I just don't agree at all with the notion that these QBs were "ruined" by playing early. Maybe with the exception of someone like David Carr who was just hit far far too much. But guys like Leftwich and Gabbert had fatal flaws that would never have been corrected by sitting and learning. Leftwich's release was what held him back. "Sitting and learning" wouldn't have changed that. Gabbert had zero pocket presence and an awkward throwing position that shrunk him from a 6'5" QB to a 6'0" one.

 

I mean do people seriously think that Aaron Rodgers would've been awful if he had played sooner than later? I certainly don't. I feel like guys either have it or they don't. Sure, they may not be Pro Bowlers right away and they may struggle some, but the notion that a QB's development is somehow frozen just because he is the starter is the most asinine conclusion I have ever heard. The better player should play.

 

Playing Henne just because he is healthy if he is obviously the lesser QB makes no sense and goes completely against Gus Bradley's message about competition. If Bortles isn't as good, sure, play Henne. But if he's clearly beating him out, I don't see the logic in sitting him just because. 

 

If you look back and say "that QB was ruined by playing early" you probably just didn't have the right guy to begin with.

---