Isn't that the way it's supposed to work...isn't it supposed to be the players that give a team the best chance of winning the next game should be the ones that do?
No. That isn't the way it works in the NFL today. It's the opposite school of thought. The talented first round rookie is ready until he proves he's not.
You know why it is that way now? Because teams realized it typically gave them the best chance of winning the most games.
You're making some broad generalizations about the 'readiness' of rookie players. Some may thrive, some may perform 'adequately', others take time. You can't lump them altogether and say because 'X' # of players were able to play week 1 of their rookie yr, Goff should be able to do so as well, and it's Fisher's fault if he isn't. Each player has to be assessed individually. Because Carson Wentz and/or Dak Prescot showed well yesterday has absolutely no bearing on Goff's level of readiness.
I feel comfortable with my "generalizations." When every top 5 pick but Bortles and Goff over the past decade were "ready" enough to play (and the majority played well), I feel comfortable saying that this falls on Fisher.
(JaMarcus Russell isn't being counted because he held out until September 12th)
The '0% QB's" stat is utterly meaningless. How many QB's have been drafted by Fisher coached teams that might have been hoped to be ready to play Wk1. I don't know the #, but I feel damn confident in saying it's WAY too few to provide a meaningful sample size indicative of Fisher's philosophy towards playing rookie QB's.
Actually, it's quite meaningful. It shows a modus operandi. When you have Fisher bucking a league-wide trend by doing something that falls exactly within his MO, it speaks volumes.
