you are relying on #s again, he wasn't half as good as Sanchez in 2010 but fans think he was better b/c he put up better fantasy #s in meaningless games. 2011 was the first year he had any pressure to win and he fell flat on his face. 2013 was the best time he had pressure to win and again fell flat. Flynn had nothing, no one wanted him in 2012, Sea got him, gave him big money then dumped him. No one wanted him in 2013, oak got him then let him go, Buf got him and let him go. it does make the cards stupid if they are relying on a mediocre QB that is older to be their QB of the future.
Wow, I thought you were thick but now you've confirmed it. You're really not good at this thing are you. I've spelled it out in about 10 posts but of course you are too confused to understand it. Plus you missed the smilie. A little logic mixed in with a little sarcasm can do that to some folks, it's ok, not your fault. So I'll say it again. I can explain it to you. I just can't understand it for you too. _
Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees say hello. To a lesser extent, so do Chad Pennington & others. It's not unusual for QBs to slide. Typically the most QB needy teams are all the way at the top of the draft. At that point, it's very risky to pick a QB, unless he's a sure-fire can't miss prospect. If those top teams make a safer choice & select the elite OT or DL, it will get to the point, typically around the 10th or so pick, where teams have solid QBs & are selecting for need. Teams typically want first round picks to be day 1 starters. The days of using a first round pick and developing QBs behind a veteran for 2-3 years are gone. It would not shock me to see similar things happen this year. The top teams may look at the QB depth & say there's a lot of QB depth, why not take Clowney or Robinson & grab a QB slightly lower rated QB at the top of Round 2.
Again, completely confused about something you will never understand. Trying to explain something to you is like trying to explain something to one of my kids when they were in grade school. Until Petro adds a feature that allows me to draw and write things for you in crayon, I'll just leave it at that. _
I'm not relying on numbers I'm relying on what my eyes told me. The numbers happen to back up what I saw. You the Bucs had no pressure? They were in the playoff hunt that year and won 10 games. They missed the playoffs due to tie breakers. Freeman in 2010 was better than Sanchez in 2010. Lol so no one wanted Flynn in 2012 except that the Seahawks wanted him? If no one wanted Flynn he'd be Vince Young status at this point. Maybe the Cards plan to take a QB this year?
they were never seriously in the playoff hunt, they feasted on bad teams then played NO who had everything wrapped up in week 17 to win #10. even had GB lost week 17 they still wouldn't have made the playoffs. Miami desperately needed a QB, his old QB coach became their HC and they decided to pass. That should tell you all you need to know. good luck to Ari, quantity doesn't equal quality and I don't think Geno is any better as a prospect than the crop this year but there's no sure thing this year and geno could be better than all of them.
You see, NOW you're starting to get it. That should go a long ways towards making you feel even better. _
They were never "seriously" in the hunt? But let's delve deeper. When people say we won the 09 Colts game because they rested starters don't you become defensive? Don't you like to point out the time when Buffalo lost to Pitt in 04 despite Pitt resting starters? Tampa did what they needed to do. You can't assume that it's meaningless, things could've fell in place and they could've gotten the 6 seed. Look at this year, SD needed the Dolphins and Ravens to lose for them to get in. That doesn't mean anything, maybe Miami didn't want to sign Flynn, maybe they wanted to use a deep 2012 QB draft to fill that need.
we were w/in 5 pts of Indy midway through the 3rd qtr. people act like we were down 21-0 then Indy rested starters and we came back and won. it's not about resting starters, it's about not being in the race. The meaningless week 17 game padded their record but they weren't in the race. I would agree w/ your Buf '04 example(or us in '93) if the game was for a playoff spot but it wasn't. they played them earlier in the season and lost 31-6. Trailing by a TD in the 4th NO removed Brees from the game, that is not a game they were trying to win. they could have signed Flynn and drafted Tannehill like Seattle did w/ Wilson who was taken 2 rds later and is much better than tannehill/
while yes this is the qb draft, we were able to take geno for almost no risk in the 2nd rd and draft the defensive rookie of the year and a cb that by the end of the year showed a lot of promise and has a shot a being a big time player for us as well. and as far as geno being 4th or 5th off the board this year, that would mean he may not have made it to us at 18. i fully expect bortles, JFF, and teddy to be gone well before 18. i think geno would get scooped up before there too. tb is not sold on glennon and has a new hc. minn is in need. hou, jax, oak, cle all picking ahead of us. we cant say it was the right call now but it certainly was a value pick for us at the end of the day. edit: cant discount stl going after a qb. bradford has not been able to stay on the field. you never know. i doubt it but it wouldnt be a complete shock
You just totally glossed over my SD point? Look at 2008. Philly needed to win and for a slew of teams to lose and the teams they needed to lose all lost and they got in as a 6th seed. My point is that as long as you're mathematically in it, you're still in the hunt.
they feasted on awful teams all year. 10 wins Cle 5-11 Car 2-14 2x cin 4-12 SL 7-9 Ari 5-11 SF 6-10 Was 6-10 Sea 7-9 NO not trying to win in week 17. ONE winning team all year when NO clearly wasn't trying to win. They never had pressure to win
it doesn't matter, they proved they weren't a playoff team. and in 2011 they had playoff pressure w/ Freeman for the first time and he was awful. He's proven to be a decent #s guy in meaningless games. they knew what they had going into 2013 and they took a QB.
TB didn't have to be completely sold on Freeman to be willing to go into the season with him and give him another look, rather than take a high pick QB. it isn't as if they picked Glennon with their first pick. their decision process is obvious. the biggest weakness of the team in 2012 was the secondary, so they took a CB with their first pick, and then thought Glennon was great value in the third. obviously they felt that getting a CB in the second round was more important than starting over with a new QB, and perhaps with the team solid around him Freeman's deficiencies could be overcome for the short term. that was certainly a better plan for 2013 than going into the season wit the idea that you need to completely start over at QB, taking a QB in the second round, and not shoring up the defensive backfield as much as possible. TB's draft doesn't reflect anything on Geno.
