Are you KIDDING ? He left money on the table...the contract was a great deal for KC. It's cheap NOW....in 4 years, it'll look dirt-cheap. I agree that guys like Brady helped their team by taking less $$$....but I'm not sure that the other names "hurt" their teams because you usually pay talent. It's the middle-class and below that gets squeezed.
As I said, we were talking about great QBs. Then you threw in the '86 Bears. They didn't fit in the conversation/discussion.
When McMahon was good, he was VERY good -- even excellent. But again....it's the FLOORS that I look at....and he had alot of clunkers where the Bears still won because of Walter Payton or that defense. His stats prove this out.
It's an complete mix of absolute everything to get a franchise QB, and there's so many good QBs or QBs that have had great seasons, but are not SB QBs. However, I'll agree with one thing. You know if you have a utter stud by year 3 and thats why I take Trevor or fields. If you have a QB that could be Stafford, Ryan, Cousins. You will win a lot of games in 10 years but will you will struggle to win a superbowl. For me there's 3 superstar QBs guaranteed over the next 5 years. Watson, Mahomes and Russ. There could 2/3 more but those are three players I think can win any game. I want the New York Jets to have one too Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk
Absolutely, which just goes to show to me how you support the guy you draft is often far more important than who you draft or what position that draftee is.
I wouldn't say those are MORE important, maybe AS important, but without the great talent you don't get a great QB no matter who coaches him or how much support you give him. As the saying goes; "You can't make filet mignon out of hamburger, no matter who the chef is".
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Using an old Southern American metaphor, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Good coaching and talent around a QB should definitely help him play better, but he's still going to be a limited QB. You can't coach "arm strength," or talent, or innate ability. You combine great coaching and great talent and put that around a great QB, and you have something. Great talent can survive bad coaching. The opposite isn't true.
Agree somewhat. That’s why moving up for Darnold where you could still drafted Allen, Lamar etc wasn’t really a worth the picks because a Franchise QB is very hard and involves a lot of luck. is Lawrence the answer? I dunno. But better draft some offense around Lawrence. Jets are unfortunately way behind from competing with Buffalo and Miami for AFC and going to take at least 2-3 draft years.
Finding a great franchise QB is probably the hardest thing to do in the NFL. There seems to never be more than 2 to 5 each decade: 1980s: Montana, Marino, Elway, Young, Kelly, and Aikman (okay, I know, that's 6). There were a few good QBs who had moments of being great, like Simms, Esiason, O'Brien, Cunningham, and McMahon. 1990s: Favre and Montana, with some good guys like McNair, McNabb, and Culpepper 2000s: Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, and some good ones like Palmer, Eli Manning, Ryan, Rivers, and Pennington 2010s: Wilson, Mahomes, and the rest have had their moments but it's too early to tell. That's not a lot, all things considered.
Spot on, and that's why the idea to pass on Lawrence and trade down for a bunch of draft picks, is, and always has been insane.
Yep; draft picks aren't everything. Bill O'Brien learned that the hard way this past year. Sometimes you've got to go with quality over quantity; you can't always try to play moneyball.
We can all agree that the hardest thing to do in football is find a great QB. But the question is: why? The basic assumption is that the traits that make up a great QB are so rare that it's hard to find them, but what if that assumption is false? What if the real reason is that teams are looking for the wrong thing? Or more correctly, the traits they value are wrong? Maybe it's the way they design their offenses which depend on their desired traits which is wrong? An example of this is Gase's offense which requires traits which Darnold obviously doesn't possess, at least sufficiently. But rather than change his offense to fit Darnold's strengths, Gase continues to demand that Darnold do what he's proven he can't do, or doesn't do well. I believe that this situation is not the exception in the NFL, but the rule. But the consistently successful - great - HCs don't persist in forcing square pegs into round holes, they change the hole to fit the peg. Look at Andy Reid. He's got a career .629 Winning Pct. with two teams, the Eagles and the Chiefs, covering 22 years. Obviously he's had different QBs over that time, and yet, he's consistently won. And he did so, not by making his QBs fit his offense, but by adjusting his offense to fit who he had as a QB. The latest version of this Patrick Mahomes, who many teams had decided wouldn't be a good fit in the NFL. They were wrong...he just wasn't going to be a good fit in THEIR offense. Look at this list of the top 10 NFL HCs - and you can argue about the rankings, which for this discussion are immaterial: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...s-place-among-the-greatest-in-league-history/ No two of them followed the same formula for success, nor did they rely on the same formula over their careers, as they had to change things based on the players that had and the way the rules changed. And usually, it was the guy who tried something that "couldn't work in the NFL" who had major success. Joe Gibbs had 3 different QBs and went to 4 SBs. Don Shula won with Johnny Unitas, Bob Griese, and Dan Marino. Bill Walsh developed the foundations for his West Coast Offense, while at Cincinnati when his QB, Greg Cook, tore his rotator cuff and could no longer make the deep throws of the traditional offense, so he changed it, and ultimately went on to have Joe Montana run it to become one of the greatest QBs in history. You can look at all of these coaches and see where they also made revolutionary changes to their offenses and raced ahead of the competition. The bottom line is that while having a QB with great physical and mental/emotional make up is important, they're not going to become great - or even good - if they're put in situations that don't maximize those traits they possess. And maybe the NFL continues to be too hung up on what constitutes a FQB to recognize them when they're right there in front of them.
Good article on the Jets and Trevor: https://thejetpress.com/2020/12/12/ny-jets-trevor-lawrence-fix-everything/
Good article. What jumped out at me was this line: "The point here isn’t whether or not the quarterback in question in a given year will be a bust — most of that will fall upon the team and not the player." If the Jets don't fix what has been wrong since even before Darnold arrived, it won't matter who they draft, generational or not.
Oops, in the 1990s, I put Montana a second time and I meant Manning. I had a beer and a rum and eggnog in me when I wrote that last night
That seems like an unreasonably high bar. There are first-ballot hall-of-famers who played in the last 20 years who you don't consider to be franchise QBs - those three you mentioned, plus Eli Manning, and - maybe - Philip Rivers. Brett Favre and Kurt Warner both had success in the mid-00s, but maybe you age them out since they played primarily >20 years ago. (oh and as an aside, I believe Roethlisberger has earned more money than Brees since 2003). I have a somewhat lower bar. If you can win regularly at the QB position over a number of years - say 5 years - you're a franchise QB. So players like Andrew Luck, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Andy Dalton and Tony Romo would qualify. While they were playing on their teams, the QB position was not a question for the team. Their teams had reasonable success and made it to the playoffs regularly. At this point, I'd kill for one of those
Wilson will have made the playoffs in 8/9 seasons. Rodgers in 9/12 seasons. Brees in 9/15 seasons. I'm not sure how they wouldn't qualify? And they all obviously have SB titles.
