Dr. Who Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Assuming Mahomes is a franchise QB. Which is, after all, just an assumption with no basis in fact. Well, I take it that Darnold, Rosen, and Allen are also assumptions. Andy Reid thinks Mahomes has the potential to be a franchise qb or he wouldn't have paid the price to go up and get him. Naturally, and I did not think it needed to be stated, when I say franchise qb, I mean a prospect with fairly good potential to be a franchise qb. Isn't that inherent in the draft when one is not selecting proven NFL commodities? Teams have missed on qbs taken at the top before. Let's see how certain the 2018 class looks a year from now and whether or not we are in a position to grab one. We know for sure we could have drafted Mahomes or Watson or Kizer for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Which is odd, if not negative. You'd think the well-versed business man with years of experience would've already been a fan of that style. There are a lot of ways to lead and win. Pete Carroll is a player's coach and buddy-buddy with his guys. He wins. Bellidick is a taskmaster and heartless with his guys and he wins. Andy Reid is kind of in the middle. Coughlin was a hardass, couldn't win, then got a little softer and chummier and his players responded and then they won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 3 in the top 5 or 6 next year looks plausible at this point. Maybe. 3 in top 3 - no way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Which is still not particularly a good position. He's back! AND he's wrong! Surprised your "sources" didn't tell you about Whaley. LeSean says hi, he's really looking forward to playing here this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 There are a lot of ways to lead and win. Pete Carroll is a player's coach and buddy-buddy with his guys. He wins. Bellidick is a taskmaster and heartless with his guys and he wins. Andy Reid is kind of in the middle. Coughlin was a hardass, couldn't win, then got a little softer and chummier and his players responded and then they won. Coughlin was a hardass and couldn't win? He got to the AFC championship game twice with an expansion team in its first five seasons. "Winning" encompasses more than winning Super Bowls ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Coughlin was a hardass and couldn't win? He got to the AFC championship game twice with an expansion team in its first five seasons. "Winning" encompasses more than winning Super Bowls ... I agree for the most part. But you play the game to win it all. And it's well known that he didn't have good control of his Giant team, and the players were in near revolt, he then let up on them and they responded and almost immediately won it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Coughlin was a much better coach when he learned to at least pretend to mellow a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 There are a lot of ways to lead and win. Pete Carroll is a player's coach and buddy-buddy with his guys. He wins. Bellidick is a taskmaster and heartless with his guys and he wins. Andy Reid is kind of in the middle. Coughlin was a hardass, couldn't win, then got a little softer and chummier and his players responded and then they won. That's true. I guess I just didn't see the fracking billionaire being a big fan of the rah-rah buddy buddy coaching style. He's back! AND he's wrong! Surprised your "sources" didn't tell you about Whaley. LeSean says hi, he's really looking forward to playing here this year. The shakeup in the FO was not known by anyone but folks at the top for a long time. I went on what info I had received at the time. I agree for the most part. But you play the game to win it all. And it's well known that he didn't have good control of his Giant team, and the players were in near revolt, he then let up on them and they responded and almost immediately won it all. Yep. There's a great Player's Tribune article on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Well, I take it that Darnold, Rosen, and Allen are also assumptions. Andy Reid thinks Mahomes has the potential to be a franchise qb or he wouldn't have paid the price to go up and get him. Naturally, and I did not think it needed to be stated, when I say franchise qb, I mean a prospect with fairly good potential to be a franchise qb. Isn't that inherent in the draft when one is not selecting proven NFL commodities? Teams have missed on qbs taken at the top before. Let's see how certain the 2018 class looks a year from now and whether or not we are in a position to grab one. We know for sure we could have drafted Mahomes or Watson or Kizer for that matter. Agree. No one knows for sure what will happen. One thing I would ask is where Reid got the reputation as some QB guru. He was handed Favre when he coached in GB and other than McNabb (who I'd argue was good but not great) who are the other QBs he's mentored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 I know. Does this mean I'm becoming a Bills homer? No, a Kool-Aid drinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Coughlin was a hardass and couldn't win? He got to the AFC championship game twice with an expansion team in its first five seasons. "Winning" encompasses more than winning Super Bowls ... They got their twice? I remember after the '96 season, when they beat us. But, didn't know they went back again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Agree. No one knows for sure what will happen. One thing I would ask is where Reid got the reputation as some QB guru. He was handed Favre when he coached in GB and other than McNabb (who I'd argue was good but not great) who are the other QBs he's mentored? I don't take Reid's assessment as infallible or even especially acute. Mainly I reference his evaluation as a sign that a legitimate coach who was not dealing out of desperation chose to draft Mahomes top ten. It is not ridiculous to argue that Mahomes is a potential franchise qb, though individuals are free to judge differently, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 I don't take Reid's assessment as infallible or even especially acute. Mainly I reference his evaluation as a sign that a legitimate coach who was not dealing out of desperation chose to draft Mahomes top ten. It is not ridiculous to argue that Mahomes is a potential franchise qb, though individuals are free to judge differently, of course. I agree . Any QB picked is potentially a franchise QB or a failure. More fit the latter category of course. I attribute Reid picking him early to the seeming inability for teams to realize that when you reach way up for a QB it rarely succeeds. Mahomes is athletic with a big arm, but has never taken a snap under center and comes from a team and offense that has seem little if any success sending QBs to the NFL. If this kid actually turns into something Reid will earn his QB guru rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 The first time in NFL history? There's a trillion to one shot of that happening. Plunkett, Manning, and Pastorini went 1-2-3 in the early 70s, look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Plunkett, Manning, and Pastorini went 1-2-3 in the early 70s, look it up. Nice one, Rico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Plunkett, Manning, and Pastorini went 1-2-3 in the early 70s, look it up. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1971/draft.htm Lifetime qb ratings for the three of them: Plunkett: 67.5 Manning: 67.1 Pastorini: 59.1 All three of these guys were storied players too who had some legendary seasons. Man -- what a different era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) I attribute Reid picking him early to the seeming inability for teams to realize that when you reach way up for a QB it rarely succeeds. These teams know the failure rate of picking a QB high. What fans (still) underestimate is the value of a QB. You aren't winning a Superbowl without one in this era. No stat better illustrates that than this one -- 13 of the last 14 QBs representing the AFC in the big game were named Manning, Brady, or Roethlisberger. Coaches and GM's know their jobs are on the line without one. Owners know that the $160M+ player payroll they are funding isn't ultimately going anywhere. Your ceiling becomes "playoff pretender," and you have to sell that to the fans every year. The "anything can happen in the playoffs" mantra is nothing more than "all you need is a dollar and a dream" nonsense, and I think most fans realize that. If there's a guy there in the top 10 that has a ~25% chance of becoming your guy under center for the next decade, you pull the trigger. Edited May 2, 2017 by QCity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Plunkett, Manning, and Pastorini went 1-2-3 in the early 70s, look it up. Damn you old folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Just a random question. Does anyone else find the "Thank You Whaley" post slightly ridiculous. The guy got paid millions of dollars to a do a job. He did his job and its debatable how well he did. Why would we thank someone for doing what they were supposed to do for millions of dollars? I had to vent here since the "ignorant" loudmouths were told to post this stuff here. I don't understand why a post exists where dissent and discussion isn't permitted. It would be one thing if insults and dissent where forbidden on a post regarding a personal tragedy etc... but this is a post thanking Whaley. Doug isn't sitting at home crying right now. He'll be able to pay the bills. Thoughts? The love for Whaley on this board has always been irrational imo among certain groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Just a random question. Does anyone else find the "Thank You Whaley" post slightly ridiculous. The guy got paid millions of dollars to a do a job. He did his job and its debatable how well he did. Why would we thank someone for doing what they were supposed to do for millions of dollars? I had to vent here since the "ignorant" loudmouths were told to post this stuff here. I don't understand why a post exists where dissent and discussion isn't permitted. It would be one thing if insults and dissent where forbidden on a post regarding a personal tragedy etc... but this is a post thanking Whaley. Doug isn't sitting at home crying right now. He'll be able to pay the bills. Thoughts? The love for Whaley on this board has always been irrational imo among certain groups. It's been a tough week for the front office apologists, let's let them have their thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts