The End of the Lamar Jackson Era

[Straight Hucklebuck]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I think this is generally correct.  I think winning a championship is really difficult, because to do that they'd have to beat four good defenses in a row, and I think their style of play is too one-dimensional to be able to do that.  Their prospects would be better if he learned to be a good (not necessarily great) pocket passer, but I doubt that's going to happen.  There's not much evidence that he's improving in that regard.  For example, some of his deep balls light were downright ugly.  

 

If I'm the coach and GM, however, I'd be moving on from Lamar sooner rather than later.  First, the object is to win the Super Bowl, and if we're correct in what we're saying, he's not a high probability guy to win a Super Bowl.   Second, as we saw last night, it's essentially impossible to have a backup QB, because the offense is designed around a guy who is truly irreplaceable.   Getting RGIII was a good idea, but even he is nothing like the threat that Jackson is.  Barkley can run the Bills offense if Allen goes down; nobody can run the Ravens' offense.  

 

It is truly going to be a disaster if Barkley ever had to play significant snaps for the Bills. 

 

We need to upgrade at that position. 

 

The days of keeping the backup bar on the floor to prop up the starter (Trent, Fitzpatrick, Tyrod, Allen) should be over. 

[Pokebball]

Uhhh, NO

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Now we're off the subject, but Romo really is annoying a lot of the time.   He's just a cheerleader, and as the game gets tighter, he gets more tongue tied.   Sometimes when he's supposed to be talking, he actually asks Nantz to take over for him.   

 

But, when Romo is telling us what the quarterback sees, in real time, it's incredible.   The QB is at the line of scrimmage and he's looking at the defense and he KNOWS where the play should go, what the QB should be looking at, and he's telling us.   It's quite good when he does that. 

 

Yeah, that latter was what had me a huge Romo fan.  My perception as time goes on is he does less and less of that - possibly because he was told by the networks to dial it back?  and more and more push a narrative/fanboy stuff. 

 

It's like the network hired a Unicorn, and they've been steadily filing off his horn and adding pieces of cart harness.

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think this is generally correct.  I think winning a championship is really difficult, because to do that they'd have to beat four good defenses in a row, and I think their style of play is too one-dimensional to be able to do that.  Their prospects would be better if he learned to be a good (not necessarily great) pocket passer, but I doubt that's going to happen.  There's not much evidence that he's improving in that regard.  For example, some of his deep balls light were downright ugly.  

 

If I'm the coach and GM, however, I'd be moving on from Lamar sooner rather than later.  First, the object is to win the Super Bowl, and if we're correct in what we're saying, he's not a high probability guy to win a Super Bowl.   Second, as we saw last night, it's essentially impossible to have a backup QB, because the offense is designed around a guy who is truly irreplaceable.   Getting RGIII was a good idea, but even he is nothing like the threat that Jackson is.  Barkley can run the Bills offense if Allen goes down; nobody can run the Ravens' offense.  

 

 

I don't think RGIII can do what Lamar can do.... but I think he can do it better than Barkley can do what Allen can do. It is off topic but the Bills are in desperate need of an upgrade at backup QB.

 

As for should the Ravens move off Lamar... I mean sure. If something better comes along. But that isn't easy. They could get a lot worse moving off to a middle of the road pocket passer. Baltimore is an extremely well run and well coached organisation. I don't doubt that they would take a run at a guy they thought could be a long term upgrade at the spot. But finding one of those when you are consistently winning double digit games and making the playoffs is not easy. If they were going 8-8 it is a different story.

[Shaw66]

6 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

It is truly going to be a disaster if Barkley ever had to play significant snaps for the Bills. 

 

We need to upgrade at that position. 

 

The days of keeping the backup bar on the floor to prop up the starter (Trent, Fitzpatrick, Tyrod, Allen) should be over. 

I agree about that.   In fact, I think this is probably Barkley's last year - Fromm will be the backup unless they bring in a better veteran than Barkley.  But if Allen goes down, even Barkley can come in and run the entire playbook (except for the occasional Allen designed run).  He may not execute as well as Allen, but the OC can call all the plays in the playbook and know that his team at least will be able to run the plays with some hope that they will work.  That isn't true for Jackson.   

 

When Jackson goes down, a lot of the playbook goes down with him.  The defense no longer has to worry about the option running game and no longer has to worry about RPOs, because Jackson's replacement simply is not a threat on those plays.   Jackson's replacement might be able to run a more normal NFL offense, but the team doesn't practice a normal offense, so whatever skills the backup has in that regard will be wasted.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

Whether he runs or throws the ball he is playing Quarterback and winning, alot.  The guy is 27-7 as a starting Quarterback.   Maybe he will regress and start losing, maybe he wont.  But that can be said of any starting QB in the league.   He is, and continues to be a top ten player at his position in the league.

 

Just because it doesnt look like everyone else does it, doesnt mean it isnt working.

 

Would you mind giving some detail about why you evaluate Lamar as a top 10 player at his QB position?

I'd like to understand.

 

Keep in mind that football is a team game, and wins reflect team performance.  There are very few QBs who can carry a team with poor defense, a poor OL, etc.

The Ravens last year had the #3 D, a top (and deep) OL, a 1000+ yard back in Ingram and a 700+ yd back in Edwards, and the "Three Headed Monster" at TE. 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree about that.   In fact, I think this is probably Barkley's last year - Fromm will be the backup unless they bring in a better veteran than Barkley.  But if Allen goes down, even Barkley can come in and run the entire playbook (except for the occasional Allen designed run).  He may not execute as well as Allen, but the OC can call all the plays in the playbook and know that his team at least will be able to run the plays with some hope that they will work. 

 

I highly doubt the bolded. If Josh goes out half of Daboll's playbook is in the bin. Barkley can't throw a deep out for example and we run plenty of those with Josh. He wouldn't call that with Barkley there. I doubt he'd call anything back shoulder either. The call sheet reduces significantly with Matt Barkley. 

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think RGIII can do what Lamar can do.... but I think he can do it better than Barkley can do what Allen can do. It is off topic but the Bills are in desperate need of an upgrade at backup QB.

 

As for should the Ravens move off Lamar... I mean sure. If something better comes along. But that isn't easy. They could get a lot worse moving off to a middle of the road pocket passer. Baltimore is an extremely well run and well coached organisation. I don't doubt that they would take a run at a guy they thought could be a long term upgrade at the spot. But finding one of those when you are consistently winning double digit games and making the playoffs is not easy. If they were going 8-8 it is a different story.

I agree, Baltimore is in a tough position, but it's of their own doing.   

 

It's like they've left Baltimore on a road trip, intending to drive to Buffalo, but put themselves on the road to Atlanta.   Now that they realize that they're on the wrong road, what do they do?  Keep going to Atlanta?   Staying with Jackson is saying "well, he can't take us where we want to go, but he's taking us to a pretty good place, so let's keep going."   They may like Atlanta; it's a nice city.  But if that isn't where they want to go, who cares if it's a nice city?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

11 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, maybe not quite the end.

 

But it was ONLY the Browns

 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

I agree, Baltimore is in a tough position, but it's of their own doing.   

 

It's like they've left Baltimore on a road trip, intending to drive to Buffalo, but put themselves on the road to Atlanta.   Now that they realize that they're on the wrong road, what do they do?  Keep going to Atlanta?   Staying with Jackson is saying "well, he can't take us where we want to go, but he's taking us to a pretty good place, so let's keep going."   They may like Atlanta; it's a nice city.  But if that isn't where they want to go, who cares if it's a nice city?

 

But they were already in a tough position. Even with Flacco that team wasn't bad enough to pick at the top of the draft. They had young studs at key positions. And remember this is Baltimore. They won Superbowls with Flacco and Dilfer. Their mantra is if you just keep building good on good and drafting well you only need once chance to break your way every ten years. I don't think they were ever in a position where a tear down for a QB made sense. They were not the Bills. And Lamar is not Tyrod Taylor.

[Teddy KGB]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

Once Lamars legs are gone he is out of the league.  Such a horrible QB (Even worse than TT)

You took it too far w the TT stuff. 

[Shaw66]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I highly doubt the bolded. If Josh goes out half of Daboll's playbook is in the bin. Barkley can't throw a deep out for example and we run plenty of those with Josh. He wouldn't call that with Barkley there. I doubt he'd call anything back shoulder either. The call sheet reduces significantly with Matt Barkley. 

He can throw the deep out more or less like other journeymen backups who've never made it as starters, which is not very good.  But you can still run the play, and if the receiver happens to get nice separation, Barkley can complete the pass.  I mean, in no way am I here to defend Barkley's skills, but the difference is clear to me.   Baltimore's entire offense is driven by having a premier running threat at QB; without the running threat, playing defense gets be pretty easy - ignore the threat that the QB may run.   Buffalo has a full NFL playbook, and the defense must continue to defend the whole playbook, because if they don't, even a Barkley can hurt them.    

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But they were already in a tough position. Even with Flacco that team wasn't bad enough to pick at the top of the draft. They had young studs at key positions. And remember this is Baltimore. They won Superbowls with Flacco and Dilfer. Their mantra is if you just keep building good on good and drafting well you only need once chance to break your way every ten years. I don't think they were ever in a position where a tear down for a QB made sense. They were not the Bills. And Lamar is not Tyrod Taylor.

Well, you're right about Baltimore's DNA.  Their approach has been to put together a killer defense and have enough offense to win.   So I'll give them that.   That's not McBeane's approach; they want to be the Patriots, not the Ravens. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

He can throw the deep out more or less like other journeymen backups who've never made it as starters, which is not very good.  But you can still run the play, and if the receiver happens to get nice separation, Barkley can complete the pass.  I mean, in no way am I here to defend Barkley's skills, but the difference is clear to me.   Baltimore's entire offense is driven by having a premier running threat at QB; without the running threat, playing defense gets be pretty easy - ignore the threat that the QB may run.   Buffalo has a full NFL playbook, and the defense must continue to defend the whole playbook, because if they don't, even a Barkley can hurt them.    

 

Nah I don't think he can throw a deep out. He doesn't even nearly have the arm for it. If he did it is a pick. There are plays that Daboll just flat out would not call with Barkley in there in a real game that mattered. It limits the playbook more than the average starter to backup transition and I would argue more than Lamar to RGIII (I know McSorley came in last night which I grant is more of a transition). 

[thenorthremembers]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Would you mind giving some detail about why you evaluate Lamar as a top 10 player at his QB position?

I'd like to understand.

 

Keep in mind that football is a team game, and wins reflect team performance.  There are very few QBs who can carry a team with poor defense, a poor OL, etc.

The Ravens last year had the #3 D, a top (and deep) OL, a 1000+ yard back in Ingram and a 700+ yd back in Edwards, and the "Three Headed Monster" at TE. 

Look at total yards, total TDs and wins (Yes, I count it as a QB stat) over the last two years and tell me he isnt a top ten player at his position.   He is 27-7 with a very similar team that Joe Flacco had at 13-12.    Maybe he isnt a top ten passer in the league, but he is for sure a top ten player at his position, because last time I looked quarterbacks are allowed to run as well.  

 

 

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nah I don't think he can throw a deep out. He doesn't even nearly have the arm for it. If he did it is a pick. There are plays that Daboll just flat out would not call with Barkley in there in a real game that mattered. It limits the playbook more than the average starter to backup transition and I would argue more than Lamar to RGIII (I know McSorley came in last night which I grant is more of a transition). 

Fair enough.  I know Barkley's no McCown.  

 

But the point isn't that Barkley isn't a good enough backup.  That's just a matter of making the right personnel decision.  The discussion is about Jackson, and the point is that it's more or less impossible to have a backup for him.   And although RGIII is a possibility in theory, if you watched him at all last week, it was clear that he can't do it, either.  Yes, he's as bad as Jackson is in the pocket, but he is in no way the running threat that Jackson is.  I think even with RGIII, the defense can more or less ignore the running threat, which once again means the playbook has gotten limited.  

 

 

[MAJBobby]

32 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

You took it too far w the TT stuff. 

TT, RG3, Kap, Pick one.  Once their Legs are Gone, they fail at QB.  

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

TT, RG3, Kap, Pick one.  Once their Legs are Gone, they fail at QB.  

 

None of them were ever in Jackson's league as a runner. 

20 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Fair enough.  I know Barkley's no McCown.  

 

But the point isn't that Barkley isn't a good enough backup.  That's just a matter of making the right personnel decision.  The discussion is about Jackson, and the point is that it's more or less impossible to have a backup for him.   And although RGIII is a possibility in theory, if you watched him at all last week, it was clear that he can't do it, either.  Yes, he's as bad as Jackson is in the pocket, but he is in no way the running threat that Jackson is.  I think even with RGIII, the defense can more or less ignore the running threat, which once again means the playbook has gotten limited.  

 

 

 

For sure it is hard to have a backup do what Jackson does. He is special but in a really unconventional way. That is the truth. 

[SinatraSinger]

Personally I do not consider Lamar Jackson a QB.  He is a hybrid Running Back.  I think the same of Cam Newton, I used to think the same of Michael Vick, Kap, TT and any others that were more known for their running then they are for throwing.  They are not QB's, but Hybrid RB's.  Now their are Hybrid QB's who are known for throwing but can also run effectively.  QB's like Wilson, Mahomes and even our own JA.  Give me a Hybrid QB over a Hybrid RB anyday of the week.  

 

[Nextmanup]

I thought of this thread at the end of last night's amazing game.

 

Reports of Lamar's demise seem to be greatly exaggerated.

 

 

[MAJBobby]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

None of them were ever in Jackson's league as a runner. 

 

For sure it is hard to have a backup do what Jackson does. He is special but in a really unconventional way. That is the truth. 

 

And as I said ONCE his legs are gone, He will no longer be a QB in this league.  That is the reality.