Some Thoughts Through Week 6

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by njx9

not relevant and not the point.



i think we're arguing sideways here. would i love to have aj green? absolutely. would i take him over trying to improve my pass rush or secondary? never. and i can't remember a team that was picking that high that actually had a top flight pass rush or secondary. i don't think justin blackmon has the same chance of improving the jags that claiborne has of improving the cowboys, or barron improving the bucs, for instance.

i guess i'd ask: has calvin johnson had the same impact as darrelle revis? what about patrick willis? would the lions have been better served taking revis, and picking up a wr in a later round? this year, everyone's been killing the brows for greg little vs. julio jones. does jones really make that team any better?

*shrug* i value wrs right about where i value rbs. you need one. and you need one with talent. but the idea that you need to grab an adrian peterson at the possible expense of other positions, i think, is ridiculous. draft the JPPs, and i think you'll come out better than the teams taking the aj greens.

The problem with this argument is that its too black and white. It depends on the value you placed on the individual talent.

For example, what if AJ Green was on the board and the best available DE was Quentin Coples? Do you chose a lesser talent at a more impactful position just bc?

It's all relative. And I think a stud WR is a tremendous asset to your team.

Justin Blackmon vs Clairborne? I'm taking Clairborne all day.

AJ Green vs Clairborne? I'm taking Green.

[y.f.s.]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

The problem with this argument is that its too black and white. It depends on the value you placed on the individual talent.

For example, what if AJ Green was on the board and the best available DE was Quentin Coples? Do you chose a lesser talent at a more impactful position just bc?

It's all relative. And I think a stud WR is a tremendous asset to your team.

Justin Blackmon vs Clairborne? I'm taking Clairborne all day.

AJ Green vs Clairborne? I'm taking Green.

This is a good point in that "ideal" Draft Theory, for lack of a better phrase, doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

The problem with this argument is that its too black and white. It depends on the value you placed on the individual talent.

For example, what if AJ Green was on the board and the best available DE was Quentin Coples? Do you chose a lesser talent at a more impactful position just bc?

to be honest, in the current nfl? probably. i don't value stud wrs as highly as even average DL. DBs would probably be more interesting, but i'm probably still taking the DB.

[Raiderz4Life]

I'm with njx on this one. If a DB or DL have a similar grade, even slightly lower, than a top WR....I'm going with the DB or DL.

[MetSox17]

There's way too many DL guys that go in the first round that turn out to be completely average. The cream of the crop of the skill position guys usually pan out. Probably at a higher success rate than DL.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

What about times like the season where Colston was hurt, and Billy Miller was our TE? Drew Brees was still putting up big numbers and keeping us in games despite a poor and injured supporting cast, and a bad defense.

It's just hard to envision elite QBs routinely leading a bottom half defense, no matter how bad the cast is. They can't make every team a contender, but they can make any team competitive.

Drew Brees is our franchises only taste of elite QB play, and I can say with confidence that every week, no matter who the other team is, we are never big underdogs, and teams really don't want to play you, no matter who is hurt.

Well I already said that in the last twenty five years you could probably count on one hand the quarterbacks that could make things click and still play very well even if the talent around them wasn't great. Brees to me is one of those guys. Although we also have to take into account other things like offensive line play. Brees has had a good situation there for quite some time. Playing the same system since 2006 also helps. So it's not just receiving targets.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

There's way too many DL guys that go in the first round that turn out to be completely average. The cream of the crop of the skill position guys usually pan out. Probably at a higher success rate than DL.

i'd be willing to bet that the percentage of flopped DL is roughly the same as the flopped WRs. i think, a couple of years ago, someone came up with the rough numbers (since there's no consistent definition of success or bust) for all the positions, in an attempt to refute the '2nd round qbs are awesome' silliness that always comes up. as i remember it, most positions were about even, some just seemed skewed because the total number taken was higher, or the names were bigger. i can't seem to find the post, so feel free to take that for the anecdotal garbage that it is.

all that said, a top end WR has a much lower impact on a team's success than a top end pass rusher. i'd rather gamble on the DL, even if the odds are slightly worse for the same reason i'd rather gamble on a qb.

[Grizzlegom]

Originally Posted by Da-Phins

We need some Ryan Tannehill talk in here!

Believe he's one of the top QB's in the NFL against the blitz. Pretty good for a raw QB who still has plenty of upside. Maybe this joke of a franchise finally has a QB.

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

I'll be over here crying.

Just think, Miami was supposedly really high on Locker, Ponder, and Gabbert and probably would have taken one if they fell to their pick. Instead they were all gone and they got Tannehill this year.

Originally Posted by Jvig43

You are like the most ridiculously bi polar football fan i have ever seen in my life. One week you want a plane to crash and kill your whole team as well as saying you hope your HC loses another child, and now you have a QB with alot of raw upside who inspires hope in your franchise. I'm sure tho next week when he doesn't play well you wish for the death of his entire family, only to later praise him the following week if you guys squeak by with a win.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jvig43 again.

[Thecollegedropout]

Originally Posted by Hurricanes25

Sanchez is what he is at this point. Average with good talent around him and below average with nothing around him. I really think it's time to move on. Sure, the front office hasn't done all that much to help him out, but he'll never take the big step he needs in order to consistently be an effective QB.

It's weird though. Before the Jets drafted him, I thought he would have a problem with his arm strength. His arm is more than adequate. It's his accuracy and decision making that's the problem.

No QB will succeed with the weapons placed on the team. He looks fine with good talent around him, the problem was he was very inexperienced when the team was loaded and by the time he started to learn the team began to decline in talent.

I think he can be a good QB in the league, just it may have to be with another team.

[Bulldogs]

Originally Posted by Thecollegedropout

No QB will succeed with the weapons placed on the team. He looks fine with good talent around him, the problem was he was very inexperienced when the team was loaded and by the time he started to learn the team began to decline in talent.

I think he can be a good QB in the league, just it may have to be with another team.

Untrue, there may be a dozen NFL Qbs that would make that offense look much better.

[Thecollegedropout]

Originally Posted by Bulldogs

Untrue, there may be a dozen NFL Qbs that would make that offense look much better.

With Hill and Keller out for half if not most of the season, that Jets offense was downright miserable regardless of who was at QB. Cumberland, Greene at RB, Kerley/Schillens the starting 2...that's some scary ****.

[Bulldogs]

Originally Posted by Thecollegedropout

With Hill and Keller out for half if not most of the season, that Jets offense was downright miserable regardless of who was at QB. Cumberland, Greene at RB, Kerley/Schillens the starting 2...that's some scary ****.

Sanchez has also played with Santonio Holmes and Dustin Keller and never looked better than mediocre.

[Saints-Tigers]

Originally Posted by Ness

You can probably count the number of quarterbacks on one hand in the last 25 years that can elevate a team full of street free agents to actually being decent players. It might be hard to believe, but in a team oriented sport like football, other players doing their job and and doing it well matters. Obviously you need a guy at the QB position that doesn't need to be dragged by everyone else, but you're going to be wasting your time trying to find a Peyton Manning that comes out once every 15 years or so.

We should call this the Archie Manning effect, who was actually thought to be a very talented player on a God-awful team.

Archie Manning was never that good of a pro QB though. He's a guy that skated on excuses for an entire career.

Great QB's on bad teams don't look like terrible QBs. They look like great QBs that get into trouble more often than others because of the talent around them. They don't just play like garbage all the time, and have a decent game here or there. They have dominant games mixed into mediocre ones, ETC.

Sidenote: I don't know why people keep playing up Alex Smith's game against the Saints like it was some miraculous feat. Our passing defense was horrid, and he really had two passes of real consequence, he looked shaky the rest of the game. The big plays was Vernon Davis catching a slant and running away from everyone, and the other was Davis going up over double coverage, and holding onto the ball while getting smacked.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

Great QB's on bad teams don't look like terrible QBs. They look like great QBs that get into trouble more often than others because of the talent around them. They don't just play like garbage all the time, and have a decent game here or there. They have dominant games mixed into mediocre ones, ETC.

i could swear you were talking about jay cutler.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Saints-Tigers

Archie Manning was never that good of a pro QB though. He's a guy that skated on excuses for an entire career.

Great QB's on bad teams don't look like terrible QBs. They look like great QBs that get into trouble more often than others because of the talent around them. They don't just play like garbage all the time, and have a decent game here or there. They have dominant games mixed into mediocre ones, ETC.

Sidenote: I don't know why people keep playing up Alex Smith's game against the Saints like it was some miraculous feat. Our passing defense was horrid, and he really had two passes of real consequence, he looked shaky the rest of the game. The big plays was Vernon Davis catching a slant and running away from everyone, and the other was Davis going up over double coverage, and holding onto the ball while getting smacked.

I never heard that account regarding Archie. From older players that played with and against him I've only heard of how bad of a situation he was in. And if you look at the Saints before Jim Mora was there, they were flat out terrible. Especially the first six years with Archie. If Archie had been put in a better situation or gone to a different team we might have been talking about a much better player. I recall one account of Jack Youngblood apparently helping Archie Manning back up after every hit because he felt so sorry for him having to play on those bad teams. It's a miracle he made the Pro Bowl twice during his time in New Orleans.

And I disagree about great quarterbacks on bad teams not looking great. A lot of their success is attributed to coaching and their teammates, and they'll be the first to tell you that most likely. If your offensive line is just letting defenders go through game after game and your receivers aren't beating the jam, how will you be successful? It goes hand in hand. Maybe your decision making will still be good and your instincts are there, but there is only so much one person can do that throws the football. They can't make receivers get open, they can't make receivers not drops balls, and they can't make offensive linemen block better than their ability. This is assuming a quarterback is on a team full of scrubs though. Sure they'll have decent and good games here or there, but who cares if the overall team is garbage.

As for Alex Smith, don't forget his first quarter pass to Vernon Davis when he broke away from Jenkins I believe. And that Crabtree slant for a touchdown. Those were also important factors in the game that lead to 14 points.

[Auron]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I'm not saying you have to draft a top flight WR in the first round, I'm simply stating that having a good group of talent in that position is necessary. In this case, quantity is important, because you want to be able to be 4 deep at the skill positions so you can isolate mismatches on the field. Typically teams won't be able to line up 4 deep at CB to combat those weapons.

But how you get those pieces is all relative. You can find WRs later in the draft. I'm not saying you need an AJ Green. But it doesn't hurt though. I don't see why you'd be against having a guy like that.

I'd take an AJ Green over a Joe Thomas. I'll tell you that much. I think OL has become overrated. I would spend premium draft picks on QB, DE, CB, and WR.

I agree with this, and it doesn't even have to be 4 deep Wide outs. If you have a big athletic Tight End, like a Graham or Gronkowski and a pass catching Running back like Sproles, or McCoy that can be a threat in the pass game then that opens up even more flexibility as a playcaller.

If a team is putting 11 personnel on the field (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) a lot of times a Defense will counter with Nickel (3 DBs) or even keep their base out on the field, as it still might look like a running formation given the down & distance. However with some formation shifts, and motioning you can split your TE, or Running Back threat out Wide. Identify a mismatch, as often times a LB will be covering them, and exploit man coverage for big plays.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by njx9

i could swear you were talking about jay cutler.

Cutler's tough because a lot of the time he does look like a great QB in a ****** spot, all the way back to his college days at Vanderbilt, but he has had enough head-shakingly terrible games that I can at least see where people that doubt him are coming from. Still I'm impressed by how he carried historically terrible Broncos defenses to 8-8 before coming to these bears where they're just now giving him weapons and a not horrific OL. I think we'll really see Jay step his production and consistency up over the next few years and wouldn't be shocked to see the Bears finally win a superbowl sometime soon, before Urlacher and Briggs retire.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

Cutler's tough because a lot of the time he does look like a great QB in a ****** spot, all the way back to his college days at Vanderbilt, but he has had enough head-shakingly terrible games that I can at least see where people that doubt him are coming from. Still I'm impressed by how he carried historically terrible Broncos defenses to 8-8 before coming to these bears where they're just now giving him weapons and a not horrific OL. I think we'll really see Jay step his production and consistency up over the next few years and wouldn't be shocked to see the Bears finally win a superbowl sometime soon, before Urlacher and Briggs retire.

i really believe he can be an elite qb, but yeah... some of the decision making, and some of the throws are just... bad. like, no excuse bad.

[Saints-Tigers]

Jay Cutler is the type of frustrating "upside" guy that teams could and should get in trouble waiting for them to "turn the corner". He has flashes of brilliance mixed in with his bad. Guys like Sanchez, Bradford, Smith and others just never seem to have those huge moments.

Can you tell me what about our "system" makes it so it should be expected to throw for 5000 yards with no receiver cracking 1000, and no pro bowlers or all pros at any skill positions? Even our line play was a bit shaky that year.

I hear the system argument a lot for some guys, and the only thing about our system that I would say is really any different than a lot of teams is how many personnel package swaps we do, but that season, we were so short on talent, we couldn't even get into that rhythm.

I think Ed Reed summed it up best. Too much is made of systems and who is running what. Most teams aren't THAT different in what they do, it's about execution. Good QBs execute, even in their worst games, they still look dangerous and can strike at any point. These other guys can not.

[y.f.s.]

The NFL offense: http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/20...oes-every.html

Everyone runs the same ****.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Auron

I agree with this, and it doesn't even have to be 4 deep Wide outs. If you have a big athletic Tight End, like a Graham or Gronkowski and a pass catching Running back like Sproles, or McCoy that can be a threat in the pass game then that opens up even more flexibility as a playcaller.

If a team is putting 11 personnel on the field (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) a lot of times a Defense will counter with Nickel (3 DBs) or even keep their base out on the field, as it still might look like a running formation given the down & distance. However with some formation shifts, and motioning you can split your TE, or Running Back threat out Wide. Identify a mismatch, as often times a LB will be covering them, and exploit man coverage for big plays.

Yes, I don't necessarily mean 4 WRs, but I do think you should be 4 deep at the skill positions so you can find those mismatches on the field. It could be a TE, a RB, a WR, any of those positions.