I keep reading the comments that the Giants can't pick a QB at 1.06 unless they have complete conviction on him.
I keep seeing comments such as "missing on a QB at 1.06 would set the team back". "If you pick a QB at 1.06 you have to be right".
I totally disagree with this thinking. The *only* time that type of comment makes sense is when is when you trade up for that pick. If you miss on a Goff, Wentz or Trubisky type deal - when you have traded several premium picks from the current and future seasons - then yes, you're screwed. It typically cost you at least two #1s and a couple of other day 2 picks.
Staying at your original draft slot and picking the QB is no more of a gamble/involves more downside than any other position.
The days of having to pay rookie QBs tens of millions of dollars more than other position players are over. Due to the rookie wage scale these aren't the Sam Bradford days of 10 years ago. Will a rookie QB cost more than a different position in the same draft slot - yes but not to a crippling degree. So the money argument holds no water.
Any player we pick at 1.06 can turn out to be great or be a bust there's no sure thing. If they don't like any of the QBs, so be it but to say you can't pick the QB at 1.06 because involves some greater amount of risk, makes no sense.
The real risk here, is continuing to pass on a QB when your record allows you to get one at your original draft slot. Eventually, you will paint yourself into a corner where you have to make one of those QB mega deals that cost you 2 years worth of premium draft picks. Missing at that point, will indeed set the team back.
Somewhat ironically, the closest corollary to Peppers at the position is actually the guy he’s replacing. Landon Collins spent over half his snaps as a rookie at deep safety and got even more exposed as the lowest-graded safety in the NFL. In Year 2, Collins shifted to a box role, and the natural playmaking ability took over as he led the position in stops. In 2018 though, it was Peppers who actually graded out higher for PFF.
While receiving two first-rounders back might have been more exciting, getting Peppers is like receiving a first-rounder you’re certain you’ll hit on. With three more years of team control at a much lower price than Collins, the addition of Peppers in yesterday’s trade is far from inconsequential.
And Zeitler for Vernon? I'll take that every day, especially on Sunday. And about those All-Pros from 2016, none of them (except for possibly JPP, whom I was mistaken about, and Janoris Jenkins, who had his 2017 season cut short, but who rebounded nicely in 2018) has come close to repeating their performances from that year. Harrison (who played seven games for the Giants in 2018), DRC, and Vernon reverted to average to above average. Collins, above average, but still not nearly worth the cost to keep him.
As for bad taste, you've buried Eli on more than one post, and by extension, Gettleman, too. Aren't you the guy who said the whole football world will ridicule him if he doesn't draft a QB this year? Let's face it. You want Eli replaced and you're pissed that Gettleman has shown support for him. Everything else is just window dressing. Be honest about it.
Quote:
It just amazes me how some of you can just blindly follow without thinking for yourself.
You do realize that "thinking for yourself" doesn't make you an expert on football matters.
Here's what the majority of people do regarding Gettleman:
1) They lump him in with Reese as if he thinks the same way and is an extension of his moves
2) Think they can already judge the moves he's made positively or negatively before we have the answers.
And when they trash him, they have this strange dichotomy that there's a pro-Gettleman faction vs. some band of free thinkers.
People can and should question Gettleman when it is valid. Taking quotes out of context and in partial snippets and associating great value to them is pretty weak. Yet that doesn't amaze you.
Because doing so would mute post after agonizing post taking a comment from him saying we would "win now" last year, and arguing non-stop about it.
I told you fatman. DOn;t post to me anymore. PThe other thread tol dme all about you. You look to twist everything. Your posts are nothing but twists and lies. DOn't post to me anymore.
Quote:
In comment 14385931 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
He's been here only one year, he had a really good draft, and he made some good trades & acquisitions. I think getting #17, a former 1st rd pick who will replace Collins, and a 3rd, is a pretty good haul for a disgruntled WR who was somewhat of a primadonna
ANd I don;t get people like you that excuse poor decision-making and just laugh-off a GM's dumb comments.
It just amazes me how some of you can just blindly follow without thinking for yourself.
Its been one year, and a positive year at that.
SO he is incapable of making ANY bad moves because he's just been on the job for 1 year? Otherwise why are you brining up 1 year unless you think beucase in 1 year he can't be criticized for ANY of his moves that were bad?
Positive?
Unbelievable how many of you accept failure and convince yourselves its positive.
Did he make every wrong move? No.
But he blundered to such a point for example we couldn;t get a RT in FA or get a quality ILB.
Just read the post 'Mike from Ohio" replied to Eric with. Some people just don't want to touch DG in ANY negative light. Nothing what he says he counts. Nothing. -- TEFLON DAVE.
The SOldier and Ogeltree moves were beyond idiotic. You realize how much Olgetree is making right now? If we got Hubbard and Fulton last year and took SY's guy in rd 2 - we'd have 80% of our line fixed and not the older Soldier.
Instead of Ogletree this year's money we could have secured Jordan Hicks. Instead our GM wasted the money because he expected us to win.
If it was a rebuild why not trade COllins earlier? WHat about OBJ? We're not going to trade him - sign him to a big contract then trade him? But let's not criticize him because Reese sucked?
I just don't understand how you so easily accept all this. Whatever you cna have last word. I've hijacked the thread enough.
+1
+1
+1
Be careful there is a poster on here that will hammer you for that. Matter of fact earlier this year or late last year he disregarded what Teflon Dave said and invented his own conversation.
Quote:
In comment 14386528 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 14385931 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
He's been here only one year, he had a really good draft, and he made some good trades & acquisitions. I think getting #17, a former 1st rd pick who will replace Collins, and a 3rd, is a pretty good haul for a disgruntled WR who was somewhat of a primadonna
ANd I don;t get people like you that excuse poor decision-making and just laugh-off a GM's dumb comments.
It just amazes me how some of you can just blindly follow without thinking for yourself.
Its been one year, and a positive year at that.
SO he is incapable of making ANY bad moves because he's just been on the job for 1 year? Otherwise why are you brining up 1 year unless you think beucase in 1 year he can't be criticized for ANY of his moves that were bad?
Positive?
Unbelievable how many of you accept failure and convince yourselves its positive.
Did he make every wrong move? No.
But he blundered to such a point for example we couldn;t get a RT in FA or get a quality ILB.
Just read the post 'Mike from Ohio" replied to Eric with. Some people just don't want to touch DG in ANY negative light. Nothing what he says he counts. Nothing. -- TEFLON DAVE.
The SOldier and Ogeltree moves were beyond idiotic. You realize how much Olgetree is making right now? If we got Hubbard and Fulton last year and took SY's guy in rd 2 - we'd have 80% of our line fixed and not the older Soldier.
Instead of Ogletree this year's money we could have secured Jordan Hicks. Instead our GM wasted the money because he expected us to win.
If it was a rebuild why not trade COllins earlier? WHat about OBJ? We're not going to trade him - sign him to a big contract then trade him? But let's not criticize him because Reese sucked?
I just don't understand how you so easily accept all this. Whatever you cna have last word. I've hijacked the thread enough.
Bottom line: DG better have another GREAT DRAFT cause if he blows it its over before its over for him here in NY.
Quote:
was this year?
+1
+1
+1
Be careful there is a poster on here that will hammer you for that. Matter of fact earlier this year or late last year he disregarded what Teflon Dave said and invented his own conversation.
No he won’t...
Quote:
says into a microphone has to be taken with a grain of salt. a lot of it is just coachspeak: a lot of lie, a lot of truth, a lot of truth for the moment, a lot of spinning things around.
Hanging your hat on anything they say as gospel is a fools errand, IMO.
So you are saying that Gettleman doesn't really believe that drafting the wrong QB in the 1st round will set your franchise back?
There are very few QBs good enough to transcend a bad program. Conversely a good system can make winners and even champions out of good, not great quarterbacks.
This group needs to get a young QB into this system, all grow together, and see if all the puzzle pieces belong.
Quote:
In comment 14386123 fkap said:
Quote:
says into a microphone has to be taken with a grain of salt. a lot of it is just coachspeak: a lot of lie, a lot of truth, a lot of truth for the moment, a lot of spinning things around.
Hanging your hat on anything they say as gospel is a fools errand, IMO.
So you are saying that Gettleman doesn't really believe that drafting the wrong QB in the 1st round will set your franchise back?
You know what else sets your franchise back?
1) Not picking up the phone and listening to trade offers when on the clock last year.
2) Trading OBJ two months before the draft for no apparent reason, and saying that he didn't shop the offer because if you call another team, you lose leverage.
Does that sound like a competent GM to you?
First of all, when Gettleman said he didn't listen to any trade offers it was hyperbole, but the team on the other end had better be ready to offer a kings ransom and no one did. Would you pick up the phone if LT was there at 2? Barkley checked all of the boxes for Gettleman and met the gold jacket standard.
As far as Beckham ask the Steelers how much stock they lost in Antonio Brown by shopping him. The ravens got a 4th for flacco by shopping him around.
What makes Gettleman a competent GM is his resume, not what he says to the media. He has been a part of 3 NFL teams in various roles from a scout to administrative (personnel director to general manager and he has had success everywhere he has been.
As a scout 5 time AFC Champions and 1 Superbowl championship
As an executive 4 times NFL Champions and 2 Superbowl championships
What is your resume?
What??
This is in jest, right?
If not, why was there discussion last year ad nauseum about a quote he made that they could win now and that's what people latched onto about keeping Eli?
The selection of Barkley. The shelling out $$ for Solder. The trade for Ogletree. We were told that was all in the spirit of winning now. Didn't matter that he traded JPP and turned over the roster by 60% - wasn't the "win now" mantra the main pulpit for those complaining about selecting a RB and not a QB?
giantstock used a Gettleman quote over and over again in nearly every thread he posted on. At least I think he did. Even in his call for me to stop posting to him, I can barely figure out what the moron is saying. Spelling, syntax and his general lack of intelligence makes it really fucking hard to read what he's typed.
"Hey guys, we're going to suck this next year or two, but we'll be better for hit in 2021. Hang in there."
Would that have been acceptable?
Why not put some faith in Gettleman? Isn’t it a little soon to even assess him, much less dismiss him? I mean, he knows more than we do. He’s been successful. And HE’S OUR GM. That’s it. Bottom line. I’m rooting like hell for him. I’m *choosing* to. He wins, the team wins.
Why not put some faith in Gettleman? Isn’t it a little soon to even assess him, much less dismiss him? I mean, he knows more than we do. He’s been successful. And HE’S OUR GM. That’s it. Bottom line. I’m rooting like hell for him. I’m *choosing* to. He wins, the team wins.
Blind faith goes to a higher power, not a football GM.
The issue is logistics. There is one QB. The position is not rotated or subbed in any meaningful way outside of gadget plays, and you can’t paper over a QB who impacts every other player on the field.
This position is expected to handle the football on virtually every single play. If you miss on your first pick at any other position (I suppose an exception for Kickers should be made), maybe the guy turns in to a good #2 or #3. A solid player. Maybe a starter, maybe comes in in sub packages. Contribute on special teams. He will get in the game and produce in some way. You still need middle class players who may provide leadership, depth or specialization and get on the field.
QBs that don’t cut it can’t hold the clipboard any better. Maybe they help with prep. Maybe they’re everyone’s favorite teammate. Maybe you can convert the guy, but that’s not usual. Successful QBs seldom hit the open market for a reason (personally speaking, if there is a way to get Wilson either via trade or FA, you can go ahead and give up the farm and happily pay him whatever the market rate will be secure in the knowledge that you’ve got that situation squared away for at least another five years, if not more). They are just too hard to find, and too risky to miss.
Having an unproductive player at the most important position on the field is not an option. Paying top price for it is the kick to the groin. Presumably you need that guy to play the position if you’re drafting one first, so you’ll need to go get another QB with the same risk attached if the first flames out.
On the sliding scale, QBs should be very good to excellent. All other positions, you can still work with a guy that is good or average. You could even keep them through a second or third contract. If they’re coachable, they can still be impact players.
The letdown QB takes up a roster spot, doesn’t produce, and makes you pay and invest twice as much with twice the risk. It would be a major blow to the franchise. That’s why there is so much talk about “conviction” surrounding the QB, and you don’t just take one for the sake of taking one.
It’s got to be the guy and he’s got to be the guy for 10-15. Not sure you can say that about any other position, so I don’t see how missing on a #1 QB is similar to missing on another position beyond the fact that you’ve missed. The consequences are just so extraordinarily different.
Disagree. You can win SB's with experienced game managers you find in FA.
Quote:
Can be equally as devastating.
Disagree. You can win SB's with experienced game managers you find in FA.
You can if you have a historically strong D. The QB's who fit that description are Foles and Dilfer in recent history. Maybe Brad Johnson.
3 possible guys in the past 20 years.
Quote:
Can be equally as devastating.
Disagree. You can win SB's with experienced game managers you find in FA.
Fair point.
TB: Josh Freeman (2009) / Jameis Winston (2015)… Since 2019, 55 wins 105 losses, last place 8 of last 10 seasons
TEN: Jake Locker (2011) / Marcus Marriota (2015)… Since 2011, 54 wins 74 losses, 1 playoff appearance
JAX: Blaine Gabbert (2011) / Blake Bortles (2014)… Since 2011, 37 wins 91 losses, 1 playoff appearance
Only one of those teams traded up (Jacksonville with Gabbert)
This is a causation/correlation problem. You're using the selection of the bust QB as the reason (and really, the sole reason) for the team struggling in the subsequent years. The reality, IMO, is that these are/were franchises that made poor personnel decisions across the board. It's why they were bad enough to take a QB near the top of the draft. It's why they selected a bad QB in the first place. It's why the rest of the roster was also weak so the team continued to struggle even with the new QB.
Those teams are/were all mired in extended periods of mediocrity, and the busted QB pick(s) are not the only reason why. The Giants are proof positive that you can suck for the better part of a decade without ever taking a QB in the first round during their down cycle. Missing on premium draft picks represents a massive wasted opportunity. That's the truth regardless of what position that draft pick plays.
He said it this offseason.
He says a lot of things, some of which seem antiquated (as this one has in previous iterations last year when it seemed like he was referencing old QB rookie contracts rather than the current rookie wage scale). He seems to like providing soundbites that sound dramatic; I'd take them all with a grain of salt until we see otherwise.
That said, he's also never selected a supposed franchise QB as a GM. If we take him at face value, it could just be that he's incredibly conservative (bordering on gunshy) at that position, differently than any other. If that's the case, it doesn't really matter whether we debate the relative setback of a busted QB compared to a busted pick at another position - we're at the mercy of the way DG sees it.
Quote:
In comment 14386886 ron mexico said:
Quote:
Can be equally as devastating.
Disagree. You can win SB's with experienced game managers you find in FA.
You can if you have a historically strong D. The QB's who fit that description are Foles and Dilfer in recent history. Maybe Brad Johnson.
3 possible guys in the past 20 years.
15% of all Super Bowls in last 20 years is a high number.
What percent were 2nd round plus quarterbacks? Number goes up a lot then.
You can win with a game manager - if you have a historically tough D.
Remove those exceptional D's and you are left with 1 QB who was a game manager winning a SB.
Does that number work better for you? or is 5% an incredibly high number too?
You can win with a game manager - if you have a historically tough D.
Remove those exceptional D's and you are left with 1 QB who was a game manager winning a SB.
Does that number work better for you? or is 5% an incredibly high number too?
Not sure why you're asking me to repeat myself, thought that was pretty clear. But I will if it helps - yes, 15% of all Super Bowls being won by a game manager is a high percentage. Your slicing and dicing and removing teams from consideration is absurd and argumentative. Are we going to trade off creating categories of teams and remove them from the equation until we're left with 4 teams in the last twenty years that count? If so, my next category is all time great quarterbacks. So any super bowl won by Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Warner doesn't count. And oh yeah, three of those were not first round quarterbacks and one wasn't even drafted. My point is simple, game managers did not devastate those teams.
Thanks for playing.
If you think 15% is a high number I don't know what to tell you.
You might be terrible at math or you might just be really stubborn when called out on a bad point.
Game managers aren't winning SB's.
I'd say thanks for playing, but I have no fucking clue what bizarre game it is.
And frankly it's a lot easier to find a good QB than it is build a team capable of overcoming the lack of one.
This century three Super Bowl winners have been top 10 picks, Maning, Manning, and Dilfer.
I think this points to getting a talented quarterback, but not a quarterback at all costs.
And really focusing on having the right coach and a stable front office.
If you think 15% is a high number I don't know what to tell you.
You might be terrible at math or you might just be really stubborn when called out on a bad point.
Game managers aren't winning SB's.
I'd say thanks for playing, but I have no fucking clue what bizarre game it is.
Game managers aren't winning SB's? You just named three of them in your last post. You've already conceded this point. You're looking silly now (sillier).
No comment re your 15% statement - you expose your own ignorance with it.
Three game manager QB's in 20 years!! Dilfer, Johnson and Foles, with Dilfer and Johnson playing with #1 D's. The Eagles might have been too.
Are you really saying winning with 3 game managers in 20 years is silly? I actually thin k you are being fucking serious, which actually makes YOU look bad!
Here's a number for you too, Chief. There's been one game manager QB since 2002 to win a SB.
You'll probably tell me that's a high number too.
Fool.
Doesn't have to be a highly picked QB, that's the more interesting conversation.
Not any good ones seems severe to me.
I think all 4 prospects compare favorably to Watson or Mahomes coming out.
Three game manager QB's in 20 years!! Dilfer, Johnson and Foles, with Dilfer and Johnson playing with #1 D's. The Eagles might have been too.
Are you really saying winning with 3 game managers in 20 years is silly? I actually thin k you are being fucking serious, which actually makes YOU look bad!
Here's a number for you too, Chief. There's been one game manager QB since 2002 to win a SB.
You'll probably tell me that's a high number too.
Fool.
Ah, now come the personal insults. Was wondering when that would start. Always the sign of the person winning the argument!
Anyway, since you've moved the goal posts for the argument several times, let me re-iterate and make my last comment on it.
The original post I responded to stated that not choosing a quarterback at 1.06 could be equally as devastating as choosing the wrong one. I disagreed. As one point of evidence I brought up that game managers signed in FA have one super bowls. The point being that there are ways other than top 10 picks to get super bowl winning quarterbacks. You then interjected, without offering a perspective on the question at hand, that you could only think of three in the last twenty years. I responded that actually proves my point, as it showed a game manager did not devastate those team, and offered the second piece of evidence that a further eight of those were won by quarterbacks picked in the 2nd round or later. You then again responded without actually addressing the question that was at hand.
So in sum, you've contributed nothing to the discussion that was being had and personally insulted me several times, great job!
Now I'll leave you with one question that is the ultimately arbiter of the topic at hand - and I'll use your own parameter: how many quarterbacks who have been top 10 busts have won the super bowl in that time period?
Again, thanks for playing. You've been fun.
Again, thanks for playing. You've been fun.
By definition - a "bust" didn't win anything! I'm glad you take the high ground of avoiding "insults" and instead using the condescending "Thanks for playing" bullshit. Much classier.
But to answer your question, doesn't Trent Dilfer qualify? Kerry Collins could qualify too - even though he didn't win one.
Look at that - guys playing in 10% of the SB's were first round busts!! An amazingly high number!
Quote:
Now I'll leave you with one question that is the ultimately arbiter of the topic at hand - and I'll use your own parameter: how many quarterbacks who have been top 10 busts have won the super bowl in that time period?
Again, thanks for playing. You've been fun.
By definition - a "bust" didn't win anything! I'm glad you take the high ground of avoiding "insults" and instead using the condescending "Thanks for playing" bullshit. Much classier.
But to answer your question, doesn't Trent Dilfer qualify? Kerry Collins could qualify too - even though he didn't win one.
Look at that - guys playing in 10% of the SB's were first round busts!! An amazingly high number!
Yet another half-baked, goal-post moving reply not addressing the topic that was being discussed. Not worth the time.
instead of counting Patriot victories as individual, count winning QBs. 5 patriot victories now become one QB. Eli's 2 victories count as one for your equation. etc
an argument can be made that's fair as we're comparing QB's not team victories.
add Payton Manning to the game manager list on his second trophy.
If you want to use stats, you have to learn how to massage the data so you can spin the tale. My motto is never trust a statistic. It's too easy to manipulate.
But, one shouldn't draft with game manager in mind. Aim for higher and settle if it doesn't pan out. Then draft a a better QB. gm's are ok short term as a stop gap, but always aim higher
Quote:
this is rich:
Quote:
Now I'll leave you with one question that is the ultimately arbiter of the topic at hand - and I'll use your own parameter: how many quarterbacks who have been top 10 busts have won the super bowl in that time period?
Again, thanks for playing. You've been fun.
By definition - a "bust" didn't win anything! I'm glad you take the high ground of avoiding "insults" and instead using the condescending "Thanks for playing" bullshit. Much classier.
But to answer your question, doesn't Trent Dilfer qualify? Kerry Collins could qualify too - even though he didn't win one.
Look at that - guys playing in 10% of the SB's were first round busts!! An amazingly high number!
Yet another half-baked, goal-post moving reply not addressing the topic that was being discussed. Not worth the time.
Why do you keep saying the goalposts are being moved?
I addressed the OP earlier in the thread. Picking a QB high most certainly sets the team back. The only question is how long. And that depends on how poorly the QB plays and quickly an organization moves away from a high pick. If the guy is just mediocre instead of terrible, it can be several years.
I'd posit that you moved the goalposts by acting as if winning with game managers is common, and then you doubled down on that with saying that 15% is a high number.I said flat out - you can win with a game manager - if you have a very good, if not historically great D.
Otherwise, you're fucked.
This whole "thanks for playing" bullshit sounds a lot like JerseyJoe argumentation - which would make a lot of sense for foisting a pretty shitty point and sticking to it.
Quote:
In comment 14387085 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
this is rich:
Quote:
Now I'll leave you with one question that is the ultimately arbiter of the topic at hand - and I'll use your own parameter: how many quarterbacks who have been top 10 busts have won the super bowl in that time period?
Again, thanks for playing. You've been fun.
By definition - a "bust" didn't win anything! I'm glad you take the high ground of avoiding "insults" and instead using the condescending "Thanks for playing" bullshit. Much classier.
But to answer your question, doesn't Trent Dilfer qualify? Kerry Collins could qualify too - even though he didn't win one.
Look at that - guys playing in 10% of the SB's were first round busts!! An amazingly high number!
Yet another half-baked, goal-post moving reply not addressing the topic that was being discussed. Not worth the time.
Why do you keep saying the goalposts are being moved?
I addressed the OP earlier in the thread. Picking a QB high most certainly sets the team back. The only question is how long. And that depends on how poorly the QB plays and quickly an organization moves away from a high pick. If the guy is just mediocre instead of terrible, it can be several years.
I'd posit that you moved the goalposts by acting as if winning with game managers is common, and then you doubled down on that with saying that 15% is a high number.I said flat out - you can win with a game manager - if you have a very good, if not historically great D.
Otherwise, you're fucked.
This whole "thanks for playing" bullshit sounds a lot like JerseyJoe argumentation - which would make a lot of sense for foisting a pretty shitty point and sticking to it.
Assuming you have a D that does its job; that can make that key stop more often than not towards crunch time, do you think a game manager with a HOF-caliber RB talent, can win a title?
After three years of who the hell knows what you've got, bring in competition. It's up to management to sort it out, and after three years management should have a good idea which way the cookie is going to crumble.
But, I don't think you're necessarily set back. you can still improve the rest of the team. team quality doesn't decline because a QB is bad/mediocre. That would be the fault of management.
You are going to have 3 more years of meh, so that sucks.
After three years of who the hell knows what you've got, bring in competition. It's up to management to sort it out, and after three years management should have a good idea which way the cookie is going to crumble.
But, I don't think you're necessarily set back. you can still improve the rest of the team. team quality doesn't decline because a QB is bad/mediocre. That would be the fault of management.
You are going to have 3 more years of meh, so that sucks.
I think that's correct - the goal is still to go about improving the team.
The pressure and expectations of a QB taken high are huge. Heck - any starting QB has high expectations. But I don't think it is easy to know when to move away and when not. What do you do if a guy isn't horrible, but shows signs of good play? I think the Cowboys are in that boat now. I think the Bengals have been for some time.
It's tough to move away from a QB, especially one chosen high.
instead of counting Patriot victories as individual, count winning QBs. 5 patriot victories now become one QB. Eli's 2 victories count as one for your equation. etc
an argument can be made that's fair as we're comparing QB's not team victories.
add Payton Manning to the game manager list on his second trophy.
If you want to use stats, you have to learn how to massage the data so you can spin the tale. My motto is never trust a statistic. It's too easy to manipulate.
But, one shouldn't draft with game manager in mind. Aim for higher and settle if it doesn't pan out. Then draft a a better QB. gm's are ok short term as a stop gap, but always aim higher
Good point. Comparing winning QBs instead of winning teams makes the point even clearer.
Massaging the data was never necessary to make my point however. The ultimate point, as you conclude with and I agree, was not to shoot for game managers, just that you can win with them - whereas winning with struggling top 10 QBs does not happen.
Add to that the fundamental shift in the game post 2004 with the Polian rule changes, you really need to start 2005 and on, the baselines changed that much.
A good start would be say QBs who reached say championship games since 2005 to get anything near enough data.
And also what's game manager and what window defines it? Was 2013 Russel Wilson a game manager? He was bottom 3rd in attempts and last in attempts of any QB who started 11 or more games.
Quote:
Now I'll leave you with one question that is the ultimately arbiter of the topic at hand - and I'll use your own parameter: how many quarterbacks who have been top 10 busts have won the super bowl in that time period?
Again, thanks for playing. You've been fun.
By definition - a "bust" didn't win anything! I'm glad you take the high ground of avoiding "insults" and instead using the condescending "Thanks for playing" bullshit. Much classier.
But to answer your question, doesn't Trent Dilfer qualify? Kerry Collins could qualify too - even though he didn't win one.
Look at that - guys playing in 10% of the SB's were first round busts!! An amazingly high number!
Yet another half-baked, goal-post moving reply not addressing the topic that was being discussed. Not worth the time.
Why do you keep saying the goalposts are being moved?
I addressed the OP earlier in the thread. Picking a QB high most certainly sets the team back. The only question is how long. And that depends on how poorly the QB plays and quickly an organization moves away from a high pick. If the guy is just mediocre instead of terrible, it can be several years.
I'd posit that you moved the goalposts by acting as if winning with game managers is common, and then you doubled down on that with saying that 15% is a high number.I said flat out - you can win with a game manager - if you have a very good, if not historically great D.
Otherwise, you're fucked.
This whole "thanks for playing" bullshit sounds a lot like JerseyJoe argumentation - which would make a lot of sense for foisting a pretty shitty point and sticking to it.
I keep saying it because you keep doing it. The recap I gave of the back and forth is accurate. If you're confused read it again. If you don't know what goalpost moving is look it up. Your merely saying the argument is "shitty" does not actually make it so. Your own math proved it. No one who picked the wrong QB in the top 10 won a super bowl - but team's with game managers and 2nd plus round selected quarterbacks did. Your argumentativeness and quickness to insult others does lead down paths that are easy to refute and thus make you fun to play with. Your only successful tactic is that you appear to have a lot of time to keep responding and responding, so have fun if you want to have a go at getting the last word.
Of course drafting a QB that busts at 6 would set us back. That said, fuck the risk, you have to draft one eventually and you can't keep punting. The great one could be in this draft and 2020 & 2021 could be the busts. Teams are wrong about the QBs they draft all the time. Saying they don't have conviction on anyone year after year sounds like they are scared to draft one.
We need a QB, end of fucking story. Draft or trade for 1. So, if for the third year in a row, we are shit by the bye have we NEED to have someone to play for the ENTIRE rest of the season that is worth investing that time in.
This is my biggest complaint about DG. He addressed what happened in 2017 and made the same mistake himself in 2018. He had no one on the team worth playing once our season was toast. Eli needs to do well in 2019 or DG is not the man to right his franchise and bring in new QB because it would mean he cannot even evaluate the players on his team effectively.
So now the criteria is QB's picked in the top 10 by their original teams and 2nd plus round selected QB's??
Good grief.
To christian's point, this concept of game managers winning SB's is pretty vague and not very statistically relevant. But you say it happened and that 15% is a large number.
I'd tell you to chew on that a bit, but you don't care top - it is m ore likely to elicit a "Thanks for playing" response.
This really is very JerseyJoe like
Thats their plan