Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Plague View Post
    I would just as well keep Tannehill over Bradford. Bradford has now had 3 knee operations on the same knee and I am betting his career is near the end.

    I would just as well keep Tannehill if he is willing to restructure his contract and draft a QB of the future. I am not a fan of giving a QB the reigns from day 1, I am not saying some QB's dont play well from day 1 I believe thats not the norm. I feel we made a mistake doing that with Tannehill.


    I think its a no brainer the Vikings will keep Bridgewater over Bradford.
    I'm not so sure it is a no brainer because Bradford when healthy is one of the top QBs in the NFL. Bridgewater still has upside to develop though which Tannehill does not

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,231
    Quote Originally Posted by tunnicliffderek View Post
    I'm not so sure it is a no brainer because Bradford when healthy is one of the top QBs in the NFL. Bridgewater still has upside to develop though which Tannehill does not
    It looks like we have a different opinion about Bradford. I have never considered him better than mediocre. Sam Bradford has never led a team to more than 7 wins. Bradford looked his best with the Vikings but the Vikings have taken the next step with Keenum not Bradford. Bradford has never been more than a dink and dunk passer which is not something in a QB I would pursue.

    I just don't see how you can call a QB who has never had a winning record one of the best QB's in the NFL. I don't think many people would agree with your opinion of Bradford.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Posts
    28,082
    QB winz - NFLs worst stat

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrench View Post
    QB winz - NFLs worst stat
    I disagree. The QB is the most valuable position on the field when it comes to winning, its why they get the big bucks. It's why the best teams almost always have top QB's. Its why teams who lose quality QB's tend to drop in the win column. If you have a top 10 quality QB on a playoff quality team and he gets injured early in the season you can pretty much count that team out of the playoffs. You can't say that with any other position on a team.

    Look how teams performed after QB play changed from good to mediocre to poor or visa versa. Green Bay, Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and I will say even Indianapolis......You think Pittsburgh would of made the playoffs with Landry Jones as their starting QB all season long?

    If Rodgers stays healthy all season do you think the Packers make the playoffs?

    What if Garrapollo was the starting QB from day 1 how many more wins do the Niners have?

    If Foles was starting QB from day 1 how many wins do the Eagles have?

    If Watson was QB all season long how many wins do the Texans have?

    The Dolphins could lose Suh and the effect would not be close to the lose of a top 10 quality QB.

    Will see how Foles does this playoffs with a team that looked like the best team in the NFL.
    Last edited by Plague; 01-06-2018 at 01:31 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Posts
    28,082
    A QB is only one part of a team and while it is a large part it isn't the only part.

    In the last three years the Saints where 21-26. I guess Brees isn't any good or was it that defense that was swiss cheese before adding some good parts to it? Or was it the great running game they added as well? Agian a QB isn't an end all thing when it comes to winning. Do you need a good one? Yes, duh. But having one doesn't guarantee winning.

    Hell we had what many call the greatest QB of all time in Dan Marino and never won the Super Bowl, no one knocks him for that either being they know he was doing all of it by himself sometimes.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrench View Post
    A QB is only one part of a team and while it is a large part it isn't the only part.

    In the last three years the Saints where 21-26. I guess Brees isn't any good or was it that defense that was swiss cheese before adding some good parts to it? Or was it the great running game they added as well? Agian a QB isn't an end all thing when it comes to winning. Do you need a good one? Yes, duh. But having one doesn't guarantee winning.

    Hell we had what many call the greatest QB of all time in Dan Marino and never won the Super Bowl, no one knocks him for that either being they know he was doing all of it by himself sometimes.
    This gets frustrating because it feels like I have had to say this a million times and people just read what they want and respond differently. Will saying it in caps make it any more clearer? NEVER DID I SAY THE QB IS THE ONLY REASON WHY A TEAM WINS....What I said is the QB is the biggest factor in wins and losses! Does that mean the best QB wins every game or is the reason for every winning season? No Does it mean that a team with a mediocre QB can't beat a team with a good QB? No. Does it mean that every team with good QB's will not have poor seasons? No. do I need to continue this for the next hour to make myself clear.However I will state for the upteenth time that the QB will make a bigger impact in the W-L record than any other position. If next season we win 8 or more games with Tannehill at QB I will be sure to point out that this thread and that Tannehill is just 1 player.

    You want to know what the biggest overrated stat is for QB's. It's the QB rating. Its some made up rating by some stats guy that has nothing to do with actually winning football games. a 6 yard completion on 3rd and 7th might be a nice stat for your QB rating, but it merely adds 6 yards to a punt. I can go through hundreds of scenarios that would be better for your QB rating but is anti productive to winning football games.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Plague View Post
    I disagree. The QB is the most valuable position on the field when it comes to winning, its why they get the big bucks. It's why the best teams almost always have top QB's. Its why teams who lose quality QB's tend to drop in the win column. If you have a top 10 quality QB on a playoff quality team and he gets injured early in the season you can pretty much count that team out of the playoffs. You can't say that with any other position on a team.

    Look how teams performed after QB play changed from good to mediocre to poor or visa versa. Green Bay, Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and I will say even Indianapolis......You think Pittsburgh would of made the playoffs with Landry Jones as their starting QB all season long?

    If Rodgers stays healthy all season do you think the Packers make the playoffs?

    What if Garrapollo was the starting QB from day 1 how many more wins do the Niners have?

    If Foles was starting QB from day 1 how many wins do the Eagles have?

    If Watson was QB all season long how many wins do the Texans have?

    The Dolphins could lose Suh and the effect would not be close to the lose of a top 10 quality QB.

    Will see how Foles does this playoffs with a team that looked like the best team in the NFL.
    Bradford has been good everywhere he has been

    Eagles are a worse team with Foles by quite a bit but I still think they would have pushed for playoffs if he had played all season because its kind of a gimmick offense but Wentz is the real deal and to me the real MVP of 2017. Bradford isn't Wentz level I will give you that much but at the same time Wentz might already be top 3

    Keenum is not a starting caliber QB

    Goff is also not a starting caliber QB. the best thing Rams can do in the offseason though I doubt they know it is to get a diff QB

    Bortles is not a starting caliber QB

    Tannhill is basically where Alex Smith is. someone you want to game manage and not make throw a lot. someone you need to surround with a lot of talent to just break even. Alex Smith is why the Chiefs don't go far

    If Rodgers plays all season they make the playoffs

    if Jimmy G plays all season they make the playoffs. I've been telling people he was the real deal for forever and that the Browns should have traded what the Pats wanted. I wanted him bad

    I don't think Watson would have got Houston in the playoffs. they had 4 games after he was injured I didn't see them having a chance to win even with him and they had already lost 4 at that point

    I actually do think Landry Jones would have got Steelers in the playoffs. not taking anything away from Ben who is great and a future HOFer. Jones is one of the better backups in the league and they aren't short on talent

    I actually do think losing Suh for us would be just as bad as losing a top tier QB. without Suh our defense would never stop a single soul and I legit think we could have went 0-16 without him

    as for QB wins = NFL's worst stat I agree with you on your rebuttal to that and I seriously don't know how people think otherwise. QBs matter and you win more when you have a good one period

    I don't know what the worst QB stat is but interceptions is one of them for me. lot of things go into them. Favre had endless ones but he was amazing. Peyton had many. Luck does. I love Eli and he gets bagged for it and the one season he had a bunch 90% of them were bc of his WRs. you down by 20 late in the 4th you going to toss them. you have dumb WRs who don't see the play like you or tip it you are going to toss them and sometimes someone just makes an amazing play. how you bounce back from one matters
    Last edited by tunnicliffderek; 01-07-2018 at 12:13 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,231
    I am not a fan of saying INT is the worst stat. Interceptions are not always the QB's fault and also the more aggressive you are the more INT you will throw, but also the more aggressive you are the more points you are likely to put on the board. Conservative QB's don't tend to throw as many INT but they also don't put points on the board.

    Bradford should of won more game than he did. Those teams he played on were better than their records. After awhile you have to look at the common denominator.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    224
    I'm just jumping into the conversation on this page and did not read back, but I think your discussion is actually proving that it is not a good idea to reduce any conversation, let alone one about the QB position to a single stat. You definitely have to look at more than one stat so I don't think it matters which one is the worst stat category, as you would never look at it in isolation anyway. I know you already know this but I'm just pointing out that your very discussion about which stat is worse is actually proving that it doesn't matter. Not criticizing you for talking about it though, just an observation. Hey we have to talk about something this time of year!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania
    Posts
    14,386
    which is worse is anyone's guess but QB wins is the most important stat to me

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,066
    Quote Originally Posted by tunnicliffderek View Post
    which is worse is anyone's guess but QB wins is the most important stat to me
    I always thought football was a team game and a team wins or loses, not the QB?

    I get what you are trying to say, but Tannehill has had some pretty gawd awful defenses in his tenure, so its hard for him to win games when he is constantly trying to come from behind.

    When a team goes up by two scores, it can just pin its ears back and go after the QB. Its not as cut and dry as you think it is.

    Tannehill would have won the last two games of 2016 to get us to 10-6 just like Moore did. Matter of fact, Tannehill would have had us in the playoff game against PIT alot more that Moore had us.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Posts
    28,082
    A NFL QB's record stat is about useless as a MLB pitcher's record. Guy can go out there and throw 9 innings, strike out 15 but give up a single run and still come away with a loss. It's a stat they don't have complete control over and thats why I hate it, they only figure into it.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrench View Post
    A NFL QB's record stat is about useless as a MLB pitcher's record. Guy can go out there and throw 9 innings, strike out 15 but give up a single run and still come away with a loss. It's a stat they don't have complete control over and thats why I hate it, they only figure into it.
    We will never know if the Packers would of made the playoffs if Rodgers did not get hurt, or how many more wins the Colts would of had with a healthy Luck, or how many more wins Houston would have with Watson, or how far the Raiders would of went last season with Carr but I think history has shown that when good starting QB's get hurt it has a deciding factor on teams abilities to win. If you think that the QB is useless in whether a team wins or not then nothing anyone can do to change your mind. Just remember that if the Dolphins win next season with Tannehill at QB.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Posts
    28,082
    Never once said they are useless, just pointing out QBs don't have complete control over a team victory.

    I gave the Saints with Drew Brees as an example of this showing even elite QBs can't carry bad teams to wins.

    Your example is correct that teams who loose there starting QBs are effected the most but that's because your going to a backup who most likely one for vaild reasons. Once you loose your starting QB your not expected to win.

    I'm talking just starting QBs here in that a W-L record isn't a vaild comparison when looking at a QB. This was bought up by you saying Bradford isn't a good QB being he hasn't won enough but you have to go much more in-depth then stopping at the W-L record that's the point I'm trying to make.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,231
    the first line of your response comparing qbs to pitchers and how useless the stats are is where i came up with useless. if you did not mean it that way thats fine but thats how i read it.......

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •