Bortles had an unimpressive game today, and a remarkably up and down first four years. But don't forget Eli Manning wasn't burning the league down at that stage in his career.
Eli showed he can beat teams by passing and passing deep. Bortles can't get the ball downfield consistently. Concerning.
Eli's first playoff game he went 10-18 for 113 yards, 0 TDs and 3 INTs. Were you impressed with that game?
LOL! It did not make a god damn difference. Geno Smith played just as well as Eli did all season, save one clock turning game against the Eagles.
You continue to do nothing but spew your love for your hero Eli Manning, who has been insanely average and outrageously overpaid for a number of years. The numbers don't lie, 22nd in QBR in 2017, 27th in 2016, on an 11 win team.
I am sorry but I am so tired of seeing him struggle to complete passes without perfect execution around him, and continue to throw bone headed interceptions like he is a rookie. He in no way deserves $20M a year at this stage of his career, and the Giants can do so much better. We deserve it. I have said it to you over and over again. Stop living in the past. It is not 2011, and Eli is not the great QB you think he still is.
Bortles had an unimpressive game today, and a remarkably up and down first four years. But don't forget Eli Manning wasn't burning the league down at that stage in his career.
Eli showed he can beat teams by passing and passing deep. Bortles can't get the ball downfield consistently. Concerning.
Eli's first playoff game he went 10-18 for 113 yards, 0 TDs and 3 INTs. Were you impressed with that game?
Yes. Super impressed. Did you watch every game Eli played from 05-07 or just that one playoff loss?
Bortles had an unimpressive game today, and a remarkably up and down first four years. But don't forget Eli Manning wasn't burning the league down at that stage in his career.
Eli showed he can beat teams by passing and passing deep. Bortles can't get the ball downfield consistently. Concerning.
Eli's first playoff game he went 10-18 for 113 yards, 0 TDs and 3 INTs. Were you impressed with that game?
Yes. Super impressed. Did you watch every game Eli played from 05-07 or just that one playoff loss?
Fucking idiotic point.
If you think Eli was impressive early in his career leading up to the 2007 playoff run, I'd have to question whether you watched the games. He was on the verge of being labeled a disappointment even during the 2007 regular season.
go check my posts from back then. I was one of Eli's biggest defenders around here. I finally showed a shred of frustration after the minny game in 07 but throughout those first 3 seasons I went out of my way to defend him. And I didn't think Eli was great then I just thought he was solid. Flawed? Yes. But he was getting the ball downfield and deep at a pretty high level and he was winning games in the 4th quarter. Eli really just had to eliminate the INts that came in bunches and even then, many of the INTs were overstated.
I don't even hate Blake Bortles. Young QBs are funny....who's to say that Blake doesn't figure things out here over the next year or two. He could. But make no mistake, Eli had a better 2-3 year start than Bortles did and you damn well know it. Blake won his first playoff game. Good for him. Something tells me if Eli was hosting the buffalo fucking bills intead of the Panthers in 2005 he wins that game too. Agree?
I'm not going to say I didn't want any part of Carolina going into the playoffs, but that was the last team I wanted anything to do with. That defense of their was very solid and did a very good job confusing Eli and mixing up/hiding the coverages. They beat Chicago pretty good but then lost to Seattle in the NFCG when MVP Alexander ran all over them.
I think everyone played like shit for the Giants in that 2005 playoff game. The offensive line got fucking owned by Carolina. Shockey, Toomer, Barber had a few big drops. Why the hell am I talking about this??
It ended badly but the season was a resounding success. Panthers were a better team by the end of that season than the Giants were. To me the qb and team that reminds me of Eli and the Giants is this Rams team that just lost at home to the falcons. Goff and Eli have had remarkably similar starts to their careers. Both were first overall picks. Both sucked in year one. Both played well in year two making big boy throws with a downhill running game. Both lost at home two the better more experienced team.
Bortles was statistically good his first full season but his team didn't win. Since then he's only gotten worse while his team has actually gotten better. By year 4 Eli was the best player in the playoffs and he won a super bowl. Bortles will be the reason why the jags lose next week. They are nothing alike. Odds are they never will be alike but you never know. Bortles has a lot of work to do, I'll leave it at that. Goff is the better comparison.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
but he's a capable QB IMO. I don't think he's a good player to use when trying to argue against paying someone top dollar - that should be used for a guy like Cousins.
A second round pick (which is what San Francisco traded) isn't a substantial asset when you're a QB away from being a legit contender. Once Jacksonville knew they had something they were nuts to go forward with Bortles, who might be the worst quarterback in the league.
is a better option? He saw marginally more snaps than Webb this year...
Though the guy blocking him is the prototypical answer for why you shouldn't (over)pay for mediocre QBs. Smith/Cousins type QBs pretty much lock you into mediocrity.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
A second round pick (which is what San Francisco traded) isn't a substantial asset when you're a QB away from being a legit contender. Once Jacksonville knew they had something they were nuts to go forward with Bortles, who might be the worst quarterback in the league.
It's a 2nd round pick for a 1 year rental. Then they have to pay him. And his little win streak with the 49ers probably bumped his value by several million per season (despite only 7 starts in 4 seasons). A playoff win or 2 and $20M is probably the starting point for negotiations.
And Bortles has plenty of competition for worst QB: Brissett, McCown, Kizer, Taylor, Cutler, Siemian, Trubiskey, Hundley, Beathard, Savage, etc.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
Yeah, the Lions drafted him, that should be the focus of why they are 9-7. Do you honestly think he's hindering their ability to be better?
You have such an odd take on the NFL and you use hindsight to constantly prove your points, its very strange.
Ever watch a Lions game? They can't run the ball for shit, sound familiar? That offense is 100% all Stafford.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Detroit has fielded ONE good defense since they drafted Stafford. And he didn't get paid until this year.
It has nothing to do with him and everything to do with poor team management and roster building.
He's not holding them back from putting a better defense on the field.
I still fail to see how letting a top 5 QB walk for cap space helps the Lions. You literally just acknowledged that Bortles is the sole reason an otherwise fantastic Jags team won't go anywhere.
I wouldn't overpay for Kirk Cousins or Alex Smith.
But paying market value for Stafford makes plenty of sense.
Hopefully you've at least changed your tune on this, because it sounded silly then, and it sounds even sillier now.
Quote:
I'd take Flacco over Stafford 10 times out of 10
Go Terps : 8/29/2017 2:11 pm : link
And even then, I still think Baltimore made a mistake paying Flacco what they did. And it's been borne out on the field.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
or had they traded up to get Carson Wentz or made a trade with SF to get Alex Smith when SF was trading him or drafted Cam Newton.
We can all play that game Captain Hindsight. Keenum was a career journeyman until this season as was McCown. Those guys had trouble finding jobs never mind being trade bait. Please.
after singing his big deal he followed it up with the best season of his career. Just under a 3/1 TD ratio and 66% completion %. If we had anything close to that we'd be thrilled paying that QB top dollar. Well, maybe not Terps, because it would be an overpay still.
Gotta just go all out Moneyball and find all these shitty players that cost nothing but are somehow great.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
Lol nobody is comparing Luck to Brissett besides you. Luck, if healthy, is one of the best QBs in the game. Brissett compared to Bortles is the conversation. Stay focused.
My first post in this thread was how could this even be a topic of discussion. I also said, well this is BBI, you guys will find a way to argue about anything. Arc, you are the epitome of that.
Thanks, for letting me know - except I'm comparing two QB's who played for the same team under similar circumstances if you weren't able to figure that out for yourself.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
The problem is many people use stats out of context and are simply too dumb to understand the limitations of a particular stat.
QBR is a good example of this. It's a good measure of a QB's efficiency when throwing the ball, but it doesn't accurately reflect the entirety of a QBs performance. For example, a QBs rating is adversely affected by throwing the ball away, while taking a sack (or even a sack/fumble) has no impact on a QBs rating. To say nothing of his ability to audible based on what the D is showing.
Thanks, for letting me know - except I'm comparing two QB's who played for the same team under similar circumstances if you weren't able to figure that out for yourself.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
Why so many exhibit sticker shock every time a good or average or barely average qb gets paid big bucks. This isn't 1988 anymore. If you're a capable qb and set to hit the market you're going to get 20 per. And 20 per wont kill your cap as much as no qb will kill your team. That's a fact. And contrary to myth it is not easy to find a decent qb let alone a good or great one. And further still some here discount how hard it would be for a GM to let a good qb walk. Good luck with that in the real world. Easy to play GM here. Not that easy in DC.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Yes, it is a risk no doubt, but Jax will learn from this mistake and having drafted a bust in Bortles and can look to keep trying to find the next guy. But they have a complete roster, top to bottom. Something they would not have if they were just paying a middle of the pack QB $25M a year, who eats up a 6th of the cap space.
The Giants and the Ravens are perfect examples of the risk of paying a QB top dollar. They have top heavy rosters cap wise, and limited depth. Last year the Giants were probably the healthiest roster in the NFL all year, and that helped them win 11 games. Look at how awful the Packers are without Rodgers, that is the guy you pay any amount in the world to.
Look at how much Seattle's team has deteriorated since they paid Wilson? I think Wilson is an exceptional QB, easily top 5 in the NFL, but when you are making absurd money, you are not going to have an offensive line, or your defense is going to suffer.
Paying anyone is a gamble, in a game of attrition, but these QB contracts are getting completely out of hand.
Fantastic retort. Truly remarkable. Not my fault your shitty way of running a football team has only worked for exactly 1 person in today's NFL and that 1 person still overpays for players.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
There is absolutely no way teams are better off just going to a rookie every 4 or 5 years. Simply none. If that were the case we'd see it happen everywhere with success and you don't. The teams that do this never win. outside of truly rare circumstances.
Nah.
Quote:
In comment 13776849 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
In comment 13776836 djstat said:
Quote:
Then Eli does. Just saying...
He is the GOAT. Blake has never lost a playoff game. No other player in the history of the NFL can claim they have won 100% of their playoff games.
See how easy it is?
Marcus Mariota
Dammit. Of all people, Micky, you are right. You are never right.
I am right...not all the time...when I play serious 😁
Quote:
Bortles had an unimpressive game today, and a remarkably up and down first four years. But don't forget Eli Manning wasn't burning the league down at that stage in his career.
Eli showed he can beat teams by passing and passing deep. Bortles can't get the ball downfield consistently. Concerning.
Eli's first playoff game he went 10-18 for 113 yards, 0 TDs and 3 INTs. Were you impressed with that game?
LOL! It did not make a god damn difference. Geno Smith played just as well as Eli did all season, save one clock turning game against the Eagles.
You continue to do nothing but spew your love for your hero Eli Manning, who has been insanely average and outrageously overpaid for a number of years. The numbers don't lie, 22nd in QBR in 2017, 27th in 2016, on an 11 win team.
I am sorry but I am so tired of seeing him struggle to complete passes without perfect execution around him, and continue to throw bone headed interceptions like he is a rookie. He in no way deserves $20M a year at this stage of his career, and the Giants can do so much better. We deserve it. I have said it to you over and over again. Stop living in the past. It is not 2011, and Eli is not the great QB you think he still is.
Quote:
In comment 13776917 christian said:
Quote:
Bortles had an unimpressive game today, and a remarkably up and down first four years. But don't forget Eli Manning wasn't burning the league down at that stage in his career.
Eli showed he can beat teams by passing and passing deep. Bortles can't get the ball downfield consistently. Concerning.
Eli's first playoff game he went 10-18 for 113 yards, 0 TDs and 3 INTs. Were you impressed with that game?
Yes. Super impressed. Did you watch every game Eli played from 05-07 or just that one playoff loss?
Fucking idiotic point.
Quote:
In comment 13777144 djm said:
Quote:
In comment 13776917 christian said:
Quote:
Bortles had an unimpressive game today, and a remarkably up and down first four years. But don't forget Eli Manning wasn't burning the league down at that stage in his career.
Eli showed he can beat teams by passing and passing deep. Bortles can't get the ball downfield consistently. Concerning.
Eli's first playoff game he went 10-18 for 113 yards, 0 TDs and 3 INTs. Were you impressed with that game?
Yes. Super impressed. Did you watch every game Eli played from 05-07 or just that one playoff loss?
Fucking idiotic point.
If you think Eli was impressive early in his career leading up to the 2007 playoff run, I'd have to question whether you watched the games. He was on the verge of being labeled a disappointment even during the 2007 regular season.
I don't even hate Blake Bortles. Young QBs are funny....who's to say that Blake doesn't figure things out here over the next year or two. He could. But make no mistake, Eli had a better 2-3 year start than Bortles did and you damn well know it. Blake won his first playoff game. Good for him. Something tells me if Eli was hosting the buffalo fucking bills intead of the Panthers in 2005 he wins that game too. Agree?
I think everyone played like shit for the Giants in that 2005 playoff game. The offensive line got fucking owned by Carolina. Shockey, Toomer, Barber had a few big drops. Why the hell am I talking about this??
Bortles was statistically good his first full season but his team didn't win. Since then he's only gotten worse while his team has actually gotten better. By year 4 Eli was the best player in the playoffs and he won a super bowl. Bortles will be the reason why the jags lose next week. They are nothing alike. Odds are they never will be alike but you never know. Bortles has a lot of work to do, I'll leave it at that. Goff is the better comparison.
Which is exactly why guys like Matthew Stafford get paid and why teams shouldn't treat their QB position as disposable.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
Cousins, Smith, Taylor, Glennon, etc. are better examples (IMV).
But I know I'm the only Matt Stafford fan on this board, so carry on.
And how does trading substantial assets and having to dole out (likely) ~$20M per year for Garoppolo fit into the disposable QB theory?
Stafford was fantastic this year and Detroit was a top 10 offense.
Defense is their problem and if they can put a better one on the field, they can contend.
The Lions are top 10 in the league in cap space right now. Signing Stafford will have no effect on them spending on other players.
"Nice try, though"
Though the guy blocking him is the prototypical answer for why you shouldn't (over)pay for mediocre QBs. Smith/Cousins type QBs pretty much lock you into mediocrity.
Detroit had two options...
Let him walk and create another massive hole, or pay Stafford market value, be set at the QB position, and fix the rest of the team.
They were smart to choose the latter if they can figure out how to actually put a good defense on the field.
They have money to spend.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
It's a 2nd round pick for a 1 year rental. Then they have to pay him. And his little win streak with the 49ers probably bumped his value by several million per season (despite only 7 starts in 4 seasons). A playoff win or 2 and $20M is probably the starting point for negotiations.
And Bortles has plenty of competition for worst QB: Brissett, McCown, Kizer, Taylor, Cutler, Siemian, Trubiskey, Hundley, Beathard, Savage, etc.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
Yeah, the Lions drafted him, that should be the focus of why they are 9-7. Do you honestly think he's hindering their ability to be better?
You have such an odd take on the NFL and you use hindsight to constantly prove your points, its very strange.
Ever watch a Lions game? They can't run the ball for shit, sound familiar? That offense is 100% all Stafford.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
It has nothing to do with him and everything to do with poor team management and roster building.
He's not holding them back from putting a better defense on the field.
I still fail to see how letting a top 5 QB walk for cap space helps the Lions. You literally just acknowledged that Bortles is the sole reason an otherwise fantastic Jags team won't go anywhere.
I wouldn't overpay for Kirk Cousins or Alex Smith.
But paying market value for Stafford makes plenty of sense.
Hopefully you've at least changed your tune on this, because it sounded silly then, and it sounds even sillier now.
Go Terps : 8/29/2017 2:11 pm : link
And even then, I still think Baltimore made a mistake paying Flacco what they did. And it's been borne out on the field.
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Quote:
.
10 points! -Jimmy Googs
whats up here?
Quote:
In comment 13778484 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
Cousins, Smith, Taylor, Glennon, etc. are better examples (IMV).
But I know I'm the only Matt Stafford fan on this board, so carry on.
I think Stafford is a terrific qb.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
We can all play that game Captain Hindsight. Keenum was a career journeyman until this season as was McCown. Those guys had trouble finding jobs never mind being trade bait. Please.
Quote:
I think Stafford's a bad example because I think he's actually quite good but is limited by the roster.
Cousins, Smith, Taylor, Glennon, etc. are better examples (IMV).
But I know I'm the only Matt Stafford fan on this board, so carry on.
I think Stafford is a terrific qb.
Gotta just go all out Moneyball and find all these shitty players that cost nothing but are somehow great.
Quote:
In comment 13778522 Peppers said:
Quote:
In comment 13778484 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
Nice reply - I guess you're out of anything that is actually useful.
You think far too highly of your own opinions. You're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
But keep calling everyone else a loser. Clearly you know the most.
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
Psst...
Matthew Stafford IS a top 5 guy right now.
Look at the numbers.
:(
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Matthew Stafford IS a top 5 guy right now.
Look at the numbers.
Pfft, numbers don't mean anything!
Quote:
Psst...
Matthew Stafford IS a top 5 guy right now.
Look at the numbers.
Pfft, numbers don't mean anything!
I know. Now I'm a loser. :(
Quote:
In comment 13778526 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13778522 Peppers said:
Quote:
In comment 13778484 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
Lol nobody is comparing Luck to Brissett besides you. Luck, if healthy, is one of the best QBs in the game. Brissett compared to Bortles is the conversation. Stay focused.
My first post in this thread was how could this even be a topic of discussion. I also said, well this is BBI, you guys will find a way to argue about anything. Arc, you are the epitome of that.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
QBR is a good example of this. It's a good measure of a QB's efficiency when throwing the ball, but it doesn't accurately reflect the entirety of a QBs performance. For example, a QBs rating is adversely affected by throwing the ball away, while taking a sack (or even a sack/fumble) has no impact on a QBs rating. To say nothing of his ability to audible based on what the D is showing.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
okay lol
Quote:
In comment 13778506 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Yes, it is a risk no doubt, but Jax will learn from this mistake and having drafted a bust in Bortles and can look to keep trying to find the next guy. But they have a complete roster, top to bottom. Something they would not have if they were just paying a middle of the pack QB $25M a year, who eats up a 6th of the cap space.
The Giants and the Ravens are perfect examples of the risk of paying a QB top dollar. They have top heavy rosters cap wise, and limited depth. Last year the Giants were probably the healthiest roster in the NFL all year, and that helped them win 11 games. Look at how awful the Packers are without Rodgers, that is the guy you pay any amount in the world to.
Look at how much Seattle's team has deteriorated since they paid Wilson? I think Wilson is an exceptional QB, easily top 5 in the NFL, but when you are making absurd money, you are not going to have an offensive line, or your defense is going to suffer.
Paying anyone is a gamble, in a game of attrition, but these QB contracts are getting completely out of hand.
Fantastic retort. Truly remarkable. Not my fault your shitty way of running a football team has only worked for exactly 1 person in today's NFL and that 1 person still overpays for players.
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
There is absolutely no way teams are better off just going to a rookie every 4 or 5 years. Simply none. If that were the case we'd see it happen everywhere with success and you don't. The teams that do this never win. outside of truly rare circumstances.