The morning after the draft, there was plenty of questions/disappointment/outrage with the selection of Jones at 6, especially since Allen was there for the taking. Well, would anyone today trade Jones for Allen straight up? In fact, would you trade him straight up for anyone in the top 10 selections in this years draft? I know it's way to early to know how it will all pan out, but the excitement of having a potential future starting franchise QB is hard to top. As a side note, after rewatching Fridays game, he only had one bad pass. The first incompletion was thrown short. Incomplete pass to TJ Jones was a beautiful pass, but he stumbled coming out of his break. The other was a pure drop.
The game has changed a lot in the since 2006 and the problem of just looking at Superbowl is that the Pats completely skew the sample size.
There is also the view of perception. QBs get too much recognition for winning and too much blame for losing. Just the way it is. Lots of good QBs have looked great due to having tremendous RBs. Troy Aikman and Kurt Warner come to mind. The Lions have been a clusterfuck forever. He put them on his back to the playoffs many years. Stafford is a good QB that consistently get shit on because of the Lions overall record. That isn't Stafford's fault, nor was the Lions not winning a superbowl Sanders.
What is a good QB? I'd say good indicates above average. The Eagles won a superbowl with Nick Foles at QB. Kap and Flacco played in a superbowl against each other not to long ago. Rex Grossman and Hassleback both played in superbowls the last fifteen years. Peyton Mannings corpse won a superbowl. Brad Johnson in 2002. There are a lot of way to win, but because of the Pats dominance the last skews the data set.
I don't think Pats skew the data at all. Teams have beaten the Pats in the Super Bowl including the Giants. Guys like Nick Foles have impacted the SB because QB as you even acknowledge is the most important position on the football field.
ANd as we agree that QB is most important it means they impact the game more than any other positions. That';s why in SB the QB's win so often. As far citing Peyton Manning - his corpse-- absolutely he was. But that is why I acknowledged GMEn could win with Barkley and a "freaky defense." Sure go ahead and build a freaky defense. Though they don't seem to come around and remain elite very often.
Maybe you can continually replenish the defense and use Barkley over-and-over because he is so freaky great. Then ofc Barkley would become "transcendent" on such an elite scale above Sanders etc. Maybe he is the "Michael Jordan" and will change the game like Jordan did for how SG's impact basketball.
Other than that-- you speak of "fairness." How is it not fair to give Darnold his due if he is a franchise QB and his style proves to be elite as he wins championships while Barkley gets "eventually stopped" and doesn't advance very far in playoffs? Darnold's style would prove to be unstoppable int he playoffs while we've seen the Sanders led teams get shut down. Individually Barkley and Sanders are superior --- but because of the position-- they can get more easily shutdown vs the premiere teams.
Hey it's shame for many players. It's a shame the Giants couldn't give Fran Tarkenton a better team. It's a shame John Mendenhall didnt play with a better team. It's a shame Phil Simms got hurt. it's a shame in Rodney Hamptons prime he didn't play with better teams. It's a shame the Saints got ripped off last year and had that big gaffe the year before. It's shame Payton didn't play with a better team until near the end. We can go on all day of how "it's a shame. . . " but one thing we see is when it comes to winning it all- the past 25 years noting from the RB's.
As for Freeman-- I say no way. It would have been Matt Ryan. Even at the end of the game he had a QB rating of 144. Ryan imo was a lock to win MVP.
No. A 144 QB rating in the SB is obscene. Freeman is only getting the chance to run because Ryan was so amazing at passing thus spreading the defense. And nay pass starts with Ryan.
Quote:
13 touches. He could have had a ton more if his coach wasn't a fucking moron, definitely would have broke 100 just on the ground.
No. A 144 QB rating in the SB is obscene. Freeman is only getting the chance to run because Ryan was so amazing at passing thus spreading the defense. And nay pass starts with Ryan.
He only threw the ball 23 times. And it should have been closer to 20. Ryan was only able to throw the ball so well because the Pats were worried about the run. See I can do that too. Football is a team sport. Freeman opened up the game in a power set and went for 37, broke 4 tackles on that run. The Falcons had a great back and a good back.
Would Matt Ryan would have won the Superbowl MVP? Probably, but that is just the bias to give it quarterbacks. If it as at all close it always goes to the QB.
No. I'm responding to the initial point a poster made - "What if Darnold is a franchise QB and wins" while Barkley is super great and doesn't?"
It has nothing to do with "how I'm acting." Thsi is a "what if . . " scenario. IF IF IF IF Darnold is a SB winner and Franchise QB and while Barkley is super great but leads his team to playoffs but not much success in the playoffs -- then the move passing on the QB would have been wrong." That's what we are arguing, is it not?
I did not create this scenario another poster did of what if . . . I'm playing along with the "what if . . . " game.
IN SUMMARY: If Darnold does't win championships then stats come into play and more than likely SB will be far superior-- thus Barkley wins. If Barkley wins titles or is successful with many playoff wins then the point is mute about Darnold-- Barkley "wins." BUT BUT BUT -- IF IF IF IF Barkley leads his team nowhere while Darnold is the Franchise Qb with multiple SB Titles and SB MVP's then it was a mistake to have taken the RB over the QB.
Thats the issue you have to face when you take a RB overall with the 2nd pick and if the 3rd pick overall Qb wind sup being a stud winning championships and SB MVP's. How can you counter the reality that the QB influences the game much more than the RB? Barkley's talent is all-time great talent. If he can't be highly successful in the playoffs it shows the RB still can't influence big time playoff games the same way a QB can thus it would have been a huge mistake if Darnold has success winning SB's and Barkley can't drag his team much in the playoffs.
Saquon is clearly a generational RB - 1st ballot HOF. Best in the league for the rest of his career type. The only way that it was mistake is if Darnold becomes an elite QB up there with Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning, and looks like Mahomes. I just don't see that happening and the only guy that I think can is Mayfield. After the draft last year I thought if I had the first pick I would have went Mayfield and number 2 I'd go Saquon. Saquon showed so much in his rookie year that gun to head with the first pick I don't know who I'd pick right now honestly, and I still think Mayfield is going to be a top 5 QB.
The rams go to the SB even though Gurley was ineffective. They just simply got another RB and he did the job. ANd Kamara had the big day receiving passing yards because it was Brees throwing him the ball.
Then why did the Saints not have RB's at the top of the league in receiving throughout Brees' career there?
Some of the argument puts forth to try and lessen the impact of RB's is pretty moronic.
Let me guess, Christian McCaffery is a stud because of Cam Newton's precision??
No it would be the wrong pick because championships trumps stats. If Barkley could not lead lead his team to anything but minimal playoff success while Darnold wins championships and is SB MVP it just highlights the fact to us how superior the importance of the QB is vs the RB. It also minimizes your point on the impact of the RB because we can agree Barkley is one of the most talented RB's we've ever seen in a long long long long long long long time. If he can't turn this team to win with your explanation of the importance of the RB it is clear it was a mistake to take the RB.
The argument made by some (outside of bbi faithful) is that the RB is going to depreciate. When you are lousy the RB position can not influence the playoffs because he still needs the good OL and the good QB. By the time the team builds the OL and gets the good QB the RB will begin to decline. With SB being as great as he is-- if GMEn don;t win and the RB is so important as you say -- then why would he have virtually no playoff success? Its because RBs can;t influence games like QB's. A point you agree with. You even said "no shit the QB is most important." If it is-- it seems like that it has no meaning to you that the QB is most important. But it must have some "meaning." ANd if Darnold is winning SB's and SB MVP's it highlights that meaning. Does it not?
They put it in Ryans hands because they knew he was their best chance. That;s why QB's affect games much more than RB's. It;s why even you have said QB is most important position on the football field. You mean don't put the ball in the hands with the 2016 Reg. Season MVP?
Quote:
Take away Kamara from the Saints and they are going to look average. Look at what happened to the Rams when Gurley became ineffective.
The rams go to the SB even though Gurley was ineffective. They just simply got another RB and he did the job. ANd Kamara had the big day receiving passing yards because it was Brees throwing him the ball.
They got there because their defense and running game. Goff had one TD pass all playoff.
Saquon is clearly a generational RB - 1st ballot HOF. Best in the league for the rest of his career type. The only way that it was mistake is if Darnold becomes an elite QB up there with Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning, and looks like Mahomes. I just don't see that happening and the only guy that I think can is Mayfield. After the draft last year I thought if I had the first pick I would have went Mayfield and number 2 I'd go Saquon. Saquon showed so much in his rookie year that gun to head with the first pick I don't know who I'd pick right now honestly, and I still think Mayfield is going to be a top 5 QB.
For me all I've said is I beleive Darnodl is a lock ot be a good NFL QB. There is a poster on this veyr thread (not oyu) who has previoulsy lied and misreprsented my tstament Imade about Darnold a long time ago and tried to twist my comens into to parpphrase "I said Darnold is generational or simialr to. I have not.
All I'm saying is our discussion orginated from a point of "WHAT IF DARNOLD IS FRANCHISE QB" and I've added if he is winnign SB's and gettign MVP's WHILE Barkley has teh same bad luck as Sandwers then Darnold would have ben the wiser pick.
In the lats 25 years no RB has won a SB MVP and imo you are wrong to suggets Ryan wouldn't have won it. Its becuase when we say QB is most important - that manfests itself in playoff football.
ANd if Barkley -- as super as he is-- has the same poor success in winning playoffs games as Sander had while Darnold wins even though he doesn't have Barkleys talent - then it means for example you have vastly overrated the impact of the RB position. If it is important as you say then we'll see Barkley win a lot more making this discussion mute.
***But in our "what if . . . " our what if is what if Barkley isn't winning at all while Darnold is and while darnold is getting SB MVP's? It imo clearly shows QB is the way to go.
Quote:
In comment 14535434 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
Take away Kamara from the Saints and they are going to look average. Look at what happened to the Rams when Gurley became ineffective.
The rams go to the SB even though Gurley was ineffective. They just simply got another RB and he did the job. ANd Kamara had the big day receiving passing yards because it was Brees throwing him the ball.
They got there because their defense and running game. Goff had one TD pass all playoff.
Yes and how much did Gurley contribute? They just found someone else. Sure Philly won the year before with a backup QB but he was amazing in SB. What RB's have been SB MVP in the past 25? A backup QB can be. A backup RB cna help the rams to the championship but the QB's are as you say the most important position on the football field impact the game more.
No because if you'll note what I said about Barkley -- I said at least get to the Sb or have some success getting close. But Sanders is an alltime great and had no playoff success. WHile marino-- the most important position on the football field-- had some playoff success. If Barkley has some playoff success and they get beat for example in the SB while he led them there -- that is amazing. But we were talking about Sanders. He didn't come close ot that. SO if SB is like Sanders it just highlights RBs don't have the same impact. Even Marino with a not so strong team could push his team to a SB while Sanders couldn't win one playoff game despite hm being arguably one of the top 3 RB;s ever.
1--- You mentioned 2006. Barry Sanders retired in 1998. Barry Sanders led his team nowhere. He is greater than Emmit Smith and OJ Anderson ofc, but the problem with RB;s is that teams rely too much on running/ get conservative. While it’s not the rb’s fault but due to injury and too much reliance on them – they can’t lead their team anywhere. Regarding Detroit they never got him great QB. Sanders style when going against elite defenses – regardless how good his OL might be—could more easily get negated. When you speak of SB as a pass receiver—without a good QB then how effective can he be? The great QB has a greater impact – it seems you agree when you say “QB is the most important player on the team, no shit.” OS if Darnold wins SB’s and wins SB MVP’s and SB is not successful getting to even the NFC Championship how is it that you can say taking the RB was the right move?
2--- You just said Edelman was the right call. So in the last 25 years which RB should’ve gotten SB MVP? I know you say it’s subjective but give me some names over the past 25 years in which the RB got ripped off.
3--- You said “but you just don't take one to take one.” Yes you are right. But Arnold was the 3rd pick overall. This imp is hardly “taking one just to take one.” He is expected to be much more than “taking one just to take one.” That’s the reason why he’ll be compared to SB. See which one will have the impact to win Super Bowls or get there etc. The goal is to win Super Bowls. Accumulating stats is great but if your style leads to championships – how does accumulation of stats trump that? SO for example if Arnold wins multiple championships and multiple SB MVP’s similar to Eli—he has shown his style of play can’t be stopped when it matters most. Unless Barkley is getting to SB and just is so awesome in playoffs leading his team to playoff victories- how can you deny the “winner” of championships and MVP’s his superior performances if he wins and is SB MVP? You say its “subjective” so let’s find a RB over the past 25 years that got robbed.
4--- If we want to talk “excitement” – sure you could go down that road. But for me the ultimate excitement is watching my team win Super Bowls. If Arnold leads his team to championships imp that is far superior to a player who accumulates exciting stats but doesn’t go far in the playoffs.
5--- With respect to your comment regarding RB; s “But that is changing now that the NFL is receiving elite talent fitting the skills they are looking for.” With respect I think you’re wrong. While rB’s get better so do Qb’s and so do WR’s etc. You have a “theory.” I’m looking at 25 years of data.
******BUT IF YOU ARE RIGHT ANd I HOPE YOU ARE -- if the RB's have as much as you think and we have SB who is just so freaking awesome-- then you'll see us win even a lot of playoff games. SO what I'm saying is-- Barkley will win a lot of playoffs games if your theory is right thus meaning the Darnold vs Barkley comparison mute because SB will win so freaking much.
6—I do agree Barkley is the best and I’m damn glad to have him. He will win SB MVP’s and imo can be among the greatest ever-- PROVIDED he gets a good QB to support what he does. Otherwise it would take a freaky defense.
7—Bottom-line is if Daniel Jones turns out be no good and Barkley never gets GMEN far in the playoffs- while Darnold wins championships and SB MVP’s – it is obvious that the style of Arnold would have been proven superior to the style of SB. Sure we know SB has “the greater individual talent” vs Darnold but if it doesn’t turn it into championships while Darnold’s does – imo it’s clear that building through a quality QB is superior that building through supreme RB.
You’re making a lot of shit up and using a lot of words. Mostly false. Barry Sanders led his team nowhere? Go look at how “bad” that lions era truly was with Barry Sanders in the fold. Those lions teams actually won playoff games. Won division titles. Got to an NFC title game. And they did so with total trash at the qb position. Barry carried that franchise to heights they haven’t seen since.
I know it’s hard to process but maybe if the lions drafted well around Barry they would have won even more. Nice FA signing there Detroit.... Scott fucking Mitchell. Bravo. But yea, let’s use that Detroit model to rip the great RB.
You don; want to seem to seem to give QB the merit it deserves. You say it is important but you brush it under the rug. If RB is important as you say then our discussion is mute.
The EFC. That’s who... ; )
Quote:
.
You don; want to seem to seem to give QB the merit it deserves. You say it is important but you brush it under the rug. If RB is important as you say then our discussion is mute.
It is morons like you why its an accepted truth by those that have played the game that the QB gets more props than they deserve when they win and more blame than they should when they lose. It's moot btw.
Quote:
. Scott fucking Mitchell. Bravo. But yea, let’s use that Detroit model to rip the great RB.
Yeah right, I'm ripping a guy I called arguably the 3rd greatest RB in the history of the NFL. I;m ripping the position of RB vs QB. Otherwise I'll ask you as well- name a SB MVP RB in the past 25 years? How mnay RB's are taken in top 5 vs QB's? WHat is the most important position on the football field?
Unbelievable-- I'm ripping a guy who I say is at least 3rd best ever as a RB and you say I'm ripping him. Okay buddy sure.
My point is it is harder to build with RB;s. If it isn't what does "QB being the most important position mean then? For anyone that believes the QB is most impt - You can't just say a QB is most important then not believe a QB is easier to build a championship team vs a RB.
Quote:
In comment 14535458 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
.
You don; want to seem to seem to give QB the merit it deserves. You say it is important but you brush it under the rug. If RB is important as you say then our discussion is mute.
It is morons like you why its an accepted truth by those that have played the game that the QB gets more props than they deserve when they win and more blame than they should when they lose. It's moot btw.
Great here comes the insults now. I give you stats of Sb MVP's and you throw insults. Way to go. You;ve made up a theory which is basically laughed ta by the NFL by not taking RB;s instead they take QB's and somehow it's some huge conspiracy that over 25 years no RB has been MVP - all because it doesn't fit your theory.
I guess it doesn't matter much to Eli's legacy or getting into the HOF.
Quote:
goes to QBs even if they didn't deserve it.
I guess it doesn't matter much to Eli's legacy or getting into the HOF.
Who gives a shit about legacies or HOF. It is a media talking point. I am talking about winning football games from a practical standpoint.
Quote:
In comment 14535456 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
goes to QBs even if they didn't deserve it.
I guess it doesn't matter much to Eli's legacy or getting into the HOF.
Who gives a shit about legacies or HOF. It is a media talking point. I am talking about winning football games from a practical standpoint.
I can't wait for the next time a thread pops up and some posters make a point to say Eli belongs in the HOF as two time SUper Bowl MVP and you tell them "who gives a shit about he was a SB MVP?"
Noooo- it's your theories that mean jack squat. You are pretending like you are some sort of expert. You are trying to place yourself above the fray. It;s called being delusional and myopic.
"How he played in both 4 quarters" according to your subjective opinion? I agree he played well but hwo decides who plays god enouhg? You? And for example the other 3 quarters don't count?
Quote:
Although the defense as a whole deserved it. Tremendous performance.
"How he played in both 4 quarters" according to your subjective opinion? I agree he played well but hwo decides who plays god enouhg? You? And for example the other 3 quarters don't count?
As opposed to the writers and broadcasters who have never sniffed the football field, let alone at QB. Yeh I trust my opinion a bit more.
Quote:
In comment 14535475 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
Although the defense as a whole deserved it. Tremendous performance.
"How he played in both 4 quarters" according to your subjective opinion? I agree he played well but hwo decides who plays god enouhg? You? And for example the other 3 quarters don't count?
As opposed to the writers and broadcasters who have never sniffed the football field, let alone at QB. Yeh I trust my opinion a bit more.
Yes ofc. You who sits behind a computer anonymously making millions from your expert analysis. Yeah right I'll believe you.
I can't believe you said this after you have thrown insults at me. I've got to go and I don't want to say this but I can't resist so I'll say this lightly--
Ever watch "Married With Children?"
Have a good night.
Quote:
can't know anything about the game? Guess those guys that make 5k coaching high school are completely clueless.
I can't believe you said this after you have thrown insults at me. I've got to go and I don't want to say this but I can't resist so I'll say this lightly--
Ever watch "Married With Children?"
Have a good night.
You asked me why I trusted my opinion as opposed to the writers and broadcasters who vote on Superbowl MVP I answered. A lot of times they don't have more than a superficial understanding of the game, which is fine, but it leads to a lot of QBs that win are good and quarterbacks that lose suck. QB is the most important position, but it isn't the be all and all that people make it out to be.
Here is what was written:
Look at those Lions teams Sanders was on. From 1989 to 1998, it has been the most successful stretch of Lions football in the post-SB Era.
- 3 seasons of 10 wins or more.
- 5 Playoff appearances
- 2 division titles
Prior to Sanders, the Lions finished under .500 the previous 5 years, with a high in wins of 7. From 2000 to 2010 after Sanders, the Lions didn't make the playoffs and never finished higher than 3rd in the division. Finished last in the division 6 times.
Without Sanders, the Lions have gone to the playoffs only 7 other times since 1970.
Led his team nowhere??
Perhaps we can get another 5 paragraphs of dyslexic ramblings to support that?
Without Sanders, the Lions have gone to the playoffs only 7 other times since 1970.
Led his team nowhere??
Perhaps we can get another 5 paragraphs of dyslexic ramblings to support that?
And in those playoff games the Lions were 1-5. Sanders was keyed on and only broke 100 rushing yards once.
Why? Because the Lions' QBs were: Erik Kramer, Rodney Peete, Andre Ware, Scott Mitchell, David Krieg.
Bullshit. Results and to a smaller extent stats don't matter. But just because it's preseason passes don't magically more accurate.
Quote:
Without Sanders, the Lions have gone to the playoffs only 7 other times since 1970.
Led his team nowhere??
Perhaps we can get another 5 paragraphs of dyslexic ramblings to support that?
And in those playoff games the Lions were 1-5. Sanders was keyed on and only broke 100 rushing yards once.
Why? Because the Lions' QBs were: Erik Kramer, Rodney Peete, Andre Ware, Scott Mitchell, David Krieg.
Imagine if they had a halfway competent QB.