|
Jay Cutler is example #1 that demonstrates the "you need a quarterback" people are just wrong. The Bears were better off with Kyle Orton + Draft picks, even though Cutler is easily a top 3 QB talent, and even at his worst probably the 17th best QB. Another great example is Sam Bradford. Minnesota needs that draft pick, because Bradford is merely passable, and mere pass-ability is not a worth much.
The trades these teams make for those QBs would be great trades, if you got prime Drew Brees. If you get Kirk Cousins, its like setting your team on fire. "A Quarterback" is not a thing. The Seahawks have "A Quarterback" and "A Elite Defense", and they didn't trade shit for either, merely PAYING their "A Quarterback" is killing the team. Tom Brady has never been a top 5 paid QB in the league (not for more than 1 season consecutively at least), which is a huge reason they stay good forever (and he's better than "A Quarterback").
This phenomenon is so strong that Washington shouldn't even pay Cousins (unless they think he is going to become a top 5 guy) because you can turn a lot of people into 95% of Kirk, with faith and good cast members.
|
United States97276 Posts
they'll still end up paying him because they most teams arent just paying for the QB but they are paying for the QB + not having to have Gabbert, Osweiler, etc. they'll panic and pull the trigger.
|
But the myth is that Gabbert (Osweiler is some special level of terrible), Kyle Orton, Ryan Fitzpatrick, etc, are so different than Kirk Cousins, when probably 1 of those guys would be better than Kirk if you gave him the last 2 years in DC. Most of the teams that "Don't have a QB" actually just haven't arbitrarily committed to one recently (1st round pick, trade, big contract) and are just a bad team overall, like the Bears. Like Jameis, I love that guy, but he could just turn into Cutler, and Captain Kirk is 1 offensive lineman and a coordinator away from being Blake Bortles.
|
On January 17 2017 09:09 cLutZ wrote:
But the myth is that Gabbert (Osweiler is some special level of terrible), Kyle Orton, Ryan Fitzpatrick, etc, are so different than Kirk Cousins, when probably 1 of those guys would be better than Kirk if you gave him the last 2 years in DC. Most of the teams that "Don't have a QB" actually just haven't arbitrarily committed to one recently (1st round pick, trade, big contract) and are just a bad team overall, like the Bears. Like Jameis, I love that guy, but he could just turn into Cutler, and Captain Kirk is 1 offensive lineman and a coordinator away from being Blake Bortles.
To the extent that they're equally accurate throwing the ball, I'd agree. However, Gabbert is clearly not as accurate as those other guys and never will be.
|
On January 17 2017 05:31 NonY wrote:
The Rodgers GOAT stuff isn't about stats and accomplishments (quantification of performance) or about judging whole careers. It's about watching the performances themselves and making a judgment of who has played QB best. It's a topic for football lifers to consider and maybe share with the rest of the world (obviously if they're media now then they share it), but even a dedicated fan isn't really qualified to comment. You've gotta be a football expert who has actually watched and studied all of these players. If you're not interested in anything that can't be fully logically or numerically laid out, that's fine. But it doesn't make sense to respond to an expert saying something like "Rodgers may be playing the QB position the greatest it's ever been played" with a numbers/career argument. Personally, I think football is so much a team game that even personal stats over a long time aren't a satisfying way to judge a player for me. I'd rather use the opinions of experts as a guide to my casual understanding of the game than all these stats. And why not just go along with it, for fun? No one really knows until after it's all said and done, so why not get excited that right now maybe we are watching the GOAT?
The big issue with letting the "experts" tell you what a guys performance is overall, is that many of them really aren't experts and are routinely wrong about teams/players. Listening to Max Kellerman or Steven A. say anything about football and having them occasionally called experts on ESPN is laughable. Hearing Jaws say it is very different. The wording I've seen about it makes the real difference. Saying the back half of Rodgers season is one of the greatest qb performances ever is different from saying he is now a top 5 HOF QB because of these past 8 games. Also, comparing to Montana or Unitas would be impossible for me, but comparing to Elway, Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees is legit and they have all had runs similar to his. It doesn't diminish it, but it's just sports shows/sites baiting with a topic that can't have a truly right answer.
|
51586 Posts
|
Folks said the same thing when Carroll was at USC......and they were right then too  I don't mind his "you're a special snowflake" coaching style because he makes it work like no one else, but I can see why many would be frustrated when the Hawks' attitude doesn't match their performance.
|
United States97276 Posts
this just in, loud players less likeable when they arent winning enough
|
|
|
I wouldn't call anything about the Patriots loud, but yeah winning all the time is the worst for PR...
|
On January 17 2017 10:46 Shellshock wrote:
this just in, loud players less likeable when they arent winning enough
Or maybe losing silences the sheeple so the complaints of the reasonable people aren't drowned out.
|
8751 Posts
On January 17 2017 09:43 giftdgecko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2017 05:31 NonY wrote:
The Rodgers GOAT stuff isn't about stats and accomplishments (quantification of performance) or about judging whole careers. It's about watching the performances themselves and making a judgment of who has played QB best. It's a topic for football lifers to consider and maybe share with the rest of the world (obviously if they're media now then they share it), but even a dedicated fan isn't really qualified to comment. You've gotta be a football expert who has actually watched and studied all of these players. If you're not interested in anything that can't be fully logically or numerically laid out, that's fine. But it doesn't make sense to respond to an expert saying something like "Rodgers may be playing the QB position the greatest it's ever been played" with a numbers/career argument. Personally, I think football is so much a team game that even personal stats over a long time aren't a satisfying way to judge a player for me. I'd rather use the opinions of experts as a guide to my casual understanding of the game than all these stats. And why not just go along with it, for fun? No one really knows until after it's all said and done, so why not get excited that right now maybe we are watching the GOAT? The big issue with letting the "experts" tell you what a guys performance is overall, is that many of them really aren't experts and are routinely wrong about teams/players. Listening to Max Kellerman or Steven A. say anything about football and having them occasionally called experts on ESPN is laughable. Hearing Jaws say it is very different. The wording I've seen about it makes the real difference. Saying the back half of Rodgers season is one of the greatest qb performances ever is different from saying he is now a top 5 HOF QB because of these past 8 games. Also, comparing to Montana or Unitas would be impossible for me, but comparing to Elway, Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees is legit and they have all had runs similar to his. It doesn't diminish it, but it's just sports shows/sites baiting with a topic that can't have a truly right answer.
I don't watch ESPN unless they're broadcasting a live game so I had to google Max Kellerman and Steven A. and after googling them I'm not sure why you'd bring them up in a football discussion. I guess they're trying to pass as experts too but just looking at their wikipedias I don't think anyone would confuse them with experts on the GOAT QB. They're multi-sport media lifers, neither with roots in football. I'm more thinking of retired coaches and GM's and players.
I want a guy who just watched Rodgers play, with a deep understanding of the game, to compare that to all the other great QB's. I want the "eye test" but I think there's a lot going on subconsciously that makes an "eye test" judgment more accurate than we give it credit for, when a truly knowledgeable and experienced person is doing it. So you say X/Y/Z guy did something similar cuz he won certain games with defenses and run games ranked low against secondaries ranked high, etc, like Rodgers is now, but that says nothing about the actual decisions the QB had to make and the actual throws he had to make. Comparing the actual specific plays the QB's have to make, as opposed to the overall task/storyline of their season, is what interests me. Because you can look at all these historic games and see how little random things out of the QB's control greatly affect the game and therefore greatly affect the stats and the season and the storyline. But if you watch the plays they themselves made, well that's what's being judged right, is their performance. That's the start and end of it and when you introduce anything else that takes their team more into account, you start getting more off the mark. Just like the GOAT QB could have played with the #1 defense, you wouldn't want to hold that against him.
The stats ultimately can't approximate the challenge and the specific job of the QB in a certain system and in a certain game. To get a closer accounting of that, an expert's brain works way better. I think Rodgers sees the best chance to win as playing an extremely high-difficulty style of QB and he's doing it well so that's generating all this high praise. Other QB's don't even try some of the things that are in Rodgers' regular repertoire.
|
On January 17 2017 11:08 JimmiC wrote:
Or when they win too much for too long... see pats.
In the Pats' case, it's not anybody inside the organization that's loud.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 18 2017 01:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 01:31 andrewlt wrote:On January 17 2017 11:08 JimmiC wrote:
Or when they win too much for too long... see pats. In the Pats' case, it's not anybody inside the organization that's loud. Well Harrison was loud as fuck, And Brady is non stop talking shit on the field. There is a reason other teams don't like them. Most don't talk shit to the media but they are not the alter boys they are made out to be.
Everybody shit talks on the field. I mean literally everybody, not just the NFL and not just football and not just pro sports. Pee wee leagues, intramural leagues, pickup games, high school, college, pro sports. Hockey, basketball, football, MMA. It's sports, it's non-stop shit talking everywhere. (Except for Andrew Luck, maybe).
The problem for some guys is keeping the shit talking on the field and before the game is decided, like normal people do. That's not a problem the Patriots have. That's the problem the Seahawks have.
|
|
|
That's a pretty useless generalization; there is practically always going to be shit-talking on the field, but that doesn't mean that everyone is doing it.
|
On January 18 2017 02:17 farvacola wrote:
That's a pretty useless generalization; there is practically always going to be shit-talking on the field, but that doesn't mean that everyone is doing it.
Yeah, I embellished a bit. I like the way you put it better. Shit talking is commonplace, even if not everyone is doing it. Most people aren't, or don't take it very far. My point was that it's generally acceptable if you keep it in the game.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 18 2017 00:10 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2017 09:43 giftdgecko wrote:On January 17 2017 05:31 NonY wrote:
The Rodgers GOAT stuff isn't about stats and accomplishments (quantification of performance) or about judging whole careers. It's about watching the performances themselves and making a judgment of who has played QB best. It's a topic for football lifers to consider and maybe share with the rest of the world (obviously if they're media now then they share it), but even a dedicated fan isn't really qualified to comment. You've gotta be a football expert who has actually watched and studied all of these players. If you're not interested in anything that can't be fully logically or numerically laid out, that's fine. But it doesn't make sense to respond to an expert saying something like "Rodgers may be playing the QB position the greatest it's ever been played" with a numbers/career argument. Personally, I think football is so much a team game that even personal stats over a long time aren't a satisfying way to judge a player for me. I'd rather use the opinions of experts as a guide to my casual understanding of the game than all these stats. And why not just go along with it, for fun? No one really knows until after it's all said and done, so why not get excited that right now maybe we are watching the GOAT? The big issue with letting the "experts" tell you what a guys performance is overall, is that many of them really aren't experts and are routinely wrong about teams/players. Listening to Max Kellerman or Steven A. say anything about football and having them occasionally called experts on ESPN is laughable. Hearing Jaws say it is very different. The wording I've seen about it makes the real difference. Saying the back half of Rodgers season is one of the greatest qb performances ever is different from saying he is now a top 5 HOF QB because of these past 8 games. Also, comparing to Montana or Unitas would be impossible for me, but comparing to Elway, Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees is legit and they have all had runs similar to his. It doesn't diminish it, but it's just sports shows/sites baiting with a topic that can't have a truly right answer. I don't watch ESPN unless they're broadcasting a live game so I had to google Max Kellerman and Steven A. and after googling them I'm not sure why you'd bring them up in a football discussion. I guess they're trying to pass as experts too but just looking at their wikipedias I don't think anyone would confuse them with experts on the GOAT QB. They're multi-sport media lifers, neither with roots in football. I'm more thinking of retired coaches and GM's and players. I want a guy who just watched Rodgers play, with a deep understanding of the game, to compare that to all the other great QB's. I want the "eye test" but I think there's a lot going on subconsciously that makes an "eye test" judgment more accurate than we give it credit for, when a truly knowledgeable and experienced person is doing it. So you say X/Y/Z guy did something similar cuz he won certain games with defenses and run games ranked low against secondaries ranked high, etc, like Rodgers is now, but that says nothing about the actual decisions the QB had to make and the actual throws he had to make. Comparing the actual specific plays the QB's have to make, as opposed to the overall task/storyline of their season, is what interests me. Because you can look at all these historic games and see how little random things out of the QB's control greatly affect the game and therefore greatly affect the stats and the season and the storyline. But if you watch the plays they themselves made, well that's what's being judged right, is their performance. That's the start and end of it and when you introduce anything else that takes their team more into account, you start getting more off the mark. Just like the GOAT QB could have played with the #1 defense, you wouldn't want to hold that against him. The stats ultimately can't approximate the challenge and the specific job of the QB in a certain system and in a certain game. To get a closer accounting of that, an expert's brain works way better. I think Rodgers sees the best chance to win as playing an extremely high-difficulty style of QB and he's doing it well so that's generating all this high praise. Other QB's don't even try some of the things that are in Rodgers' regular repertoire.
I bring up Steven A. and Kellerman because I don't know what you or others consider experts and unfortunately many people look at talking heads on sports shows as experts. Like you said, they aren't.
You are making great points but what I am saying is that we can use the eye test as fans because in our generation there are 2-3 qb's that we can directly compare to if you start making GOAT statements. Favre, Elway and Marino are people I also saw play so we are up to 6 HOF qb's to compare him with. The eye test says that Rodgers is playing amazing with his backyard football style. As far as an improvisor goes, he may be the GOAT at it, Favre is the best person to compare to and Rodgers does it better. The big issue with eye tests is that people often weigh the present more heavily than the past because of how the league has changed to allow for more offense than in the past.
Saying he's the greatest qb ever because of 8 games is what I disagree with and what was being discussed by many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
