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.
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