NFL 2015 Season - Page 124

On October 02 2015 19:02 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
It's hard to say a guy who threw 21 TDs to 12 INTs in his rookie year with James Jones as his number one WR is a bad QB. It's not that Jones is terrible, he's clearly not, but neither is he a game changer. I'm also not claiming that Carr is going to be a great QB, but he's definitely good. I would absolutely take him over at least 17 of this year's starters, and he's on par with 3 more.

On par with: Bridgewater, Palmer, E. Manning.

Carr and Teddie had pretty similar seasons, except that Carr's was way better statistically. The point is that both of them showed some promise.

I may sound crazy with the other two, but I'm factoring historical performance, age, and cost too. No doubt I would want Palmer or Manning over him right now, but if the team is young and doesn't look like they're going to contend in the next year or two, then they're no good to me. He's certainly a better long term solution based on his age, too. If he continues to progress (always a huge if, I know), he could be a 10+ year starter. You're not getting 10+ good years out of Eli or Palmer.

I would definitely take him over:

+ Show Spoiler +

The only one I feel remotely compelled to defend my thoughts on is Newton, who I think could be a really good QB. I'm looking at the real world in this case, and thinking I'd rather be a Raiders fan than a Panthers fan right now. The Panthers are like the Bears of the 2000s with Lovie. They're good enough to win 9-12 games a year, they may make a deep playoff run or two, but they're just not going to win a Super Bowl.

And the Panther's front office seems to be refusing to give this poor bastard a WR to throw to; I know he was supposed to have Kelvin Benjamin this year, and they probably would have grown really well together this season, but Benjamin is out, and they have no talent at WR otherwise (can you imagine this team without Olsen? Good Lord!).

And if you break that down by guys drafted after 2010-a fair point for saying they're definitely still in the first half of their careers, barring some catastrophic injury--then there are two QBs I would definitely want over Carr right now: Luck and Wilson. Again, Teddie is there with him; talent-wise, I think Cam is there too. Though I doubt either will be great, Winston or Mariota could be: it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

On October 02 2015 20:11 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
I'm not going to read 122 pages, but can we talk about how stupid these front offices are for paying these really mediocre QBs $20M a year? I know that they have to win games to keep people in the seats, so that they can keep generating revenue, but Dalton is not going to win a Super Bowl. Kaepernick will not win a Super Bowl; Stafford won't either. These guys aren't good enough to turn subpar receivers into studs the way that guys like Rodgers do, so why are they getting paid like Rodgers?

Seattle (and really the entire NFC West) gave everyone the blueprint, although Seattle shat all over it this year: be great everywhere else, and just be good at QB.

Wilson is a very good QB (he's top 10; I think I'd put him at 9), and while his intangibles cannot be overlooked--there are few quarterbacks that could throw four interceptions in the NFC Championship game and still have what it takes to lead a comeback victory--his play often leaves something to be desired. Although Seahawks don't win in spite of him, they don't necessarily win because of him. And if not for Lynch, the Packers probably win the game in a blowout.

What makes them good is that they're great at almost every other position. They've had one of the most dominant defense in the league since 2011. Lynch has been the most dominant HB of the past three years, and the WRs are good enough that Wilson doesn't have to throw them open all the time.

Wilson is closer to Alex Smith than Aaron Rodgers, in my opinion. Wilson also suffers from being short, and being a bad pocket passer, which I think are related problems. He is incredibly reliant on his mobility buying extra time for coverage to break down, and he has also benefited from a stellar O-line to aid that process. Why give him four years and $87M at the probable cost of another impact player?

For at least this year and next year, it's logical to pay Wilson because they know he's capable of bringing them to a Super Bowl, and the rest of the team is in place. The Seahawks aren't the greatest example, but the impact of paying Wilson will become clear in the next couple of years, and more importantly, it lays the foundation for expanding the point: if there's a perceivable problem with paying a top 10 QB $22M per year, why in the world is it acceptable to pay Dalton that same money? Why pay any QB that isn't an incredible passer, on par with the usual names, who also lacks the uniqueness of Wilson?

I think the logical progression for the NFL is to stop overpaying bad quarterbacks. Drafting Winston number one, and Mariota two, this year means that no matter how good the rest of the team gets, these guys will be there for at least five years, irrespective of whether or not they're capable of winning a Super Bowl. It also means that they're really unlikely to pick a QB in the third or fourth because the pick is better spent on someone that will play that year. The top-tier backups can win in the right situation, and even if they can't, at least you're not married to them. At least the team would be willing to give their fifth round QB a shot at taking the starting job from the bum that has it if they hadn't committed nearly $20M to the bum. Seattle's willingness to bench their highly (over)paid QB allowed Wilson to start, but most teams aren't intelligent enough--or, at the least, willing enough--to do that. Does anyone think McCarron would ever get enough reps to take Dalton's spot, even if he was significantly better? Highly improbable. So here's to another five years of watching Dalton suck, Bengals fans. Here's to another few years of Kaepernick bumbling around the field, never making it to his second read, and on and on we go.

On October 04 2015 01:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Technically a center handles the ball on every play as well, and all o-line men are involved in every play as well.

On October 04 2015 01:55 Shellshock wrote:

Some o linemen can be rotated out though during games

On October 04 2015 01:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Technically a center handles the ball on every play as well, and all o-line men are involved in every play as well.