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.
But the biggest reason the Giants have mostly sucked since SB 46 is whiffing on so many premium picks. Can’t afford to keep doing so, whether we take a QB this year or not
I have asked several times, how was missing on Flowers, Pugh, Apple, less of a set back than missing on a quarterback.
Also at 6, name a player who will probably will be left that fits the refrain, “Can’t miss”
Having to be certain about the quarterback is no more valid a reason for passing on a quarterback than any other position
If your priority is you want the to build the defense and ride with Eli, fine. But don’t frame it as if it s the only responsible thing to do.
year 2...first year starting..if he is not a starting qb we will struggle.
year 3...same as first
year 4 pick new qb start him right away and struggle
plus we would not get a chance to use early pick in year 3 to get a new qb since we would have to give our guy more than 1 year to start.
Is it the end of the world, no? Of course, not, that's silly. Would it be really bad for the Giants? Yes, Flowers bad, Apple bad.
Meanwhile, other QBs have been passed on in the meanwhile and now after a few years your back to square one...
If you pick a bad QB at 6, you miss out on maybe an impact player at another position and then have to spend assets on another draft or trade to make up for it.
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)
We've survived being maimed repeatedly over the last decade. How fun was it? We need to make better choices, and pick good prospects. The evaluation needs to be better.
don't not take a QB because you're paralyzed by the fear of picking the wrong one. But if you take one, you need the conviction that he belongs in the tier of prospects you're choosing from. at #6, any player taken, including QB, needs to be a top prospect. Maybe the elite prospects are gone, but the rest aren't all equal. There are tiers of talent prospects. you choose from the top tier. If a QB is in that tier, take him.
After 2-3 years, if you're undecided on him, move on if opportunity presents itself.
After 2-3 years, if you're undecided on him, move on if opportunity presents itself.
Yup, like the Chargers. Drafted Drew Brees in 2001, drafted Phillip Rivers in 2004. Smart.
That's usually not the case with a QB, who is given at least 3-4 seasons... Situations like John Elway and Kyler Murray (both likely #1 overall) are the exceptions rather than the norm
I have asked several times, how was missing on Flowers, Pugh, Apple, less of a set back than missing on a quarterback.
Also at 6, name a player who will probably will be left that fits the refrain, “Can’t miss”
Having to be certain about the quarterback is no more valid a reason for passing on a quarterback than any other position
If your priority is you want the to build the defense and ride with Eli, fine. But don’t frame it as if it s the only responsible thing to do.
Flowers and Apple killed us. Period. It's not because of their position, it's because we blew two consecutive top ten picks.
So forcing a QB because it's QB, without conviction, is not a smart move.
A blown pick at 1.06 is a blown pick no matter what the position.
There is no greater probability of being a bust for the QB at 1.06 than any other position being picked at 1.06. These guys make it sound like the pass rusher will definitely improve the team while only the QB is a gamble.
At the other positions, a team can be more willing to move on, unless the GM’s ego prevents him from doing that.
Flowers was a big screwup because he really couldn’t play the position and Reese never found any competition. Apple was just a bad pick but the team moved on.
Coughlin and McAdoo should be really embarrassed if Flowers can be a decent guard.
So forcing a QB because it's QB, without conviction, is not a smart move.
Nowhere did I say anything about forcing the pick to be a QB. In fact, I stated "if they don't like any of the QBs, so be it". The point is, the risk of a bust is no greater with a QB at 1.06 than any other position.
Thank you
Quote:
In comment 14385647 joeinpa said:
So forcing a QB because it's QB, without conviction, is not a smart move.
Nowhere did I say anything about forcing the pick to be a QB. In fact, I stated "if they don't like any of the QBs, so be it". The point is, the risk of a bust is no greater with a QB at 1.06 than any other position.
The problem is if the player busts you have a certain minimum commitment when it comes to a QB versus other positions. Arizona is unlikely to get the equivalent of 15th Pick value in trading Rosen. If the Giants pick wrong at QB they are probably stuck with him until 2022 or 2023 draft or have an asset you can’t move. You pick an EDGE and he ends up not meeting expectations, no big deal investing in another next year or the year after because the cost of rookie salary for the second is less than what a UFA would cost. You do not want to be paying 2 QB’s first round money even on rookie contracts.
The problem is if the player busts you have a certain minimum commitment when it comes to a QB versus other positions. Arizona is unlikely to get the equivalent of 15th Pick value in trading Rosen. If the Giants pick wrong at QB they are probably stuck with him until 2022 or 2023 draft or have an asset you can’t move. You pick an EDGE and he ends up not meeting expectations, no big deal investing in another next year or the year after because the cost of rookie salary for the second is less than what a UFA would cost. You do not want to be paying 2 QB’s first round money even on rookie contracts.
That is why I don't buy the "Kansas City Model" as Gettleman seems to love. The KC model is the exception rather than the rule. If we're in contention next year, yeah I guess you have to stick with Eli. If at some point you fall out of contention or even just get out to a bad start say 2-5 or whatever, you have to play the rookie. I think your only commitment is through the first two years. by that time you know if he's not your guy. And there is always some team that would be willing to part with say a 4th (or even 3rd) rounder for a former 1st round QB. Either because they are desperate at the position or they think they're own "Quarterback Guru" can coach up the kid to be at least a solid backup. The same can not be said for most other position players.
So we can't afford to reach for a player just because his position is QB, which is what some people want. Draft a QB no matter what because its so important is a bad policy. We need a player who will contribute immediately and play for a while.
If a pass rusher or tackle “busts” you can try to scheme around them. You can even rotate in and out with a pass rusher. A QB making bad decisions or bad throws is difficult to scheme around aside from going run heavy.
Trust your scouting and pick whoever you have a conviction on when you are on the clock. Every position and every player has the potential to bust so you can’t draft with the goal of not screwing up.
Well said. This is basically the point I'm trying to make.
If the Giants pass on Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Haskins, Lock and Jones I really would like to know what the fuck Gettleman is hoping to see in a prospect. You can’t just wait around until Peyton Manning shows up in the draft.
Drafting a qb isn’t the same as drafting a linebacker or wr or OL. The ramifications last for years.
However you have to consider lost opportunity
If you pass on an All Pro DL then the pick is viewed differently
The Giants miss on any QBs in 2020 bc they’re committed to this QB.
They give him a leash through 2021, and if the team still sucks the GM and HC get canned.
New GM and coach start the process all over again.
A bad decision at QB could set the franchise back for a considerable amount of time — not just the roster but the FO.
It’s not as simple as, “welp he was a bust, better luck next year.”
DG appropriately wants conviction w the next QB bc people’s jobs are going to be on the line the moment they make that pick.
He said it this offseason.
He said it this offseason.
Well he also thought Jonathan Stewart was still a productive player so I would consider the merit of each quote on its own rather than too liberally giving the benefit of the doubt.
And he's already cut, so....
And he's already cut, so....
I think he was supposed to not sign him in the first place.
He said it this offseason.
This is the same GM who told us that getting one first rounder and Peppers for OBJ is the same as getting two first rounders for him. He's come up with several other gems as well.
I give no credence to anything Gettleman says.
Quote:
We signed this washed up guy to play RB?
And he's already cut, so....
I think he was supposed to not sign him in the first place.
You're right, no GM in the league ever makes mistakes. Just ours.
Not to mention the Stewart signing had little to no affect either way on the team and was just a blip on the radar of NYG history. Let's harp on it.
Quote:
General Manager of the New York Football Giants is on record as saying that picking the wrong QB will set the franchise back five years.
He said it this offseason.
This is the same GM who told us that getting one first rounder and Peppers for OBJ is the same as getting two first rounders for him. He's come up with several other gems as well.
I give no credence to anything Gettleman says.
You don't give any credence? Great. Another poster who thinks they are smarted than the GM.
When you pick a QB at #6, you are making an investment that he is the guy of the future. You are going to give him a couple of years of chances before moving off - even if he's poor. If he's mediocre, you spend more. If he's Matt Stafford - you make him the highest paid QB....
Point is - 5 years may be right. It is certainly a much better view than saying picking the wrong QB at #6 is easy to move away from - which is essentially what you're saying. It takes just as much risk to move away from a QB quickly as it does to pick them in the first place.
You can continue to give no credence to what Gettleman says - but you're likely to sound fairly idiotic if you do it often.
The hate for DG is really just an extension of the hate for John Mara, and the fact that Mara replaced Reese not with an "outsider," a young up-and-comer, a "GM Flavor-of-the-month" kind of guy, but with an old hand who was part of the "Mara/Giants family" for a long time.
It's also an extension of the hate for Eli Manning, for whom DG expressed his support. Had DG drafted a QB last year, you wouldn't see the hate manifest itself so much. Rest assured, though, if DG drafts a QB this year, it will be the "wrong" QB, or simply too little, too late.
In fairness, DG did make some questionable free-agent signings last year. Stewart and Omameh head that list. As if no other GM in history ever made a questionable free agent signing or two.
DG was handed quite a formidable task. Change the culture in the locker room, fix the finances, and turn a perennial loser into a winner. Not easily accomplished in one year, but then patience as a virtue is becoming a thing of the past.
Your best chance of getting the right guy is having a high enough pick so that your guy will still be there.
That's why a lot of people thought that the team should have taken a QB last season when they were sitting at two and the pool of quarterbacks was supposed to be large.
This season, sitting at six but with another first round pick, they can still get the top guy on their list by moving up if necessary.
Next season they will HAVE to draft a QB (absent a trade for a vet) and if they have the 14th pick and no extra premium picks then they will have the least control over they get.
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
The hate for DG is really just an extension of the hate for John Mara, and the fact that Mara replaced Reese not with an "outsider," a young up-and-comer, a "GM Flavor-of-the-month" kind of guy, but with an old hand who was part of the "Mara/Giants family" for a long time.
It's also an extension of the hate for Eli Manning, for whom DG expressed his support. Had DG drafted a QB last year, you wouldn't see the hate manifest itself so much. Rest assured, though, if DG drafts a QB this year, it will be the "wrong" QB, or simply too little, too late.
In fairness, DG did make some questionable free-agent signings last year. Stewart and Omameh head that list. As if no other GM in history ever made a questionable free agent signing or two.
DG was handed quite a formidable task. Change the culture in the locker room, fix the finances, and turn a perennial loser into a winner. Not easily accomplished in one year, but then patience as a virtue is becoming a thing of the past.
That's an excellent take
Trading Vernon. What? He was our best defensive player last year! Yeah...that's like being the tallest Little Person...as if his 40 tackles and seven sacks per year are lost forever. Sheesh.
And you'd think DG would get a kudo or two for not breaking the bank to re-sign Landon Collins, but no. Not even for that. It's all Depends jokes Early Bird Specials.
Reese destroyed this team with bad picks. Missing out on a perennial all pro vs a bust isn’t the end of the world. True. But being forced to pick a QB to shut up stupid fans who read some draft prospectus while they take time away from Madden is stupid.
What is a fallacy is that you need to draft a QB in the top 10 to win
Quote:
General Manager of the New York Football Giants is on record as saying that picking the wrong QB will set the franchise back five years.
He said it this offseason.
Well he also thought Jonathan Stewart was still a productive player so I would consider the merit of each quote on its own rather than too liberally giving the benefit of the doubt.
Stewart got hurt. He likely would have been a nice short yardage back here for one year. He got hurt.
Never has so much been made over something so innocuous or harmless.
Hanging your hat on anything they say as gospel is a fools errand, IMO.
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?
Trading Vernon. What? He was our best defensive player last year! Yeah...that's like being the tallest Little Person...as if his 40 tackles and seven sacks per year are lost forever. Sheesh.
And you'd think DG would get a kudo or two for not breaking the bank to re-sign Landon Collins, but no. Not even for that. It's all Depends jokes Early Bird Specials.
I think your original post was fair but you've taken this continuation too far.
I was/am very critical of Getts for the OBJ trade, however I thought the Zeitler trade was a very smart move.
Getts also was receiving kudos for letting Landon walk. Which I also think was the right move.
There is nuance to the criticism that Getts receives.
I think the fanaticism is much greater on the "trust everything" side of the spectrum. On this side, any criticism is taken as blasphemy and an affront to common decency.
I get that some people turn to sports for an escape from the real world and find believing in the wisdom of the team's moves provides comfort that matters are in capable hands and will turn out well. Some of us however don't need that comfort and are able to be realistic about assessing decisions. We will root for the team all the same and all desire what is best for it.
Finally, disagreeing with any of Gett's decisions does not imply that a poster is claiming to be smarter than him or more knowledgeable about football. You can disagree with a decision someone makes without doing either thing. And to this point, GM's frequently make horrible decisions. This is an objective fact. There are far from infallible.
In the end, Getts has made several controversial decisions and if your standard for support for the team is based on everyone having to agree with those moves in full or otherwise be labeled some sort of malcontent than that just seems like a lot of wasted energy. No decision is ever going to be 100% supported.
It's certainly not going to help.
But if a bad pick is killing you 4-5 years out, that's on management, not the player.
Does DG believe that it'll set you back 4-5 yrs? who knows. he could be exaggerating to make a point.
Just kidding.
Seriously, what I object to vehemently is the small but very vocal cadre of posters who seem to revel in the team's misfortune. When the team is bad, as it has been for the past seven years, you can't shut them up. When the team is winning, as it was in 2007 and 2011, you never hear from them.
Over the years, I've been critical of the FO many times, but I'd like to think that my criticism has been fair. Not so with the "doom-and-gloomers" who never miss a chance to take a cheap shot, whether it's calling Jerry Reese a "diversity hire" or joking about Gettleman's age. The lack of respect really pissed me off.
He said it this offseason.
I don't know if he said it this offseason. I know he said it last offseason. But I have two things to say to that:
1) Screwing up a 1st round pick at any position sets your team back. As someone said in this thread, we are partially in this position because we missed on the Flowers and Apple pick. Being scared to pick a QB because it could set you back five years is a cop out; and
2) That is why he is paid several million dollars to get it right. I have a real, real tough time believing all the QBs in last year's class and this year's crop are subpar.
I don't care what his excuse is. You can't be scared to pick a QB. It's utter nonsense. Yet when you listen to this front office, it's the vibe you get.
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?
Just kidding.
Seriously, what I object to vehemently is the small but very vocal cadre of posters who seem to revel in the team's misfortune. When the team is bad, as it has been for the past seven years, you can't shut them up. When the team is winning, as it was in 2007 and 2011, you never hear from them.
Over the years, I've been critical of the FO many times, but I'd like to think that my criticism has been fair. Not so with the "doom-and-gloomers" who never miss a chance to take a cheap shot, whether it's calling Jerry Reese a "diversity hire" or joking about Gettleman's age. The lack of respect really pissed me off.
That's fair. It's seems to me that other posters who are legitimately critical get painted with that same brush, however. And when they do it is usually somewhere along the lines of the retorts that I mentioned.
Seems very simple to me. Only good season in last seven was 2016. Won eleven games and made the playoffs. Got hopes up. Placed six players on the 1st or 2nd AP All Pro team.
DG has unloaded five of the six All Pros. Except for OBJ, received nothing of consequence in return.
JPP and Harrison immediately had positive impact with their new teams.
Team has won eight games since 2016. Giants need a quarterback and two pass rusher, most expensive and hard to fill positions.
Players dumped because they didn't fit in locker room? Can you imagine Parcells unloading best defensive players for using an obscenity with a coach? Parcells would have made sure it didn't happen again.
Seven years since the last collective bargaining agreement, annual salary cap increases have grown so large that no longer necessary to cut a good player for lack of cap.
Just for good measure throw in giving up on Eli Apple, 10th pick overall in his draft, at the beginning of his third season. They moved him to outside corner too soon. And Romeo Okwara, who played in 16 games rookie year and was promising, getting lost in his 2nd year and ending up on the Lions, where he moved into the starting D-Line and had 7.5 sacks. Twenty-three year old from Notre Dame could have a big upside.
I don't want to bury Gettleman. especially when he's fighting cancer. He had a good draft. With some of his personnel moves he may have been taking orders.
But can anyone explain how Harrison could be traded for a fifth round lottery ticket and Collins for nothing at all?
Back on point, I don't find it a particularly controversial statement that if you draft the wrong QB, you set your franchise back 5 years.
We saw that first hand with Dave Brown.
Back on point, I don't find it a particularly controversial statement that if you draft the wrong QB, you set your franchise back 5 years.
We saw that first hand with Dave Brown.
It wasn't just Dave Brown. It was the fact they doubled down on horrible QBs by following Brown up with Danny Kannel.
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
Seems very simple to me. Only good season in last seven was 2016. Won eleven games and made the playoffs. Got hopes up. Placed six players on the 1st or 2nd AP All Pro team.
Went 3-13 the next year with the same guys.
Nothing of consequence. Well...except for a shitload of draft capital, an ascending young Safety, one of the best pass-blocking Guards in the league, and enough cap space in 2020 to make GoTerps cry like a baby.
The Bucs went 5-11 and the Lions went 6-10. Gosh, those guys really were difference-makers!
Players dumped because they didn't fit in locker room? Can you imagine Parcells unloading best defensive players for using an obscenity with a coach? Parcells would have made sure it didn't happen again.
Didn't Parcells jettison half his team in '83/'84? I think so, and I'm sure he had his reasons, too.
Just for good measure throw in giving up on Eli Apple, 10th pick overall in his draft, at the beginning of his third season. They moved him to outside corner too soon. And Romeo Okwara, who played in 16 games rookie year and was promising, getting lost in his 2nd year and ending up on the Lions, where he moved into the starting D-Line and had 7.5 sacks. Twenty-three year old from Notre Dame could have a big upside.
I don't want to bury Gettleman. especially when he's fighting cancer.
Sure you do. Why else would you post this?
But can anyone explain how Harrison could be traded for a fifth round lottery ticket and Collins for nothing at all?
Maybe Harrison was part of the culture that DG was brought in to change? Maybe that 5th rounder on its own doesn't present much, but maybe DG can package it with another "lottery ticket" or two and move up in the draft?
As for Collins, the 'Skins gave him an $84 million contract, $44,500.00 guaranteed? Would you give him that much? I wouldn't, and I'm glad Gettleman didn't.
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
Seems very simple to me. Only good season in last seven was 2016. Won eleven games and made the playoffs. Got hopes up. Placed six players on the 1st or 2nd AP All Pro team.
DG has unloaded five of the six All Pros. Except for OBJ, received nothing of consequence in return.
JPP and Harrison immediately had positive impact with their new teams.
Team has won eight games since 2016. Giants need a quarterback and two pass rusher, most expensive and hard to fill positions.
Players dumped because they didn't fit in locker room? Can you imagine Parcells unloading best defensive players for using an obscenity with a coach? Parcells would have made sure it didn't happen again.
Seven years since the last collective bargaining agreement, annual salary cap increases have grown so large that no longer necessary to cut a good player for lack of cap.
Just for good measure throw in giving up on Eli Apple, 10th pick overall in his draft, at the beginning of his third season. They moved him to outside corner too soon. And Romeo Okwara, who played in 16 games rookie year and was promising, getting lost in his 2nd year and ending up on the Lions, where he moved into the starting D-Line and had 7.5 sacks. Twenty-three year old from Notre Dame could have a big upside.
I don't want to bury Gettleman. especially when he's fighting cancer. He had a good draft. With some of his personnel moves he may have been taking orders.
But can anyone explain how Harrison could be traded for a fifth round lottery ticket and Collins for nothing at all?
He was shedding bad contracts so he could get the cap space to rebuild the team that matches up with his vision.
And the same people who have the daggers out for Gettleman are probably the same crowing “In Reese we trust” even after it was apparent he was killing us.
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
Seems very simple to me. Only good season in last seven was 2016. Won eleven games and made the playoffs. Got hopes up. Placed six players on the 1st or 2nd AP All Pro team.
Went 3-13 the next year with the same guys.
Sorry, Charlie, in 2017 lost their two best defensive linemen, JPP and Harrison. Besides, the offense was 31 out of 32, leaving the defense with impossible job since they were always out on the field.
The vets already in hopelessly lost seasons don't put out as much. Yeah, really.
Quote:
DG has unloaded five of the six All Pros. Except for OBJ, received nothing of consequence in return.
Nothing of consequence. Well...except for a shitload of draft capital, an ascending young Safety, one of the best pass-blocking Guards in the league, and enough cap space in 2020 to make GoTerps cry like a baby.
Put the bottle down. I said they got minimally acceptable amount for OBJ, depending of course on what they do with the extra draft capital.
Ascending young safety? You buy DG's phoney attempt to make it appear like he got two #1s in the deal. Now that Pepper has two actual Pro seasons behind him, sorry but now he gets judged on his ability instead of his draft position.
He was lousy he first season (excuse me, he was disappointing first season and better than lousy his second season. Nowhere near the force of Landon Collins. Let me know when Peppers is chosen 1st team AP All Pro.
Quote:
JPP and Harrison immediately had positive impact with their new teams.
The Bucs went 5-11 and the Lions went 6-10. Gosh, those guys really were difference-makers!
Too clumsy to need a response. But, just in case you this doesn't come to you, substitute Saquon Barkley, the "best player in the draft" for JPP and Harrison and tell me about his impact on the Giants' record.
Quote:
Team has won eight games since 2016. Giants need a quarterback and two pass rusher, most expensive and hard to fill positions.
Players dumped because they didn't fit in locker room? Can you imagine Parcells unloading best defensive players for using an obscenity with a coach? Parcells would have made sure it didn't happen again.
Didn't Parcells jettison half his team in '83/'84? I think so, and I'm sure he had his reasons, too.
Well, in 1983 Parcells named Scott Brunner the starting QB over Phil Simms. Is that the move you had in mind?
Quote:
Seven years since the last collective bargaining agreement, annual salary cap increases have grown so large that no longer necessary to cut a good player for lack of cap.
Just for good measure throw in giving up on Eli Apple, 10th pick overall in his draft, at the beginning of his third season. They moved him to outside corner too soon. And Romeo Okwara, who played in 16 games rookie year and was promising, getting lost in his 2nd year and ending up on the Lions, where he moved into the starting D-Line and had 7.5 sacks. Twenty-three year old from Notre Dame could have a big upside.
I don't want to bury Gettleman. especially when he's fighting cancer.
Sure you do. Why else would you post this?
In most circles that would be considered bad taste. Not in any of your circles, apparently.
Quote:
He had a good draft. With some of his personnel moves he may have been taking orders.
But can anyone explain how Harrison could be traded for a fifth round lottery ticket and Collins for nothing at all?
Maybe Harrison was part of the culture that DG was brought in to change? Maybe that 5th rounder on its own doesn't present much, but maybe DG can package it with another "lottery ticket" or two and move up in the draft?
As for Collins, the 'Skins gave him an $84 million contract, $44,500.00 guaranteed? Would you give him that much? I wouldn't, and I'm glad Gettleman didn't.
If you're interested in corporate finance, play Monopoly. If you want to win football games, accept it that some players are going to be overpaid and others underpaid. It's not your money and they're all paid well.
ANd not arguing with the OP -- but when does he assume for example the Giants are going to figure out the QB isn't going to cut it if for example they take Haskins at 6?
He is going to sit year 1. In year two will he be expected to be Mahomes? If you are only going to open a window of 2-3 years for a QB- think of how many teams are already in search of a QB then? Because many would have failed, right?
SO in this case if Giants take Haskins they are going to give him at least 3 years, right? ANd more than likely year three he won't be a complete bust and with all the draft picks the GMEN have accumulated you'd like to think DGwill do decent enough so then you are about .500, right?
Also- either in FA or trades you can get any other top flight player, right? Can't you find nearly position as CHicago did or 49ers did? How many elite type of QB's are available vs any other position? Meaning you can recover from a mistake quicker than vs the QB pick, can't you? Sure you can find a rare exception. But that;s why messing up a the QB pick is worse if it is 6. Unless he really sucks you got 3 years of him without blinking an eye and you probably can;t find anyone"very good" in FA or trade for this position.
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.
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.
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.
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