Thurman#1 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) Some of them? Nah. All of them. It's a team game. Send your QB out all alone and you won't see results. What the good QBs do is play QB as well as it can be played under the circumstances. Which for th egood QBs is generally really good. As for your Kurt Warner stuff... So the years when Warner had Holt and Bruce and Faulk and managed a QB rating of 67.4 and 72.9 ... were explained by ...? Was it that Holt was getting old in his 3rd and 4th years in the league? Or that Bruce at age 30 and 31, who played six more years was getting old when one year later he managed 1292 yards? Please. And the final years in Arizona when he had Fitz and Boldin and QB ratings in the high 80s and low 90s were explained by ...? Were Fitz and Boldin aging in 2005 - 2009? Your own figures don't even begin to back you up here. Edited April 9, 2018 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said: That's fine. But we need to tailor the franchise man's roster quick. The Rams clearly recognized Goff needed help in the WR position for year 2. He's that kind of quarterback and that's not a problem at all. The faster the better, but plenty of great QBs started with teams that were pretty poor (that's why they had the #1 pick or close) and took a few years to get started. It's better to do it faster, of course, but the crucial thing is to get physical protection in terms of a decent line quickly. After that, fill in as can be. Look at the WRs in Brady's first years. He was no great QB early in his career, but he did well with a pretty limited group. I agree with a lot of what you're saying here. Yeah, you have to support your QB. You have to put a team around him. They've never done that in San Diego with Rivers, for instance and it's wasted him. And Rivers is a hell of a QB. Edited April 9, 2018 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadbeef Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 I think Peyton Manning made the receivers around him into HOF talent. Wayne, Decker, Thomas would not have devoloped with Tyrod. I rank Manning ahead of Brady and this is one of the reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Even among very good NFL QBs, it is truly the RARE guy that doesn't need OL protection, receivers that can get open and catch and a good run game. Anyone that feels that all the Bills need to do is trade a ton of picks to move up for "their guy" are likely in for a let down when they don't see him light up the league with the supporting cast such a move would allow. I'm not saying that they should not consider trading up, but rather if they do - even if they find a good QB, it will likely take 2-3 more years - maybe by 2020 - to build the talent level around him to be a contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NastyNateSoldiers Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Not to many people mention this but Brady was a game manager for a good 4/5yrs in the beginning of his career. He was carried by the running gm and Defense they had that was allowed to maul wrs on nearly every play. It wasn't until the NFL changed there rules to suit offensive football that Brady started to really put up big numbers. Before that he was putting up average stats. Brady is a product of the system in more ways then one. I'm not trying to take away from his greatness but without the rule changes and the illegal pk/rub routes they ran for nearly 4yrs he wouldn't be half the QB he is without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeTime101 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 This may be a QB Driven league but this is a TEAM sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said: I think Tyrod is that type of quarterback.. I view it as a playing style, do you lock into your first read, say an AJ, AB, Moss, and toss it up to him? Tyrod couldn't do that with Deonte, and was poor at making the next reads, and generally just dumped it to Clay or Shady, his best players. He had a somewhat correct ability to adapt to personnel, just not nearly in the tier that other quarterbacks do. We get a playing style that adapts to lack of skill position players, we can get an upgrade to Tyrod. If I look at quarterbacks on bad offenses that do well, I'd argue guys like Mariota, Cousins, Smith have this style, making more with less. It's just to a lesser degree to when we talk about Rodgers, Brady. The flip side is QBs that thrive with stud weapons and may do better than Smith in the same situation. Andy Dalton (AJ McCarron thus far) and Matt Ryan have the premier WRs in the league, and maximize that talent, while Russell Wilson fails to use Graham to maximize his play because he's not the type to toss up jump balls. He's essentially a more cerebral, accurate, etc., better than every way than Tyrod, but ultimately has a similar style of play. Either way works, we need to recognize what QBs in this draft are the Russ, Mariota, Cousins, Smith mold, because that's the situation we have. You're either not reading very carefully, or having trouble grasping the point: QB like Smith, Cousins, etc were NOT players who "made more with less" coming into the league. Go look at Smith and at Cousins stats their first 3 years in the league. If you want a new QB, any new QB, to succeed, he needs pieces around him and expectations need to be managed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 There isn't one that would be worth a flip with out a decent O line even the GOAT Brady when you are in his face is brought back to earth !! Thats why the NFL is the greatest "TEAM" sport there is !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted April 9, 2018 Author Share Posted April 9, 2018 9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: Some of them? Nah. All of them. It's a team game. Send your QB out all alone and you won't see results. What the good QBs do is play QB as well as it can be played under the circumstances. Which for th egood QBs is generally really good. As for your Kurt Warner stuff... So the years when Warner had Holt and Bruce and Faulk and managed a QB rating of 67.4 and 72.9 ... were explained by ...? Was it that Holt was getting old in his 3rd and 4th years in the league? Or that Bruce at age 30 and 31, who played six more years was getting old when one year later he managed 1292 yards? Please. And the final years in Arizona when he had Fitz and Boldin and QB ratings in the high 80s and low 90s were explained by ...? Were Fitz and Boldin aging in 2005 - 2009? Your own figures don't even begin to back you up here. I know. I made the dang chart so I was going to post it anyway. He did have a nerfed Faulk which had to affect things. Kurt was a pick machine and lost out to Bulger. And 06-09 he was spelling lienert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Wagon Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 So you mean to tell me when QBs have better WRs, they are more productive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said: So you mean to tell me when QBs have better WRs, they are more productive? I wish I had learned that years ago!!! I only thought that good QB's made better WRs!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 I mean of course they are...its sort of a chicken and egg comparison..how good are these QBs without good players around them and how good are these receivers without good QBs throwing to them? Montana had Rice, Taylor and Craig Kelly had Reed, Lofton and Thomas Marino had the Mark Brothers, Duper and Clayton Elway had the Three Amigos, Jackson, Johnson and Nattiel... The real answer is they both helped each other out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 58 minutes ago, matter2003 said: I mean of course they are...its sort of a chicken and egg comparison..how good are these QBs without good players around them and how good are these receivers without good QBs throwing to them? Montana had Rice, Taylor and Craig Kelly had Reed, Lofton and Thomas Marino had the Mark Brothers, Duper and Clayton Elway had the Three Amigos, Jackson, Johnson and Nattiel... The real answer is they both helped each other out That's all true and it ought to be rather obvious. Still, franchise qb is harder to find than very good receiver. A really good (top 3) qb can elevate the play of an average wr. Qb at top of the draft may have a 50% bust rate as risk-averse individuals are fond of pointing out, but it's far higher later on in the draft. Really good qbs are rare, but one shouldn't use that or the dependency of the position (inherent in any team game) as a rationale for not taking a shot when you have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts