Draft Countdown Forums

Go Back   Draft Countdown Forums > Draft Countdown Forums > Pro Football

Pro Football Discuss professional football.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2009, 07:47 PM    (permalink
DMWSackMachine
The Truth
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,781
Reputation: 35211
DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Obviously the problem here is defining what makes a player a "franchise" QB. The first place to start is by simply looking at the damn term. Franchise.

The term began as a moniker for players who WERE the franchise. Meaning when you thought of a franchise, you thought of that player simultaneously. A player cannot be a franchise player after one season, no matter how well he played or how charming his story.

We should approach it through process of elimination, according to a variety of different criteria.

Beginning with:


1. NOTORIETY

Do you know the player? If you walked up to an average NFL fan (not just the average person, but a fan of the league) would he know the player without fail? A franchise QB must be so closely associated with his franchise that any person who is familiar with that franchise should also be familiar with that player.

This immediately disqualfies Flacco, Edwards, Cutler, Cassel, Ryan, Pennington, Campbell, Rodgers and Anderson/Quinn, Schaub, Collins (though not Vince :P ), Gerrard, Orton, Russell, Stafford, Sage/Tavaris, Hill.

2. SUSTAINED LEVEL OF PLAY

The QB must have played at a high level for a reasonable length of time. By high level we're talking about at least top 10 QB for the majority of the given time period in which the question is posed. This allows for a certain amount of room for ups and downs--ie, Brady blowing his knee out for a season does not ruin it for him, but if he were to come back and follow that up with another full season of bad play he would then have to at least be put on warning, if not removed from the list entirely, for having gone 2 consecutive years without producing quality QB play for his team--but that only goes so far.

This removes imo:

Hasselbeck - has gone two of the last three years with just horrible, horrible play, injury riddled and unreliable. This could def. be argued since he had a strong 07 (though his team still failed to do much of significance) but I would make the call against him.

Palmer - Has had tough bouts with injuries, but has also seen his performance suffer mightily. After his breakout year in (iirc) 05 he has seen his play gradually decline. Has only had one year of sure-fire top play, with one fringe season and two seasons (the most recent) that don't measure up.

Others who could be called into question include:



Rivers - Had an excellent first season, followed by a less than impressive sophomore effort. However, I would argue that he was brilliant enough in the most current season to make up for that, especially considering how well he rates in the other criteria.

Eli - Just doesn't have the statistical chops to hang with everyone being considered here. I almost would have eliminated him, but the reality is the guy has done enough in other areas (see below) to overcome the fact that he just isn't that consistently good. Even so, if I decided to make the argument otherwise, I certainly could build a strong case.



3. TEAM SUCCESS

How has the team done under the guidance of this QB?

Ultimately, the goal of every team is (or should be) to contend for a championship. Does the player demonstrate that a) he has the ability to consistently give his team a chance to win and b) has it become apparent that this player is part of the problem rather than part of the solution in relation to the team's overall goals?

This criterion is closely related to #4 (see below), and at times has resulted in players like Drew Bledsoe, Daunte Culpepper, Randal Cunningham, Aaron Brooks, Jeff George, and Jeff Garcia (to name a few) being cut loose despite relatively good marks in other aspects of this exercise.

I can't see a player who could be unilaterally dismissed because of this (at least one who hasn't already been eliminated), but arguments can be made against the following players:


Tony Romo - The big argument against Romo. Choker? Butterfingers? The intangible criticisms that have been leveled against him are too many to catalogue. Some feel that he doesn't play well in big games. Others claim that he isn't good enough in the clutch. It is a fact that he hasn't won a single playoff game...but if that were enough, we could cross Peyton Manning circa 2003 off this list and I'm sure anyone in their right mind wouldn't argue for that. In the end, not enough evidence exists to demonstrate that Tony is holding the team back from achieving it's goals, considering the small sample size and his wealth of accomplishments. This is to be continued.

Eli Manning - I would argue that not much is different between Eli and Romo, except the horde of Giant fans would probably crucify me. What is the difference between the two? Eli has gone to the playoffs 4 times, and has been one and done 3 of them. Typically, when the Giants lose, it is because of a plethora of mistakes on his part. Rarely does he ever play well in a loss. Not just that, but his continual struggles with accuracy and consistency plague the G-Men constantly. For me, this would be enough to remove him from the list. Except for the ring.

Drew Brees - What, exactly, has Brees done? Won a single playoff game? By 3 points versus a team without its starting QB before getting blown out by 25 the next week? He continually puts up big numbers (though not necessarily good ones) for a team that is never a serious threat to win anything.

At no point in his career has he ever QBed a team that was considered a contender...oh, wait, that's right. He directed a 12-4 San Diego team into the playoffs in his 3rd year starting before losing at home to a mediocre Jets team. He has QBed talented teams to the following records : 9-7, 3-13-, 10-6, 7-9, 8-8 in each of the last 5 years of playing QB, including ONE playoff appearance.

Which is all not to say that he was THE reason why his teams struggled. But still, this is the NFL. QBs are judged by winning and losing.

Yet he gets a free pass.

4. TEAM CONFIDENCE

Here's the other shoe. A franchise QB is one which the franchise protects as if protecting itself. There are no "we'll see we can accomodate his wishes" or "(enter name of QB) has to do what's in his best interests, we understand that." No. The team operates in unison with the player and the player never questions the devotion that team has for him and his importance to the them. Ever.

Once this begins to waver with a player who WAS once a franchise guy, it can get ugly fast.

Players that this removes from the list include:

Donovan McNabb - The writing on the wall has been there since they so brazenly pursued Kevin Kolb in the 07 draft. He could have been mentioned as a possible elimination candidate for criterion 2, as his performance has not been consistently good enough to warrant consideration as a top QB. However, the true sign that he isn't a franchise QB is the fact that his franchise has begun to distance itself from him. Which is a shame, because I still think he's good enough to be The Man for at least another two years. I wonder if there isn't something going on behind the scenes here.

Warner - Again, Warner could very well have been eliminated after #2, as he wasn't a consistently top QB before last year. I gave him some slack because I always believed that it was just a matter of him getting some protection. If others feel differently, they are welcome to.

He also barely made the mark from the standpoint of notoriety and team success, but I think the SB trip has done enough to let him last this long--though barely.

But the real issue with him as a franchise guy is that his team isn't 100% committed to him. They gave him a contract because they were sort of forced into it, but they haven't made their bed with him. And why should they? He's 38. He could fall apart at any minute. The fact that he's still playing (let alone how well) at this age is a minor miracle.



All told that leaves the following QBs with no marks against them:

Peyton, Brady, Roethlisberger.

The next tier of players who only have one mark against them:

Romo, Rivers, Brees

And Eli, who (probably to be disputed by the legion of Giants fans) has two marks against him.

Those are the 7 true franchise guys, though. The ones that past the test from every angle. They are their franchises.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21ST View Post
He was protecting his self
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjsunstein View Post
From what? His leg?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
That leg has had it out for him since day 1.
"We're the quiet guys, the guys before the storm. And then we hit you."

DeMarcus Ware
DMWSackMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 07:52 AM    (permalink
killxswitch
Mage Bros
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,703
Reputation: 2485129
killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Regular View Post
I disagree with killswitch on some counts.... like Chad Pennington (though he had a phenomenal year) is likely being replaced as of 2010 by Henne.... I also think players like Russell should be ahead or at leas ton par with Schaub and Garrard.
I also don't think McNabb's future is as set in stone as others think because he was benched last year and IMO could be out of town as early as next year if Philly falls hard in 09.
It just depends on how you think he'll do this year. He will obviously get a chance to prove that last year was not a fluke. I thought about putting him in the "unproven" category but decided to give him credit for some success in NY before he was kicked out.

As far as Russell bieng on a level with Schaub and Garrard in what universe has he done anything to deserve that? I like Russell's potential and want him to succeed, but he has not proven himself in the NFL yet. Schaub had a good season when healthy last year and Garrard has at least been effective before in the NFL (with complete crap for receivers too).

McNabb getting benched last year has been widely regarded as a dumb move by Reid.
__________________

i done stole dis sig
killxswitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 08:42 AM    (permalink
Gay Ork Wang
Matt Forte = Baby Marcus Allen
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oktoberfestland
Posts: 19,455
Reputation: 680057
Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

how does romo have sustained level of play if everyone critize him for playing bad in December?
__________________

Gay Ork Wang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 11:32 AM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine View Post
Obviously the problem here is defining what makes a player a "franchise" QB. The first place to start is by simply looking at the damn term. Franchise.

The term began as a moniker for players who WERE the franchise. Meaning when you thought of a franchise, you thought of that player simultaneously. A player cannot be a franchise player after one season, no matter how well he played or how charming his story.

We should approach it through process of elimination, according to a variety of different criteria.

Beginning with:


1. NOTORIETY

Do you know the player? If you walked up to an average NFL fan (not just the average person, but a fan of the league) would he know the player without fail? A franchise QB must be so closely associated with his franchise that any person who is familiar with that franchise should also be familiar with that player.

This immediately disqualfies Flacco, Edwards, Cutler, Cassel, Ryan, Pennington, Campbell, Rodgers and Anderson/Quinn, Schaub, Collins (though not Vince :P ), Gerrard, Orton, Russell, Stafford, Sage/Tavaris, Hill.

2. SUSTAINED LEVEL OF PLAY

The QB must have played at a high level for a reasonable length of time. By high level we're talking about at least top 10 QB for the majority of the given time period in which the question is posed. This allows for a certain amount of room for ups and downs--ie, Brady blowing his knee out for a season does not ruin it for him, but if he were to come back and follow that up with another full season of bad play he would then have to at least be put on warning, if not removed from the list entirely, for having gone 2 consecutive years without producing quality QB play for his team--but that only goes so far.

This removes imo:

Hasselbeck - has gone two of the last three years with just horrible, horrible play, injury riddled and unreliable. This could def. be argued since he had a strong 07 (though his team still failed to do much of significance) but I would make the call against him.

Palmer - Has had tough bouts with injuries, but has also seen his performance suffer mightily. After his breakout year in (iirc) 05 he has seen his play gradually decline. Has only had one year of sure-fire top play, with one fringe season and two seasons (the most recent) that don't measure up.

Others who could be called into question include:



Rivers - Had an excellent first season, followed by a less than impressive sophomore effort. However, I would argue that he was brilliant enough in the most current season to make up for that, especially considering how well he rates in the other criteria.

Eli - Just doesn't have the statistical chops to hang with everyone being considered here. I almost would have eliminated him, but the reality is the guy has done enough in other areas (see below) to overcome the fact that he just isn't that consistently good. Even so, if I decided to make the argument otherwise, I certainly could build a strong case.



3. TEAM SUCCESS

How has the team done under the guidance of this QB?

Ultimately, the goal of every team is (or should be) to contend for a championship. Does the player demonstrate that a) he has the ability to consistently give his team a chance to win and b) has it become apparent that this player is part of the problem rather than part of the solution in relation to the team's overall goals?

This criterion is closely related to #4 (see below), and at times has resulted in players like Drew Bledsoe, Daunte Culpepper, Randal Cunningham, Aaron Brooks, Jeff George, and Jeff Garcia (to name a few) being cut loose despite relatively good marks in other aspects of this exercise.

I can't see a player who could be unilaterally dismissed because of this (at least one who hasn't already been eliminated), but arguments can be made against the following players:


Tony Romo - The big argument against Romo. Choker? Butterfingers? The intangible criticisms that have been leveled against him are too many to catalogue. Some feel that he doesn't play well in big games. Others claim that he isn't good enough in the clutch. It is a fact that he hasn't won a single playoff game...but if that were enough, we could cross Peyton Manning circa 2003 off this list and I'm sure anyone in their right mind wouldn't argue for that. In the end, not enough evidence exists to demonstrate that Tony is holding the team back from achieving it's goals, considering the small sample size and his wealth of accomplishments. This is to be continued.

Eli Manning - I would argue that not much is different between Eli and Romo, except the horde of Giant fans would probably crucify me. What is the difference between the two? Eli has gone to the playoffs 4 times, and has been one and done 3 of them. Typically, when the Giants lose, it is because of a plethora of mistakes on his part. Rarely does he ever play well in a loss. Not just that, but his continual struggles with accuracy and consistency plague the G-Men constantly. For me, this would be enough to remove him from the list. Except for the ring.

Drew Brees - What, exactly, has Brees done? Won a single playoff game? By 3 points versus a team without its starting QB before getting blown out by 25 the next week? He continually puts up big numbers (though not necessarily good ones) for a team that is never a serious threat to win anything.

At no point in his career has he ever QBed a team that was considered a contender...oh, wait, that's right. He directed a 12-4 San Diego team into the playoffs in his 3rd year starting before losing at home to a mediocre Jets team. He has QBed talented teams to the following records : 9-7, 3-13-, 10-6, 7-9, 8-8 in each of the last 5 years of playing QB, including ONE playoff appearance.

Which is all not to say that he was THE reason why his teams struggled. But still, this is the NFL. QBs are judged by winning and losing.

Yet he gets a free pass.

4. TEAM CONFIDENCE

Here's the other shoe. A franchise QB is one which the franchise protects as if protecting itself. There are no "we'll see we can accomodate his wishes" or "(enter name of QB) has to do what's in his best interests, we understand that." No. The team operates in unison with the player and the player never questions the devotion that team has for him and his importance to the them. Ever.

Once this begins to waver with a player who WAS once a franchise guy, it can get ugly fast.

Players that this removes from the list include:

Donovan McNabb - The writing on the wall has been there since they so brazenly pursued Kevin Kolb in the 07 draft. He could have been mentioned as a possible elimination candidate for criterion 2, as his performance has not been consistently good enough to warrant consideration as a top QB. However, the true sign that he isn't a franchise QB is the fact that his franchise has begun to distance itself from him. Which is a shame, because I still think he's good enough to be The Man for at least another two years. I wonder if there isn't something going on behind the scenes here.

Warner - Again, Warner could very well have been eliminated after #2, as he wasn't a consistently top QB before last year. I gave him some slack because I always believed that it was just a matter of him getting some protection. If others feel differently, they are welcome to.

He also barely made the mark from the standpoint of notoriety and team success, but I think the SB trip has done enough to let him last this long--though barely.

But the real issue with him as a franchise guy is that his team isn't 100% committed to him. They gave him a contract because they were sort of forced into it, but they haven't made their bed with him. And why should they? He's 38. He could fall apart at any minute. The fact that he's still playing (let alone how well) at this age is a minor miracle.



All told that leaves the following QBs with no marks against them:

Peyton, Brady, Roethlisberger.

The next tier of players who only have one mark against them:

Romo, Rivers, Brees

And Eli, who (probably to be disputed by the legion of Giants fans) has two marks against him.

Those are the 7 true franchise guys, though. The ones that past the test from every angle. They are their franchises.
This.....was......beautiful. Well done, sir.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 03:05 PM    (permalink
DMWSackMachine
The Truth
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,781
Reputation: 35211
DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gay Ork Wang View Post
how does romo have sustained level of play if everyone critize him for playing bad in December?
He's played at a very high level for 3 straight years. There is no arguing that.



Rather, if you wanted to argue the December point it would have to go under Team Success, as a question of whether he is part of what is holding the Cowboys back. Its something worthy of note, and its a blemish on his record, but my comment about Peyton was made directly in response to such doubts.

There were plenty of detractors who claimed that HE WAS THE REASON why the Colts couldn't win in the playoffs. Does that mean he wasn't a franchise guy in 2003? It sounds absurd now, but there were some that made the argument at the time.

Tony is obviously a terrific QB. The team struggled last year due to management issues, and ultimately collapsed under the weight of their failures in that department. Some will always blame the QB, no matter what. But if you look at the evidence, there just isn't enough to make a legitimate case there considering everything else that he has done.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21ST View Post
He was protecting his self
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjsunstein View Post
From what? His leg?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
That leg has had it out for him since day 1.
"We're the quiet guys, the guys before the storm. And then we hit you."

DeMarcus Ware
DMWSackMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 03:21 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 58,842
Reputation: 2190609
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Renji is getting owned by DWM.
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 04:56 PM    (permalink
BuddyCHRIST
Veteran
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallahassee FL
Posts: 1,935
Reputation: 65704
BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

I pretty much consider a Franchise QB a guy who the team doesn't even think about drafting/signing a guy to replace them. And when you think about the draft, they are completely ruled out because they have their guy. Pretty much a guy as a clear cut long term starter who has also proven some things.

So with that I'd prolly say...
Manning
Brady
Roethlisberger
Rivers
Cutler
Rodgers
Brees
Ryan
Romo
Flacco

I consider Romo a franchise guy even though alot of people don't, he's a great young QB and Cowboys would be fools to consider going somewhere else. Flacco I'm not 100% on as ehh I dunno I just watch him and I can't make up my mind, I know he led them to the AFC championship but still something still doesnt instill confidence in me.

With alot of other people's criteria like consistent and playoff success, the only 3 guys I'd consider would be Manning, Brady and Roethlisberger
BuddyCHRIST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 04:48 PM    (permalink
vikes_28
Resident Ginger
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,445
Reputation: 336870
vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.vikes_28 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

__________________

sig by BoneKrusher
GM Vikings
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImBrotherCain View Post
You are just a terrible person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbluedefense View Post
I have an iPhone.
vikes_28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 07:59 AM    (permalink
killxswitch
Mage Bros
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,703
Reputation: 2485129
killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.killxswitch is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuddyCHRIST View Post
I pretty much consider a Franchise QB a guy who the team doesn't even think about drafting/signing a guy to replace them. And when you think about the draft, they are completely ruled out because they have their guy. Pretty much a guy as a clear cut long term starter who has also proven some things.

So with that I'd prolly say...
Manning
Brady
Roethlisberger
Rivers
Cutler
Rodgers
Brees
Ryan
Romo
Flacco

I consider Romo a franchise guy even though alot of people don't, he's a great young QB and Cowboys would be fools to consider going somewhere else. Flacco I'm not 100% on as ehh I dunno I just watch him and I can't make up my mind, I know he led them to the AFC championship but still something still doesnt instill confidence in me.

With alot of other people's criteria like consistent and playoff success, the only 3 guys I'd consider would be Manning, Brady and Roethlisberger
Cutler? Sure the Bears won't consider replacing him, because they just traded for him. Under your own defintion I don't think you can call Cutler a franchise QB. By that definition Matt Schaub is more of a franchise QB since they traded his primary competition.
__________________

i done stole dis sig
killxswitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2009, 10:42 AM    (permalink
ncst8fan83
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wilson, NC
Posts: 2,382
Reputation: 323880
ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.ncst8fan83 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine View Post
2. SUSTAINED LEVEL OF PLAY

The QB must have played at a high level for a reasonable length of time. By high level we're talking about at least top 10 QB for the majority of the given time period in which the question is posed. This allows for a certain amount of room for ups and downs--ie, Brady blowing his knee out for a season does not ruin it for him, but if he were to come back and follow that up with another full season of bad play he would then have to at least be put on warning, if not removed from the list entirely, for having gone 2 consecutive years without producing quality QB play for his team--but that only goes so far.

This removes imo:

Hasselbeck - has gone two of the last three years with just horrible, horrible play, injury riddled and unreliable. This could def. be argued since he had a strong 07 (though his team still failed to do much of significance) but I would make the call against him.

Palmer - Has had tough bouts with injuries, but has also seen his performance suffer mightily. After his breakout year in (iirc) 05 he has seen his play gradually decline. Has only had one year of sure-fire top play, with one fringe season and two seasons (the most recent) that don't measure up.

Others who could be called into question include:



Rivers - Had an excellent first season, followed by a less than impressive sophomore effort. However, I would argue that he was brilliant enough in the most current season to make up for that, especially considering how well he rates in the other criteria.

Eli - Just doesn't have the statistical chops to hang with everyone being considered here. I almost would have eliminated him, but the reality is the guy has done enough in other areas (see below) to overcome the fact that he just isn't that consistently good. Even so, if I decided to make the argument otherwise, I certainly could build a strong case.
How has Roethlisberger had sustained level of play? He's had one good season. Maybe two if you want to count 2005, but it was more of a Chad Pennington good than a Peyton Manning good. 2007 was a great year for Ben, but aside from that, he's just hanging onto the coattails of his defense. If you're going to knock Eli and Philip for it, then Ben has to be mentioned there as well. If you want stats, I've got those for you too.:)
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgan Freeman
Titty sprinkles

Last edited by ncst8fan83 : 04-20-2009 at 10:44 AM.
ncst8fan83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2009, 03:17 AM    (permalink
DMWSackMachine
The Truth
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,781
Reputation: 35211
DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.DMWSackMachine is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncst8fan83 View Post
How has Roethlisberger had sustained level of play? He's had one good season. Maybe two if you want to count 2005, but it was more of a Chad Pennington good than a Peyton Manning good. 2007 was a great year for Ben, but aside from that, he's just hanging onto the coattails of his defense. If you're going to knock Eli and Philip for it, then Ben has to be mentioned there as well. If you want stats, I've got those for you too.:)
One good season? We're talking about a guy that has posted 3 top 5 passer ratings in 5 years in the NFL. I'd say that was consistently good.

Not just that, but his one really bad season was almost certainly a result of off-season trauma and season-long injury. A season that he immediately bounced back from in posting his best season as a passer.


This most recent season is a little more perplexing. He started fairly strong, iirc, but seemed to fade late. Not just that, his team doesn't seem to have a real clue offensively. If he posts another two years like this one, I would definitely consider posting it as a strike on his record. I have a hard time really discounting a guys play when his team is winning so many games...and without a real running threat this year, as well.

I can see that his mediocre 2008 could be a problem, but for a guy that has been so consistently great in the past, I am willing to cut some serious slack. All the great ones have down years.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21ST View Post
He was protecting his self
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjsunstein View Post
From what? His leg?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
That leg has had it out for him since day 1.
"We're the quiet guys, the guys before the storm. And then we hit you."

DeMarcus Ware
DMWSackMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2009, 10:28 AM    (permalink
BuddyCHRIST
Veteran
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallahassee FL
Posts: 1,935
Reputation: 65704
BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BuddyCHRIST is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killxswitch View Post
Cutler? Sure the Bears won't consider replacing him, because they just traded for him. Under your own defintion I don't think you can call Cutler a franchise QB. By that definition Matt Schaub is more of a franchise QB since they traded his primary competition.
Your probably right, but I like Cutler and think the Broncos were idiots to create the situation so I consider him a franchise guy. Schaub I thought about but he seems to be injured quite a bit, and I'm not personally sold on him being a great QB.

Also people like to knock Roethlisberger's stats, and I did before this superbowl because I too thought he was just a product of a great team. But it's tough to argue with how clutch he is, and he's really sold me on him being one of the top QB's in the league.
BuddyCHRIST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2009, 11:46 AM    (permalink
NOLA
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 22
Reputation: 2657
NOLA could make a wolverine purr.NOLA could make a wolverine purr.NOLA could make a wolverine purr.NOLA could make a wolverine purr.NOLA could make a wolverine purr.NOLA could make a wolverine purr.NOLA could make a wolverine purr.NOLA could make a wolverine purr.
Default

You give up a 2nd round pick for a guy that franchise is asking you to be a franchise QB. So i'd add Sage Roesnfels and Matt Cassell.
NOLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.