Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-13-2018, 03:55 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
True, an elite QB does matter. But Philly won the Super Bowl with Nick Foles.
Nick Foles was ridiculously elite in the playoffs.

72.3% Comp; 323.7 yd/gm; 6/1 TD/Int; 115.7 Rat

Wentz was elite to get them there.

Case Keenum was Case Keenum in the playoffs and that's why the Vikings just paid Cousins. Without a above average-to-elite QB you're roadkill in the post-season.

This year is a awful example of the "don't need a elite QB to win" trope.

Finding and keeping an elite QB is hard, but it sustains you for 10+ seasons when you succeed. Building a transcendent defense that can overcome a decrepit Peyton Manning is harder....and impossible to sustain for more than a couple seasons.
  #52  
Old 03-13-2018, 04:17 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
The Bears have continued their spree, signing Tre Burton away from the Super Bowl Champs and locking up Taylor Gabriel.

Burton is getting a eye-popping 4 years, $32M. Supposedly it's incentive laden, and it better be since there's no way he's worth $8M/year based on his track record. Still, Eagles fans rave about him and seem uncommonly positive about him; they keep patting Bears fans on the back.

Gabriel's is also a 4 year deal, but no dollars being reported yet. I like Gabriel and the signing, but this implies that Kendall Wright probably won't be back which is disappointing. Gabriel is probably a little better and definitely faster, but Wright and Trubisky had some chemistry and I value continuity for a young QB's development.

In related news....the Packers have cut Jordy Nelson and signed Jimmy Graham. As a Bears fan...I love seeing the Packers screw up free agency.

Last edited by Omniscient; 03-13-2018 at 04:19 PM.
  #53  
Old 03-13-2018, 04:41 PM
enalzi enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
In related news....the Packers have cut Jordy Nelson and signed Jimmy Graham. As a Bears fan...I love seeing the Packers screw up free agency.
I feeling like Jordy Nelson had the magic ability to always burn us on 3rd down. Hopefully he goes to the AFC.
  #54  
Old 03-13-2018, 04:44 PM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,487
So far the Lions have very Liony with two meh LBs signed. But I'll give Patricia a chance to build his team his way before judging too much.
  #55  
Old 03-13-2018, 04:45 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
I feeling like Jordy Nelson had the magic ability to always burn us on 3rd down. Hopefully he goes to the AFC.
Knowing the Packers....he'll probably come back on a reduced deal.
  #56  
Old 03-13-2018, 04:47 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
So far the Lions have very Liony with two meh LBs signed. But I'll give Patricia a chance to build his team his way before judging too much.
It's amazing to me how excited the Loins fans are about Fatt Patricia. This is going to go hilariously for the rest of the division.

Last edited by Omniscient; 03-13-2018 at 04:47 PM.
  #57  
Old 03-13-2018, 05:03 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 13,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Nick Foles was ridiculously elite in the playoffs.
Nothing like after-the-fact determinations of elitism, eh? Would you have said Nick Foles was elite before this playoff run? Do you think he's going to be elite after this run? Yes, Foles played extremely well, even elite if you want to call it that, for those games. But the point is that any team could have had him on their team, and short bursts of outstanding play does not make a QB "elite". Look at Flacco or Eli. Two guys with Super Bowl rings, who played extremely well for short periods, and pretty much meh outside of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omni
This year is a awful example of the "don't need a elite QB to win" trope.
Sure, when you get to determine elitism after the performance is in and you ignore games like Super Bowl 50 (Manning's 141 yards passing and 56.6 passer rating), I suppose so. That's what makes this easy on you, you just get to determine which QB is elite AFTER they play the game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Omni
Finding and keeping an elite QB is hard, but it sustains you for 10+ seasons when you succeed. Building a transcendent defense that can overcome a decrepit Peyton Manning is harder....and impossible to sustain for more than a couple seasons.
Of course finding and keeping an elite QB is the best way to build sustainable success. I don't think many people disagree with that. But there are many QB's, like Foles, Manning, and Flacco, who can win Super Bowls with their teams by being very good for a short period of time. When you decide to define every QB who can (or has, with your amazing hindsight) do that as "elite", the term loses all meaning.
  #58  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:17 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Supposedly Allen Robinson is going to the Bears.

Awesome news. This is the guy I've been fantasizing about all offseason. I love his game, the size and the ability to compete for the ball. Great fit on the Bears and suddenly a Bears WR corps of Robinson, Meredith, White and Bellamy (and hopefully Wright and Inman) is legitimately useful and potentially scary. The biggest red flag of course is that those first 3 guys are all coming off season ending injuries (White x 3).

No idea what the contract looks like, but the Bears have a ton to spend and aren't usually guilty of creating cap problems in future years.

Lots of think pieces circulated in the last week or two about which WR was the cream of the crop and people have made some pretty sound arguments that AR15 is a one-year wonder and that Watkins is actually the real deal, but just based on my own personal eye-test Watkins never once scared me as an opponent. He's a home run hitter that disappears and misses easy balls, doesn't move the chains and doesn't help you in the red zone. Watkins is a between the 20's guy, Robinson is a whole field guy. Hope I'm right and Robinson is more than a Bortles garbage-time player, I really think he is. If anything Jacksonville has held him back.
Best stat I've heard today.

Allen Robinson is 7 months older than Calvin Ridley.
  #59  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:21 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
But the point is that any team could have had him on their team, and short bursts of outstanding play does not make a QB "elite".
No shit. The point is that you almost always need elite QB play to win in the postseason. Foles being great was basically a totally random event. No team can plan for that outcome, it was basically great luck. Using Foles as an excuse to simply be "good enough" at QB is misleading.
  #60  
Old 03-13-2018, 07:53 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
No shit. The point is that you almost always need elite QB play to win in the postseason. Foles being great was basically a totally random event. No team can plan for that outcome, it was basically great luck. Using Foles as an excuse to simply be "good enough" at QB is misleading.
Foles was like Popeye eating his spinach. He was briefly superhuman. To me he was a non- elite QB who briefly played like an elite QB when his team needed him to.

I want to know what he ate for breakfast that last month of the season...
  #61  
Old 03-13-2018, 08:32 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 13,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
No shit. The point is that you almost always need elite QB play to win in the postseason. Foles being great was basically a totally random event. No team can plan for that outcome, it was basically great luck. Using Foles as an excuse to simply be "good enough" at QB is misleading.
Funny how you failed to answer the question of whether or not Foles was "elite" before he played those games, or if he will be be "elite" after.

And amazing insight in there. If your team's quarterback plays amazing, you have a better chance to win. That's the kind of deep dive football analysis that is so valuable.

But we've gone over this countless times before. No matter how many backup QB's who nobody considers elite BEFORE the game is played, or how many "elite" QB's don't win the championship, you have staked your claim, and no amount of Manning's bad play or a journeyman's QB great play will change your mind. Such is life.
  #62  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:36 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Oh please. You're basically saying that sports are unpredictable. Great insight.

The debate is about how you go about building a team that can overcome the widest range of random outcomes. How exactly does a GM plan to build a team around the Nick Foles of the world?
  #63  
Old 03-14-2018, 01:43 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
I also think people tend to forget Foles' 2013 season, which had a phenomenal TD/INT ratio, 119 QBR, 64% completion rate, etc. It's not like people didn't know he could play.

He had a couple down years where he was in and out of lineups, traded to a few teams, hurt or whatever, and now here he is.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #64  
Old 03-14-2018, 02:05 AM
Locrian Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,748
EAGLE FAN HERE!!! I was so pissed at losing Foles in the first place. Chippy-whippy did that. As some have posted, his stats were phantastic with Philly before trade and injury.

Predictions: We're keeping both QBs. Foles will stay backup.

Both Bennetts will play for Eagles this year.

Ndamukong Suh will sign with Eagles.

That's just MY team.
So many other incredible moves or non-moves have already pooped up in other teams.

Really excited for tomorrow.

Bridgewater at Jets, Bradford at Cards, Cousins... Broncos??

So much fun!
  #65  
Old 03-14-2018, 02:15 AM
Locrian Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,748
Missed window.

Jordy Nelson, Rodgers fave and one of my faves (fantasy) I think might go to... Raiders? Carr, Crabtree, Nelson with Gruden.

I am sorry for Packer fans. I can't imagine a Packer forum right now.

Sorry, Seņor Beef. ☹️
  #66  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:46 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post

Sorry, Seņor Beef. ☹️
Beef is a Browns fan...
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #67  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:43 AM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Beef is a Browns fan...
Which is why we're all sorry for him.
  #68  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:44 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 13,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Oh please. You're basically saying that sports are unpredictable.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Again. I'm simply pointing out that, when a QB no one considered elite wins the Super Bowl, you don't get to claim that you need an elite QB to win the Super Bowl. It actually proves the exact opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omni
The debate is about how you go about building a team that can overcome the widest range of random outcomes. How exactly does a GM plan to build a team around the Nick Foles of the world?
You don't build a team around Foles. That's kinda the point. While having an elite QB is the best way to stay competitive and have success in the NFL, less than a handful of teams have that. So the question becomes, how do you find success without an elite QB? You advocate spending vast resources to take a chance at the "elite QB" lottery and paying through the nose to get guys like Cutler, while I advocate a more measured, build your team up approach. And when a guy like Foles wins the Super Bowl, or when average NFL QB's like Case Keenum or Blake Bortles get to championship games, or when teams win the Super Bowl with bad QB play, it shows I'm closer to right than you. And claiming the exact opposite makes you sound silly.

Last edited by Hamlet; 03-14-2018 at 06:45 AM.
  #69  
Old 03-14-2018, 10:36 AM
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 11,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Jordy Nelson, Rodgers fave and one of my faves (fantasy) I think might go to... Raiders? Carr, Crabtree, Nelson with Gruden.

I am sorry for Packer fans. I can't imagine a Packer forum right now.
Disappointing, for sure. He's been a class act, and a great player for the Packers. The Packers are saying that it was a move to clear salary-cap space: Nelson was due $10.25 million this season, and they felt that they needed money to pursue free agents on defense.

The reality is that Nelson is 32 years old, and is coming off of a down year (though I'd wondered how much of that was Nelson apparently not being in sync with Brett Hundley, the way he was with Rodgers).
  #70  
Old 03-14-2018, 11:19 AM
Intergalactic Gladiator Intergalactic Gladiator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,261
My brain is exploding trying to think up of trick plays the Bears can do with Trey Burton, Cameron Meredith, and Tarik Cohen. There has to be something in a playbook somewhere where three guys all get to throw the ball in a single play.
  #71  
Old 03-14-2018, 03:55 PM
magnusblitz magnusblitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Jordy Nelson, Rodgers fave and one of my faves (fantasy) I think might go to... Raiders? Carr, Crabtree, Nelson with Gruden.
Rumor is if the Raiders land Jordy they'll cut Crabtree, which seems silly to me. They are somewhat similar players but Crabtree is a deal right now at his salary. Jordy is one of my favorite non-Raiders but he definitely lost a step. Would love to have him as the Raiders #3 over Seth "no hands" Roberts though.
  #72  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:51 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Again. I'm simply pointing out that, when a QB no one considered elite wins the Super Bowl, you don't get to claim that you need an elite QB to win the Super Bowl. It actually proves the exact opposite.
If you're going to quote me, do it right. I said you need elite QB play to win a Super Bowl.

You can count on elite QB play from an elite QB...which is why that's who you want on your team. It's somewhat predictable. You can get elite QB play from the Nick Foles of the world but it's completely unpredictable and totally useless as a governing principle for roster building.
  #73  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:59 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
And when a guy like Foles wins the Super Bowl, or when average NFL QB's like Case Keenum or Blake Bortles get to championship games, or when teams win the Super Bowl with bad QB play, it shows I'm closer to right than you. And claiming the exact opposite makes you sound silly.
Teams should build for sustained success. Elite QB play gets you that. Every other example you cite where a journeyman wins is a flash in the pan. Or course those teams will occasionally win, that's why you play the games, but if you want to be good for a decade, your measured approach basically makes you average with a punchers chance of winning once if you get lucky with a QB for a few games. For every team that strikes gold 15 teams get jack shit. With that elite QB you'll get multiple shots at the crown, even when you make roster mistakes elsewhere.

Last edited by Omniscient; 03-14-2018 at 06:00 PM.
  #74  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:10 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 12,527
Bears release Mike Glennon. It really is the Not For Long league.
Chicago Bears Mobile: Roster moves: Bears release Glennon, Wheaton, Cooperhttp://yi.nzc.am/eNfjVc
  #75  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:18 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Bears release Mike Glennon. It really is the Not For Long league.
Chicago Bears Mobile: Roster moves: Bears release Glennon, Wheaton, Cooperhttp://yi.nzc.am/eNfjVc
I'm SHOCKED! Lots of rumors that we're signing Chase Daniels to back up Mitch. No word on the Sanchise.

Edit: More than rumors I guess.

Last edited by Omniscient; 03-14-2018 at 06:19 PM.
  #76  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:30 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Bears also reupped with Prince Amukamara.

Happy about this move since he played pretty well. The price is a bit high for a guy that doesn't turn the ball over, but he's good in every other aspect. Supposedly this is Fuller insurance, but if Fuller leaves I'd actually be okay with it. Time will tell.

We also apparently figured out the kicker position, signing Cody Parkey for a boatload of money.

I mean, I know we needed a kicker, but damn that's a big contract for a guy not named Justin Tucker. We have the cap space, so fuck it I guess, but it's always weird to me how hard it is to find a kicker as a UDFA. Seems like we could bring 3 guys into camp and settle on one, it's not like we're winning the Super Bowl this year.
  #77  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:39 PM
Enginerd Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Teams should build for sustained success. Elite QB play gets you that. Every other example you cite where a journeyman wins is a flash in the pan. Or course those teams will occasionally win, that's why you play the games, but if you want to be good for a decade, your measured approach basically makes you average with a punchers chance of winning once if you get lucky with a QB for a few games. For every team that strikes gold 15 teams get jack shit. With that elite QB you'll get multiple shots at the crown, even when you make roster mistakes elsewhere.
With Manning and Flacco in particular, it's pretty ridiculous to call their victories "a flash in the pan." Both the Giants and the Ravens built teams that had sustained success until they started paying their kinda-sorta-ok quarterbacks enormous salaries. Manning signed a 6 yr, $97.5 million deal before the 2009 season - up to that point, the Giants had gone 41-23 with him under center, making the playoffs all 4 years and winning one Super Bowl. They continued to be pretty good in the early years of that deal, going 27-21 and winning another super bowl before he restructured his deal prior to the 2012 season. Manning and the Giants went .607 over seven years, with five playoff appearances and 2 Super Bowl victories. Same story in Baltimore - up until they signed Flacco to God's own mega-contract after the 2012 season, the Ravens had gone .675 over five years, never missing the playoffs, playing in three AFC Championship games, and winning the 2012 Super Bowl. That only fell apart when the started paying Flacco like he was Tom Brady.

You can have sustained success without elite quarterback play. You can't have it if you pay your non-elite quarterback as if he were elite.
  #78  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:45 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd View Post
You can have sustained success without elite quarterback play. You can't have it if you pay your non-elite quarterback as if he were elite.
Disagree on the former, unless you define success as "regularly losing in the playoffs". Totally agree on the latter.
  #79  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:59 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
BTW - Eli is the toughest guy to classify. He's basically the Mendoza line for "elite" QBs, made more complicated by how inconsistent his play has been. When they won those 2 SBs, Eli was legitimately great. They had a hell of a pass rush, but Eli was instrumental, way moreso than 2015 Peyton Manning or 2006 Roethlisberger.

Flacco is basically the cautionary tale for Foles. The Ravens got lucky that Flacco put it together for that one magical playoff run.

Last edited by Omniscient; 03-14-2018 at 06:59 PM.
  #80  
Old 03-14-2018, 07:25 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
If you're going to quote me, do it right. I said you need elite QB play to win a Super Bowl.
Dilfer 2000 Ravens
McMahon 1985 Bears
The Rapist 2006 Steelers
Peyton 2015 Broncos
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #81  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:30 PM
Enginerd Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Disagree on the former, unless you define success as "regularly losing in the playoffs".
So "sustained success" has to include multiple Super Bowl victories? Are you really arguing that Peyton Manning's Colts teams (141-67, lost in the playoffs 11 times, one championship) didn't have sustained success? Rodgers' Packers (93-50 not counting 2017, 7 playoff losses, one Super Bowl)? Marino's Dolphins (163-108, 10 playoff losses, no championships)? Jim Kelly's Bills (108-67, 8 playoff losses - including 4 Super Bowls)?

That seems like a ludicrously high bar to clear.

Last edited by Enginerd; 03-14-2018 at 08:33 PM. Reason: can't spell
  #82  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:31 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
4 in 35 years? I think the statement holds up in spite of exceptions.

Also, McMahon had a 106.6 Rating in the '85 playoffs. That team just didn't need him at all, truly a unicorn.
  #83  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:41 PM
Locrian Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Which is why we're all sorry for him.
Ah! Yes. Okay. Pass the card to my desk. They'll improve. Maybe Suh might go there!

A local bar is owned and frequented by Browns fans in Sherman Oaks, CA. Swing by Chimney Sweep if you're in town, Seņor!
  #84  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:43 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd View Post
So "sustained success" has to include multiple Super Bowl victories? Are you really arguing that Peyton Manning's Colts teams (141-67, lost in the playoffs 11 times, one championship) didn't have sustained success? Rodgers' Packres (93-50 not counting 2017, 7 playoff losses, one Super Bowl)? Marino's Dolphins (163-108, 10 playoff losses, no championships)? Jim Kelly's Bills (108-67, 8 playoff losses - including 4 Super Bowls)?

That seems like a ludicrously high bar to clear.
I was being glib. I don't think the Flacco Ravens qualify as "sustained success" when compared to the runs that Peyton's Colts had, Brady's Pats, Favre/Rodgers' Packers, Kelly's Bills, Aikman's Cowboys, Elway's Broncos, etc. The only great example of sustained success without a elite QB is Gibbs' 'Skins.

That's the goal, a dynasty.

The Ravens, the 80's Bears, the short lived Harbaugh 49ers, the Gruden Bucs are farther and fewer between and always implode after 4-5 seasons because of the contracts those position players end up commanding. You can actually keep a elite QB for 15+ years.

Last edited by Omniscient; 03-14-2018 at 08:47 PM.
  #85  
Old 03-15-2018, 02:36 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd View Post
With Manning and Flacco in particular, it's pretty ridiculous to call their victories "a flash in the pan." Both the Giants and the Ravens built teams that had sustained success until they started paying their kinda-sorta-ok quarterbacks enormous salaries. Manning signed a 6 yr, $97.5 million deal before the 2009 season - up to that point, the Giants had gone 41-23 with him under center, making the playoffs all 4 years and winning one Super Bowl. They continued to be pretty good in the early years of that deal, going 27-21 and winning another super bowl before he restructured his deal prior to the 2012 season. Manning and the Giants went .607 over seven years, with five playoff appearances and 2 Super Bowl victories. Same story in Baltimore - up until they signed Flacco to God's own mega-contract after the 2012 season, the Ravens had gone .675 over five years, never missing the playoffs, playing in three AFC Championship games, and winning the 2012 Super Bowl. That only fell apart when the started paying Flacco like he was Tom Brady.

You can have sustained success without elite quarterback play. You can't have it if you pay your non-elite quarterback as if he were elite.
Let's not forget that the Giants had a running game in the early years. Tiki, then Brandon Jacobs, then the Jacobs/Ahmad Bradshaw committee...then...a bunch of meat puppets who'd play for half a dozen games then leave for the rest of the season, none of whom lived up to the hype even in those games they did play.
  #86  
Old 03-15-2018, 04:12 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
In other news, the Bengals resigned their lefty punter Kevin Huber, so I know for sure we're Superbowl bound now. Just have to clear that pesky 0-7 playoff record hurdle. But with Huber back in the fold, it's a lock.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #87  
Old 03-15-2018, 06:45 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 13,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Teams should build for sustained success. Elite QB play gets you that. Every other example you cite where a journeyman wins is a flash in the pan. Or course those teams will occasionally win, that's why you play the games, but if you want to be good for a decade, your measured approach basically makes you average with a punchers chance of winning once if you get lucky with a QB for a few games. For every team that strikes gold 15 teams get jack shit. With that elite QB you'll get multiple shots at the crown, even when you make roster mistakes elsewhere.
For some reason you keep arguing that having an elite QB is a great thing every team should strive for. Well, no shit. Of course you want an elite QB. And having one gives you a much better chance at winning the Super Bowl and being competitive every year. But kinda like your "elite play by the QB in the Super Bowl really helps your chances of winning" point, it's obvious and not anything I'm arguing against.
  #88  
Old 03-15-2018, 01:28 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
For some reason you keep arguing that having an elite QB is a great thing every team should strive for. Well, no shit. Of course you want an elite QB. And having one gives you a much better chance at winning the Super Bowl and being competitive every year. But kinda like your "elite play by the QB in the Super Bowl really helps your chances of winning" point, it's obvious and not anything I'm arguing against.
We agree on the ideal outcome then. So teams have a choice, sell out to get an elite QB every year and every opportunity until you get one, or take a measured approach where you build the rest of the team and hope to get lucky at QB, either striking gold with a Tom Brady or finding a Nick Foles who gets hot. Doing the latter reduces your chances of doing the former. Pretty simple choice.
  #89  
Old 03-15-2018, 01:40 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 46,425
Story is (no cite), when the expansion Dolphins used their first rounder on Bob Griese the year after using it on another QB, the GM was asked why he kept picking quarterbacks at Number One. His answer was "I'm going to pick one until I get one".
  #90  
Old 03-15-2018, 01:52 PM
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 11,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Story is (no cite), when the expansion Dolphins used their first rounder on Bob Griese the year after using it on another QB, the GM was asked why he kept picking quarterbacks at Number One. His answer was "I'm going to pick one until I get one".
Well, the facts line up with this anecdote, at least. Yes, the Dolphins spent their first round choice on Griese (#5 overall, 1967) a year after they drafted Kentucky QB Rick Norton with the #2 overall pick.

Norton started two games in his rookie year, completing 38% of his passes, with 3 TDs and 6 INTs. (For his five-year career, he completed 41% of his passes, with 7 TDs and 30 INTs.)

Given that, i wouldn't be at all surprised that the team had already suspected that they had a bust on their hands with Norton when they went for Griese.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 03-15-2018 at 01:54 PM.
  #91  
Old 03-15-2018, 04:23 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 13,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
We agree on the ideal outcome then. So teams have a choice, sell out to get an elite QB every year and every opportunity until you get one, or take a measured approach where you build the rest of the team and hope to get lucky at QB, either striking gold with a Tom Brady or finding a Nick Foles who gets hot. Doing the latter reduces your chances of doing the former. Pretty simple choice.
Tom Brady was a sixth rounder. 23 teams passed on Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees was a second rounder and could be had by any team willing to pay him. Meanwhile selling out has bought teams RGIII, Jay Cutler, Blake Bortles, Brock Osweiler, and on and on. And even having an elite QB isn't a guarantee. Brady was elite last year ... And lost. Rodgers and Brees have one title apiece. And teams overpaying for temporarily good QB's cripple their teams ala Flacco and Eli. And the Eagles win with Foles, the Broncos with a decrepit Manning, and the Steelers with young Raplisberger.

By all means, I hope the Bears continue to sell out to chase their elite QB, like they did with Cutler. Its fun to watch.
  #92  
Old 03-15-2018, 05:04 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
Tom Brady was a sixth rounder. 23 teams passed on Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees was a second rounder and could be had by any team willing to pay him. Meanwhile selling out has bought teams RGIII, Jay Cutler, Blake Bortles, Brock Osweiler, and on and on. And even having an elite QB isn't a guarantee. Brady was elite last year ... And lost. Rodgers and Brees have one title apiece. And teams overpaying for temporarily good QB's cripple their teams ala Flacco and Eli. And the Eagles win with Foles, the Broncos with a decrepit Manning, and the Steelers with young Raplisberger.

By all means, I hope the Bears continue to sell out to chase their elite QB, like they did with Cutler. Its fun to watch.
While that's all true the vast majority of QB's in the modern era that have won or been to a Superbowl were 1st round picks, many 1st overall, which is why teams keep doing it. But like you say, it's a crapshoot any way you look at it but I think with the salary cap and always rising salaries, especially at the QB position, you can really fuck your team over if you get it wrong by mortgaging draft picks, overspending, etc.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #93  
Old 03-15-2018, 07:12 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Are we not willing to admit that the Browns got it wrong by using their first on Garrett and then trading back in 2017, passing on Watson and Trubisky to roll the dice with Kizer in the 2nd?

In 2016 when they traded out and passed on Wentz to take a shot with Kessler?

When they stood pat in 2012 with 2 picks and settled for Weeden at #22 with Luck available for the right (huge) price?

When they kept banking multiple 1st round picks every year and didn't make the Patriots an offer they couldn't refuse for Garappolo?

They swung and missed on Manziel in 2014 and then stood pat in 2015 because why?

The Browns have been hording assets and drafting talent everywhere but at QB for 5-6 years, they just went 0-16.

The Bears traded up to draft Trubisky. The organization is still high on him and added weapons this year all around him. But if Pace doesn't draft another QB in the 4-7th rounds this year he's a god damn idiot. If Trubisky becomes the next Wentz, great, if not you have a lottery ticket that might be a Wilson or a Brady.
  #94  
Old 03-15-2018, 08:45 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Are we not willing to admit that the Browns got it wrong by using their first on Garrett and then trading back in 2017, passing on Watson and Trubisky to roll the dice with Kizer in the 2nd?

In 2016 when they traded out and passed on Wentz to take a shot with Kessler?

When they stood pat in 2012 with 2 picks and settled for Weeden at #22 with Luck available for the right (huge) price?

When they kept banking multiple 1st round picks every year and didn't make the Patriots an offer they couldn't refuse for Garappolo?

They swung and missed on Manziel in 2014 and then stood pat in 2015 because why?

The Browns have been hording assets and drafting talent everywhere but at QB for 5-6 years, they just went 0-16.

The Bears traded up to draft Trubisky. The organization is still high on him and added weapons this year all around him. But if Pace doesn't draft another QB in the 4-7th rounds this year he's a god damn idiot. If Trubisky becomes the next Wentz, great, if not you have a lottery ticket that might be a Wilson or a Brady.
I'm more mad that the proposed trade for AJ McCarron that would have landed the Bengals a 2nd and 3rd round pick in this draft for a 5th round backup QB didn't go through because Browns management didn't fax the proper paperwork over in time.

The Browns front office has been spectacularly idiotic with QB selections, for sure. And had that trade for McCarron gone through, they would have looked even more idiotic.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #95  
Old 03-15-2018, 09:19 PM
Omniscient Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 16,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
The Browns front office has been spectacularly idiotic with QB selections, for sure. And had that trade for McCarron gone through, they would have looked even more idiotic.
Yes, they pick terrible players...but it's more galling to me that they pass on better prospects when they have a chance. And the meatheads will rave about the "value" they got back for trading down. Stone-age thinking.
  #96  
Old 03-16-2018, 07:09 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 13,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Yes, they pick terrible players...but it's more galling to me that they pass on better prospects when they have a chance. And the meatheads will rave about the "value" they got back for trading down.
Value doesn't matter if you don't draft good players. I think the Browns would be a lot more competitive with Mark Ingram, Randall Cobb, Richard Sherman, Harrison Smith, and Luke Kuechley than having just Julio Jones. Or having Odell Beckham Jr., Marcus Peters and Stefon Diggs instead of Sammy Watkins. The Browns' failure isn't about their technique, it's all about who they pick, or don't pick.

And really? Trying to make the Browns' a cautionary tale? Low hanging fruit.

Last edited by Hamlet; 03-16-2018 at 07:10 AM.
  #97  
Old 03-16-2018, 08:38 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post

And really? Trying to make the Browns' a cautionary tale? Low hanging fruit.
Okay, well take the Packers from oh, say the late 60's until the early 90's then.

__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #98  
Old 03-16-2018, 08:52 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 13,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Okay, well take the Packers from oh, say the late 60's until the early 90's then.

Low blow. Watch out or I'll sic Tony Mandarich on you.
  #99  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:06 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
Low blow. Watch out or I'll sic Tony Mandarich on you.
As a Bengals fan, I'll see your Tony Mandarich, your Super Bowl wins and raise you David Klingler, Dave Shula, Dan Wilkerson, Akili Smith, Odell Thurman, Chris Henry, David Verser, Ricky Dixon and Kijana Carter, amongst others.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #100  
Old 03-16-2018, 10:20 AM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Are we not willing to admit that the Browns got it wrong by using their first on Garrett and then trading back in 2017, passing on Watson and Trubisky to roll the dice with Kizer in the 2nd?

In 2016 when they traded out and passed on Wentz to take a shot with Kessler?

When they stood pat in 2012 with 2 picks and settled for Weeden at #22 with Luck available for the right (huge) price?

When they kept banking multiple 1st round picks every year and didn't make the Patriots an offer they couldn't refuse for Garappolo?

They swung and missed on Manziel in 2014 and then stood pat in 2015 because why?

The Browns have been hording assets and drafting talent everywhere but at QB for 5-6 years, they just went 0-16.

The Bears traded up to draft Trubisky. The organization is still high on him and added weapons this year all around him. But if Pace doesn't draft another QB in the 4-7th rounds this year he's a god damn idiot. If Trubisky becomes the next Wentz, great, if not you have a lottery ticket that might be a Wilson or a Brady.
I think the Browns' mindset for a long time is that they're much more than one player away, so they want to stockpile picks and kind of valued quantity over quality. They passed on some good players, but so did a lot of teams. They missed on a lot of picks, and that seems to be on the Browns' ability to evaluate talent.

I'm curious about your comment relating to Luck. Has anyone ever said the Colts would have traded that #1 pick for something? My lord, what would that have taken? I mean they tanked a season for that guy, it's hard to believe they would have given him up for anything.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright Š 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017