QB Classification

[hiko]

Watching this game tonight (Bears-Eagles) made me aware of a new classification of QB's. This class is called "Talented QB's that Are Inconsistent and Will Alternately Save You/Kill You From Game To Game, Sometimes Within The Same Game":

Jay Cutler
Mike Vick
Tony Romo
Philip Rivers (this year)
Joe Flacco
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
Matt Cassell
Alex Smith (you wait, it's coming)

Elite/Franchise QB's
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Tom Brady
POS
Eli Manning (I guess)

Young QB's Poised to Become Franchise or Certainly Have That Potential
Matt Stafford
Cam Newton
Andy Dalton
Sam Bradford
Christian Ponder

Solid Veterans
Matt Hasselbeck
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Matt Schaub
Matt Ryan

The Book Is Out But It Don't Look Good
Chad Henne/Matt Moore
Colt McCoy
Kevin Kolb
Blaine Gabbert
John Beck

Done/Washed Up/No Chance/Get Their Carcasses Off the Field
Carson Palmer
Tarvaris Jackson
Curtis Painter
Tim Tebow

[mattvan1]

^^^^^^^ really good stuff

[That_Guy™]

Watching this game tonight (Bears-Eagles) made me aware of a new classification of QB's. This class is called "Talented QB's that Are Inconsistent and Will Alternately Save You/Kill You From Game To Game, Sometimes Within The Same Game":

Jay Cutler
Mike Vick
Tony Romo
Philip Rivers (this year)
Joe Flacco
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
Matt Cassell
Alex Smith (you wait, it's coming)

Elite/Franchise QB's
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Tom Brady
POS
Eli Manning (I guess)

Young QB's Poised to Become Franchise or Certainly Have That Potential
Matt Stafford
Cam Newton
Andy Dalton
Sam Bradford
Christian Ponder

Solid Veterans
Matt Hasselbeck
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Matt Schaub
Matt Ryan

The Book Is Out But It Don't Look Good
Matt Moore
Colt McCoy
Kevin Kolb
Blaine Gabbert
John Beck

Done/Washed Up/No Chance/Get Their Carcasses Off the Field
Carson Palmer
Tarvaris Jackson
Curtis Painter
Tim Tebow

Bitch
Chad Henne

Agree with one small correction.

[HoodooMan]

My current classification would go:

Soooooper Elite:
Rodgers
Brady
Brees

Disabled:
Peyton Manning

A Couple Guys Who Are Really, Really Good, But Clearly A Notch Below Sooooooper Elite, And We Kinda Wish Were Disabled:
POS (The one in Western PA)
Rivers

A Guy Who Consistently Puts Up Good Numbers But Whom I Just Can't Ever Bring Myself to Believe In:
Schaub

A Guy Who Will Probably Consistently Put Up Good Numbers But Whom I Probably Won't Ever Bring Myself to Believe In:
Fitzpatrick

A Few Guys Who Are Probably Better Than Mere Game Managers, But Not By Much, Though One Of Them Manages to Pull This Off Without the Help of a Good Defense, Which Confuses Me:
Eli Manning
Ryan
Flacco

Game Managers/Could Be Game Managers in the Right Situation:
Dalton
Campbell
Sanchez (+Marketability!!!)
Cassel
Orton

Those Defined By Wildly Uneven Play:
Romo
Vick
Cutler

You Are What We Thought You Were, To Be Revealed...
Smith (That is, bad)
Hasselbeck (That is, washed up)

Washed Up:
McNabb
Palmer

Probably Turrible, Sample Size is All That Saves Them From Full Fledged Tier O' Turrible:
Bradford
Kolb
Tebow
McCoy
Gabbert

Turrible:
Henne
Jackson

Can't Even Really Believe He's Still in the League Turrible:
Grossman

A Guy Who I Guess Is Probably a Future Franchise QB if He Can Ever Consistently Stay Healthy, But Dude, WTF Was With All The Bad Decisions At UGA?:
Stafford

A Guy Who Might Also Be a Future Franchise QB, But I'm Having Trouble Believing In, Because He Just Wasn't That Good of a Passer at Auburn:
Newton

?!1!?!/!?!?!?!:
Freeman

Most Guaranteed to Be Great NFL Prospect Since Reggie Bush Whom I Sneakingly Suspect Will End Up About As Good, Or Roughly in the Same Class As Barkley Below:
Luck

Future Guy Who'll Be Better Than Game Manager But Not By Much...
Barkley

Future Guy Who'll Be Defined By Wildly Uneven Play:
Jones
Tannehill

Future Really, Really Good, But Notch Below Soooooper Elite...Or Defined By Wildly Uneven Play...Or Possibly Just Turrible:
RGIII

[mattvan1]

^^^^^^^also really good stuff

The Hiko and HooDoo lists, IMO, help explode the myth that It's a Passing League and You Need to Throw the Ball to Win to the reality of If You Have an Elite or Soooper Elite QB You Have a Disproportinally Better Chance of Getting a Ring
and
The NFL Wants the Game to Resemble Madden But the Reality is There Are Not Enough Good QBs to Take Advantage of all of Rule Changes Implemented to Help the Offense Score More Points because Chicks Dig 42-38 Shootouts

Also, let's not forget the Everyone Tells Me I Need to Throw the Ball to Win but in Reality I Need a Strong Running Game and I Can Live with an Eli Manning-like QB and Still Have a Pretty Decent Team and Usually Compete for the Division Title

[peeker643]

^^^^^^^also really good stuff

The Hiko and HooDoo lists, IMO, help explode the myth that It's a Passing League and You Need to Throw the Ball to Win to the reality of If You Have an Elite or Soooper Elite QB You Have a Disproportinally Better Chance of Getting a Ring
and
The NFL Wants the Game to Resemble Madden But the Reality is There Are Not Enough Good QBs to Take Advantage of all of Rule Changes Implemented to Help the Offense Score More Points because Chicks Dig 42-38 Shootouts

Also, let's not forget the Everyone Tells Me I Need to Throw the Ball to Win but in Reality I Need a Strong Running Game and I Can Live with an Eli Manning-like QB and Still Have a Pretty Decent Team and Usually Compete for the Division Title

Because the sooper-elite guys don't throw the ball to win? WTF are you talking about? And because those guys have strong running games behind them and not pieces/parts that are interchangeable.

I honestly am not getting what you're saying here.

Just stick with 'elite'. Those guys throw the ball to win. How many of the last 6-7 SB's have those elite guys won?

[hiko]

Also, let's not forget the Everyone Tells Me I Need to Throw the Ball to Win but in Reality I Need a Strong Running Game and I Can Live with an Eli Manning-like QB and Still Have a Pretty Decent Team and Usually Compete for the Division Title

I would argue the Giants are more of a passing team than a running team. They have the #6 pass attack, but only #29 rushing.

A nice defense does help, though.

[mattvan1]

Because the sooper-elite guys don't throw the ball to win? WTF are you talking about? And because those guys have strong running games behind them and not pieces/parts that are interchangeable.

I honestly am not getting what you're saying here.

Just stick with 'elite'. Those guys throw the ball to win. How many of the last 6-7 SB's have those elite guys won?

Elite QBs win. Agreed. No doubt this has been proven. And by most accounts there are 4 of them.

So what do the other 28 teams do? Try and force your way to being a throwing team? Play suck for Luck every year? Or maybe try to find another way?

The perception seems to be "you MUST throw to win" when in reality it's "IF you have an elite QB you will win"

[hiko]

Because the sooper-elite guys don't throw the ball to win? WTF are you talking about? And because those guys have strong running games behind them and not pieces/parts that are interchangeable.

I honestly am not getting what you're saying here.

Just stick with 'elite'. Those guys throw the ball to win. How many of the last 6-7 SB's have those elite guys won?

Elite QBs win. Agreed. No doubt this has been proven. And by most accounts there are 4 of them.

So what do the other 28 teams do? Try and force your way to being a throwing team? Play suck for Luck every year? Or maybe try to find another way?

The perception seems to be "you MUST throw to win" when in reality it's "IF you have an elite QB you will win"

I agree with this to a large extent, but most teams in today's NFL feel compelled to at least try to be a passing team because all the elite teams are passing teams. And there's certainly no doubt that a good rushing attack can be shut down a lot more easily in 2011 NFL than a good passing attack.

Either you settle for being a solid ground-attack team like Baltimore or the Jets that gets to the playoffs and loses or you try to become one of those elite passing teams that play for championships like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New England, and New Orleans. (At least, that's the way I imagine most of the brass sees it)

[peeker643]

Because the sooper-elite guys don't throw the ball to win? WTF are you talking about? And because those guys have strong running games behind them and not pieces/parts that are interchangeable.

I honestly am not getting what you're saying here.

Just stick with 'elite'. Those guys throw the ball to win. How many of the last 6-7 SB's have those elite guys won?

Elite QBs win. Agreed. No doubt this has been proven. And by most accounts there are 4 of them.

So what do the other 28 teams do? Try and force your way to being a throwing team? Play suck for Luck every year? Or maybe try to find another way?

The perception seems to be "you MUST throw to win" when in reality it's "IF you have an elite QB you will win"

I agree with this to a large extent, but most teams in today's NFL feel compelled to at least try to be a passing team because all the elite teams are passing teams. And there's certainly no doubt that a good rushing attack can be shut down a lot more easily in 2011 NFL than a good passing attack.

Either you settle for being a solid ground-attack team like Baltimore or the Jets that gets to the playoffs and loses or you try to become one of those elite passing teams that play for championships like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New England, and New Orleans. (At least, that's the way I imagine most of the brass sees it)

What do the other 28 teams do? Aside from not winning titles?

The other 28 teams try and find the elite QBs or they take one just outside that level and build a running game and defense. I don't think you can argue that guys that are elite or just outside that can win titles.

But you also can't argue that teams with mediocre or worse QBs winning a title are the exception to the rule.

The last 8 SB winners are: GB, NO, Pittsburgh, NYG, Indy, Pittsburgh, NE, NE.

All of them have either elite or borderline elite QBs.

[mattvan1]

Because the sooper-elite guys don't throw the ball to win? WTF are you talking about? And because those guys have strong running games behind them and not pieces/parts that are interchangeable.

I honestly am not getting what you're saying here.

Just stick with 'elite'. Those guys throw the ball to win. How many of the last 6-7 SB's have those elite guys won?

Elite QBs win. Agreed. No doubt this has been proven. And by most accounts there are 4 of them.

So what do the other 28 teams do? Try and force your way to being a throwing team? Play suck for Luck every year? Or maybe try to find another way?

The perception seems to be "you MUST throw to win" when in reality it's "IF you have an elite QB you will win"

I agree with this to a large extent, but most teams in today's NFL feel compelled to at least try to be a passing team because all the elite teams are passing teams. And there's certainly no doubt that a good rushing attack can be shut down a lot more easily in 2011 NFL than a good passing attack.

Either you settle for being a solid ground-attack team like Baltimore or the Jets that gets to the playoffs and loses or you try to become one of those elite passing teams that play for championships like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New England, and New Orleans. (At least, that's the way I imagine most of the brass sees it)

Good comments. Ok, so for the sake of discussion I'll say while I agree that is the way most of the brass sees it I think HOW to get there is up for debate. The Steelers have always been a run/defense team, as have the Ravens, as have many of the teams that are now winging it around. Packers obvious exception. They played the "let's build a solid foundation and compete every year and when that special person comes along we'll be ready" game.

It seems as if H&H are doing this on the D side of the ball, to their credit. But offensively, we seem to have it backward - let's find our Neo first and then build around him. I know, patience, one side of the ball at a time, Rome, etc.

BTW, and just from I sit after all these years - give me the competitive team that is usually around 10 wins and maybe hits a hot streak into the playoffs as opposed to the team that flails aimlessly about waitng for Godot.

In other words, I am tired of waiting to be the Packers. Give me a fun to watch, physical, competitve team that gets to the playoffs and I'll take my chances from there.

[mattvan1]

What do the other 28 teams do? Aside from not winning titles?

The other 28 teams try and find the elite QBs or they take one just outside that level and build a running game and defense. I don't think you can argue that guys that are elite or just outside that can win titles.

But you also can't argue that teams with mediocre or worse QBs winning a title are the exception to the rule.

The last 8 SB winners are: GB, NO, Pittsburgh, NYG, Indy, Pittsburgh, NE, NE.

All of them have either elite or borderline elite QBs.

And this is a trend that is ruining the game, IMO. So again, you don't need to throw to win. That is a myth. You need an elite and/or on his way to HOF QB to win.

I am hoping somehow the pendulum begins to swing back the other way.

[mattvan1]

What do the other 28 teams do? Aside from not winning titles?

The other 28 teams try and find the elite QBs or they take one just outside that level and build a running game and defense. I don't think you can argue that guys that are elite or just outside that can win titles.

But you also can't argue that teams with mediocre or worse QBs winning a title are the exception to the rule.

The last 8 SB winners are: GB, NO, Pittsburgh, NYG, Indy, Pittsburgh, NE, NE.

All of them have either elite or borderline elite QBs.

And this is a trend that is ruining the game, IMO. So again, you don't need to throw to win. That is a myth. You need an elite and/or on his way to HOF QB to win.

I am hoping somehow the pendulum begins to swing back the other way.

ETA - The Giants are the exception to the above. IIRC, Manning had a very mediocre year and then was en fuego in the playoffs. That and a super pass rush helped.

[peeker643]

Think we're at a semantics level.

I say you need to throw successfully to win and you say you need an elite QB to win.

What makes that QB elite? First and foremolst they have to throw. Then do everytrhing else (toughness, smarts, athletic, etc).

You can have all those intangibles and be in the bottom half of QBs if you can't throw.

In the modern game Mendenhall complements Ben. It's not the other way around. And there are interchangeable backs in NO, GB and NE around their elite QBs.

If you're making a distinction between great QBs who throw and elite, potential HoFers, I'm not understanding the distinction I guess.

But I don't think we're on different pages and I'm not trying to be adversial, lest anyone believe otherwise

[hiko]

The Steelers have always been a run/defense team, as have the Ravens, as have many of the teams that are now winging it around. Packers obvious exception. They played the "let's build a solid foundation and compete every year and when that special person comes along we'll be ready" game.

You're not saying the Steelers are a run team, are you? Because they haven't been a run first team in about 4-5 years.

I agree that this is making the NFL less fun to watch. But I think we might be in the minority - the dying old guard that appreciates 4 yards and a cloud of dust.

[Triple-S]

Guys who will get you a Ring and are HOFers

Brady
Rodgers
Roethlisberger
Brees

These are the kinds of guys who can make plays under pressure, and you'd trust to lead a 4th quarter drive in the Super Bowl. Like it or not, the rapist is definitly in this and the guy is very Elway-esque. Rodgers could be knocking on the door.

Fantasy All-Stars

Matt Ryan
Phillip Rivers
Matt Schaub
Joe Flacco
Eli Manning*
Tony Romo
Mike Vick

These are the kinds of guys who can win you a Fantasy league title if you're unable to nab the dudes up top. Pretty much they can win you a Division Title and have you knocking at the door to a Super Bowl, but are hampered by one thing or the other to not actually make it (coaching, or sometimes just a slightly less amount of clutch). Maybe they’ll get you a ring, maybe not.

*if this was the 2007-2008 post season, Eli would be in the above group.

NextGen.

Matt Stafford
Cam Newton
Josh Freeman
Sam Bradford
Andy Dalton

If you’ve gotten one of these guys on your roster, expect them to be mention in the first two lists very shortly.
Game Managers/Not Great
Kyle Orton
Jay Cutler
Mark Sanchez
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Matt Cassell
Jason Campbell
Meh. Think Dilfer in 2000, or Shaun King in 99. They are able to manage the game, allowing their defense or surrounding talents to cover up their flaws. This..is Colts ceiling btw. Could win a Super Bowl (Sanchez especially), but you’re stuck in QB purgatory here. Enjoy the 7-9 seasons with the occasional 12-4’s mixed in.

Washed up
Donovan McNabb
Matt Hasselbeck
Carson Palmer
Were likely in one of the above groups, but are now currently mediocreThey may once in a while make you to the playoffs under a fluke season but they’ve got their analyst jobs already lined up at this.

Pull the plug
Alex Smith
Rex Grossman
Chad Henne
Tim Tebow
Colt McCoy
Curtis Painter
Tarvais Jackson/Charlie Whitehurst
If you’re starting one of these guys under center come Sunday it’s time to scout a new QB in next years draft. Alex Smith maybe on his way out of this, but it’s going to take a lot of convincing to erase those 6 years of suck to make it to “Game Manager” label.

[FUDU]

Yeah you need to be able to pass the ball well, down field, often to win in today's game. This list of the 8 most recent SB winners is solid evidence of that, the fact those teams have the upper echelon QBs in the game is no coincidence either.

Pittsburgh is not a running team, not sure they have been since Big Ben's 2nd or 3rd season.

However a semblance of balance is necessary, running the ball effectively when you have to has over taken the quantity of times you can run the ball.

Side note: none of this diminished the importance of an offensive line though.

[HoodooMan]

The NFL Wants the Game to Resemble Madden But the Reality is There Are Not Enough Good QBs to Take Advantage of all of Rule Changes Implemented to Help the Offense Score More Points because Chicks Dig 42-38 Shootouts

To this point...

Defensive points allowed
2011/2010/2009/2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003/2002

1) 14.8/14.5/14.8/13.9/16.4/12.6/12.6/15.7/14.9/12.2
2) 16.2/15.0/15.6/14.6/16.8/14.8/15.4/16.2/16.2/15.1
3) 17.4/16.9/16.3/15.2/16.9/15.9/16.1/16.2/16.3/17.4
4) 17.5/17.9/17.6/18.1/17.1/17.1/16.1/16.3/16.5/18.8

16) 21.9/21.6/20.4/21.9/21.8/20.5/20.3/21.2/20.4/21.6
17) 22.4/21.7/20.8/21.9/21.9/20.7/21.1/21.7/20.5/21.6

29) 26.4/26.7/26.5/27.5/25.9/24.3/26.3/27.2/24.2/26.1
30) 27.0/27.1/26.7/28.0/27.3/24.9/26.8/27.4/26.4/27.6
31) 28.0/27.2/27.2/29.1/27.4/25.0/26.8/27.6/27.6/28.2
32) 31.4/29.4/30.9/32.3/27.8/25.8/26.9/28.2/28.2/28.5

I don't have the issue you have with passing ratios (though I think that the trend will likely one day reverse itself), but I do take issue with the idea that offense in general dominates the game.

It's still possible to have a great defense. It's still possible to contend with a great defense and a less than elite QB. It's still football.

[FUDU]

The NFL Wants the Game to Resemble Madden But the Reality is There Are Not Enough Good QBs to Take Advantage of all of Rule Changes Implemented to Help the Offense Score More Points because Chicks Dig 42-38 Shootouts

To this point...

Defensive points allowed
2011/2010/2009/2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003/2002

1) 14.8/14.5/14.8/13.9/16.4/12.6/12.6/15.7/14.9/12.2
2) 16.2/15.0/15.6/14.6/16.8/14.8/15.4/16.2/16.2/15.1
3) 17.4/16.9/16.3/15.2/16.9/15.9/16.1/16.2/16.3/17.4
4) 17.5/17.9/17.6/18.1/17.1/17.1/16.1/16.3/16.5/18.8

16) 21.9/21.6/20.4/21.9/21.8/20.5/20.3/21.2/20.4/21.6
17) 22.4/21.7/20.8/21.9/21.9/20.7/21.1/21.7/20.5/21.6

29) 26.4/26.7/26.5/27.5/25.9/24.3/26.3/27.2/24.2/26.1
30) 27.0/27.1/26.7/28.0/27.3/24.9/26.8/27.4/26.4/27.6
31) 28.0/27.2/27.2/29.1/27.4/25.0/26.8/27.6/27.6/28.2
32) 31.4/29.4/30.9/32.3/27.8/25.8/26.9/28.2/28.2/28.5

I don't have the issue you have with passing ratios (though I think that the trend will likely one day reverse itself), but I do take issue with the idea that offense in general dominates the game.

It's still possible to have a great defense. It's still possible to contend with a great defense and a less than elite QB. It's still football.

I assume that is a list of the top 4, middle, and worst 4 teams and their relative defensive points given up (over said time frame)? Since you're in the mood to do the work, and I'm not, would you care to put up the same list but with teams names...pretty please with sugar on top.

[hiko]

They played the "let's build a solid foundation and compete every year and when that special person comes along we'll be ready" game.

It seems as if H&H are doing this on the D side of the ball, to their credit. But offensively, we seem to have it backward - let's find our Neo first and then build around him. I know, patience, one side of the ball at a time, Rome, etc.

BTW, and just from I sit after all these years - give me the competitive team that is usually around 10 wins and maybe hits a hot streak into the playoffs as opposed to the team that flails aimlessly about waitng for Godot.

In other words, I am tired of waiting to be the Packers. Give me a fun to watch, physical, competitve team that gets to the playoffs and I'll take my chances from there.

To this point - I think H&H are willing to do this... once they have their system in place. I think they are willing to suffer the growing pains now as they implement what it is they're trying to do so that once it is implemented they can be competent while they wait for their Aaron Rodgers.

It seems like they're flailing around blindly without a plan, but I'd argue this is part of the plan. I doubt they thought the transition would be so sucktacular, but it sure makes the holes glaringly easy to see.

Whether their plan will be successful is highly debatable, but that's my guess as to what it is.

[hiko]

For the record, I think that the following QB's are all good enough to win a SB at some point. Some of them just require more of a supporting cast than others:

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning (both), POS, Flacco, Shaub, Newton, Vick, Rivers, Ryan, Freeman, Stafford, and maybe maybe Ponder.

[mattvan1]

The Steelers have always been a run/defense team, as have the Ravens, as have many of the teams that are now winging it around. Packers obvious exception. They played the "let's build a solid foundation and compete every year and when that special person comes along we'll be ready" game.

You're not saying the Steelers are a run team, are you? Because they haven't been a run first team in about 4-5 years.

I agree that this is making the NFL less fun to watch. But I think we might be in the minority - the dying old guard that appreciates 4 yards and a cloud of dust.

You would be suprised. Last year was pretty much 50%-50%, but I am sure a lot of that depends on the opponent, game situations, etc. What I should have written is that historically the Steelers never wentt away from the ground agme, so it was easier to ease Roethlisberger into the position of being "the man".

[peeker643]

For the record, I think that the following QB's are all good enough to win a SB at some point. Some of them just require more of a supporting cast than others:

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning (both), POS, Flacco, Shaub, Newton, Vick, Rivers, Ryan, Freeman, Stafford, and maybe maybe Ponder.

No Sanchez huh?

[hiko]

For the record, I think that the following QB's are all good enough to win a SB at some point. Some of them just require more of a supporting cast than others:

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning (both), POS, Flacco, Shaub, Newton, Vick, Rivers, Ryan, Freeman, Stafford, and maybe maybe Ponder.

No Sanchez huh?

Nope. Too inconsistent, not talented enough to overcome it.

[HoodooMan]

Since you're in the mood to do the work, and I'm not, would you care to put up the same list but with teams names...pretty please with sugar on top.

No.

(I did it a few weeks ago and just updated the 2011 numbers before posting it. It's pretty easy to look up yourself if you're really that interested. PREVIEW: Baltimore & Pittsburgh both appear several times in the Top 4!!!)

[hiko]

The Steelers have always been a run/defense team, as have the Ravens, as have many of the teams that are now winging it around. Packers obvious exception. They played the "let's build a solid foundation and compete every year and when that special person comes along we'll be ready" game.

You're not saying the Steelers are a run team, are you? Because they haven't been a run first team in about 4-5 years.

I agree that this is making the NFL less fun to watch. But I think we might be in the minority - the dying old guard that appreciates 4 yards and a cloud of dust.

You would be suprised. Last year was pretty much 50%-50%, but I am sure a lot of that depends on the opponent, game situations, etc. What I should have written is that historically the Steelers never wentt away from the ground agme, so it was easier to ease Roethlisberger into the position of being "the man".

I don't buy that for a second. Just because they pad their ratio with a bunch of 3 yard runs or at the end of blowouts doesn't mean they aren't a passing team. I've seen way too much of them to doubt that. When POS took over, they were a run team, and they did ease him into that role. But they're fully intigrated into the downfield passing game now, and if POS were to miss a season (like Manning did), they'd be a 6-7 win team. Mendenhall means "mediocre" in Farsi.

[mattvan1]

They played the "let's build a solid foundation and compete every year and when that special person comes along we'll be ready" game.

It seems as if H&H are doing this on the D side of the ball, to their credit. But offensively, we seem to have it backward - let's find our Neo first and then build around him. I know, patience, one side of the ball at a time, Rome, etc.

BTW, and just from I sit after all these years - give me the competitive team that is usually around 10 wins and maybe hits a hot streak into the playoffs as opposed to the team that flails aimlessly about waitng for Godot.

In other words, I am tired of waiting to be the Packers. Give me a fun to watch, physical, competitve team that gets to the playoffs and I'll take my chances from there.

To this point - I think H&H are willing to do this... once they have their system in place. I think they are willing to suffer the growing pains now as they implement what it is they're trying to do so that once it is implemented they can be competent while they wait for their Aaron Rodgers.

It seems like they're flailing around blindly without a plan, but I'd argue this is part of the plan. I doubt they thought the transition would be so sucktacular, but it sure makes the holes glaringly easy to see.

Whether their plan will be successful is highly debatable, but that's my guess as to what it is.

Good points. And they get props on the D side (Foster and Tate aside) So the crux is - does their system depend on having an elite level QB out of the box? My fear (and I have many irrational fears) is that it does. In other words, we can't put the building blocks of the WCO in place and get a "game manager" to be competent while we wait on "the guy". We have to find the right QB before we start looking respectable at all.

Of course, it's hard to tell with practice squad players and street FAs at RB and all of the other issues the offense is facing. Which is why, from a purely experimental/labratory POV, I would really like to see Wallace for a game or two. Just to see what happens. Not that he is the one, but just to see if we look as bad with him as we do with Colt.

[FUDU]

Since you're in the mood to do the work, and I'm not, would you care to put up the same list but with teams names...pretty please with sugar on top.

No.

(I did it a few weeks ago and just updated the 2011 numbers before posting it. It's pretty easy to look up yourself if you're really that interested. PREVIEW: Baltimore & Pittsburgh both appear several times in the Top 4!!!)

My furthering point was going to be about circumstances and other relative numbers like TOP that all play apart in the very misleading world of all these rankings and stat lists (not that I'm totally discounting stats b/c I AM NOT).

[hiko]

Good points. And they get props on the D side (Foster and Tate aside) So the crux is - does their system depend on having an elite level QB out of the box? My fear (and I have many irrational fears) is that it does. In other words, we can't put the building blocks of the WCO in place and get a "game manager" to be competent while we wait on "the guy". We have to find the right QB before we start looking respectable at all.

Of course, it's hard to tell with practice squad players and street FAs at RB and all of the other issues the offense is facing. Which is why, from a purely experimental/labratory POV, I would really like to see Wallace for a game or two. Just to see what happens. Not that he is the one, but just to see if we look as bad with him as we do with Colt.

Maybe. Most of the WCO offense-ish teams in the NFL have elite-ish QB's.

But I don't see Dalton as elite, and he's been very functional in Cincy's WCO. Is Dalton just that much better than Colt (he certainly looks much calmer in the pocket and throws a better mid-to-deep ball)? Is it that he has a very talented WR? Is it that he has a legit-ish run game? What would Colt look like in Cincy? What would Dalton look like here? What would Colt look like if 2010 Peyton Hillis was on this team?

Too many questions, not enough answers. All hypothetical and projection.

I think it's a combination of many things - almost ALL things - on Offense that is causing this disaster.

[mattvan1]

Too many questions, not enough answers. All hypothetical and projection.

Uh, but isn't that what makes it an interesting discussion?

[swerb]

Good lists Hiko and Hoodoo. Fun reads and hard to argue with much of any of it, based on the play I've seen this year and last.

[Triple-S]

The more I watch highlights of Cam Newton at Auburn (as far as I'm concerned the scam part is forever gone), the more I'm jealous that the Browns don't have a guy like that on their roster.

or just someone with competency for gods sake.

DRAFT. A. FIRST. ROUND. QB. NEXT. YEAR.

[hiko]

Too many questions, not enough answers. All hypothetical and projection.

Uh, but isn't that what makes it an interesting discussion?

Certainly. I was hoping someone would try to answer those questions.

[trsteve1]

Just cause, uh.. why not?
() used in cases where I thought a QB sat between 2 categories


Elite, best of the best, could make the playoffs with scrubs
Rodgers
Brady
Brees
(When healthy) Peyton Manning

A cut above the rest, but just below elite. Good enough to take a good team to the big win, if they get hot, watch out!
Big Ben
Eli Manning
(Romo)

Good numbers, but never seem to put it together in the big game(s)
(Romo)
Rivers
Schaub
Flacco
Cutler
(Vick, last year at least)
(Palmer)

Crafty, able, though much past their best days (or maybe this is as good as they will/can be), veterans
Matt Hasselbeck
Orton
Fitzpatrick
(Palmer)

Young guns on the rise
Stafford
Ryan
Bradford
Freeman (maybe)
(Newton)

Wouldn't they be sweet at WR or RB?
Vick
Newton
Tebow
Young

Isn't good, and never will be
Sanchez
Campbell
Tavaris Jackson
Cassell
Matt Moore
Painter
Grossman
Young

Who knows?
Kolb
Tebow

Too soon to tell, but signs point to maybe?
McCoy
Dalton
Newton
Gabbert
Ponder

[e0y2e3]

Wouldn't they be sweet at WR or RB?
Vick
Newton
Tebow
Young

Too soon to tell, but signs point to maybe?
McCoy
Dalton
Newton
Gabbert
Ponder

HOLY FUCKITTY FUCK.

This forum may need burned down.

[SoulDawg74]

Just cause, uh.. why not?


Too soon to tell, but signs point to maybe?
McCoy
Dalton
Newton
Gabbert
Ponder

SD:

The only signs are the spots spinning in your head.

Gabbert and McCoy aren't fit to fetch Dalton Newtons or even Ponders slippers .

[Triple-S]

Can I hate that ginger kid yet?

Dig Newton though. He's got a future.

Colt will probably win the job by default by the fact we won't have enough losses to nab luck, barkley or rgIII.

SD, what's your thoughts on barkley btw?

[trsteve1]

Last I heard Barkley might stay another year to go for a bowl at USC.

As far as the you's guys disagreeing with me..

w/e..

we'll see who's right in the end (hope it's me).. lol
But that's what makes opinions great!, right?

Newton is clearly VY with accuracy, a better throwing motion and stronger arm, which makes him a force. Once he sheds the rookie mistakes, the Panthers should be a team winning a lot more of those close games.

(had that one wrong, big time, looked too much at the system Newton was coming out of, and its simplicity and not enough at the fact that he was a MASSIVELY talented individual)

[SoulDawg74]

Can I hate that ginger kid yet?

Dig Newton though. He's got a future.

Colt will probably win the job by default by the fact we won't have enough losses to nab luck, barkley or rgIII.

SD, what's your thoughts on barkley btw?

SD:

In our system Barkleys quicker release and accuracy short will be an ideal fit , his deep ball needs work , but thats only because he doesn't get enough practice at it .

Not as physically gifted as Luck , but fits what were doing perfectly , he has been eclipsed IMO by RG3 due to athleticism due to more speed and elusiveness and the best arm of all the candidates , But Barkley is no slouch , and his experience can't be discounted.

Plays big in hostile venues and had to go thru some adversity with the sanctions and become the leader he wasn't .

Comes off as snippy sometimes , Butt you want a little Cock in the walk when it comes to those guys.


SoulDawg

[e0y2e3]

^ I agree with all of this, almost word for word. Kill. Me.