I've never advocated doing nothing and going 2-14 every year until we get "Lucky". What I have advocated is, if you find yourself in a situation where you sucked and are drafting low enough to get a guy some think has a very high ceiling but may be a year away from contributing, you do it. As an example, if we were drafting 6 in 2013--I would not have taken a QB. Not Manuel or Geno or any other QB. Awful class--the entirety of it. Low ceilings. If we were drafting 6 in 2011, I would not have taken any QB. Not Locker or Ponder or Gabbert or Mallett. Low ceilings. If we were drafting 6 LAST year I would have taken Teddy. Or Carr. I would have taken either of them at 16--but John Idzik is a fucking moron, but that's for another thread. High ceilings. We're drafting 6 this year and we have a shot at a guy who could have a very high ceiling. He may not, he may be a project, he may take some time, but he has a much higher ceiling then any of those guys that sucked out of the 2011 and 2013 draft. We are likely not drafting as high as 6 again for the foreseeable future and there may not be a QB with as much potential as MM in the next 2 drafts at a minimum in any event.- and then you have a year or 2 of development so you're looking 3 or 4 or 5 years out to get that production (that might not even be there). So while the rookie money isn't big anymore, and we've rebuilt our secondary and our WR corp and have put together a solid team--THIS is the year I gamble on getting my franchise QB. I don't wait and take an OLB or WR or DE because those guys aren't going to be franchise changers for a decade. Maybe MM doesn't become that either--but he could. _
Should have built up the running attack. Pulling guards damaging linebackers, backs bulldozing secondaries. A play action dagger to finish Running game benefits the pass
Whatever. You're so dense that you don't even know what you wrote and how your going 2-14 every year comment makes no sense. It's a wild extrapolation. No one even remotely suggested that we should do that. Carry on.
i still dont get the tedy bridgewater love. his ceiling to me is pretty low. i dont view him as a guy who can be a top 12 QB in the NFL. he is better then geno sure but geno is like as bad as it gets. what exactly about bridgewater do you like? he seems very limited on throws he consistently makes and misses a ton
So, of 14 SB winning QBs, 4 "elite" QBs, 2 "debatable" and 8 QBs who weren't elite at the time. Looks to me like history shows that you can win a SB without an "elite" QB.[/QUOTE] what exactly does 'not elite yet' mean. Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady - 28 TD/14INT 92.8 QB rating Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady 26 TD/14INT 92.3 QB Rating Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger - 17 TD/9INT 98.6 QB Rating Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning - 23 TD/20INt 73.9 QB Rating Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger 32 TD/11 INT 104.1 qB Rating Super Bowl 46: Eli Manning - 29TD/16INT 92.9 QB rating Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco - 22 TD/10INT 87.8 QB Rating Super Bowl 48: Russell Wilso, - 26 TD/9INT 101.2 QB Rating those guys may not have hit their peak but they were still outstanding QBs who played great in their superbowl runs. all of those guys other then brad johnson and flacco probably end up in the hall of fame. most are locks.maybe you dont need an elite QB, but you clearly need someone who will eventually be elite and has a hall of fame type ceiling.
IMO a franchise QB doesn't have to be elite. He just needs to be a guy the franchise trusts to man the position for a long period of time NOT a guy who is "OK for now". A guy you know you can win with consistently. That's why it cracks me up when guys dismiss drafting a QB in the first if the prospect is not a Luck, Peyton Manning, Elway type prospect.
Brilliant football mind, tremendously accurate, throws with anticipation, can decipher what is going on pre-snap and post snap and will be a top 10 QB in the NFL in the next few years. You can disagree, that's fine. _
It's an agenda being driven by folks who think QB isn't all that important and you can "win" with a mediocre QB. As long as the rest of the team is elite. Kind of like building a model around the 2000 Ravens. D'oh! _
I agree with this. I think sometimes people view franchise QB and elite QB as one in the same. They don't have to be Elway, Peyton, or Luck it's all about if the front office and coaching staff believes in the QB and thinks he could be a franchise guy then by all means draft him. I don't believe in drafting a guy just for the sake of it. You have to be sold 1000% that he could be the guy.
i dont like this comparison. eli has had bad seasons... but in those bad seasons there was good that came with the bad. sure he might have thrown 25 picks to lead the league, but he also threw for over 4000 yards and had 31 touchdown passes. with mark there was no good with the bad. it was just the bad. on top of that, eli manning has had monster elite seasons. he threw for 5000 yards and 30 touchdowns in 2011. sanchez never sniffed anything like that. and i wouldnt compare what mark did in the playoffs to what eli did. eli won 2 superbowls, was the MVP of both. mark never made a superbowl. sure he had some big wins (@indy, @NE) but that still isnt close to the level eli got to. ) Eli has 85 career inteceptions. mark has 80 career inteceptions.... eli has 260 career touchdown passes. mark has 82 career touchdown passes. mark was a turnover machine who basically was awful. eli was a guy who made tons of plays but forced it way to often at times leading to tons of turnovers. thats an enormous difference.
Everyone of the above is leaps, bounds, and miles above anyone we have. I'd settle in NY minute for anyone of those QB's.
you can win with a mediocure to bad QB.... you just need the best defense of all time and a 2000 yard running back. if you dont have those, you better go get a good qb
Peyton doesn't have a ring if not for that defense and Dominic Rhodes [RB]. You still at the end of the day, need to be firing on all 3 phases to win it all. Drew Brees had a defense that generated turnovers at a crazy rate. you don't need an elite QB, you need one to make plays when they matter the most, which is why we got so far w/ Sanchez in 2010
if you dont have an elite QB you wont get the chances to make those plays that matter most. Peyton doesnt have a ring because of rhodes or the defense. he has a ring because he is so good that he put his team in a position where they had a bye and home field and needed just 2 wins to get to the superbowl for like 15 straight seasons. the more times you are in the spot, the better your odds. same with brady. dude went a decade without a ring, but regardless the pats are always right there no matter what changes. he has made the SB with good and bad defenses, good and bad running games, good and bad wideouts. still every year its 12-14 wins. Sanchez made some big plays, and played extremely well. but at the end of the day we needed more then just playing well and we didnt have that. and we didnt get back after the first couple years because our qb couldnt carry us there like a manning or brady or brees And we were lucky to even make the playoffs with sanchez, got some good fortune with manning sitting out the last game of a potential undefeated season for rest for the playoffs. colts lost and we got in
Eli Manning, Joe Flacco - those QBs were never elite and will never be elite - so I don't get the point of your first sentence. Mark Sanchez was a drive away from getting us to our first SB appearance in decades and he was hella clutch that season. You do not need an elite QB to make plays and win. Peyton at the end of the day, did not play to standards in the playoffs in 2007. Manning has always had HOF caliber players, at the end of the day that post-season - he was average at best and took a major back-seat to the defense and running game. You need to be firing on all 3 aspects to win it all - at the end of the day that is what occurred. We are not talking about the regular season and that weak ass division Peyton played in for several seasons. If not for Rhodes or the defense, Manning gets no ring, that's it in regards to that debate. Actually that AFCCG against the Patriots, Peyton was the reason they were behind 21-3. Colts don't get to the SB w/out the run game and the defense playing well. Joesph Addai, Marlin Jackson - know those names. Brady the early SBs, great defenses. Brees lone SB win, defense that generated tons of TOs [and points]. Good QB play is needed, but not elite QB play. All 3 phases need to be performing at the highest level. That IMO cannot be argued, evident by each SB team in the past. The only QB really to carry his team was Joe Flacco and an amazing 11TD-0INT post-season. In regards to Mark, that is why my point is extremely valid about having all 3 phases playing well. We lost each conference game because the defense did not perform to it's standards. Having Brees won't stop Big Ben from converting that 3rd down at the end of the game.
Absolutely not, he has not shown consistency and he has not shown any improvement IMO. I think Mark gave us far more promise then Geno Smith could ever do. I honestly thought we could win it all with Mark in 2010. Even 2011, if we had our priorities straight as a team and Victor Cruz doesn't catch that pass and go 99 yards. Geno has talent, but Mark - a lesser talent showed up when you needed him to.
