Are OV and JPP

as a pair ...unless JJ Watt and Crowley have good years. Then we'd be the second best.

Which probably costs him at least 2-3 sacks. Vernon was great all year so I don't want to make excuses but the hand injury couldn't have helped early on.

Vernon:
Vs. NFC East
Games: 6
Sacks: 2
Vs. Others
Games: 11
Sacks: 6.5

Pierre-Paul
Vs. NFC East
Games: 3
Sacks: 1
Vs. Others
Games: 9
Sacks: 6

for their division foes strengths.

It's primarily why out of division games can be unpredictable.

You play in a division w/the Giants? Better do something to protect your QB, or you're going to get ripped apart twice a year.

if you want to cite the hand reason as the reason, fine. But it's not accurate to call him "great all year." He was for instance dreadful - not bad, but dreadful - vs the Packers week 5.

And both are the very best DE's vs the Run.

which did not help, but this is arguably the best 2-way pair in the league.

I think JPP missed 3 NFC East games last season if I'm not mistaken.

We played Dallas @ home (Okwara game), @ Philly and @ Washington down the stretch without JPP.

As noted, there are some top tackles in this division, none better than Tyron Smith who will be a HOF lock when hangs them up and JPP has given him plenty of trouble in their one on one matchups through the years.

In comment 13552470 Overseer said:

Quote:

if you want to cite the hand reason as the reason, fine. But it's not accurate to call him "great all year." He was for instance dreadful - not bad, but dreadful - vs the Packers week 5.

Minus jack rabbit who wasnt dreadful vs the packers.. Vernon made the all pro team for a reason pal.

OV lead the entire NFL in hurries and total pressures.....while being dominate vs the run.

sacks are not the only measurement

In comment 13552470 Overseer said:

Quote:

if you want to cite the hand reason as the reason, fine. But it's not accurate to call him "great all year." He was for instance dreadful - not bad, but dreadful - vs the Packers week 5.

Tough crowd. If we are going with one or two bad games at the standard, there's not a player in the NFL who had a great season

with a shattered hand for a decent chunk of the season is pretty damn good.

In comment 13552462 grizz299 said:

Quote:

as a pair ...unless JJ Watt and Crowley have good years. Then we'd be the second best.

Clowney, ffs. He was only the first overall pick in the draft.

Vernon and Pierre-Paul combined for 8.5 sacks in those two games. Vernon added two more the next week against Pittsburgh.

Just for perspective: Eli Manning was sacked less than the other three starting QBs in the East, despite throwing far more passes than Prescott and about the same number as Cousins and Wentz. Would it be fair to say pass-rushers in the division had their numbers curbed by having to face Ereck Flowers, Bobby Hart and company twice?

he was not great for a good chunk of the season, especially vs Green Bay. And especially rushing the passer. The accolades were clearly carried by the 2nd half.

Likely because of the hand, granted. But we don't need to pretend he had a season he didn't.

Healthy in 2017, such a characterization ("all year") will likely be accurate.

In comment 13552493 Overseer said:

Quote:

he was not great for a good chunk of the season, especially vs Green Bay. And especially rushing the passer. The accolades were clearly carried by the 2nd half. Likely because of the hand, granted. But we don't need to pretend he had a season he didn't. Healthy in 2017, such a characterization ("all year") will likely be accurate.

Wtf? Vernon was voted 2nd team All Pro, lol. So, who's pretending at this point?

Your numbers are what they are.

Cleveland sent 2 o-lineman to the Pro Bowl last season including a guy named Joe Thomas, not chopped liver.

The pressure from our d-line basically saved both of those games against inferior competition in the middle of the season. I'm not sure why we want to take that away from them?

to make a point. He was solid. He was disruptive later in the season, but he was solid early on. He was never dreadful.

wrote he was dreadful vs Green Bay, which he was.

I remember thinking during/after that game..."uh, $85 million for this guy?", thoughts which were duly negated once news of the injury came out.

His overall great season was overwhelmingly due to the ~2nd half of it.

from being absolutely dreadful in the Packers game to being "not great for a good chunk of the season", even though Vernon was one of our more consistent defenders, AND he played through a broken hand.

I'm not really sure what point was being refuted by saying he was absolutely dreadful in a game, as if Beckham being poor in a game should negate any of his other contributions.

Very strange angle there.

early in the season. I think there are a few factors as to why:

1. His injury. From the reports I read, it's amazing that he played through it.

2. New coach, new system, new personnel. There were a lot of new pieces on this defense and it took some time to gel.

All that being said, OV was very solid early in the season. He was pressuring the QB and he was stopping the run. He wasn't disruptive until the defense started to gel. Maybe he started to heal, maybe they all just clicked together, but he wasn't dreadful or even not good for the first half. It's BS to suggest otherwise.

Why are we even judging him on one game in week 5 anyway? Ok, so you saw that he had a bad game, kudos to you coach.

knew we could squeeze a OBJ in here somewhere. I heard that Beckham punching the wall in Green Bay led to OV's shattered hand and his subpar performance last year.

The Giants defense is built to stop the run. We ask our dline to focus on the run first, second and third. OV was awesome at that, as well as JPP. It's how our defense is built.

The Packers OL ranked 8th in the league ahead of Dallas at number 9.

Bakhtiari and Bulaga are an excellent pair of tackles. Just putting it all out there.

If only the WR group could take such abuse for the no show against the broken down Packer secondary.

In comment 13552510 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

from being absolutely dreadful in the Packers game to being "not great for a good chunk of the season", even though Vernon was one of our more consistent defenders, AND he played through a broken hand. I'm not really sure what point was being refuted by saying he was absolutely dreadful in a game, as if Beckham being poor in a game should negate any of his other contributions. Very strange angle there.

Thank you for reminding me of the relevance of the injury (with capital AND and all), which I referenced in all 3 of my posts on this thread.

Didn't say he was a bad player. Didn't say he was dogging it at any point.

Merely contested the contention that he was "great all year." He wasn't. The fact that his 2nd half play stood out in such a pronounced manner should underscore this.

He was very good early and excellent later in the season. He was a premier run stopper all season long from beginning to end. He got some pressures early, but he got to the QB as the season wore on. Suggesting that he wasn't great because of one game is off base.

even this is off-base though.

Quote:

Merely contested the contention that he was "great all year." He wasn't. The fact that his 2nd half play stood out in such a pronounced manner should underscore this.

Keith pointed out some excellent points why, but even when the DL wasn't getting pressures and sacks, they were containing the run, and as a unit really only struggled vs. Minny and GB.

Using the standard that an All-Pro wasn't great "all year" based on a small set where he didn't stand out on the stat sheet seems like something that could be said about any All-Pro player.

Like I said above - strange angle to take. Both in trying to refute that Vernon was great last year and the continued view that he was only propped up by his second half.

But noticing the capitalization was good. I guess my emphasis was noted....

I am skeptical of the use of pressures to compliment JPP's and Vernon's performance in 2016. As far as I can tell after having asked the question here and searching for it myself, there is no good definition for what constitutes a pressure.

It also is not a statistic I'd ever heard brought up here until last year, when it became the only number that could be provided to support the notion that JPP and Vernon were the elite players their contracts say they are.

I'll point to Big Blue Blogger's post above...they were certainly dominant against Cleveland and Chicago.

as a team that de's accumulate against? Chicago was near the bottom of the league in sacks given up.

It wasn’t just the stat sheet Fatman. He was substantially better toward the 2nd half of the season. He came on vs the Rams and Eagles, then was the OV we want to see moving forward starting vs Cincinnati.

Rather than dig through a dozen clips, I’ll cite Eric’s reviews:

Quote:

VIKINGS This is not what the Giants expected. With both primary offensive tackles out of the game, defensive ends Jason Pierre-Paul and Olivier Vernon were non-factors in a game where the Giants expected and needed them to make a difference.

Quote:

PACKERS The Giants simply are not getting their money’s worth from Jason Pierre-Paul and Olivier Vernon. The Giants had no sacks and only three QB hits – one by Vernon, one by Damon Harrison, and one by Johnathan Hankins. This is the third time in five games where the Giants don’t have a sack. Indeed, there were more than a few plays where Rodgers had all the time in the world to throw. It was embarrassing.

Quote:

RAVENS The Giants did generate more heat on the quarterback with week. Johnathan Hankins had one sack and Jason Pierre-Paul and Romeo Okwara did register hits on the quarterback. But it was nowhere nearly enough. Olivier Vernon (2 tackles) was very quiet.

Quote:

RAMS PREVIEW Game plan is simple. Stop Gurley. Make the Rams one dimensional and get after Keenum – a journeyman quarterback coming off a strong game but who someone the Giants should be able to rattle if they can pressure on him. It’s well past time for Jason Pierre-Paul and Olivier Vernon to have a breakout game.

Again, I did not write he wasn’t “great last year.” He was, overall. I contested the description: “Vernon was great all year”.

If Lebron shoots 2/16 in the first half, then 18/20 in the 2nd, he & Lue are happy at the end of the 4th (assuming the Cavs won), but it’s simply not accurate to say James was “great all game.”

In comment 13552462 grizz299 said:

Quote:

as a pair ...unless JJ Watt and Crowley have good years. Then we'd be the second best.

Who is Crowley?

I seriously think you might not even watch football.

when this discussion has come up. I'm kind of surprised you would feel this way.

Football is a team sport. Just because a team sucks, doesnt mean all of their individual units suck. As I stated above, Cleveland's o-line boasts one of the top tackles in the league, plus another pro bowler. Is Joe Thomas an "easy" individual matchup because his team sucks (mainly because they are in QB hell)?

You can point to Cleveland and Chicago all you want, but the pass rush put those games on ice for the rest of the team that apparently wasnt doing much to decide the outcome in any other phase of the game.

OV's price tag turns people off, I get it. But he put up a solid season with a shattered hand.

As for JPP, I've defended him for a couple of years against opinions that, quite frankly, lead me to question what people are watching at times.

In comment 13552572 Keith said:

Quote:

as a team that de's accumulate against? Chicago was near the bottom of the league in sacks given up.

That's because Jay Cutler started only 5 games. In the 5 games he played he was sacked 17 times. The Bears conceded only 11 sacks in the other 11 games.

Cutler is prone to high sack numbers; that's been no secret for years.

Had Cutler played all 16 games and been sacked at the same rate, Chicago would have been second worst in the NFL with 54 sacks conceded.

I'm not knocking them because they did well against two poor teams. I'm pointing out that in the 9 games prior to the Chicago game they combined for 4.5 sacks. And beyond that, I can recall vast stretches of those first 9 games where the team simply could not generate a conventional pass rush. I also remember the best defensive football being played after JPP's injury. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but I think the argument could be made that the defense wasn't playing great football because of JPP.

Someone above posted that he expects double digit sack seasons each for JPP and Vernon. It's a strange prediction given that JPP has achieved that twice in seven seasons, and Vernon has done it once in five.

It'd be dangerous to assume the secondary will perform at the same exceptional level as 2016, and the playoff game showed how one injury can devastate that entire side of the ball.

The Giants spend more money than any team in the NFL at the defensive end position. In 2017 I'll be hoping for an output befitting the investment, and not a performance that needs to be rationalized with the nebulous "pressures" statistic.

We did not play our best defensive football after JPP got hurt. That's you trying to create a narrative that just isn't true. We started playing our best football in the weeks leading up to that. You've been trying real hard to knock JPP which isn't surprising since you've been wrong about him since his injury. You hate being wrong so much that you take every opp to try and knock JPP down just so you don't look like an idiot(it's not working) for your behavior after the incident.

You were wrong and continue to be wrong about JPP. He's a leader, he's changed the way he approaches the game, he works hard, he's a difference maker and he has proven to be almost as effective despite his injury. YOU WERE WRONG, let it go.

It's ALL about the money. He's obsessed and thinks the Giants should have 53 vet minimum players. If they make a cent over the minimum, they've got to go. Save that money for someone that he would never sign, because it would cost too much money!

really need "better from them"??

They both played really well last year, and were two-way players, excelling against both the pass and the run.

I'm guessing if you hadn't dug your heels in on the disdain for paying the defensive players as much as they got, that this wouldn't be the take.

Vernon was one of the best DE's in football last year, and that isn't just a reflection of stats or hurries - it is a reflection on how well he contained the run and was able to rush the passer too. JPP had a similar impact.

Last year when somebody thought JPP would get at least 15 sacks, I said he'll struggle to get double-digits, and he always will, IMO. But his worth is more than sack totals, and this is coming from a guy who thought JPP was a complete moron for blowing off his hand, and I'd have had no qualms with them letting him go. That doesn't negate the fact he played really well.

In fact, my opinion has never caused a guy to play better or worse, except in my own eyes.....

run defense in the NFL. The DE's are a major reason why and it's money well spent. Casual fans look at sacks and try to judge performance, but fans that have a clue know that there is much more that goes into it. We ask our DE's to stop the run first and they do. They are both well rounded ends who play 99% of the snaps and succeed often. Anyone complaining about overpaying our ends when we have an elite run defense and 2 DE's in the upper echeclon of the league in pressures/hurries while being in the top third in sacks is fooling themselves.

Had Vernon and JPP been dominant last year I would happily admit to having been wrong. I've always admitted when I've been wrong on this board...it's happened plenty.

But on this one, I'm not, or at least I haven't been yet. I hope to be completely wrong in 2017. If I am I'll admit it to you and even to the two mouthbreathers knocking me here.

if you can't see how good our ends were last year. One of the best run defenses in football despite not having good LB's. OH boy, but they were only 15th in sacks so they stink!

a Top 5 unit and the bookend DE's were a large reason for that success, to call them dominant or very good is really semantics.

If you think they need to be causing several turnovers or getting a few key sacks every game to be dominant, then they'll never meet that standard. I'd be fine with them controlling the line from outside rushes and getting pressures and sacks to force teams to punt. And that's ignoring the distinct possibility there were times Spags dialed tehem back because the secondary was shutting teams down.

We've seen how losing DL guys in the past had a trickle down to the secondary and how losing DB's had a similar impact on the DL. But IMO, the reason the giants D was so successful is because they had Collins and Jackrabbit in the back and OV and JPP up front.

I really don't know what more you are looking for from a dominant standpoint unless you're just wanting some highlight reel plays or are expecting the very small liklihood they are going to cause multiple fumbles and take them to the house.

you clearly have no clue what you are watching...

RE: Terps how do you feel about JJ Watt?
Go Terps : 2/22/2017 7:02 pm : link


I think he's overrated, and have said so here in the past. To be fair I haven't watched a huge number of Texans games, but in those I have I've never seen him make a play when it matters.

This fool just made you look stupid because you are too dim to look up Jay Cutler's sack statistics.

I'm not surprised that you're the type of person to use an expression like "False news". Fucking moron.

RE: Terps how do you feel about JJ Watt?
Go Terps : 2/22/2017 7:02 pm : link


I think he's overrated, and have said so here in the past. To be fair I haven't watched a huge number of Texans games, but in those I have I've never seen him make a play when it matters.

As Giants fans we've had the good fortune in our very recent history of seeing a dominant pass rush. We know what it looks like.

I'll concede your point that it's possible that Spags dialed them back because of the quality in the secondary.

to recognizing that OV noticeably struggled in the first ~half of last season. It's not some wildly original contention (Eric, as demonstrated, noted it multiple times in his early 2016 reviews) nor is it some huge slam upon a dynamic 2-way player. He picked it up enormously circa Cincinnati.

Keith starting to get pretty nasty so Imma duck out. Enjoy your Tuesdays.

we all have blind spots. I can't ignore some of the idiots around here and waste time pointing out something they are too dim to ever see.

You know I'd never go after you like I do the morons because there's too many other times you've posted really good stuff - but you really are biased when it comes to JPP and the money we spent from the defensive guys.

Embrace them!! I look at it this way - I've never seen another team spend a boatload in FA and turn a unit around like the Giants did. Yes, it was $200M, but at least it was spent wisely. They bought an Arab steed that took a Triple Crown race, not a Ferrari that blew an engine on the first lap.

Take the hate for JPP and keep it stashed up for Klinsmann, because you know he'll come back somewhere:)

his hand was shattered.

Do you think it's easy to shed blocks and generate a pass rush with the use of one hand?

I don't think I have a blind spot here. I give JPP enormous credit for coming back from the fireworks accident, and I've credited Vernon many times for his toughness. They're both good players...that's beyond dispute.

I admit (and already have many times) to having been dead wrong about Janoris Jenkins...he was phenomenal and worth every penny. The Snacks signing I liked from day one. I'm not averse to spending big on big players.

But if we're paying big money I expect a big return. My lasting memory of the 2016 season for our defensive ends is Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth in disbelief as Aaron Rodgers sat in the pocket for 5, 6, 7 seconds.

I have no choice but to embrace JPP and Vernon...they're cornerstone players. I rooted for them last year and will this year. I think an objective view is that they didn't deliver on the cost in year one.

Did Eli live up to his cost in 2013 or 2014? Or to flip it around, if you don't believe JPP and OV aren't worth what they're getting paid, think of a player like ODB, who is WAY outperforming the value of his current rookie deal. You have to pick the right times to spend big, and if you're a smart organization, you hold onto the right guys, balance it all out in the end, and avoid Albert Haynesworth situations where you receive next to nothing for big $ (LOLSkins).

I also wouldn't get too hung up about "impact numbers" from individual defensive players, especially today, where rules and offenses make it extremely difficult to rack up 20+ sack seasons, 10+ INT seasons, etc. Did JPP and OV play at optimum level in 2016? Probably not (and as others have already noted, you can point out reasonable extenuating circumstances). Were they important contributors on a defense that was excellent for most of the year? I don't think anyone could argue against that. And in the end, isn't unit success more important than anything else?

"If you don't believe JPP and OV are worth what they're getting paid", I meant. Damn phone typing.

....Vernon was the most held DE in the NFL last year and hardly ever did he draw a flag. And I mean some of the most obvious and gratuitous holds. Hopefully he draws many more flags from the zebras this year.

In comment 13552465 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

Vernon: Vs. NFC East Games: 6 Sacks: 2 Vs. Others Games: 11 Sacks: 6.5 Pierre-Paul Vs. NFC East Games: 3 Sacks: 1 Vs. Others Games: 9 Sacks: 6

You made your case very well, with numbers instead of mere opinion. If you extrapolate to even-out games against non-NFC foes, JPP & OV come out to have almost twice as many sacks agains non-NFC teams per game.

It is harder to get sacks agains top-notch offensive lines.

I think Diehard brought up an awesome point in his earlier post when he said:

Quote:

Cost inefficiencies are everywhere in the NFL DieHard : 12:42 pm : link : reply Did Eli live up to his cost in 2013 or 2014?

I've seen you attack numerous players for not living up to their contracts and the only player I've never seen you complain about... as far as not living up to his contract... is Eli. At one point I believe he was the highest paid player in the league and was #8 last year and yet not once have I heard you complain about whether we're getting a return on the investment from him. Why?
Eli #8 - ( New Window )

factoring in run defense, they are the best pair of DEs in football - i dont think it's really close

and yes, i think the sack numbers were limited by the elite OT they face twice per year + playing injured.

I've said the following on this site numerous times:

1. Once Eli retires I am in favor of abandoning the franchise QB concept as it is way too expensive; and
2. I can't be objective when it comes to Eli. The guy is IMO the greatest Giant in the 30 years that I've been a fan...LT was a better player, but Eli is in my view directly responsible for turning two championship defeats to two trophies.

I'm fine paying Eli crazy money now because I love the guy for what he's given us...but after he retires my vote would be to go cheaper at the position and allocate our cap resources differently from what is typically done around the NFL.

The evidence that health and depth are correlated to winning is overwhelming...in most cases it's better to have three players at $6 million each than one player at $18 million.

In comment 13552872 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I've said the following on this site numerous times: 1. Once Eli retires I am in favor of abandoning the franchise QB concept as it is way too expensive; and 2. I can't be objective when it comes to Eli. The guy is IMO the greatest Giant in the 30 years that I've been a fan...LT was a better player, but Eli is in my view directly responsible for turning two championship defeats to two trophies. I'm fine paying Eli crazy money now because I love the guy for what he's given us...but after he retires my vote would be to go cheaper at the position and allocate our cap resources differently from what is typically done around the NFL. The evidence that health and depth are correlated to winning is overwhelming...in most cases it's better to have three players at $6 million each than one player at $18 million.

I'm not on here as often as I used to be so I've must've missed those times.

Regarding #1, but your objection completely goes against the accepted notion that you have to have a 'franchise QB' in order to win a championship in the NFL. When's the last time a 'non-franchise' QB won a championship? Brad Johnson with the Bucs maybe? It's THOSE championships that are the outliers... not the ones with what's considered 'franchise QBs' at the helm.

Regarding #2, IMO, that's not being very fair. Your basically admitting that the only reason why you're ok with Eli being, by most standards, overpaid is because you like him. Not because it goes against your own values and thoughts as far as pay vs statistical output but because of your own feelings towards him. So if you liked JPP... you'd have no problem with giving him big money. If you liked OBJ, again... no problem paying him. A part of your argument this whole time has been based on your own personal feelings and not whether... despite how you feel about the player personally... it makes logical, fiscal sense to pay said player. I'm actually pretty surprised that you of all people on this site would have that attitude to be honest.

Your answer to T-Bone's question is spot on. But then for whatever reason you say you would not do it again?

The league has evolved in a way that you really don't win without a franchise QB. You might be able to put something together for a year but you need a franchise QB for sustained success. Then you need to draft well around him and pick your spots in FA.

In comment 13552909 Chris684 said:

Quote:

Your answer to T-Bone's question is spot on. But then for whatever reason you say you would not do it again? The league has evolved in a way that you really don't win without a franchise QB. You might be able to put something together for a year but you need a franchise QB for sustained success. Then you need to draft well around him and pick your spots in FA.

?

What part is 'spot on' if you disagree with him (as I do)?

List of QB's who have won Super Bowls in the last 25 years...

Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Russell Wilson
Joe Flacco
Eli Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner
John Elway
Brett Favre
Troy Aikman
Steve Young

So, 23 of the last 25 Super Bowls were won by teams who had a franchise QB under center.

Not sure abandoning that concept is the smartest approach.

1. The reason the 'franchise QB' is the accepted notion is because it's the only method anyone is trying. No one is doing anything differently.

2. Overpaying Eli does go against what I'm saying, definitely. I acknowledge fully that I don't think it's the best way to do business. Young quarterbacks are coming out now and being similarly productive. But I don't want Eli to go...I fully admit my subjectivity. My feelings on Eli don't make it good business.

factor if you're going to win the league.

I don't see how that can be argued. A league leading defense (as a whole) is a close second but that of course is an entire unit.

It's why almost every Super Bowl lately has been won by either Brady, Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Brees or Ben.

So Terps recognizing why Eli is overpaid but claims he wouldnt do it again. I would.

sidebar, but I often wonder if franchise QB's are thought of that way because they win or because of their skill is so much better than anyone else's?

I mean, you have QB's with longevity that have won a title or more. Eli, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Ben, Flacco, Wilson.

But are guys like Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Dalton, Luck franchise QB's? Were Romo or Cutler?

Because as you expand that list out - the number of teams with franchise QB's gets close to surpassing the one's who don't

Or maybe it's because QB is arguably the most important position in all of sports and getting quality play from that player carries tremendous weight.

Sure, teams like the 2015 Broncos won by leaning on their defense - Peyton wasn't particularly good and was merely a game manager at the end, but I think the odds of winning in this league are much higher with a franchise QB than without one.

If the non-franchise QB model worked, the Texans would have something to show for themselves. They've had one of the better defenses in football over the last 5-6 years and nothing to show for it.

Look what happened to the Raiders when Derek Carr went down.

Two questions:

1. How many teams have committed to trying a different approach to the quarterback position?
2. How many of those Super Bowl winning quarterbacks was considered a "franchise QB" when he won the Super Bowl? How many of them were eating 10% of the salary cap on their own when they won the Super Bowl? Off the top of my head I know Wilson, Flacco, Warner, Eli (for the first), Roethlisberger (first), and possibly Rodgers and Brees (who was an injury castoff) weren't.

In comment 13552923 Go Terps said:

Quote:

1. The reason the 'franchise QB' is the accepted notion is because it's the only method anyone is trying. No one is doing anything differently. 2. Overpaying Eli does go against what I'm saying, definitely. I acknowledge fully that I don't think it's the best way to do business. Young quarterbacks are coming out now and being similarly productive. But I don't want Eli to go...I fully admit my subjectivity. My feelings on Eli don't make it good business.

Regarding #1, because it's waaaaay too difficult to do. That's why it's only happened twice in the last 25 years. If you don't have a franchise QB, you better have an all-time great D because that's the ONLY way you have any chance of hoisting that trophy. And when you have an all-time great D, you usually have all-time great players sprinkled throughout that D... so yeah, maybe you're QB isn't making 20 million a year... but now your star DE is making 12... your star MLB is making 8... and your star CB is making 10. That's 30 million dedicated to 3 players and you're still in the same boat, if not worse (+10 mil) than you would've been if you'd just payed your star QB.

Regarding #2, fair enough.

Fats... I wouldn't consider Cutler a franchise QB really at any point. Maybe he could have qualified earlier in his career when he was in Denver.

But I do think guys like Ryan, Rivers, and Newton are absolutely franchise QB's.

It's how the phrase "if you have 2 QBs, you don't have one" came to be.

I know a while back you looked at the Hawks and felt they could draft a guy to play a similar game to Wilson to either play both or let Wilson walk before big money.

I can see the sense behind that but I don't believe it works for a football team. I think these teams need a captain of the ship. When your entire team is behind one guy, there is no asking questions when things inevitably go wrong. You try 2 guys and you'll get a divided room almost always.

In comment 13552924 Chris684 said:

Quote:

factor if you're going to win the league. I don't see how that can be argued. A league leading defense (as a whole) is a close second but that of course is an entire unit. It's why almost every Super Bowl lately has been won by either Brady, Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Brees or Ben. So Terps recognizing why Eli is overpaid but claims he wouldnt do it again. I would.

Then what part is 'spot on'?

that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow.

is the better player, Eli is the guy most directly responsible for 2 of the most recent titles.

I think committing to turning the QB position into a throwaway would be career suicide for almost any GM, which is probably why teams aren't trying it.

Teams are constantly collecting data behind the scenes and trying to figure out ways to find an edge. I have to believe that if there was a common belief that this could be a feasible means of building a contender, that someone would have committed to trying it by now.

The QB touches the ball on every single offensive snap - I think the position is far too important to treat as an interchangeable entity and it seems most GM's agree. It takes a lot of time to learn and grasp offenses. You want new guys coming in every couple of years and re-learning systems and dealing with learning curves? I just don't think it's feasible.

In comment 13552927 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

sidebar, but I often wonder if franchise QB's are thought of that way because they win or because of their skill is so much better than anyone else's? I mean, you have QB's with longevity that have won a title or more. Eli, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Ben, Flacco, Wilson. But are guys like Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Dalton, Luck franchise QB's? Were Romo or Cutler? Because as you expand that list out - the number of teams with franchise QB's gets close to surpassing the one's who don't

I think it's a combination of both. But IMO it starts with having the skill... you have to have the skill in order to win. And by 'skill' I don't necessarily mean being an all-pro right off the bat... but having the skill to be able to perform at a high enough level for your team to win. Big Ben's skill level wasn't what it is now back when he won his first SB... but he was skilled enough to NOT be the reason why his team would lose... or else they'd have lost more. So he must've been doing SOMETHING right.

I'd consider Romo a franchise QB but not Cutler. In your list, Dalton and Cutler are the only ones that wouldn't make the cut for me.. and they're the only ones who haven't won much throughout their careers.

In comment 13552942 Keith said:

Quote:

that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow.

I thought the guy could play in an offense that was built for his talents. I'll admit to being wrong on that front, but it's becoming increasingly clear that NFL coaches don't know how to handle mobile QBs. The tendency is to try to make them pocket passers, which they are never going to be. That's how guys like Griffin and Kaepernick go from MVP candidate in their breakout year to castoffs.

In comment 13552944 Chris684 said:

Quote:

is the better player, Eli is the guy most directly responsible for 2 of the most recent titles.

Eh... some would question that... in particular the first one... but I see no reason to argue too strongly against that.

Why are coaches trying to get these guys to stay in the pocket? The answer is longevity. These guys get beat up outside the pocket and they can't be relied on to lead the team for a full season. The defenses are too fast and furious to have mobile QB's anymore, specifically small ones.

The best you can really hope for with an approach like this is a team that mirrors the 2009 and 2010 Jets.

And who did those teams ultimately lose to?

Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Franchise QB's.

Not every qb is cut out to be starting NFL QB. It certainly takes more than physical skill and smarts, understanding of the game. You have to be a tough qb both physically and mentally. Starting Qb's have a ton of pressure on them to perform

In comment 13552949 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13552942 Keith said: Quote: that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow. I thought the guy could play in an offense that was built for his talents. I'll admit to being wrong on that front, but it's becoming increasingly clear that NFL coaches don't know how to handle mobile QBs. The tendency is to try to make them pocket passers, which they are never going to be. That's how guys like Griffin and Kaepernick go from MVP candidate in their breakout year to castoffs.

Now THIS I agree with Terps on.

I've never understood the phrase that 'he'll have to learn how to throw from the pocket if he's ever going to win anything'. RG3 is a perfect example. One year after winning the NFC East and going to a playoff game using an offense that's built towards his strengths, they try to force a round peg into a square hole and wonder what went wrong? Why not stick to what worked the year before at least until it's proven that teams can stop it? Why just assume that defenses WILL be able to stop it eventually so therefore you have to try to turn the player into something he's not?

If you're winning, why does it matter how you win?

how many QB's have won SB's on their rookie deals? I would assume that it's very rare and then once they win, are you gonig to let them walk so that you don't have to pay them? Then draft the next young guy and hope to catch lightening in a bottle again? The "strategy" makes no sense.

In comment 13552949 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13552942 Keith said: Quote: that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow. I thought the guy could play in an offense that was built for his talents. I'll admit to being wrong on that front, but it's becoming increasingly clear that NFL coaches don't know how to handle mobile QBs. The tendency is to try to make them pocket passers, which they are never going to be. That's how guys like Griffin and Kaepernick go from MVP candidate in their breakout year to castoffs.

This is also because guys like RGIII aren't capable of being pocket passers and there's no possible way to play offense the way Griffin did as a rookie and have a long career. He was getting KILLED every other game and his leg looked like it was going to fall off in the WC game against SEA.

If you can't stand in the pocket and deliver, you're not long for this league as a QB. It's not that coaches handled Kaepernick or Griffin incorrectly, it's that they weren't built to be long-term NFL QB's.

In comment 13552953 Keith said:

Quote:

Why are coaches trying to get these guys to stay in the pocket? The answer is longevity. These guys get beat up outside the pocket and they can't be relied on to lead the team for a full season. The defenses are too fast and furious to have mobile QB's anymore, specifically small ones.

But guys are getting hurt in the pocket too. Hopefully you have a smart-mobile QB (like Wilson for instance) who rarely takes hard hits when he's moving and not someone like Newton who thinks because he's built like a LB can take multiple hits from them and shake them off.

The dude got his a** handed to him on a weekly basis. THis is a massive investment for any team(draft picks and money), they can't sit there and watch this guy get absolutely obliterated each week because he needed to run to be successful. If you want to use Terps strategy of never signing a QB to a 2nd deal, then use guys like RG3. Draft them(you better not trade 5 picks to get him), let him run around and win a few games and get destroyed and then move on to the next QB. Sound strategy.

In comment 13552945 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

I think committing to turning the QB position into a throwaway would be career suicide for almost any GM, which is probably why teams aren't trying it. Teams are constantly collecting data behind the scenes and trying to figure out ways to find an edge. I have to believe that if there was a common belief that this could be a feasible means of building a contender, that someone would have committed to trying it by now. The QB touches the ball on every single offensive snap - I think the position is far too important to treat as an interchangeable entity and it seems most GM's agree. It takes a lot of time to learn and grasp offenses. You want new guys coming in every couple of years and re-learning systems and dealing with learning curves? I just don't think it's feasible.

That's what I was talking about before when I asked how many teams have committed to a different approach. I mean commitment from the owner on down...of course a GM isn't going to do something radical if he's on a three year leash. But that's why the same teams suck over and over and change front offices over and over. They never commit to anything.

But look at the QBs coming in from college. The learning curve is shorter than it's ever been. Winston, Mariota, Carr, Prescott, Wentz, Siemian...all have come in and shown themselves to be competent (or in some cases much better than competent) from the start. And I believe that the proportion of NFL-ready QBs straight out of college is only growing with the increasing complexity of college passing offenses AND simplification of NFL offenses due to reduced practice time.

I just know I'd rather be paying DeShaun Watson $2.5 million in 2017 than $24 million to Flacco or Palmer.

There's a difference between a quality pocket passer who is mobile (Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck) and a guy who can't be effective without running all over the place (RGIII, Colin Kaepernick)

A major, major difference.

RG3 was..look for his primary and then run if he's not open. Wilson doesn't do that. He tries to pass down the field until he can't. Like arc said, if you cannot pass from the pocket, your career is going to be very short and no team is going to invest picks and money for a QB that will run for a few years and then can't play. Not to mention, at some point, these guys are going to have to pass. Dak was lucky in the sense that his team rarely played catchup, but if they did, he wouldn't have had the same success.

In comment 13552954 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

The best you can really hope for with an approach like this is a team that mirrors the 2009 and 2010 Jets. And who did those teams ultimately lose to? Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Franchise QB's.

What about the 2013-2014 Seahawks? Back to back champs if not for Carroll's brainfart.

In comment 13552963 Keith said:

Quote:

The dude got his a** handed to him on a weekly basis. THis is a massive investment for any team(draft picks and money), they can't sit there and watch this guy get absolutely obliterated each week because he needed to run to be successful. If you want to use Terps strategy of never signing a QB to a 2nd deal, then use guys like RG3. Draft them(you better not trade 5 picks to get him), let him run around and win a few games and get destroyed and then move on to the next QB. Sound strategy.

RG3... like Newton... wasn't smart enough to stay away from taking unnecessary hits. The way Wilson plays versus the way Newton and Griffin play when outside the pocket are very different. Wilson is considered a 'mobile QB' and he seems to be doing well incorporating mobility with the other aspects of QB play.

Invest tons of time coaching him on how to win the NFL. Then when it's time for his next contract, let him go win elsewhere and draft the next rookie and hope he can win something.

has said his goal is to stay in the pocket as much as possible.

Pure scrambling QB's don't have a long life-span in today's game. At best, you want a guy like Rodgers who extends plays and will strategically run to pick up a crucial first down, but you don't want RGIII or a run happy guy.

It may be successful for a year - but then what? you're stuck with an injured player, and if it is a leg injury, now a deficient player.

1999 Rams (Warner)
2000 Ravens (maybe greatest D ever assembled)
2001 Pats (Brady)
2002 Bucs (elite defense)
2003 Pats (Brady)
2004 Pats (Brady)
2005 Steelers (Ben)
2006 Colts (Peyton)
2007 Giants (Eli)
2008 Steelers (Ben)
2009 Saints (Brees)
2010 Packers (Rodgers)
2011 Giants (Eli)
2012 Ravens (elite, if not almost elite/still had Reed/Lewis among others)
2013 Seahawks (elite defense)
2014 Pats (Brady)
2015 Broncos (Peyton/elite defense)
2016 Pats (Brady)

Note: In most of those SBs if you look at the loser, you'll find the same names of the QBs and defenses.

The path to a SB title to is to find a franchise QB or field a top defense.

he'd be out of the NFL. That dude has taken a BEATING.

In comment 13552968 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13552954 arcarsenal said: Quote: The best you can really hope for with an approach like this is a team that mirrors the 2009 and 2010 Jets. And who did those teams ultimately lose to? Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Franchise QB's. What about the 2013-2014 Seahawks? Back to back champs if not for Carroll's brainfart.

Well, Wilson is a franchise QB. He's not a throwaway or a gimmicky guy. His first instinct was to bail and start running early in his career but he's become much, much better as a passer as he's grown.

Wilson wasn't the main reason why SEA won in 2013 and came close in 2014 but he was a pretty major one.

THAT's the point. They don't need to because you're not going to pay them $20 million a year. You just draft more, and they are all over college football.

like Cam, he's not big enough like Cam. Cam takes just as many hits as RG3, but he's huge. That being said, I guarantee his shelf life is much, much lower than most top QB's.

He was a third round draft pick with a cap hit of $600,000.

In comment 13552976 Go Terps said:

Quote:

THAT's the point. They don't need to because you're not going to pay them $20 million a year. You just draft more, and they are all over college football.

But the principle doesn't even work anymore. Defenses caught up to the read option shit immediately and started shutting it down. Do you really want to build your team around a college-style offense?

RGIII barely even made it out of year ONE. You're going to draft a new QB every year?

I know it sounds like it could work, but if you really think about all of the logistics, it's very, very unlikely that it would ever work.

didn't make it 1 year actually.

I haven't said anywhere that they need to be mobile guys. Winston and Carr aren't super mobile, for example.

In comment 13552984 Go Terps said:

Quote:

He was a third round draft pick with a cap hit of $600,000.

Wilson was a pro bowler and had a 100+ QBR the year they won the Super Bowl.

You can tag him by his salary or draft status if you want but he's a franchise QB now and may well have been one then. He's not a throwaway, gimmick QB. He's actually really good and can throw the ball down the field from the pocket.

He was a steal in rd 3(because of his size) and he won on his rookie deal, but they won because he could pass the ball and run. He is not a read option RG3 type and never was.

In comment 13552988 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I haven't said anywhere that they need to be mobile guys. Winston and Carr aren't super mobile, for example.

And Winston's and Carr's aren't just out there to be drafted every year. They're actually good QB's.

What happens when you can't draft guys of that caliber? Then what do you do?

there's a good chance his team will have first crack at the top QB's.

The other major problem with this approach is that it assumes you're going to get a useable QB most of the times you draft one.

The Jets have drafted like 50 QB's since Testaverde and still haven't found one and haven't won a thing in that time span.

The bust rate for QB's is high. There's a much better chance you're going to wind up with a Zach Mettenberger than a Derek Carr. Then what? Try again next year? What if you miss again?

straight out of college is only one aspect.

You also need continuity. Using a strategy of changing QB's just to minimize expense has shown to not work, but that aside, look at what would have to go right for it to work:

1) Choose an NFL ready QB, but preferably not in the 1st round to keep cost low
2) Have the QB ready to perform right away
- Having grasp of the playbook
- Having timing with his WR's
3) Fill the rest of the roster with + talent
4) Hope for no cluster injuries at a position of strength
5) Repeat

If at any of the first 4 stages something goes wrong or isn't almost perfect, you not only have a poor season, you probably have a really poor season.

Instead of hoping 4 things go incredibly well, isn't it just easier to stick with the known commodity?

You're right...great QBs are incredibly scarce. So what ends up happening is that teams are paying ridiculous sums to QBs that we all know aren't getting anyone to a Super Bowl.

I get paying Aaron Rodgers $20 million per. You'll never hear me argue with that. But for every Rodgers how many Tannehills, Palmers, Cousins, Staffords, Bradfords, Smiths, Osweilers, and Daltons are you going to go through?

Quote:

Instead of hoping 4 things go incredibly well, isn't it just easier to stick with the known commodity?

Yes. And this is precisely why teams do it.

The QB learning curve in this league may be accelerated now, but guys still struggle early in their careers and it's still not all that common for a rookie QB to just step in and play well unless he's in an ideal situation a-la Prescott.

Even Wentz started off really well last year and then struggled mightily as the year wore on.

Say, for example, the Seahawks.. rather than re-signing Wilson, chose to let him walk and then drafted someone like Christian Hackenberg in his place. Hackenberg comes in and is hitting reporters with passes and looks woefully unprepared to play in the NFL.

Now you have no QB and unless you have the 2000 Ravens defense, you're going nowhere.

is like a builder going cheap with the foundation of a home.

You just don't do it.

Continuity in the NFL is a relic of the past. How many Giants from the 2011 team played a big role on the 2014 team? The turnover rate all over the roster is enormous now. There's no continuity anymore.

In comment 13553010 Go Terps said:

Quote:

You're right...great QBs are incredibly scarce. So what ends up happening is that teams are paying ridiculous sums to QBs that we all know aren't getting anyone to a Super Bowl. I get paying Aaron Rodgers $20 million per. You'll never hear me argue with that. But for every Rodgers how many Tannehills, Palmers, Cousins, Staffords, Bradfords, Smiths, Osweilers, and Daltons are you going to go through?

I have mixed opinions on the guys you listed.

I would pay to keep guys like Cousins, Stafford, and probably even Dalton.

I wouldn't pay Sam Bradford long-term, nor would I have given Osweiler the absurd deal that HOU did. Tannehill is right on the fence. Smith is too.

I would pay to keep guys like Cousins, Stafford, and probably even Dalton.

I'd bet my house none of those guys ever wins anything. I don't think any is more likely to win a title in the next 3 seasons than DeShaun Watson is.

Should have had quotes around arc's statement.

I can remember a discussion from a while back when he was traded to the Raiders and you were all about Carson Palmer. Is this a new development?

In comment 13552955 crick n NC said:

Quote:

Not every qb is cut out to be starting NFL QB. It certainly takes more than physical skill and smarts, understanding of the game. You have to be a tough qb both physically and mentally. Starting Qb's have a ton of pressure on them to perform

I guess my comment was missed above

In comment 13553023 Keith said:

Quote:

I can remember a discussion from a while back when he was traded to the Raiders and you were all about Carson Palmer. Is this a new development?

What does that have to do with his current $24 million cap hit in Arizona 5 years after the fact?

In comment 13553021 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I would pay to keep guys like Cousins, Stafford, and probably even Dalton. I'd bet my house none of those guys ever wins anything. I don't think any is more likely to win a title in the next 3 seasons than DeShaun Watson is.

Watson hasn't even taken a snap in the pros. How can you make that comparison?

If the 2016 Texans had Matthew Stafford under center, I would have liked their chances.

Because those guys are a known quantity (a quantity I don't think will ever win a title) and Watson isn't. I'll take the cheap unknown over the expensive guy I know won't win anything.

Put Stafford on Houston and they might have to get rid of a couple guys elsewhere.

Stafford has been in the league for 8 years now, and in 7 of those years, the Lions have had a below average - awful defense.

The one year they had a top 3 unit, the Lions went 11-5 and probably would have beaten Dallas in the WC round if not for a complete bullshit non PI call.

I don't love Dalton and Cousins is showing a pattern of crumbling when the stakes are highest - but I would absolutely take Stafford on my team and think he's good enough to win with.

In comment 13553029 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13553023 Keith said: Quote: I can remember a discussion from a while back when he was traded to the Raiders and you were all about Carson Palmer. Is this a new development? What does that have to do with his current $24 million cap hit in Arizona 5 years after the fact?

He had a massive cap hit then and you were all about the Raiders trading 2 firsts for him. Now he's listed in your group of QBs that can't win. When did that cahnge?

Houston has like 25M in cap space. Only 3-4 teams in the entire league have more, so I don't think that's true.

the cap wisely and implementing a franchise rule of not paying to keep a franchise QB in place.

If you're arguing the former I agree.

If you're arguing the latter I disagree.

Let's say hypothetically after Eli hangs them up in 2 years, Webb has played great in hist first 2 years, gone to a SB, but played well in a loss.

His contract is now up.

Are you telling me you're going to throw away all of his experience here from the time he was drafted, through being Eli's backup, to playing well enough to win a SB, to not extend him and go back into the draft for a cheaper option?

In comment 13553042 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Houston has like 25M in cap space. Only 3-4 teams in the entire league have more, so I don't think that's true.

And that's a good place to be. If they had that approach last season maybe they would have given Osweiler's money to Snacks and fielded a ridiculous defensive line. They could have drafted Brissett or Prescott in the middle rounds and been much better off.

Instead they decided to pay Osweiler because they had to have the next big thing. Great move.

In comment 13553045 Chris684 said:

Quote:

the cap wisely and implementing a franchise rule of not paying to keep a franchise QB in place. If you're arguing the former I agree. If you're arguing the latter I disagree. Let's say hypothetically after Eli hangs them up in 2 years, Webb has played great in hist first 2 years, gone to a SB, but played well in a loss. His contract is now up. Are you telling me you're going to throw away all of his experience here from the time he was drafted, through being Eli's backup, to playing well enough to win a SB, to not extend him and go back into the draft for a cheaper option?

Yeah, it is. It's what Baltimore should have done with Flacco and what Seattle should have done with Wilson.

If you have a generational player like Rodgers, you pay him. Otherwise, it isn't worth it.

Who here has said that signing Osweiler to that massive deal made sense?? So because one stupid team made a terrible decision and reached for a QB, that means no team should ever pay a QB? Is that really what you are suggesting? Why does it have to be one of the other, why can't a team be smart and ONLY pay franchise QB's?

In comment 13552957 T-Bone said:

Quote:

In comment 13552949 Go Terps said: Quote: In comment 13552942 Keith said: Quote: that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow. I thought the guy could play in an offense that was built for his talents. I'll admit to being wrong on that front, but it's becoming increasingly clear that NFL coaches don't know how to handle mobile QBs. The tendency is to try to make them pocket passers, which they are never going to be. That's how guys like Griffin and Kaepernick go from MVP candidate in their breakout year to castoffs. Now THIS I agree with Terps on. I've never understood the phrase that 'he'll have to learn how to throw from the pocket if he's ever going to win anything'. RG3 is a perfect example. sOne year after winning the NFC East and going to a playoff game using an offense that's built towards his strengths, they try to force a round peg into a square hole and wonder what went wrong? Why not stick to what worked the year before at least until it's proven that teams can stop it? Why just assume that defenses WILL be able to stop it eventually so therefore you have to try to turn the player into something he's not? If you're winning, why does it matter how you win?

Boneman, long before you were born, the prevailing wisdom was, "you can't win with a scrambling(Tarkenton at that time) QB..Even then, way back in the '60s, I ALWAYS questioned that wisdom..This guy was driving offenses that scored 30 or more points, more often than not..That was more than enough to win ballgames, or should have been

Osweiler was a terrible signing - I don't think anyone would disagree there. But that's the type of guy you're going to wind up with more often than not if you start treating the QB position as a carousel.

Even with Snacks, the Texans still weren't likely to win a Super Bowl with the terribly sub-par QB play they were getting.

I think NFL franchises like stability from front offices, to head coaches on down to QBs.

If you have the right people in those 3 positions, you can pretty much have a revolving door around the and still win. You would also look pretty foolish for letting one walk out the door.

There's also a human element to this.

If a franchise became well-known for showing QB's the door after out-performing their rookie deals and earning a better contract, you can bet that a lot of kids coming out of schools would want to avoid being drafted by that team. You'd see more Eli/San Diego scenarios.

Players want to feel like their team is looking to take care of them. Not treat them as a throwaway that is completely disposable as soon as it's time to pay them.

It's bad business and would create a very negative aura around that franchise. It can effect everything - including free agents who, if the money is equal or even slightly less elsewhere, will opt to sign with another team because of the way the front office is perceived.

This might be lower on the totem in the grand scheme of this discussion, but I do think it's something that would eventually become an issue if you were to run a team this way.

In comment 13553049 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13553045 Chris684 said: Quote: the cap wisely and implementing a franchise rule of not paying to keep a franchise QB in place. If you're arguing the former I agree. If you're arguing the latter I disagree. Let's say hypothetically after Eli hangs them up in 2 years, Webb has played great in hist first 2 years, gone to a SB, but played well in a loss. His contract is now up. Are you telling me you're going to throw away all of his experience here from the time he was drafted, through being Eli's backup, to playing well enough to win a SB, to not extend him and go back into the draft for a cheaper option? Yeah, it is. It's what Baltimore should have done with Flacco and what Seattle should have done with Wilson. If you have a generational player like Rodgers, you pay him. Otherwise, it isn't worth it.

Here we go again with this revolving door, permanent rookie QB nonsense.

Keep bringing the fire, Terps.

I didn't bring it up, someone else did.

Great post, though. You and Keith really add a lot.

What exactly are you "adding". All you do is take the opposite view of common sense. Well done captain.

In comment 13552470 Overseer said:

Quote:

if you want to cite the hand reason as the reason, fine. But it's not accurate to call him "great all year." He was for instance dreadful - not bad, but dreadful - vs the Packers week 5.

Yet he made second team all pro. I'd call that great. You want to nit pick be my guest. Vernon had a great year last season, one bad game or not.

In comment 13552621 Go Terps said:

Quote:

It'd be dangerous to assume the secondary will perform at the same exceptional level as 2016, and the playoff game showed how one injury can devastate that entire side of the ball. The Giants spend more money than any team in the NFL at the defensive end position. In 2017 I'll be hoping for an output befitting the investment, and not a performance that needs to be rationalized with the nebulous "pressures" statistic.

The giants won with defense last year. The DL was a huge reason why. Jesus Christ... I give up.

In comment 13552968 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13552954 arcarsenal said: Quote: The best you can really hope for with an approach like this is a team that mirrors the 2009 and 2010 Jets. And who did those teams ultimately lose to? Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Franchise QB's. What about the 2013-2014 Seahawks? Back to back champs if not for Carroll's brainfart.

Russel Wilson is a damn good qb. Guys like that aren't easy to find no matter what you or many others might say. Wilson is a very good and underrated player. Seattle doesn't win jack shit with Tavares jackson or some other mobile slob under center.

Whether or not Wilson is good isn't as important as when he is good. Being good as a third rounder with a $600,000 cap hit is very different from being a franchise QB with the $18.8 million hit he has now.

Here's Russell Wilson's cap hit next to Seattle's record by year:

2012: $600,000/11-5
2013: $700,000/13-3 (champs)
2014: $800,000/12-4 (should have been champs)
2015: $7M/10-6
2016: $18.5M/10-5-1
2017: $18.8/?

Most would agree that since the second Super Bowl the Seahawks have fallen off a level. They haven't fallen off a cliff, but the roster could use some freshening up. Is that easier or more difficult for them to do now than it would have been after 2014?

I agree that Wilson is a good quarterback...he's surpassed what I thought he'd be when he came out of school. But we're seeing what the Seahawks are when he is asked to carry that team instead of who we all know were the real reasons for their success in 2013 and 2014.

I'd expect the Seahawks have seen their best days with Wilson at QB, and it won't get that good again.

And a swing and a miss on a top draft pick at left tackle.

There isn't really any QB short of Rodgers or Brady that have that problem and still be dynamic.

After the bye and with his injury fully healed or mostly so, he excelled against the run, applied good pressure and performed with a non-stop motor..Given the scenario, he had a very good year, imo. I was quite happy wit his performance..AND, he most likely hasn't even reached his prime yet