Can J.J. McCarthy and Anthony Richardson be saved? NFL history says second chances are real, but second careers are rare

The NFL is full of stories about quarterbacks who took longer than expected to find their rhythm, especially after being drafted with the kind of expectations reserved for franchise builders. Still, there is a line between patience and passivity, and for every young passer who turns the corner, there are more who never do. CBS Sports framed that tension around two names at the center of the debate this preseason, J.J. McCarthy and Anthony Richardson, asking whether their trajectories can realistically change enough to justify the faith that came with their early draft status.

History offers a reason for hope. The league has repeatedly shown it will give a difficult quarterback a second chance, particularly when the team believes the problem is correctable: timing, processing speed, decision-making under pressure, or adapting to a coordinator’s scheme. Even when a quarterback’s early results look uneven, improvement can show up in smaller markers first, like protecting the ball more consistently, finishing reads, or converting more passing attempts into positive play. The NFL’s quarterback pipeline also encourages iteration, meaning development can continue without a team fully abandoning the plan.

But CBS Sports also pointed to the reality that second chances do not guarantee second careers. NFL teams can be willing to invest in a quarterback for a while, then abruptly reduce the rope if the same issues keep reappearing, if the offense stalls in the moments that matter most, or if the position becomes a drag rather than a foundation. Once evaluation cycles tighten, the question stops being whether a quarterback has talent, and becomes whether the team can win with that quarterback now, not later.

McCarthy and Richardson represent two different styles of hope and concern, even in the same conversation. Both have had stretches where the potential is visible and moments where the execution suggests the transition to consistent NFL-level performance is still unfinished. That is the core anxiety for fans and front offices alike. When a quarterback’s ceiling shows up but the floor remains unstable, the debate becomes less about talent and more about reliability, especially in a league where protections and coverages adjust quickly and every preseason snap is a referendum on readiness.

The bigger lesson is structural. The NFL’s quarterback development curve is steep, and teams do not have unlimited time, coordinators do not always have unlimited patience, and rosters around the quarterback do not wait for a perfect maturation timeline. Even franchises committed to growth often end up making moves if the offense cannot sustain drives, generate explosive plays, or avoid the kinds of turnovers that collapse games. That is why the “can they be saved?” framing matters: it is not only about the quarterback, it is also about whether the surrounding plan can keep supporting the learning process.

What to watch next is not just whether either quarterback has a good day on Sunday or a crisp series in a vacuum, but whether the pattern changes over multiple reps. Look for cleaner decision-making under pressure, more consistent ball security, and improved efficiency on routine play calls. Also watch how the offense designs around their weaknesses instead of repeatedly testing them in ways that do not match their current development stage. In other words, the most meaningful sign is not one breakthrough moment, but a sustained shift in play.

CBS Sports’ question is ultimately about timing, and timing is what the NFL weaponizes. There is optimism to be found in the league’s history of second chances, including cases where a struggling quarterback finally locks in and becomes the player teams believed they drafted. But there is also a warning embedded in that same history: patience is a finite resource, and once the gap between promise and performance becomes too wide, “saved” can turn into “replaced.”