the problem with your rationale is that we have seen great QB's be successful without star RB's or WR's, and we have seen poor QB's struggle despite having great WR's and RB's. so, if your argument is that great WR's and RB's are the difference maker, the many examples of QB's that have failed with them would dispute that. the only reasonable conclusion is that it is simply a coincidence when great QB's have great WR's or RB's, and great QB's are going to be successful, maybe not as great, regardless of who they have to throw to or hand off to. granted they will be more successful if they have better weapons, but that isn't to say that their ability to succeed is dependent on them.
Geno, is best molded into NFL caliber player if he spends the entire 2013 season on the bench or at the very least half the season on the bench. There is a clear and present learning curve necessary for player to develop in the NFL. It just so happens we are also in rebuilding phase on offense, so why throw him to the wolves? Let this kid develop in practice, learn MM's system and be ready to take the helm in 2014. If our defense, running game and by some stroke of luck we find ourselves in a position to make the playoffs or are in some competitive situations late in 2013 and MM feels Geno is ready to go than get it going early. Or, if we are in some meaningless games at the end of the season and you want to give him some starting reps for experience, go for it. I just hate to see us hurt this kid development when we are still building an offensive line and offensive attack.
Again, Name me one Great QB that did not have a great receiver receiving core or Rb? You can't because they do not exist. The cycle is young QBs lean more on great WRs and RB as they mature a great QB can make good receivers great but never bad receivers good. You do not rely on a young QB to make your receiving core better you get a good receiving core to help develop your young QB. Young Qbs do not survive with good to great weapons. Great QBs do not become HOF without great weapons. This is not rocket science boyz
I would say that the only reasonable conclusion is that great play is independently determined at each position and that sometimes you happen to get a great QB and WR and even RB all playing on the same team at the same time. A great player is going to produce great results whether he has other great players playing with him or not. There are no hidden great players that never emerged because they didn't have other great players around them. You either have it or you don't. Calvin Johnson caught 126 balls for 2,087 yards and 16 TD's his first two seasons with Jon Kitna throwing to him. Jamal Lewis rushed for 1,702 yards his rookie season including playoffs with Trent Dilfer and Tony Banks as his QB's. He went for 2,066 yards with Kye Boller and Anthony Wright at QB. Great is great. Aaron Rodgers has been great for four years now without any other hall of fame caliber players on offense beside him.
I don't think anyone doubts that there is a learning curve. What is up for debate is whether that learning curve is overcome more or less quickly with immediate playing time. I think that the historical evidence is quite inconclusive, although I tend to side with those who say getting a rookie out there and letting him make mistakes and learn to overcome them in real games accelerates his development. I'd love to see some stathead put the time in to regress QB performance to rookie starts, controlling for factors such as draft position, etc. You would think that the NFL would be interested in such an analysis, though I've never seen it.
This would be a useless analysis at this point because the paradigm shifted fairly recently and all the stats are going to be turned on their head if you do a pre-2004 vs 2004 to 2007 vs 2008 forwards regression. Any analysis based solely on 2008 forwards will probably have too few data points in it to make it reliable. It's unfortunate but we're in the same situation now that the NFL was in along about 1950 when the forward pass became a major weapon. Analyses of pre-1950 play vs the decade of the 50's are hard to do. Then throw in the arrival of the AFL which put passing on the front burner for almost everybody and things fall apart.
Tom Brady. any questions? he won 3 Super Bowls with no name offensive players. The only one you can make an argument for, on any of the SB teams, was Corey Dillon, and by that time Brady already had 2, so Dillon was hardly the catalyst for Brady's success.
Let him make mistakes this year in practice. Let him get to know his teammates, coaches, MM and MMs system. Let him mature one more year. Let him know he is the future of this team and this offense. Get him in the gym; get him stronger, faster. Get him in the classroom; get him more aware and build a smarter player. Get him ready to take flight in 2014. Take one solid year and build this kid into your franchise.
You make it so easy. First of all in all three of the superbowl wins Tom Brady was not considered great it was defensive oriented team. What Tom Brady did have to someone called Troy Brown that he leaned on heavily. Brady become great when he got Rand Moss and Wes Welker then Gronkowski and Henandez. Oh by the way how many Superbowls have they won when Brady was the focus? To further my argument did Brady make Ocho better how about Llyod?
Great Qbs do not make crappy receivers into HOF and Great receivers don't make crappy Qbs into hall of famer's. Kitna was a good average QB Calvin Johnson sure has hell makes Stafford look a lot better than he really is. Trent Dilfer another QB that was a lot better than he was given credit for. Lets be honest it takes a while to learn the QB position and the QB position is very reliant on others doing there job. You have a horrible o-line, receivers and RB you will struggle as a QB just ask Archie Manning or Steve Young or Troy Aikman or Jim Plunkett or any other QB that was put in a situation to fail. Oh he should be good enough anyway come on now.
Point one, the O-line is improved? Really? well considering what the Oline looked like last year on the right side yeah, it's improved...but that's not saying much is it? Fact is 3 out of 5 projected starters have NEVER started together, 2 of the 5 possible starters on the O-line are Rookies drafted in the 3rd round or lower, now granted they were guys projected to go higher. However, they are still unproven rookies and not sure things. (and this is coming from someone who liked our O-line picks). So yes, the O-line is questionable for this year, improved over last year? most likely..but a known strength, aside from center and LT it's an unknown quantity right now and can not be considered anything other than questionable. Defense will likely be a top 10-15 unit this year, probably top 10, but not top 7 unless the Safety play is really strong. the D-line should be outstanding, But the LB and Safety groups have some serious questionmarks..consider this, the Safeties of the Jets if you substract landry have around a total of 30 games played combined between all the safties and about 35 tackles and 0 passes defended. There's some upside talent in our young safeties, but they are at this time unproven quantities. At LB you have Harris which is stout against the run, but lacks in pass defense, and you have a young Davis who has shown promise but hasn't broken through yet (not a knock, he was after all a rookie). and a few journey and a couple aged veterans in the twilight of their career. Take off the Rex glasses, can the defense be great? possibly, but the young Safeties and the LB crew is going to have to really pick it up. As I stated with the WR's, they have a lot of upside, but it takes a QB that can deliver the ball on target and in time for the WR's to make plays after the catch....How good the WR's are will depend almost entirely on how good the QB play is. Accurate throws make poor recievers look average, average reciever look good and good recivers look elite. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, but people laughed at me last year when I said it was a 6-7 win team.
The game against the Cardinals the Cards were doing everything they could not to win the game. And yes the Jets won that game against Miami, but not of their own doing, Miami had that game won a couple of times and shot themselves in the foot Sanchez style. The Jets were extremely fortunate to win either of those games.
LOL, lets see all offenses jump not by a small amount but by a large amount, especially the Colts, and it's the strong running game? Indianapolis had strong running game? I must have missed that. But if you look at the passing improvement alone you see just about the same amount of gain for each team...One team rises, Okay I might buy your argument, 2 teams rise, doubtful...all 3 teams that vastly improved QB play not a chance in hell I buy your argument.
my argument wasn't that great QB's make all receivers great. it was your argument that great QB's were dependent on having great receivers and RB's. Tom Brady clearly disputes that assertion. you can't even keep up with your own argument, now you want to switch the focus to dependence on defense? how about you estabish exactly what you want to argue and then start over. Tom Brady wasn't considered great his first Super Bowl because he didn't have a body of work of success yet, but by the second one he was, and the third cemented him. the common denominator in those is Brady. and Troy Brown is your "great" WR that made Brady great? you make it too easy. I eagerly await Troy Brown's HOF acceptance speech.
The Colts were a perennial playoff team and one down year. That roster is/was a lot better than given credit for. They sacrificed their coach for a the best prospect QB since Manning. I think Luck leaned on RW quite a bit and he still threw a ton of picks. Washington and Seattle had one of the best rushing attacks in the game and Seattle had a great defense. RG3 and Wilson had great seasons for rookies but they had a lot of help and are long way from the hall of fame. Take away Marshawn Lynch (1500 yds) and Sidney Rice (748 yds) and replace them with Gates and Greene and see how Wilson does. Take away Alfred Morris (1,600 yds) Pierre Garcon and Santonio Moss and see if RG3 is still as good. Tell me again when did Sanchez have 1,500+ yard rusher?
Have nothing to lose we're going 4-12 anyway, let himget some experience...can you imagine Sanchez throwing 3 picks to Revis in game 1, the fans will tear the seats out and throw them on the field
