Just a question

FSU Truth

Toss a coin to your Witcher
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
13,341
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Florida
I'll do it for you.
Without even looking that up the likelihood is it's going to be 6'1" considering the average height for an American male is 5' 9.5". Common sense would tell you based on the mathmatics there would be a higher likelihood as the number of males 6'6 pales in comparison to ones that are 6'1. But let's look a little deeper into it.
There have been 8- 6'1"(or shorter) QB's to win a Super Bowl for a total of 10 wins. Due to the fact the height of 6'6" is rare, let alone for a QB, we will use 6'5" and up, still pretty rare. In the modern Superbowl era, there have been 6 QB's 6'5" and above who have won a Super Bowl for a total of 9. So yes, there were more 6'1" or shorter QB's (8) vs 6'5" or taller QB's (6) to win it, by two.
In the history of the NFL, there have been 43 QB's 6'1 or shorter to just 14 taller than 6'6". There have only been 2 QB's (Drew Brees & Russell Wilson) who have won a Superbowl in the 2000s that were 6'1 or under (that's 18 opportunities), consequently, all 9 Super Bowls won by QB's 6'5" or taller have been in the 2000s. That's half of every SB in the 2000s. More than half (5) of the 6'1" QB SB wins were in the 1970s. So clearly the statistics show, being 6'5" or taller in the current era gives you a much higher probability of winning a SB, if you get there.
50% of the winners in the 2000's have been 6'5" or taller vs 11% for 6'1" and under.
I'll stick with my original statement.
The Manning Brothers and Rothisburger are 6 of those Super Bowls...does their height win them Super Bowls, or is it they are extremely talented? The other ones are Foles and...Flacco?

Also, how many starting QBs have been 6'1" or shorter in the 2000's. Your stats, if I am reading this correct, is that there have been "41 QBs 6'1" or shorter in the history of the NFL", yet you only use the 2000's Super Bowls.

Does height really provide a bump? Or is it the opportunity? Only 4 QBs since 2000 have been drafted 6'1" or under in the first 3 rounds.
 

13marino13

Happy 20th Finheaven!
Moderator
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
22,140
Reaction score
62,585
Location
State Hospital in Pa
The Manning Brothers and Rothisburger are 6 of those Super Bowls...does their height win them Super Bowls, or is it they are extremely talented? The other ones are Foles and...Flacco?

Also, how many starting QBs have been 6'1" or shorter in the 2000's. Your stats, if I am reading this correct, is that there have been "41 QBs 6'1" or shorter in the history of the NFL", yet you only use the 2000's Super Bowls.

Does height really provide a bump? Or is it the opportunity? Only 4 QBs since 2000 have been drafted 6'1" or under in the first 3 rounds.
Height does not win SB's, teams do. I would be interested in seeing how many negative plays occurred as a result of a QB's lack of height. My guess, probably not many. I think the reason for less "shorter" QB's in recent times is the fact that the teams get pigeon-holed into physical metrics, overlooking talent of shorter ones unless they really stand out. This happens at many positions where physical standards weigh heavily on consideration when we all know this is not the sole trait that spells success.
I included all the SB's, the majority of "shorter" QB victories have been won in the 70s until Brees and Wilson came along. In my opinion, physical metrics were not considered as important back then and probably weren't scrutinized as closely as they are in today's time. Does height equal success? Not really, I think heart has a lot to do with it but we know that's not measurable.
I was simply saying if all things being equal, other than height, I would lean towards the taller QB only for the reason if there are 10 less negative plays a year that the QB's height factored into, that's 10 less negative plays for that team and one could have potentially been at a critical time. The QB alone does not get the team to the SB, if that were the case, Marino would have been in more than one...
 

phins_4_ever

E12 FH Tailgate Gang
Moderator
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
30,971
Reaction score
12,540
Location
S Florida/Dolphins Nation
There is not enough talent surrounding Rosen, for us to truly know 100% that Rosen is a QB who can win a superbowl this year, even if he improves. What is the bar? How will we know he will reach an elite level, top 5 or 6 for example? That uncertainty is why we have to draft another prospect next draft, and we are built to draft one high in 2020, hopefully 1st. Then, we would be in a great position, let Rosen and the new prospect battle it out! Increases our chances of getting the guy significantly because we can’t afford to miss again. We still have plenty of cap space and picks to begin to plug the holes on this team to set the QB up to succeed. We’ll be able to get a much better gauge on things with competition when the team is actually trying to win in terms of the talent level they are putting on the field.
Yes and no. I always say that evaluating a young QB is more than just TDs. Adversity and inferior cast around a QB means adversity and you can learn a lot when you watch a QB fights through adversity. Almost every QB can have great stats when everything is fine. But fighting through adversity is a whole other ball game.

I could give you the reverse i.e. where a good play is negatively rated by coaches. Rosen lost his starting gig on one of his most important plays in preseason. In the 3rd preseason game he scrambled to the right and threw a bullet to Ford - right on the money between two defenders. It was a highlite reel for the media and fans loved it. I loved it. But with my cheers and my "ohhhh" and "ahhhh" I said to my fellow fan next to me "dam, he just lost the starting gig."
Why? As great as this pass was there was receiver 5 or 6 yards in front of him. Uncovered. It was the safe option. If you understand Flores and O'Shea then you know "safe comes first". That was his target. The pass he threw could have been deflected or even intercepted if he'd play against first stringers. O'Shea wants the safe option. Dump the ball off and let the receiver do the work. He probably would have gained as many if not even more yards and if Ford turns into a blocker he takes the pig skin home.

That type of evaluation is also applying to bad plays or plays when everything goes haywire. As a coach looking at film you can get a dam good idea from every play how good a QB is or can be.
How good Rosen can be we saw in the first half of last weeks game. And yes people argue because he had better protection. But that is only half the story. We had for the most part max protection. We blocked with 5, 6 sometimes 7 players 4 defenders. When you do that you lose targets in the passing game. Rosen had for the most part in the first half 3 or 4 targets playing against 5, 6 or 7 defenders in the backfield. That means he had to be extremely accurate because number wise we were behind. He was nearly perfect. What might have looked like a better situation for Rosen it was actually worse.
That max protection broke down in the 2nd half when the Chargers committed more players to the rush. It was an adjustment they had to make watching Rosen in the first half completing his passes. They put more numbers on the line and overwhelmed our max protection. And we didn't or couldn't (based on lack of talent) make adjustment.

And the second half gave us a boatload of information. How did he handle the pressure? Did he make the right decisions? I saw two really bad plays. One was the run near our own endzone. But I also saw that very same play yesterday from Mahomes. Running in the backfield, looking downfield, hunted by defenders and eventually caught for a sack. Both QBs "forgot" to just throw it away. What makes Rosen's plays worse is that his play was close to a safety. I am sure that was addressed in the QB room. If he can learn from that play mission accomplished.
The other bad play was his INT. He was impatient, frustrated, wanted to make a play in a game which slipped away and made a bad decision. Point is: will he learn from that?
For the rest if the second half as bad as it was he made mostly the right decisions. He was trying to escape pressure and threw most balls in places where either only the receiver can get it or just did throwaways (which include overthrows on purpose). There are a couple of plays where he could have done better but I have the advantage of sitting at the 50 yard line, have the whole field in view and I am not chased by a bunch Mac Trucks.

TBH I almost would say that you can learn more from a QB in distress than you do when everything is perfect.

Rosen will have a near 100% evaluation at the end of the season (if he can stay healthy). The question is: will he have shown enough (even in adversity) to be our franchise QB?
If he does we will not pick a QB high in the draft.
 

phins_4_ever

E12 FH Tailgate Gang
Moderator
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
30,971
Reaction score
12,540
Location
S Florida/Dolphins Nation
The Manning Brothers and Rothisburger are 6 of those Super Bowls...does their height win them Super Bowls, or is it they are extremely talented? The other ones are Foles and...Flacco?

Also, how many starting QBs have been 6'1" or shorter in the 2000's. Your stats, if I am reading this correct, is that there have been "41 QBs 6'1" or shorter in the history of the NFL", yet you only use the 2000's Super Bowls.

Does height really provide a bump? Or is it the opportunity? Only 4 QBs since 2000 have been drafted 6'1" or under in the first 3 rounds.
Height does not win SB's, teams do. I would be interested in seeing how many negative plays occurred as a result of a QB's lack of height. My guess, probably not many. I think the reason for less "shorter" QB's in recent times is the fact that the teams get pigeon-holed into physical metrics, overlooking talent of shorter ones unless they really stand out. This happens at many positions where physical standards weigh heavily on consideration when we all know this is not the sole trait that spells success.
I included all the SB's, the majority of "shorter" QB victories have been won in the 70s until Brees and Wilson came along. In my opinion, physical metrics were not considered as important back then and probably weren't scrutinized as closely as they are in today's time. Does height equal success? Not really, I think heart has a lot to do with it but we know that's not measurable.
I was simply saying if all things being equal, other than height, I would lean towards the taller QB only for the reason if there are 10 less negative plays a year that the QB's height factored into, that's 10 less negative plays for that team and one could have potentially been at a critical time. The QB alone does not get the team to the SB, if that were the case, Marino would have been in more than one...
I am not sure why height is an issue especially when you talk about an inch here or there above 6'.
Drew Brees is 6' and he is a great QB.
Unless the QB is 5'6 or a midget like me I don't think height makes a difference if you talk about 6' vs 6'1" or 6'4".
 

FSU Truth

Toss a coin to your Witcher
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
13,341
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Florida
I am not sure why height is an issue especially when you talk about an inch here or there above 6'.
Drew Brees is 6' and he is a great QB.
Unless the QB is 5'6 or a midget like me I don't think height makes a difference if you talk about 6' vs 6'1" or 6'4".
That was more my point.

HAnd size plays a bigger factor then height. Shorter players that are successful are typically adept at manipulating the pocket to find those throwing lanes.
 

phins_4_ever

E12 FH Tailgate Gang
Moderator
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
30,971
Reaction score
12,540
Location
S Florida/Dolphins Nation
That was more my point.

HAnd size plays a bigger factor then height. Shorter players that are successful are typically adept at manipulating the pocket to find those throwing lanes.
Yep. They are more of the mobile kind, running type QB.

I just quoted both of you out of convenience. :lol:
 

FSU Truth

Toss a coin to your Witcher
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
13,341
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Florida
Yep. They are more of the mobile kind, running type QB.

I just quoted both of you out of convenience. :lol:
I don't even know if running QB is the right way to put it because BAker and Brees, who are both shorter, are not great runners, but they are athletic and can move well in the pocket.
 

BillsFanInPeace

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
3,567
Reaction score
572
Location
Orlando, FL
At least Rosen is starting so your Front Office can find out what they have there. (should have started Week 1).

So at the end of the season Rosen will be above 20 games and should know about then what he is
 

Kyndig

Seasoned Veteran
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
725
Dud
Yes and no. I always say that evaluating a young QB is more than just TDs. Adversity and inferior cast around a QB means adversity and you can learn a lot when you watch a QB fights through adversity. Almost every QB can have great stats when everything is fine. But fighting through adversity is a whole other ball game.

I could give you the reverse i.e. where a good play is negatively rated by coaches. Rosen lost his starting gig on one of his most important plays in preseason. In the 3rd preseason game he scrambled to the right and threw a bullet to Ford - right on the money between two defenders. It was a highlite reel for the media and fans loved it. I loved it. But with my cheers and my "ohhhh" and "ahhhh" I said to my fellow fan next to me "dam, he just lost the starting gig."
Why? As great as this pass was there was receiver 5 or 6 yards in front of him. Uncovered. It was the safe option. If you understand Flores and O'Shea then you know "safe comes first". That was his target. The pass he threw could have been deflected or even intercepted if he'd play against first stringers. O'Shea wants the safe option. Dump the ball off and let the receiver do the work. He probably would have gained as many if not even more yards and if Ford turns into a blocker he takes the pig skin home.

That type of evaluation is also applying to bad plays or plays when everything goes haywire. As a coach looking at film you can get a dam good idea from every play how good a QB is or can be.
How good Rosen can be we saw in the first half of last weeks game. And yes people argue because he had better protection. But that is only half the story. We had for the most part max protection. We blocked with 5, 6 sometimes 7 players 4 defenders. When you do that you lose targets in the passing game. Rosen had for the most part in the first half 3 or 4 targets playing against 5, 6 or 7 defenders in the backfield. That means he had to be extremely accurate because number wise we were behind. He was nearly perfect. What might have looked like a better situation for Rosen it was actually worse.
That max protection broke down in the 2nd half when the Chargers committed more players to the rush. It was an adjustment they had to make watching Rosen in the first half completing his passes. They put more numbers on the line and overwhelmed our max protection. And we didn't or couldn't (based on lack of talent) make adjustment.

And the second half gave us a boatload of information. How did he handle the pressure? Did he make the right decisions? I saw two really bad plays. One was the run near our own endzone. But I also saw that very same play yesterday from Mahomes. Running in the backfield, looking downfield, hunted by defenders and eventually caught for a sack. Both QBs "forgot" to just throw it away. What makes Rosen's plays worse is that his play was close to a safety. I am sure that was addressed in the QB room. If he can learn from that play mission accomplished.
The other bad play was his INT. He was impatient, frustrated, wanted to make a play in a game which slipped away and made a bad decision. Point is: will he learn from that?
For the rest if the second half as bad as it was he made mostly the right decisions. He was trying to escape pressure and threw most balls in places where either only the receiver can get it or just did throwaways (which include overthrows on purpose). There are a couple of plays where he could have done better but I have the advantage of sitting at the 50 yard line, have the whole field in view and I am not chased by a bunch Mac Trucks.

TBH I almost would say that you can learn more from a QB in distress than you do when everything is perfect.

Rosen will have a near 100% evaluation at the end of the season (if he can stay healthy). The question is: will he have shown enough (even in adversity) to be our franchise QB?
If he does we will not pick a QB high in the draft.
Dude, he’s not going to win playoff games or very many games at all. Some of it is him, some of it is he’s not set up to succeed, therefore all that you said above doesn’t matter, he is not set up to succeed, therefore the best assessment we will get of him this season is that he has potential, but he hasn’t proved he can win more games than he loses. Therefore, until you see him do it, regardless of the reason, of course you draft a QB with your first pick especially in a year when the QB class is one of the strongest in recent memory And in a year you have 3 picks likely in the top 20 maybe two in the top 10, of course you take a shot on a QB the most important position on the roster when you absolutely do Not know you have a franchise QB on your roster, or maybe you do know you don’t have one. What you will not know with certainty is that you do have a franchise QB on your roster.

Furthermore, if you are lucky enough to have the first pick in the draft (then a team that Rosen QB’d for two years in a row was the last team in the league further evidence he hasn’t proved he’s the guy) then of course you draft Tua, a way better prospect than Rosen was when he came out, and a way better prospect than Rosen proved he was during two massively losing seasons. It’s a no brainer and not even a debate no? Unless you see your QB winning more games than he loses, how do you know that he can? Uncertainty, thus, we have to take another shot, and if Tua is there, you don’t walk to the podium with that pick you run, and let him compete with Rosen for the starting QB job, which I would expect him to win at some point during the first season.

Furthermore, last time we drafted in the top two or three picks, we picked Ronnie Brown over Aaron Rodgers, and Jake Long (OT no longer in the league) over Matt Ryan. Thank you Nick Saban and Bill Parcells. We can’t repeat the same mistakes.
 
Last edited:

Kyndig

Seasoned Veteran
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
725
The Manning Brothers and Rothisburger are 6 of those Super Bowls...does their height win them Super Bowls, or is it they are extremely talented? The other ones are Foles and...Flacco?

Also, how many starting QBs have been 6'1" or shorter in the 2000's. Your stats, if I am reading this correct, is that there have been "41 QBs 6'1" or shorter in the history of the NFL", yet you only use the 2000's Super Bowls.

Does height really provide a bump? Or is it the opportunity? Only 4 QBs since 2000 have been drafted 6'1" or under in the first 3 rounds.
Russell Wilson and Drew Brees are pretty good examples no?
 

phintim

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
7,188
Reaction score
1,041
Location
Fl
RT was a class act and if his health held out arguably both he and Gase might still be here and we would be a team that would make the playoffs but not go far.

Rosen looks to be more of a QB imo than RT but how much better is the question.

Rosen will be good enough to reccoup our 2nd but we first need the right coach and teamates to make him shine.
 

ChambersWI

Owner of the Palace of Wisdom
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
16,522
Reaction score
4,964
Location
Harrisburg, PA
It's this simple.... if Rosen improves and starts making the offense look competent and consistent he will be QB next year and we have no shot at Tua. If he doesnt we go with Tua
 

russianbear

Finheaven VIP
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
5,484
Reaction score
1,836
Has Rosen improved? Sure

Enough to not draft a qb? No.

Rosen is playing at level below what we got from Tannehill, and people hated on him for years and years. Yet Rosen "looks good enough to build around"
It's this simple.... if Rosen improves and starts making the offense look competent and consistent he will be QB next year and we have no shot at Tua. If he doesnt we go with Tua

Both of these.

If we are still in a position to draft Tua by the end of the year and people are arguing to forego Tua because of Rosen....well....:shrug:
 

tcdrover

Pro Bowler
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,821
Reaction score
547
I think it depends on who is available when we draft.... at each spot.

Stop focusing so much on one position and one college player.

Players come & go.

Drafting the best QB in a draft in NO WAY guarantees a Super Bowl win. Andrew Luck is the most obvious & latest among many examples of that.

It is a TEAM sport. The best GROUP of players ALMOST always beat the best QB every Sunday.

If Tua is not taken and there is not a CLEARLY better player available then we draft him.

Maybe they draft him & trade him OR trade Rosen for more players and/or draft picks

at some point down the line.

Remember it was by FAR Ireland's biggest failure to be so TOTALLY focused on drafting RT that set this franchise back so badly.
 
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Top Bottom