Sack numbers depressed by playing in the NFC East.
We play some of the best tackle combinations in football and last year played some of the best o-lines in football.
Dallas has Smith and now Collins
Washington has Williams and Moses
Philly has peters and Johnson
Last year we played Green Bay twice.
My point being that these are excellent pass rushers who might just be playing excellent blockers and that's why they didn't break double digits
In sacks last year
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
You just don't do it.
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'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.
I guess my comment was missed above
What does that have to do with his current $24 million cap hit in Arizona 5 years after the fact?
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.
Put Stafford on Houston and they might have to get rid of a couple guys elsewhere.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
Even with Snacks, the Texans still weren't likely to win a Super Bowl with the terribly sub-par QB play they were getting.
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.
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.
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.
Great post, though. You and Keith really add a lot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There isn't really any QB short of Rodgers or Brady that have that problem and still be dynamic.