PDaDdy

I beg to differ on that. Due to his hard work and die hard attitude he has impressed me. He has taken his physical skills and dedicated himself to playing QB at the pro level where athleticism alone won't get it done.

No I don't. I think he certainly as his comments indicated last year that he would tailor things to what Fitz does well indicating that the offense wasn't originally tailored to what Fitz does well. Nothing beats an entire off season of OTAs and play book study for the ENTIRE team to be crisp and execute the plays that work well for fitz. Some of those plays might not have even been worked on in detail with the whole team until he became the starter. In 2009 Edwards was the starter and only started fewer because he was also injury prone. You can look at how many TDs Fitz threw the last six games and emphasize that or look at how many he threw in his other 7 and emphasize that. To me I see the cup half full. When you split things up like that it makes for an interesting discussion in that I would look to capitalize on the 7 games where he must have apparently been one of the best in the league. He did end up 8th over in the league in TDs/gm so if his last six were bad the first 7 must have been great. Roughly around when you said this. "What was our record again? Oh that's right.." Yes. You pointed out poor statistical performance as proof that he is not good. I provided examples of other QBs with poor statistical performance that are thought to be good as an example. Sure he can lead us to the playoffs. Gailey and Nix have stated as much. I'll take their opinion over yours. Just sayin'. No I didn't. Do you even know the history of our starting QB? Fitz has PLENTY of accolades for a guy that has been a back up. 300 yard games. Multiple multi TD games. Has ranked really highly as a rushing QB. Not saying this guy is awesome. VERY few are. I'm saying he isn't the problem. I don't think he is over rated at all. I think he is rated on what would likely have been his continued success building on previous 2 years if he played last season. Speaking of over rated, the 2 current QBs in the draft are over rated. These guys would be mid first round afterthought picks if Andrew Luck came out. This leads me to ask the question which no Fitz hater has had the balls to answer even when double dog dared. "If Andrew Luck came out this year would you be happy to take Newton or Gabbert at #3?" What? Hello? Crickets again....

It sucked but it wasn't because our QB couldn't throw TDs. Silly for insinuating otherwise. If I'm not mistaken last I looked teams win and lose games and individuals make up the team. I am not trying to blame those things on the defense. Fitz was 9th worst in INTs. Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Carlson Palmer, Peyton Manning and others were all worse. Guess that makes them bad QBs. I guess their franchises are looking for a franchise guy since they obviously don't have one. So far my arguments are still 100% accurate and valid. Yours are shaky at best. Yes I did say our defense is terrible. It is. I can see why you didn't talk about our defenses stats like you did for Fitz. Their stats are terrible as well as their on field performance. Truth in advertising buddy. You can't make a point by hiding the stats. In a word a resounding "YES"! The offense which Fitz is a huge part of will get better due to improvement from the rookies, second year in the system, Fitz being anointed as the starter and getting the coaching and system designed to his strengths from the beginning of the year not coming off the bench. Defense will make us a LOT better than that. That is why I am all for drafting a LOT OF DEFENSE!!! You really lose on this point. Take a look at my signature for over the last month. We are going to get significantly better by getting better on defense which is a much much much larger problem than any problem fitz presents at QB.

Also true. The new wave of athletic QBs come with a lot more risk as you don't see them in pro settings or throwing nearly as often.

I have said the same things. Great point. I saw that comparison too. I was thinking what is this guy smoking? Newton is a more athletic Tim Tebow. That comparison is dead on. Russell? Seriously?

Unless that one category puts points on the board....you know...the things that win games Thank you for also leading me to this point. Why did fitz have to throw so much????? Perhaps because our defense sucks and we always had to play from behind. Does it sound like QB is the biggest problem or defense that can't stop the opponent from lighting up the score board on us or grinding us into submission with their run game? To take this even further we could point out our own run game as being suspect as well. If you can run the ball the QB doesn't need to throw. Is this all adding up for you? Personally I see room for a huge improvement now that the charlatan Trent Deadwards is no longer fooling head coaches and front offices into think he had a scrotum. Give fitz the reigns and design the offense for him and we should see another step up.

I think 8th in the NFL in TDs per game coming off the bench is pretty good. It means there were 24 other QBs that were worse and only 7 who were better. How is that "not very good"? Not saying it is great. But it sure as hell is well above average.

Didn't we go through your one man tireless sleepless get a QB in the first campaign with you last year? You certainly make interesting points but none of them are valid until after the draft. There are many scenarios that could play out. Perhaps all of this talk about the QBs in the draft from our staff is to entice potential trade up partners. I don't like discussing trade up and down scenarios because unless you are the Patriots they RARELY ever happen. Do you get a Phillip Rivers when you have a Drew Brees? Apparently you do and it turned out pretty well for both with the exception being that Brees, the guy they got rid of, is a better QB and has won a superbowl. The questions is and will always be until the draft is....."If I draft a QB at #3 will he be THE GUY for the next 10 years?". I'm not for taking flyers and just grabbing a 1st round QB because some fans think that franchise QBs grow on trees and all you have to do is pluck one off of a branch. I have asked this question and nobody has answered and I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU TO ANSWER IT. If Andrew Luck came out in this draft would you be happy to get Newton or Gabbert with the #3 pick?? Give me a straight yes or no answer without qualification. I dare you! This guy gets it. Taking a QB for the sake of taking a QB because you don't think your guy is a franchise QB is the ULTIMATE drafting for need scenario. If the best player there at #3 is a QB and you need one badly ...go for it. Personally I don't believe a QB will be the best player available at #3 and we don't need one badly. That being said I wouldn't be pissed if we got a QB. I just happen to think that the best player available will also be a player that can help our biggest need. That my friend is a win win.

WOW! You don't put much stock at all in the wonderlick test being the end all be all of a mans intelligence do you? Do you realize that some of the guys are trained and coached up on the wonderlick???? The same article I read also spoke to WR and DBs traditionally having HORRIBLE wonderlick scores because nobody cares what they score. It's not that every WR and DB in the NFL is an idiot. It's that it is not important so they don't put any effort into it. That being said isn't it just the tiniest bit possible that perhaps athletic QBs in general don't get coached up on or care too much about the wonderlick since their supreme athletic gifts will get them where they need to go on draft day? To my recollection Tebow didn't impress any Mensa members with his wonderlick score but nobody ever said he was "dumb". Hrmmmmm.

Preach on! I do like to see my QB with a high wonderlick score but I agree it doesn't directly translate to the field and there are some very successful QBs that aren't in the 30's and 40's. There are also some bad ones with very high scores.

You have a point there to a great extent. The media emphasizing the slightest thing can largely sway public opinion. Cam has star power and quality and will be scrutinized like a star and will have those types of stories written about him. Gabbert is the apple pie all american guy they want to tell heart warming stories about. That being said the issues with Cam's father do set him up to be viewed as such. The problem is is that there is a lot more to his story than his father and telling a sponsor he was signing with that he was a star and a spokesman. The media doesn't tell that part though

It's a common statement. In this particular case it is probably definitely true. It's the product of college football and the NCAA system. At the college level you can give a supremely athletically gifted QB the ball and tell him to go win games for you while others that aren't so ridiculously athletic don't have the option of taking off and running for 15 - 50 yards. Coaches are not preparing them to play in the NFL. Coaches are preparing them to win on Saturday. Team wins on Saturday and the school gets notoriety, financial compensation, coaches get to keep their jobs, etc. It's not so much a black/white thing exactly as it is a desire to win. Tebow is a great example. A supremely gifted QB who was coached to exploit those gifts at the college level but didn't prepare him as well as they could have for the NFL.

Right?!? Sheesh.

Fair and balanced. I would not be pissed if we did take a QB at #3 but it better be a guy we REALLY like. People go in opposite directions on this one. Some feel that we should go defense late because the class is deep. My feeling is since this draft class is so strong in defense and we draft really early in every round we should go defense. We are poised to potentially pick the best defensive player in every round. Any defensive picks we make have better potential than other years when the defensive class is weak. Our defense specifically LB and pass rusher are really weak. Imagine the talent we could amass on that side of the ball.

Riiiight. Thanks for the post. Your comments were insightful and you made some great substantiated points. Look out alpha dog will summarily dismiss all your points without addressing or refuting anything directly. LOL If your brakes and chassis can't stop the car and protect the driver you aren't going to win many races either

Ya, Lets beat up on one of our few good players. Did anyone think that perhaps Lee was never asked to run those routes and has consequently never polished that kind of route running? As another poster already stated perhaps he is the only significant deep threat we have? The only other guy that has that kind of speed is roscoe. Maybe it is on Lee but I guess it's really peoples bias that makes them look at it one way or the other. If this is Gailey's direction I'll wait until this coming season to see if Lee steps up or if he is actually incapable or unwilling.

I kind of agree but I don't fault CG for Trent too much. Let's not forget Trent started games for 3 different head coaches over 5 years. I wonder who might have been responsible for that? Modrak/Wilson!!!!!! Why do we need 2 Maybins?

How come he didn't use his own criteria then? Bledsoe had everything you wanted accept the ability to win the games that mattered and lead his team. He was so good that the #1 over all pick was replaced by a 6th round QB. What was that guys name again? I never once feared the Patriots when he was their QB. He just didn't have IT. Pennington was really good decision maker and an effective QB. Problem with those weak armed QBs is they are limited and defenses know they won't throw past 15 - 20 yards unless a guy is WIDE open. His arm was so weak the shoulder he did have couldn't stand up to an NFL beating. I was never feared Miami or the Jets with him under center. That being said we lost a bunch of games due to the short comings of the Bills not due to the prowess of Chad.

Remove a few special teams gaffs and we look even better than that. I am not going to lose sleep if we get a QB but by far our biggest problems on the CURRENT team are on defense. The desire to take a shot at getting a potential franchise QB if you don't have one are based on theory and philosophy. One I actually somewhat agree with. The reality is the offense will get better by virtue of experience gained by our young WRs and RB, 2nd year in a new offensive system and the o-line continuing to gel. Hopefully the o-line will be bolstered with some real starting caliber tackles obtained through free agency or development. The biggest improvement on offense quite possibly could be optimizing our offense and working with Fitz as the starter day 1. I don't have time to look up the stats but Fitz probably put up the most TDs in a single season since Kelly and he did it in 13 games after coming off the bench! This is the best guy we have had in 15 years and we already ready to find his replacement. Not saying we don't need a replacement for him to develop but it is NOT our biggest problem. For some reason picking a QB at #3 is not considered a luxury pick. We had Jackson and got Spiller and everybody bitched and moaned because we had a capable if not elite starter. Why doesn't that same philosophy apply at QB?

I think you misunderstood my post. I was not indicating that the rest were ALL average joes or bums. But there definitely are a lot. Aikman: Average at best but very accurate. Micheal Irvin was allowed to push off for about 10 years, they had a stout defense and the best rusher in the league in Emmit Smith Young: A freak who could scramble, played with Jerry Rice, TO and great coaching. Farve: Great arm and QB but needed special teams to help win that game for him. Elway: Legendary and AWESOME QB who didn't do a thing until he got the best rushing game in the league with Terrel Davis Big Ben: Tough as nails scrambler but not setting the world on fire with his stats. Awesome runner in Jerome Bettis and arguably the best Defenses in the last 10 years. Rodgers: Really stepped up and played his ass off. Might be early but a truly Elite QB. Let's not forget the #1 or #2 defense in the league. Warner: For a time just amazing. We don't need no stinking defense. Rypien: Didn't their defense do a number on us? Not at all a guy I consider the slightest bit elite. So anyway. I almost agree that a dominant defense is not as good or better than a "Premiere" QB this day and age. I wasn't trying to make that point at all but I have seen Brady and Manning beaten by dominant defenses in the superbowl and conference finals. Food for thought friend. The point I believe I expressly stated was that it is easier to stock up a dominant defense than it is to land an elite QBs. The only reason for this is that franchises commit so much time and resources to the darling QBs they draft that it usually sets the franchise back 3 years or more. As I pointed out, most of the guys up there were good QBs some great or elite but most all had something else going for them like the best rusher in the league, a dominant defense, exceptional WR(s) etc. Do you suggest that we keep drafting a 1st round QB every 3 or 4 years until we finally hit and get a premiere QB? (See, that was a question. I didn't put words in your mouth). If so we might be dead before we get lucky OR maybe Newton or Gabbert is that guy. It is difficult to predict and outcome both positive and negative is by far greater than any other position. Defensive players drafted that high can be yanked on an off the field and nobody bat's an eye compared to a QB drafted that high. For some reason with QB it's damn the "torpedoes full speed ahead". This is our savior. This is our franchise. Then 5 years later and Trent Edwards released we have to take yet another high risk gamble? (Yes I know Trent was a 3rd round pick just throwing in another Edwards shot.) As I said I wouldn't be pissed if we took a QB at #3 which you seemed to ignore but I think going the defensive route first is easier and incurs much less risk. Fitz was pretty good last year and he was 8th in TDs per game. He didn't have the benefit of being the starter going into last year and having the offense tailored to him but he still did a damn good job. I know we have a great pick this year but if Luck came out would anybody be excited at getting Newton or Gabbert at #3????? Next year is the year to get the QB I think. Finish off building a defense that could be good for the next 5 years first.

Those guys account for about 7 out of about the last 30 or so superbowls. How about the other ~23? Let's not forget that the QBs you mention are ELITE and I mean the best of the best. Identifying that type of QB in the draft is nigh impossible as is evidenced on where these guys were drafted. I would also hazard a guess that it is much more difficult to draft a QB of that caliber than stock your defense to destroy opposing offenses.

I agree but I wouldn't be pissed if we got a QB at #3 but I would like us to get the defense together first as my signature says.

How many great QBs did Parcells draft while a coach and a GM? I like the idea of his rule but he never had any great QBs that I am aware of. Bledsoe was probably the best.

You also forgot to mention: - Fitz ranked 8th in TD/game. You also forgot to mention that he did not have an offense and off season devoted to him as the starter because Trent Edwards the charlatan continued to fool yet another coaching staff. Truthfully I believe Ralph was behind the whole 5 years of futility with Edwards. Imagine if we dumped that completely useless pile of crap and got those picks from the Seahawks in a trade. As a long time Cpt Checkdown basher it sickens me to think.

LOL