You Add Any Two of the Following...

[djs7685]

(07-25-2015, 09:23 AM)Joe Pong Wrote: I wouldn't take another QB, since we already have a top 5 QB. And if I could take any head coach in the NFL, I'd take Marvin Lewis.

So I guess I'll have to think through the other options.

[BengalChris]

(07-24-2015, 02:01 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You can choose TWO of the following additions to this team.  Whatcha got?

-A top 5-10 range QB.  (However you define and rank this.)
-Any offensive player from any other team, outside of QB.
-Any defensive player ever.  In the history of the league.
-Any Bengals great that's not a QB.  Ever.  Whoever you like.
-Any current NFL coach.
-Yourself.  You're paid your current salary for whatever you do.  But you get to experience being part of the team for one full year.
-Turd Furgeson.

Make your picks, and please name your hypothetical choice.  Hopefully this is a little fun, just trying to create some talking points.

-Any offensive player from any other team, outside of QB.  Dez Bryant
-Any current NFL coach. Bill Belichick

We'd win multiple SBs over next 5 years. Belichick wouldn't hesitate to dump Dalton if he played poorly, so that would take care of that problem all by itself.

[BengalChris]

(07-25-2015, 09:23 AM)Joe Pong Wrote: I wouldn't take another QB, since we already have a top 5 QB. And if I could take any head coach in the NFL, I'd take Marvin Lewis.

So I guess I'll have to think through the other options.

I believe that you will change your mind on that if you were to actually watch a few games.

[Lawless_1]

I don't want Belichick because he would not get away with some of the sneaky things he does in Cincinnati.

It would tarnish any success we achieved.

[BonnieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 03:12 AM)Lawless_1 Wrote: I don't want Belichick because he would not get away with some of the sneaky things he does in Cincinnati.

It would tarnish any success we achieved.

So true.

[Stewy]

(07-24-2015, 04:18 PM)Stewy Wrote: Andrew Luck as QB
Mike Singletary on Defense

(07-24-2015, 07:06 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: He said a 5-10 range QB, not the second best in the league.

Lemme get Philip Rivers and Bill Belichek

I answered the question appropriately and in the sprit of the game as it was stated to be played n the original rules.

You changed the rules to suit your answer and perception of what the game should have been.  Thus your opinion doesn't matter.  Trying staying with in the rules of the game or go start your own game.

[djs7685]

(07-27-2015, 12:50 PM)Stewy Wrote: I answered the question appropriately and in the sprit of the game as it was stated to be played n the original rules.

You changed the rules to suit your answer and perception of what the game should have been.  Thus your opinion doesn't matter.  Trying staying with in the rules of the game or go start your own game.

He did stay in the rules of the game.

-A top 5-10 range QB. (However you define and rank this.)

-Any current NFL coach.

Philip Rivers is a consensus 5-10 QB
Bill Belichick is a current NFL coach

If you're just poo-pooing on him poo-pooing on your selection of Andrew Luck, that's fine, but it doesn't make someone's opinion invalidated just because they feel Andrew Luck doesn't fit the criteria. I bet you'd find many, many more people that would agree with him that Luck is top 4.

Toast did originally state "however you define and rank this", but don't be surprised when somebody doesn't agree with your assessment of a top QB in the league.

[Hoofhearted]

(07-24-2015, 02:01 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You can choose TWO of the following additions to this team.  Whatcha got?

-A top 5-10 range QB.  (However you define and rank this.)
-Any offensive player from any other team, outside of QB.
-Any defensive player ever.  In the history of the league.
-Any Bengals great that's not a QB.  Ever.  Whoever you like.
-Any current NFL coach.
-Yourself.  You're paid your current salary for whatever you do.  But you get to experience being part of the team for one full year.
-Turd Furgeson.

Make your picks, and please name your hypothetical choice.  Hopefully this is a little fun, just trying to create some talking points.

-A top 5-10 range QB.  (However you define and rank this.) 

Phillip Rivers.

Any current NFL coach.

Give me Mike McCarthy. 

[TSwigZ]

Let me get Rivers and Megatron

[Bengalfan11164]

Conceptually, I can't conclude any alternative than adding a great coach and a great qb.

The bengals have already had a top tier defense and haven't been able to win a playoff game.

Middling qb and middling hc getting upgraded would result in the most consistent and long term success.

[Shake n Blake]

(07-27-2015, 01:12 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Toast did originally state "however you define and rank this", but don't be surprised when somebody doesn't agree with your assessment of a top QB in the league.

Toast said "A top 5-10 range QB. (However you define and rank this.)"

I don't think most NFL fans view Luck as top 4 QB yet. 

Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Drew Brees

Those are still the big 4 for now. They all have rings and they've all been elite for years. Luck is well on his way, but he still turns the ball over a lot (16 int's + league high 13 fumbles) and he doesn't have the ring yet. He's never had a completion % higher than 61.7. To me, he's just outside the top 4, in the same group as Rivers, Ben and Romo.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-27-2015, 04:17 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Toast said "A top 5-10 range QB. (However you define and rank this.)"

I don't think most NFL fans view Luck as top 4 QB yet. 

Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Drew Brees

Those are still the big 4 for now. They all have rings and they've all been elite for years. Luck is well on his way, but he still turns the ball over a lot (16 int's + league high 13 fumbles) and he doesn't have the ring yet. He's never had a completion % higher than 61.7. To me, he's just outside the top 4, in the same group as Rivers, Ben and Romo.

I agree.
I think Luck is the "next man up" in terms of elite QBs.
Putting him in there now seems more about what you expect from him. 

[djs7685]

(07-27-2015, 04:17 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Toast said "A top 5-10 range QB. (However you define and rank this.)"

I don't think most NFL fans view Luck as top 4 QB yet. 

(07-27-2015, 04:25 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I agree.
I think Luck is the "next man up" in terms of elite QBs.
Putting him in there now seems more about what you expect from him. 

I don't know, I'm pretty sure Luck cemented his spot with the "elite" in 2014.

That team is pretty much the Andrew Luck show, they're really not talented outside of a few spots, and he keeps them in contention almost by himself at times. Not many live up to the hype, but he definitely has. Numbers aside, watch the kid play and you see one of the best in the game without question.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-27-2015, 04:31 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I don't know, I'm pretty sure Luck cemented his spot with the "elite" in 2014.

That team is pretty much the Andrew Luck show, they're really not talented outside of a few spots, and he keeps them in contention almost by himself at times. Not many live up to the hype, but he definitely has. Numbers aside, watch the kid play and you see one of the best in the game without question.

He has to cut down on the turnovers to be elite.

Elite has to be something incredibly hard to do or else the word loses meaning.
He is very very good.
But he had 22 turnovers last year. (16 INT and 6 fumbles)
We all get on Dalton for his turnovers. 
Dalton had 23 in 2013. 21 last year. 

That's too many. If it's too many for him, it's too many for Luck.
Luck is by far the better player. But he still has to show he can cut down on the turnovers before he's elite. 

He's going to have pretty high numbers regardless because he will be a volume thrower, but it needs cut down. 

[Shake n Blake]

(07-27-2015, 04:31 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I don't know, I'm pretty sure Luck cemented his spot with the "elite" in 2014.

That team is pretty much the Andrew Luck show, they're really not talented outside of a few spots, and he keeps them in contention almost by himself at times. Not many live up to the hype, but he definitely has. Numbers aside, watch the kid play and you see one of the best in the game without question.

I've watched him play plenty of times. He has elite ability and it shows most of the time, no question. He also had a combined 29 int's and fumbles (16 int's, 13 fumbles - 6 lost). When you watch the games, these turnovers actually did happen, believe it or not. 

He was 7th in passer rating last year, behind each of the 4 guys I mentioned. He'll be top 4 soon. Maybe this year. I just can't put him ahead of Peyton/Rodgers/Brady/Brees yet. Not when those guys are still playing at the highest level, and have proven more in the playoffs. They also turn the ball over less.

[PlayerFormerlyKnownAsMousecop]

(07-27-2015, 04:17 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Toast said "A top 5-10 range QB. (However you define and rank this.)"

I don't think most NFL fans view Luck as top 4 QB yet. 

Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Drew Brees

Those are still the big 4 for now. They all have rings and they've all been elite for years. Luck is well on his way, but he still turns the ball over a lot (16 int's + league high 13 fumbles) and he doesn't have the ring yet. He's never had a completion % higher than 61.7. To me, he's just outside the top 4, in the same group as Rivers, Ben and Romo.

Agreed. Will need to see Andrew Luck dominate in regular season and playoffs plus carry his team in order to let him into the top 5.

[djs7685]

I don't understand some of the things people are bringing up to belittle one of the top QBs in the league.

The fumbles, okay, well sorry but every team can't have an excellent line that keeps the QB clean. He also had some of those while rushing, which happens. I'm not saying a high amount is acceptable, but fumbles do happen in the NFL when a QB gets hit. I like how his fumbles were mentioned but his rushing YPC and TDs weren't. Interesting.

Luck's receivers led the league in dropped passes last year. His o line sucks, run game is awful, receivers outside of Hilton are washed up has beens or no names, their defense wasn't anything special, yet people want to say Luck didn't carry his team enough?! If anything, he carried his team more than any QB in the league in recent memory. This team was a dumpster fire pre-Luck, and he just led them to a conference championship game.

He has a comparable arm to Brees, brain to Manning, leadership to Brady, and athleticism to Rodgers. No, he's not perfect and I'm not saying his attributes are exactly those guys, but he has comparable attributes of those elite players all in one guy. This kid is something that we haven't seen as football fans in a VERY long time, and I'm not so sure why people are quick to cut him down.

Guys like Andy, Stafford, and Cutler have problems that start with INTs. Luck's problems start AND end at INTs. And excuse me, but if a guy is going to account for 5,000 yards from scrimmage and 43 TDs, I think he's excused to throw 16 picks in a season. Get back to me when it's normal for such a "non elite" QB to immediately turn a dumpster fire team into a contender and put up those numbers on the way.

If passer rating is telling most of the story, someone needs to tell Tom Brady he can't be considered elite since he didn't hit Luck's mediocre 2014 rating a whopping 9 times in his Hall of Fame career.

Honestly, just put that goofy, nerdy neckbeard's name on the ballot now. I couldn't care less if a handful of people on a Bengals message board can't see that Andrew is a superstar, this is possibly a once in a generation type of player, and we're all lucky as football fans to get to watch him do his thing on the field.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(07-27-2015, 09:38 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I don't understand some of the things people are bringing up to belittle one of the top QBs in the league.

I stopped reading after that. 
No one is belittling him.
Everyone is pretty unanimously saying he's top 10 and the next elite QB but he isn't there yet. 

How is that belittling? 

[*bfine32*]

My $0.02 on Luck. I have him at #3 and there are a number of sites (ESPN, MSN, MMQB) that concur. I also think I have seen him as low as 6. If criteria was to start a franchise today i would only take Rogers ahead of him. FWIW. I'd take Big Ben over Manning or Brees.

So I don't think anyone is wrong for having him inside of or outside of the top 4. IMO he's inside.

[djs7685]

(07-27-2015, 10:03 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I stopped reading after that. 
No one is belittling him.
Everyone is pretty unanimously saying he's top 10 and the next elite QB but he isn't there yet. 

How is that belittling? 

That's belittling to someone of Luck's caliber.

It would be like saying Tiger Woods in his prime was "pretty good" or something along those lines. Everything is relative. Being top 10 and the next elite QB is a great accomplishment for most QBs, but it's borderline insulting to a guy that's clearly ahead of almost all of his peers.

If you asked me if I'd rather have Luck or Brady, Manning, or Brees for a single year or career or any amount of time, you probably wouldn't like my answer, but I'd bet it would go along with a lot more NFL owners, GMs, and coaches than you may want to believe.

Luck isn't just the future, he's the present too. Peyton Manning is my favorite player in the NFL (fun fact of the day) and I'm a huge Brady fanboy too. I don't even really like Luck, but I believe Andrew is probably the best in the league right now other than Aaron Rodgers, and I don't even know how wide that gap is to be perfectly honest.