Film Room: Josh Rosen’s 1st Pro Start | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Film Room: Josh Rosen’s 1st Pro Start

Your point is valid. There weren't a lot of teams beating the door down to get to him, but that is an oversimplification.

No playoff team, who thought they were "close" was going to give up a 2nd round pick.

No team that already had a young QB they believe in would be interested either.

Take those off the list of 32, and how many are really left?


And, possibly, no team that couldn't recoup their R2 pick would have made the trade. Grier gets credit for that.
There seems to be a few categories of teams.
Seems there are some teams that want a brand new rookie regardless what else is available.
Teams finishing in top half of NFL frequently, tend to stay with what they have.
Teams with a 1st/2nd year QB rarely change.
Subtract those from the list and not many teams are left.

In spite of that, I wasn't impressed with ARI coaches last year and I get a rookie QB getting rattled when under pressure constantly. Nonetheless, rationales don't trump production. I'm eager to see what he does.
 
Let me put it a different way.

Marino
Montana
Warner
Favre
Brady
Manning
Rodgers

Are some of the QBs to win MVP, and are in or destined to be in the HOF.

Do you take Griese over any of those guys?

I have no idea, because it's virtually impossible to compare the eras.

Look at Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw had 212 TDs and 210 INTs on his career. Are those HOF numbers by today's standards? Of course not. But try telling anyone he doesn't belong in the HOF, and they'll laugh you out of the room.
 
I have no idea, because it's virtually impossible to compare the eras.

Look at Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw had 212 TDs and 210 INTs on his career. Are those HOF numbers by today's standards? Of course not. But try telling anyone he doesn't belong in the HOF, and they'll laugh you out of the room.
He belongs on the merits of having 4 rings. No one would question that, but nobody outside of Pittsburgh will try to tell you he was elite.

That's an excellent analogy.

He was a tough SOB. He won rings.

Why is he not talked about as the GOAT? Because he wasn't in that class.

JMO
 
He belongs on the merits of having 4 rings. No one would question that, but nobody outside of Pittsburgh will try to tell you he was elite.

That's an excellent analogy.

He was a tough SOB. He won rings.

Why is he not talked about as the GOAT? Because he wasn't in that class.

JMO

I know...and I respect your opinion.

But here's the thing: We'll never know.

It's impossible to say "Griese wasn't really that good" or "Bradshaw wasn't really that good" because they had nowhere near the facilities and opportunities today's athletes have. It goes far beyond just the Mel Blount rule.

Example: NFL salaries weren't the equivalent of what they are today, in comparison to the average American household. Back in 1970, the average American household income was $10,000. The average NFL salary was $25,000 That's 2.5 times more than the average household. Terry Bradshaw, for example, had to sell insurance in the offseason to make ends meet.

In 2018, the average household income was $62,000. The average NFL player made 2.7 million. That's over 40 times more than the average household. Today's athlete can spend 24/7/365 dedicating himself to his craft, with personal chefs, physical therapists, etc...and that's not even including the advantages today's athlete has with team facilities. That's why recency bias drives me so completely bonkers - because it's impossible to look at an athlete from 40-50 years ago and say "There's no way that athlete could have competed in today's league."

I'm not trying to start an argument; just pointing out that it's virtually impossible to compare athletes from different eras. The only sport that comes close is horse racing.


Edited because math is hard.
 
Last edited:
I know...and I respect your opinion.

But here's the thing: We'll never know.

It's impossible to say "Griese wasn't really that good" or "Bradshaw wasn't really that good" because they had nowhere near the facilities and opportunities today's athletes have. It goes far beyond just the Mel Blount rule.

Example: NFL salaries weren't the equivalent of what they are today, in comparison to the average American household. Back in 1970, the average American household income was $10,000. The average NFL salary was $25,000 That's 2.5 times more than the average household. Terry Bradshaw, for example, had to sell insurance in the offseason to make ends meet.

In 2018, the average household income was $62,000. The average NFL player made 2.7 million. That's over 50 times more than the average household. Today's athlete can spend 24/7/365 dedicating himself to his craft, with personal chefs, physical therapists, etc...and that's not even including the advantages today's athlete has with team facilities. That's why recency bias drives me so completely bonkers - because it's impossible to look at an athlete from 40-50 years ago and say "There's no way that athlete could have competed in today's league."

I'm not trying to start an argument; just pointing out that it's virtually impossible to compare athletes from different eras. The only sport that comes close is horse racing.
No worries. I, unlike some, don't see debate as, necessarily, argumentative.

The whole conversation arose from the fact that, IMO, this is a different era.

So much so, that comparisons are, largely, invalid. Apparently, we are in agreement there.

Interesting you bring up athletes selling insurance.

My cousin played for the Tigers, late 60s early 70s (later was a radio play by play), and he made more $, by far, selling insurance than he ever did playing ball.
 
He belongs on the merits of having 4 rings. No one would question that, but nobody outside of Pittsburgh will try to tell you he was elite.

That's an excellent analogy.

He was a tough SOB. He won rings.

Why is he not talked about as the GOAT? Because he wasn't in that class.

JMO
I would say he was a hof during 70s. he was one of best qb in nfl. he doesn't get credit because of team being stack w lot of other HOF players.
 
Griese, when he first came out of Perdue was a slight kid that could throw accurate passes and he had some ability to scramble. He became very cerebral and an excellent field general to boot. Griese led a team to a 17-0 record, it's never been done again. Griese was at his best in clutch situations, exact opposite of Tannehill. He made few mistakes and was definitely an elite QB, was Griese better than Mahomes and Mayfield, who knows, totally different eras but Griese could be the best leader of the 3.
 
70's QB's also called their own plays...field generals...Todays QB's look to the sideline or just audible to a hot read..
Making todays QB's call their own plays...would level out the playing field.
 
What’s sad is you don’t even understand why your wrong or how the rules have changed effecting passing stats.

The best example of that is the 2007 changes that quickly saw Marino’s once untouchable numbers go down fast.

It is not the same game and the stats from today versus the 70’s and even 80’s are apples and oranges.

Bob Griese was an MVP and NFL player of the year...6 time pro bowler...2 time first team all-Pro...2 time Super Bowl champion.
 
70's QB's also called their own plays...field generals...Todays QB's look to the sideline or just audible to a hot read..
Making todays QB's call their own plays...would level out the playing field.


Not all of them... But Griese did.
 
there was 1 team in the nfl that wanted this guy. here's to hoping the other 31 made a huge mistake.

Agreed...but it’s too simplistic to say only 1 team wanted him... it was a buyers market because they drafted Murray...other teams already had franchise QB’s or drafted one already.

So it wasn’t 31 teams.

20 teams passed on Aaron Rodgers...he turned out ok....25 passed on Marino....32 teams passed on Brady at least 5 times...did that mean they were no good?
 
Griese, when he first came out of Perdue was a slight kid that could throw accurate passes and he had some ability to scramble. He became very cerebral and an excellent field general to boot. Griese led a team to a 17-0 record, it's never been done again. Griese was at his best in clutch situations, exact opposite of Tannehill. He made few mistakes and was definitely an elite QB, was Griese better than Mahomes and Mayfield, who knows, totally different eras but Griese could be the best leader of the 3.
Griese was my childhood hero, but he didn't lead them to a 17-0 record.
 
Back
Top Bottom