flynryan15
Club Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,441
- Reaction score
- 2,556
Newton had a great rookie year!
The smartest post you will read
- Thread starter Tannchise
- Start date
Newton had a great rookie year!
wonderl33t
Club Member
I think Tannehill is still hurt and it affected his play. He definitely wasn't sharp the past two weeks.
View it in terms of probability. If you don't have a QB who's playing at a level associated with high-level winning, you're very unlikely to win at that level.
If the exceptions to the rule raise that likelihood from (hypothetically) 0% to 5%, you're still dealing with something very improbable and unlikely.
Now, would you like to have quarterback play that makes high-level winning probable, or quarterback play that makes high-level winning improbable?
That was rhetorical. :)
Add Jake Delhomme, Eli Manning, Rex Grossman... thats alot of exceptions over the last 12 or so years.
And all of them cumulatively add up to something very improbable, whereas the probability of winning at a high level with very good quarterback play is much, much higher.
Do you want to struggle to be the exception to the rule, or do you want to be that much further ahead of the game with very good QB play?
AllFinsAllDay
Active Roster
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,318
- Reaction score
- 768
More like the dumbest post i have ever read.
Thats self explanatory. However there about six QB's oer the past 12 or so years who had a bad "cumulative" career and were anything but franchise QB's, who still made it to the superbowl so that puts a large dent in the whole franchise QB arguement. With that being said however a these non-franchise QB's will not lead their teams to multiple superbowls and likely not even multple winning seasons (10-6 or better) so that is where the distinction lies (which is where I think may be going in your last sentence).
The distinction lies in how much versus how little help you need from the rest of your team to be successful at a high level, based on whether you do or do not have a QB who's playing at a high level. The exceptions to the rule in terms of QB play invariably have very strong rosters elsewhere.
Now, in the era of the salary cap and the crapshoots we see in the draft and free agency, the push should be to get the one player that makes you highly competitive (the QB), and start from there, rather than trying to win with an exception to the rule at that position, when it commits you to having a larger number of good players elsewhere in the roster, trying to fit them all under the cap.
In other words, the efficient and predictable way of being highly competitive is to get the very good QB and not stop looking until you do.
AFCMiamiEast
Active Roster
You're "smart" for realizing that a team needs a franchise QB to win at the game's highest level? Wow, I would've NEVER had figured that one out without reading "the smartest post ever". Thanks bud! You have made me smarter!
iwastherein1972
Active Roster
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,181
- Reaction score
- 258
Tannehill is becoming the kind of player OP wants.
He is outplaying Matt Ryan, rg3, sometimes even Luck.
This upcoming NFL draft is almost completely devoid of QB talent. There is NO franchise QB coming out there for the next 2 years who will be a sure-fire NFL dominant player.
In short, Tann is the Man. Surround him with weapons at RB and WR (like all other sound NFL franchises would do who don't have ireland as gm) and he is Top Tier.
He is outplaying Matt Ryan, rg3, sometimes even Luck.
This upcoming NFL draft is almost completely devoid of QB talent. There is NO franchise QB coming out there for the next 2 years who will be a sure-fire NFL dominant player.
In short, Tann is the Man. Surround him with weapons at RB and WR (like all other sound NFL franchises would do who don't have ireland as gm) and he is Top Tier.
DANTODUPER
Scout Team
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,142
- Reaction score
- 1,915
While this is true, a QB like Manning, Brees, Brady and Rodgers are rare to find!!! Ross did try to land Manning, he also tried to land Harbaugh. I hate to say this but we need to give Tannehill one more year before making judgment on his NFL potential. What I don't like about him are his medium to long range throws, his pocket awareness and his lack of touch on some medium range passes. What I like about him is he has a good arm, good at the roll-out, before those last two games he was showing clear signs of improvement and finally he distrubutes his passes among lots of players. I think he would benefit from a solid play calling by the OC, a better running game and better OL protection. I do believe that if Tannehill is the next franchise QB, he won't need that many talent around him. As of now he needs it an it seems we should invest the Ravens, Bucs (past SB's) and Seahawks way (this year), which is having a solid all around team with talent on all levels. And we are FAR away from it. We need to start on the trenches with 4 new OL, and 2 new DT's. That is a lot of work to do in one offseason. I think with the money we save on Soliai, Starks and Incognito, we should be able to find at least one solid DT, one OT and one OG. WE then need to draft an OG, a DT and a LB. The other OT position should be for Garner. I think having Gibson back and the improvement of Mathews will be keys to our offense next year. We then need a RB that runs with power (bye Thomas) and has good pass blocking skills, we need a FB that can convert on short yardage situations and a TE thay has more talent than Egnew. A LB (bye Wheeler) that takes good angles when tackling the RB's and our kicker must improve but at least we should bring competition cause Sturgis was very inconsistent. Or as you say we should keep on searching for the next franchise QB available in case Tannehill is not, but I think is is easier to build a complete team than to land the next Manning on our team.