people calling for Freeman saying he needs the game experience for next year.
If there saying that for Freeman why not believe JJ doesnt need that same experience?

Because the reality is one guy is a fifth round pick from a Division 1 AA school and the other is your first round pick that has been called the future of your team by more then just the coaches. People want to act like they are on a even playing field but the truth is they aren't. Freeman is making the kind of money and going off the hype of his potential so he will be given longer to show his skills. Once they start Freeman you won't see JJ this season again unless you have an injury.

bingo. most likely won't see him next year either. IMO, it is what Freeman does next year, obviously you want to see him play well early, but it will be rough the first few games IMO.

[ufojoe]

I don't know why every team doesn't sit their first rounders on the bench to protect them.� �

Plenty of teams have done that in the past. It's nothing new.

You're spinning my words which were tongue in cheek anyway.� �Ok I'll play Joe.� �Name one team that kept sitting a rookie just so he wouldn't get mentally or physically damaged.� � Can't just be your speculation either.� The coach had to give that reason.� �Anything else is just your guess.� � �One time where a team didn't want to replace a guy who was sucking horribly because their first rounder might get "damaged".�   That doesn't mean they didn't feel he just wasn't ready.   Not even close to the same thing.   Actually continuing to bench a first rounder because he might get either physically or "mentally" damaged.   If you can find an example like that, which you claim plenty of teams have done, I'd love to read about it.  

Not going to take the time to search for quotes from head coaches on players who sat. Hey, maybe they didn't give those reasons at pressers.

It's common knowledge that plenty of rookie QBs sit because they're not ready and putting them in before they're ready can stunt their growth.

[dalbuc]

People have this odd noiton that guys "deserve a shot" but the simple fact is all kinds of guys don't "get a shot". All those guys whacked in pre-season didn't get a real shot. JJ's had a shot and the results are very much what they are. People say "first 3 starts", I say second year QB in the same offense (now that Olson is the coach) so he's not a rookie anymore. I expect him to perform. He's allegedly accurate but is a 52% passer before today, he's mobile but gets sacked a lot, he's smart but creates a rash of turnovers (INT+fumbles). What he does well is run but you can't build a QB career off that (Vick, Mike).

[BuccinTex]

I don't know why every team doesn't sit their first rounders on the bench to protect them.� �

Plenty of teams have done that in the past. It's nothing new.

You're spinning my words which were tongue in cheek anyway.� �Ok I'll play Joe.� �Name one team that kept sitting a rookie just so he wouldn't get mentally or physically damaged.� � Can't just be your speculation either.� The coach had to give that reason.� �Anything else is just your guess.� � �One time where a team didn't want to replace a guy who was sucking horribly because their first rounder might get "damaged".�   That doesn't mean they didn't feel he just wasn't ready.   Not even close to the same thing.   Actually continuing to bench a first rounder because he might get either physically or "mentally" damaged.   If you can find an example like that, which you claim plenty of teams have done, I'd love to read about it.  

Not going to take the time to search for quotes from head coaches on players who sat. Hey, maybe they didn't give those reasons at pressers.

It's common knowledge that plenty of rookie QBs sit because they're not ready and putting them in before they're ready can stunt their growth.

Well I acknowledge your white flag then.   You made the claim and now I guess just can't be bothered to actually look it up and prove it.    No biggie.  Thing is you ignored the entirety of the guy I was responding to and all but one piece of my post.   It's not about being "ready".   How ready can a rookie actually be before that first game?   It was about letting a first round pick continue to sit while your starter is sucking a fat one out on the field.   You don't fear making a change just because playing a rookie could "stunt his growth" or get him hurt.  It's a contact sport not a game of hop scotch.