(07-27-2018, 10:02 AM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness Jimmy G went 2-0 with a Patriots team and was dismissed as being on a team anyone can win with and then he went to an 0-8 team that was on a 2-22 streak and won all 5 remaining games.  Small sample size, but that's a pretty impressive feat.  If we would have traded McCarron to the Browns midseason and he won every remaining game with that crap squad I bet we'd be kicking ourselves (regardless if it's the right or wrong thing to do).

I'll also say this whole "judging a QB based on a small sample size" fear we have going right now is interesting since Nick Foles went from a backup, to a one-year-wonder, to a backup, to a SB MVP everyone wants.  I'll admit when Foles had that great season with the Eagles I asked my friend who is a Giants fan if he was dreading a rival having a youthful and successful QB and he said he wasn't worried until he did it more than once.  Well, Foles fizzled out and I had to admit he was right.  Now here we are again where he was wrong...or something.  Who knows.  

Don't get it twisted, I like Jimmy G and defended the 49ers for giving up what they did even before Jimmy took a snap for them. That said, as much as I like him, I realize that 4-5 games have fooled a lot of people in the past. There were already reports of him struggling in mini-camp. Take that for what it's worth, but we just don't know how it will go.

Some QB's have strung together entire seasons where they looked like future legends (think RGIII, Preskott, Josh Freeman, etc), only to come crashing down. In short, I have no issue with optimism for Jimmy G...but ranking him 13th based on a small handful of games? Lets see him run that back for an entire season first.

Do folks really think these guys should put young QB behind more established QBs just because they don't have experience/

Should Flacco be above Wentz?

Should Bortles be above Watson?

Should McCown be above Goff?

Should Tannehill be above Jimmy G?

The only thing you can do is rank them where you see them based on the sample size provided. I "need to see more" is a poor excuse to drop someone in rankings. For every RGIII there's a BenRothlesberger

(07-27-2018, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do folks really think these guys should put young QB behind more established QBs just because they don't have experience/

Should Flacco be above Wentz?

Should Bortles be above Watson?

Should McCown be above Goff?

Should Tannehill be above Jimmy G?

The only thing you can do is rank them where you see them based on the sample size provided. I "need to see more" is a poor excuse to drop someone in rankings. For every RGIII there's a BenRothlesberger

Should Watson and Jimmy be above Cousins, A.Smith, Goff and Winston? 

"I need to see more" is not a poor excuse. Why do you think rookies go unranked?

(07-25-2018, 10:52 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: This is plain ignorant.  Making these statements generically! ?

If a QB takes a team to a SB and doesn't win, it's the QB's fault??

LOL (Matt Ryan responding to generic ignorance)

Wait .... it's been 7 years now of ad nauseam Dalton criticism, and I stated I wouldn't get baited into anymore foolishness!

My brother, maybe the concept is too much for you to comprehend but I will try again.

Marino - "One of the greatest QBs to never win a SB."

One of his achievements was taking his team to the SB and going to the playoffs 10 times in which the words "leading" are used.  He is credited for being the sole reason for Miami making the postseason and even going to the SB.  Yet he never won a SB.  To which his supporters will be quick to defend his failure on the other guys on the team.  One minute he is praised as being the sole reason for Miami's success then is excluded from any criticism for Miami's failure to win the SB.

This is the reverse of what Dalton receives (which I only used him as a contrast to Marino and not trying to debate one way or another on Dalton), in which Dalton is never given credit for the success of the Bengals but is solely blamed for the team's failure.

I don't buy any of it for a minute.  In reality a QB is only one part of the puzzle to finding success, it is a team game, and there has to be 1 winner and 1 loser.  The plays called, the system, the players and even luck have a lot to do with the team's success.  Granted there are some QBs that can throw the ball better than others, some can read the defense better than others and some can put on a great show.  However none of those things really matter when you look at the whole picture.

Going back to Dalton.  If he throws the ball to AJ and AJ doesn't catch it and the ball is INT, then Dalton is criticized for forcing the ball to AJ.  If Dalton spreads the ball around and AJ only has 5 targets and we lose the game then Dalton is criticized for not going to his playmaker enough.  Yet game plan may dictate who is given the ball, AJ may not be AJ in this game and the ball bounces out of his hands (Ahem, Bills game) and lands in the hands of the defender.  These things happen and the QB isn't the sole reason for success or failure and to say otherwise is ignorant.

(07-27-2018, 04:45 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Don't get it twisted, I like Jimmy G and defended the 49ers for giving up what they did even before Jimmy took a snap for them. That said, as much as I like him, I realize that 4-5 games have fooled a lot of people in the past. There were already reports of him struggling in mini-camp. Take that for what it's worth, but we just don't know how it will go.

Some QB's have strung together entire seasons where they looked like future legends (think RGIII, Preskott, Josh Freeman, etc), only to come crashing down. In short, I have no issue with optimism for Jimmy G...but ranking him 13th based on a small handful of games? Lets see him run that back for an entire season first.

I hear ya, it's just that the Eagles won the SB with a 2nd year QB we didn't know about, a backup QB who was a one year wonder and almost out of the league, and a HC who had only been a HC for a year prior.  That's a whole lot of "Gee, we just don't have enough info on these guys to make a decision" at two key positions in the organization.  The Rams made a significant splash with a similar approach, as well.  Now you have other teams looking to follow the leader and mimic that successful template.

Football is like the stock market.  Anyone can look at a booming brand and say "Gee, that looks like a good investment" but the key to really cashing in is to be able to see what a brand is doing BEFORE it hits it big and invest on the calculated risk that you are getting in on the ground floor before it goes up up and away.  

So we also have Marvin Lewis saying things like "Who saw the Eagles winning the SB?" which is a hoot coming from an organization that has kept him employed for a generation or so.  The Eagles saw the Eagles winning the SB, Marvin.  They saw Carson Wentz when the Browns didn't, they saw Doug Pederson as a HC from the Reid tree, they saw Nick Foles as a legit QB when the Rams and Chiefs were sure he was done, and so on.

Again, if we are too dead-set on putting the unknowns at the bottom of the list we may as well be ranking the 2015 QBs instead of the 2018 ones.  Come on, we aren't betting our lives on these guys...take a fake risk!

(07-27-2018, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The only thing you can do is rank them where you see them based on the sample size provided. I "need to see more" is a poor excuse to drop someone in rankings. For every RGIII there's a BenRothlesberger

McCarron is gone.  Let it go.

(07-28-2018, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: McCarron is gone.  Let it go.

Well I never suggested AJM should take Andy's job, so I'm not sure what I should let go. But as to my point; which you chose not to address. What do you do if a QB sets the world on fire his first year or 2? But him behind mediocre starters because of limited snaps? It's not a lifetime achievement award. 

(07-27-2018, 05:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Should Watson and Jimmy be above Cousins, A.Smith, Goff and Winston? 

"I need to see more" is not a poor excuse. Why do you think rookies go unranked?

Rookies go unranked because there's a difference between limited play and no play. For instance Mahomes is the QB with the least experience on the list and he's listed as 31st. Is he the 31st best QB in the league; most likely not, but they have NOTHING to go one. As to the others they have something to go on. 

It's not a conspiracy; it's simply where 50 experts ranked them. 

(07-28-2018, 03:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  It's not a lifetime achievement award. 

Actually yes it is.

Unless you are ready to say that you would bench Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, or Drew Brees for Deshaun Watson.

(07-28-2018, 09:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually yes it is.

Unless you are ready to say that you would bench Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, or Drew Brees for Deshaun Watson.

Actually it's not. The 3 you mentioned are rightly ranked ahead of Watson by the committee; so I'm not sure the point you were failing to make. 

(07-28-2018, 09:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually it's not. The 3 you mentioned are rightly ranked ahead of Watson by the committee; so I'm not sure the point you were failing to make. 

My point is that they are ranked ahead of him because career numbers are more important than a small sample size.

If sample size did not matter you would have to rank Watson ahead of those guys.

(07-28-2018, 08:36 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I hear ya, it's just that the Eagles won the SB with a 2nd year QB we didn't know about, a backup QB who was a one year wonder and almost out of the league, and a HC who had only been a HC for a year prior.  That's a whole lot of "Gee, we just don't have enough info on these guys to make a decision" at two key positions in the organization.  The Rams made a significant splash with a similar approach, as well.  Now you have other teams looking to follow the leader and mimic that successful template.

Football is like the stock market.  Anyone can look at a booming brand and say "Gee, that looks like a good investment" but the key to really cashing in is to be able to see what a brand is doing BEFORE it hits it big and invest on the calculated risk that you are getting in on the ground floor before it goes up up and away.  

So we also have Marvin Lewis saying things like "Who saw the Eagles winning the SB?" which is a hoot coming from an organization that has kept him employed for a generation or so.  The Eagles saw the Eagles winning the SB, Marvin.  They saw Carson Wentz when the Browns didn't, they saw Doug Pederson as a HC from the Reid tree, they saw Nick Foles as a legit QB when the Rams and Chiefs were sure he was done, and so on.

Again, if we are too dead-set on putting the unknowns at the bottom of the list we may as well be ranking the 2015 QBs instead of the 2018 ones.  Come on, we aren't betting our lives on these guys...take a fake risk!

Foles is just more proof that you shouldn't list a guy around top 10 based on a 5-6 games. Even after that SB run, no one is going to say Foles is a top QB...because we've seen enough to know better. Experts were already "fooled once" on Foles back in 2013, so they learned their lesson on him...but they still get caught up in hyping the latest flavors of the month. 

I guess I can see why, honestly. It's good for business. Fans like hearing about new talent. Jimmy Garapolololol is/was a great story. His first TD pass as a niner was scarily similar to Joe Montana to Dwight Clark. I guess I'm not so much bashing writers for doing what they do. I'm just saying I don't get caught up in hype immediately. 

(07-28-2018, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Rookies go unranked because there's a difference between limited play and no play. For instance Mahomes is the QB with the least experience on the list and he's listed as 31st. Is he the 31st best QB in the league; most likely not, but they have NOTHING to go one. As to the others they have something to go on. 

It's not a conspiracy; it's simply where 50 experts ranked them. 

They have "something" to go on, but 7 games isn't enough IMO. Not enough to justify a 13th ranking over some very good and very proven QB's. There's really nothing to debate here, as this is just my opinion. Obviously you think 7 games is enough proof. It's all subjective. 

(07-28-2018, 11:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My point is that they are ranked ahead of him because career numbers are more important than a small sample size.

If sample size did not matter you would have to rank Watson ahead of those guys.

They are ranked ahead of him because they are among the greatest of all time. Of course sample size matters; it just doesn't automatically put you ahead of the younger players simply because you've been around.

You still didn't answer any of these questions:

Should Flacco be above Wentz?


Should Bortles be above Watson?

Should McCown be above Goff?

Should Tannehill be above Jimmy G?


I will assume your answer is yes because of sample size. 

(07-29-2018, 12:20 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote:  


They have "something" to go on, but 7 games isn't enough IMO. Not enough to justify a 13th ranking over some very good and very proven QB's. There's really nothing to debate here, as this is just my opinion. Obviously you think 7 games is enough proof. It's all subjective. 

Actually it wasn't me it was 50 experts in the game. I think Andy ranked a little low in this poll, but I do not dismiss the young QBs just because they are young.

Who's a better RB:
Leonard Fornette or Lamar Miller

Who's a better CB:
Jalen Ramsey or Jimmy Smith

Who's a better DE:
Joey Bosa or Olivier Vernon

All the experienced players I listed have proven to be every bit as good at their position as Andy is at his. Of course it's subjective; unfortunately, it's not always objective.  



 

(07-29-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually it wasn't me it was 50 experts in the game. I think Andy ranked a little low in this poll, but I do not dismiss the young QBs just because they are young.

Who's a better RB:
Leonard Fornette or Lamar Miller

Who's a better CB:
Jalen Ramsey or Jimmy Smith

Who's a better DE:
Joey Bosa or Olivier Vernon

All the experienced players I listed have proven to be every bit as good at their position as Andy is at his. Of course it's subjective; unfortunately, it's not always objective.  

It's not so much "dismissing" the inexperienced guys as it is not disrespecting quality proven guys ahead of them. 

Two of your examples (Bosa and Ramsey) have put in 2 great years. I'd say it's pretty established that they aren't 1 year (or 7 game) wonders. I'm not sure what to make of a Lamar Miller comparison to Dalton. I do know that Lamar (1) never made a pro bowl, (b) he's been part of 1 playoff team (3) hasn't set any franchise records for his teams and (4) was viewed as somewhat of a disappointment in Miami.

Who is the better QB (since we're talking about QB's)?

Kirk Cousins or Jimmy G?
Alex Smith or Deshaun Watson?
Ryan Tannehill or Case Keenum? (Keenum has a bit of experience, but last season came out of nowhere)

It's funny though, the same list gives too much respect to certain vets:

Eli 17th - ahead of Jared Goff and Dak Prescott
Flacco 23rd - ahead of Keenum (Flacco should be closer to the bottom...the guy has been dung for 2-3 years now)

(07-29-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote:
Actually it wasn't me it was 50 experts in the game. I think Andy ranked a little low in this poll, but I do not dismiss the young QBs just because they are young.

Who's a better RB:
Leonard Fornette or Lamar Miller

Who's a better CB:
Jalen Ramsey or Jimmy Smith

Who's a better DE:
Joey Bosa or Olivier Vernon

All the experienced players I listed have proven to be every bit as good at their position as Andy is at his. Of course it's subjective; unfortunately, it's not always objective.  



 

Ok, BFine, you're a great provocateur and I usually agree with you on a lot of things.  However, I think you are putting to much stock in this "expert" thing.

These NFL experts are wrong all the time.

32 teams, that is owners, GMs, scouts, HCs and so on did not have Tom Brady as a 1st round QB.  They didn't even have him as a 2nd round or 3rd round. 

At least one team had Chad Pennington listed as better than Tom Brady and so did other teams that took a QB before his selection.

In reverse there were many teams that gushed over Ryan Leif, Jamarcus Russell and RGIII.  Some people were enamored with Brady Quinn and didn't know why he fell so far.  Others passed on Aaron Rodgers.

Now these same people that claim that Prince Amukamara would be a shut down CB is telling us that DeShaun Watson is going to be the next HoF based off of a 7 game stretch.  Yes Watson will put on a show, but it is a little early to rank him ahead of a guy that has won 2 SBs.

I remember Dak getting similar love after his rookie season.  Now he is ranked lower.

Wentz does have good sample size and I can see why some are quick to anoint him but face it, the Eagles didn't miss a beat when he went out.  The NFL was already doing "What if" stories on the Eagles had Wentz stayed healthy, yet they weren't needed as Foles; a guy that isn't even on this list and is not considered a good QB, was a SB MVP with the same team.  So Wentz could just be a mediocre QB that is in the right place at the right time, just like Matt Cassell

(07-29-2018, 11:51 AM)YsCascadia Wrote: Ok, BFine, you're a great provocateur and I usually agree with you on a lot of things.  However, I think you are putting to much stock in this "expert" thing.

These NFL experts are wrong all the time.

32 teams, that is owners, GMs, scouts, HCs and so on did not have Tom Brady as a 1st round QB.  They didn't even have him as a 2nd round or 3rd round. 

At least one team had Chad Pennington listed as better than Tom Brady and so did other teams that took a QB before his selection.

In reverse there were many teams that gushed over Ryan Leif, Jamarcus Russell and RGIII.  Some people were enamored with Brady Quinn and didn't know why he fell so far.  Others passed on Aaron Rodgers.

Now these same people that claim that Prince Amukamara would be a shut down CB is telling us that DeShaun Watson is going to be the next HoF based off of a 7 game stretch.  Yes Watson will put on a show, but it is a little early to rank him ahead of a guy that has won 2 SBs.

I remember Dak getting similar love after his rookie season.  Now he is ranked lower.

Wentz does have good sample size and I can see why some are quick to anoint him but face it, the Eagles didn't miss a beat when he went out.  The NFL was already doing "What if" stories on the Eagles had Wentz stayed healthy, yet they weren't needed as Foles; a guy that isn't even on this list and is not considered a good QB, was a SB MVP with the same team.  So Wentz could just be a mediocre QB that is in the right place at the right time, just like Matt Cassell

Of course they're wrong all the time, just as are folks that put Andy top 10. If they were never wrong they'd be billionaires. It's simply my assessment that they have more credibility than fans on a message board.

Hell, I think Andy's ranked a little low and I hope he's the #1 ranked QB in the NFL this year, but I cannot dismiss potential simply because it is young. 

Folks keep bringing up DeShaun Watson. This question is for the board: You are GM of the new expansion Louisville Racers. You get to pick a QB who do you take Andy or DeShaun? 

(07-29-2018, 12:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually it wasn't me it was 50 experts in the game. I think Andy ranked a little low in this poll, but I do not dismiss the young QBs just because they are young.

Who's a better RB:
Leonard Fornette or Lamar Miller

Who's a better CB:
Jalen Ramsey or Jimmy Smith

Who's a better DE:
Joey Bosa or Olivier Vernon

All the experienced players I listed have proven to be every bit as good at their position as Andy is at his. Of course it's subjective; unfortunately, it's not always objective.  



 

Befine I get what you're saying and agree with a lot, however, It's not dismissing a QB because he's young. That's a bit of a twist of the argument on your part.

I don't think anybody who watches football "dismisses" Jimmy G's potential, but at this point it's still just potential. You can't rank a QB young, old, in the middle, tall, fat, short, or whatever else in 13th place over proven with years of experience vets.

Now if he had a couple seasons under his belt it would be different. 7 games doe not make a rank of 13 in my book.

If you had a rookie LF in baseball who was a career 15-20 HR hitter with only average RBI's and he hit a HR in his first Major League at bat would you move your veteran producing hitter out of clean up and put him in ?

(07-29-2018, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they're wrong all the time, just as are folks that put Andy top 10. If they were never wrong they'd be billionaires. It's simply my assessment that they have more credibility than fans on a message board.

Hell, I think Andy's ranked a little low and I hope he's the #1 ranked QB in the NFL this year, but I cannot dismiss potential simply because it is young. 

Folks keep bringing up DeShaun Watson. This question is for the board: You are GM of the new expansion Louisville Racers. You get to pick a QB who do you take Andy or DeShaun? 

If I get Andy at 22 years old, I'm taking Andy. The guy has proven that he can lead a team to the playoffs consistently and play at a high level. Not to mention he's an iron man of the position while Watson sustained a major injury after only 5 starts.

(07-29-2018, 12:50 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Befine I get what you're saying and agree with a lot, however, It's not dismissing a QB because he's young. That's a bit of a twist of the argument on your part.

I don't think anybody who watches football "dismisses" Jimmy G's potential, but at this point it's still just potential. You can't rank a QB young, old, in the middle, tall, fat, short, or whatever else in 13th place over proven with years of experience vets.

Now if he had a couple seasons under his belt it would be different. 7 games doe not make a rank of 13 in my book.

If you had a rookie LF in baseball who was a career 15-20 HR hitter with only average RBI's and he hit a HR in his first Major League at bat would you move your veteran producing hitter out of clean up and put him in ?

Bingo. 

(07-29-2018, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they're wrong all the time, just as are folks that put Andy top 10. If they were never wrong they'd be billionaires. It's simply my assessment that they have more credibility than fans on a message board.

Hell, I think Andy's ranked a little low and I hope he's the #1 ranked QB in the NFL this year, but I cannot dismiss potential simply because it is young. 

Folks keep bringing up DeShaun Watson. This question is for the board: You are GM of the new expansion Louisville Racers. You get to pick a QB who do you take Andy or DeShaun? 

Andy - not even a hesitation.  I don't like Watson.  Don't think he is a good or even mediocre QB.  However, I could be wrong. 

Based off of what I have seen, he has been the recipient of some lucky breaks.  Especially in his game against us last season.  Hopkins didn't catch that ball and it was upheld for some reason after it clearly moves while in contact with the ground.  Then on his long run, there was definitely holding and I also saw what looked like illegal blocking downfield, yet nothing from the refs.

Andy has had better stretches and for longer periods.  I know he can throw the ball and that he is accurate.  I do think he struggles fully letting the defense open up and taking what it gives him, but outside of a few QBs, this is something many struggle with, especially Ben.

Now Andy can run and get the 1st down, but we don't use him as a running QB.  Watson on the other hand is a running QB that they let pass the ball from time to time.  I have mentioned this before, but this gimmick QB is great for putting on a show, but not one that I would entrust my franchise to.

All it takes is a defender that isn't worried about the fine, suspension or retribution from the league to launch as hard as he can, even if it is a dirty shot and knock your shiny new QB into the dirt.  If the QB isn't injured or taken out for the rest of the game, he will at least think twice about taking off and running, especially when he plays that defender.