Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 372 of 388 FirstFirst ... 272322362370371372373374382 ... LastLast
Results 5,566 to 5,580 of 5806
  1. #5566
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by mmbt View Post
    That is actually pretty good. Most drafts don't even have a single Rodgers type QB in them. And then you add in a number of guys who are passable to legit starting QBs, plus a few guys who are acceptable backups ... it's not bad at all.

    When you really think about it, there's only about 5 or 6 franchise types in the league at any given moment. And then maybe another dozen or so who are somewhere between mediocre starter to good-but-not-great (some of whom may be former franchise guys past their prime). The rest is pretty much a mix of crap, and a few guys who will have 1 or 2 good years and not much else.

    Spread that out over the 15-20 drafts from which those guys came, and you're talking about a quality starter or better maybe once per year? And a lot of times, that "best guy" wasn't even the first QB taken. Kinda makes one leery of posts like "we should totally trade up to get that guy!"
    I think a lot of it also has to do with the team around the QB. Look at the best young QBs in the game right now: Patrick Mahomes, DeShaun Watson, Lamar Jackson, Russell Wilson even. All got drafted to playoff-caliber teams, with a good supporting cast and good coaching. OTOH, look at Baker Mayfield, Trubisky, and Darnold. Same old, same old with their teams. Even Gardner Minshew did better than them and who the eff was Gardner Minshew before last year?

    A lot of QBs would probably turn out better if their development was prioritized but they had to sit a year or 2. But for that, you gotta have a guy that knows and accepts his role. A real Jon Kitna if you will. I don't think Carr would be up for it but Mariotta probably would be.

  2. #5567
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,034
    Not just development, but also the team around them. This has been the main point of the carr arguments until now. But it stands to reason that those QBs going to Playiff caliber teams have better players and coaches around them. More weapons, better oline, etc etc.

    Both Wilson and Watson were starters out of the gate. So they didnít really sit and develop for a year. They did come into somewhat good situations. Although Watsonís online has been an issue at times.

  3. #5568
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by FarOutIos View Post
    Not just development, but also the team around them. This has been the main point of the carr arguments until now. But it stands to reason that those QBs going to Playiff caliber teams have better players and coaches around them. More weapons, better oline, etc etc.

    Both Wilson and Watson were starters out of the gate. So they didnít really sit and develop for a year. They did come into somewhat good situations. Although Watsonís online has been an issue at times.
    I meant like if teams still prioritized they're development even though they're not starters. Bc usually, the starter takes up the vast majority of the snaps in practice but back when teams made QBs sit a year, the rookies would get a lot of practice snaps and snaps at the end of games where the outcome was already decided.

    You do have a point about Watson and Wilson starting from the beginning. There's many guys who succeed from the beginning on crappy teams too, like Andrew Luck and Cam Newton. As they say, pressure makes diamonds.

  4. #5569
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,034
    Quote Originally Posted by mberr View Post
    I meant like if teams still prioritized they're development even though they're not starters. Bc usually, the starter takes up the vast majority of the snaps in practice but back when teams made QBs sit a year, the rookies would get a lot of practice snaps and snaps at the end of games where the outcome was already decided.

    You do have a point about Watson and Wilson starting from the beginning. There's many guys who succeed from the beginning on crappy teams too, like Andrew Luck and Cam Newton. As they say, pressure makes diamonds.
    Exactly. So different players progress differently. Some are ready to start off the bat. Then again, weíll never know if Rogers or mahomes wouldnít be as good had they started their rookie years. Just like we donít know if Wilson or Watson would be better had they sat another year.

    What we do know is that coaching and talent level make a differences. Give a QB a good offensive line and good weapons- heíll play better. Give a QB horrible coaching/play calling- heíll play worse.

  5. #5570
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,347
    Immediately thought of the Beach Boys when I saw this pic. What was that song? "It's the double douche coupe... you don't know what I got."


  6. #5571
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Bay
    Posts
    15,624
    Jesus... thatís just ridiculous.

  7. #5572
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,034
    Deleted- misread schedule rumor
    Last edited by FarOutIos; 05-08-2020 at 03:18 AM.

  8. #5573
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,034
    Deleted- misread schedule rumor
    Last edited by FarOutIos; 05-08-2020 at 03:19 AM.

  9. #5574
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sin City Raiders
    Posts
    57,474

  10. #5575
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,034
    Looking back in this thread, the question was posed on what kind of slow start would warrant pulling Carr and starting mariota. I think 1-3 or 2-5 was the question.

    Seeing how the schedule plays out, I think the bye week is the point you look at. IF we start 1-4 I think carr gets benched and mariota starts after the bye. 2-3 and Carr is the starter after the bye.
    Last edited by FarOutIos; 05-08-2020 at 03:31 AM.

  11. #5576
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,347
    Quote Originally Posted by FarOutIos View Post
    Looking back in this thread, the question was posed on what kind of slow start would warrant pulling Carr and starting mariota. I think 1-3 or 2-5 was the question.

    Seeing how the schedule plays out, I think the bye week is the point you look at. IF we start 1-4 I think carr gets benched and mariota starts after the bye. 2-3 and Carr is the starter after the bye.
    IMO now that we have a capable back up and plenty of weapons to choose from, #4 should be yanked the very second he starts the chicken **** football. Throwing short of the sticks on 3rd and 8 when someone is open downfield should land him on the bench immediately. We should expect solid QB play every game now, not just when Carr feels like it. "We take what we want", not what they give us. Time to get back to that.

  12. #5577
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by chibberaider View Post
    IMO now that we have a capable back up and plenty of weapons to choose from, #4 should be yanked the very second he starts the chicken **** football. Throwing short of the sticks on 3rd and 8 when someone is open downfield should land him on the bench immediately. We should expect solid QB play every game now, not just when Carr feels like it. "We take what we want", not what they give us. Time to get back to that.
    Yeah, but don't overrate MM either, there's a reason the Titans had him on a short leash too, and it wasn't because they thought Tannehill was going to be starting caliber. He's had sporadic turnover issues, wasn't productive in the red zone (sound familiar?), and had problems making quick reads and getting the ball out fast. I think he's fixable, but he's not the 2nd coming of Gannon yet ... he needs a lot of polishing.

    If you make a switch in week 2 and find that MM is no better or even worse and have to go back to DC within 2 games, you've pretty much signaled to you have no faith in either QB, and that the season is done before it's even started.

    Not having a chance at a real offseason working with the rest of the team isn't going to help him transition to a new system either.

    Still, he's better than what we've had at backup, and if we do have to go to him for whatever reason at least we don't have to feel like we have no shot.

  13. #5578
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,347
    Quote Originally Posted by mmbt View Post
    Yeah, but don't overrate MM either, there's a reason the Titans had him on a short leash too, and it wasn't because they thought Tannehill was going to be starting caliber. He's had sporadic turnover issues, wasn't productive in the red zone (sound familiar?), and had problems making quick reads and getting the ball out fast. I think he's fixable, but he's not the 2nd coming of Gannon yet ... he needs a lot of polishing.

    If you make a switch in week 2 and find that MM is no better or even worse and have to go back to DC within 2 games, you've pretty much signaled to you have no faith in either QB, and that the season is done before it's even started.

    Not having a chance at a real offseason working with the rest of the team isn't going to help him transition to a new system either.

    Still, he's better than what we've had at backup, and if we do have to go to him for whatever reason at least we don't have to feel like we have no shot.
    I agree with your points. However, Mariota's deficiencies differ from Carr's.

    Generally, once Carr slips into panic mode the game is lost. There's no coming back, he doesn't snap out of it. The game is over anyway. Carr's notion that this job is his as long as he wants it needs disspelled. When he fails, he should be benched. MM then gets an opportunity to make something happen. Bowden could also be lined up behind center to see what he can do. If they struggle, then go ahead and start Carr next game. Now at least Derek knows his chicken **** tendencies are neither admired nor tolerated. Perhaps he'll step it up, perhaps he won't. And maybe we'll finally draft a QB in 2021.

  14. #5579
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by chibberaider View Post
    I agree with your points. However, Mariota's deficiencies differ from Carr's.

    Generally, once Carr slips into panic mode the game is lost. There's no coming back, he doesn't snap out of it. The game is over anyway. Carr's notion that this job is his as long as he wants it needs disspelled. When he fails, he should be benched. MM then gets an opportunity to make something happen. Bowden could also be lined up behind center to see what he can do. If they struggle, then go ahead and start Carr next game. Now at least Derek knows his chicken **** tendencies are neither admired nor tolerated. Perhaps he'll step it up, perhaps he won't. And maybe we'll finally draft a QB in 2021.
    I'd be totally fine with benching Carr when he's having a bad game, even if the intent is not to make the change going forward. And that should be true short of any QB who's not a franchise guy, when you have a guy with legit starting experience behind him. What's the point of paying for a quality backup and never using him? Even good QBs sometimes have bad days, no shame in shaking things up to try and win one game.

    I also hope that regardless of what happens, we pick a QB next year. Even if DC puts it all together, he'll be 30 by the next draft, and it'd be nice to start grooming a younger, cheaper replacement. Even with more guys lasting into their late 30s/early 40s nowadays, it's still the exception and not the norm, and I do still think it's generally better for a young QB to not be thrown into the fire. Carr himself probably would have been better served as a backup for a few years (and that was obviously the plan), but unfortunately Schaub just flat sucked.

  15. #5580
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,039
    Quote Originally Posted by mmbt View Post
    I'd be totally fine with benching Carr when he's having a bad game, even if the intent is not to make the change going forward. And that should be true short of any QB who's not a franchise guy, when you have a guy with legit starting experience behind him. What's the point of paying for a quality backup and never using him? Even good QBs sometimes have bad days, no shame in shaking things up to try and win one game.

    I also hope that regardless of what happens, we pick a QB next year. Even if DC puts it all together, he'll be 30 by the next draft, and it'd be nice to start grooming a younger, cheaper replacement. Even with more guys lasting into their late 30s/early 40s nowadays, it's still the exception and not the norm, and I do still think it's generally better for a young QB to not be thrown into the fire. Carr himself probably would have been better served as a backup for a few years (and that was obviously the plan), but unfortunately Schaub just flat sucked.
    How do you pull a QB, then start him next game, especially if the BU wins the game?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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