Skip to content

To be or not to be a team with a good Quarterback

The Browns Board
19 5 596
  • Zombo said:

    Tony Romo is not a franchise QB?

    Zombo

    Not in my view. No more than say, Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan are.

    WalterWhiteW WalterWhite wrote on last edited by
    #7

    @the-gipper said:

    Not in my view. No more than say, Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan are.

    Dalton, Romo, and Ryan are all franchise QB's because they give their teams a chance to compete, win the division, and go to the playoffs every year.

  • C calfoxwc wrote on last edited by calfoxwc
    #8

    Alas, no great Knight who has faced vast numbers of slings and arrows, alone,

    and thereby dies a noble death...

    is he a "Great Knight"? A Knight who always won many battles, yet fails in battle

    with an unbeatable dragon...

    is the Knight not thusly doomed to not be great after all?

    I say, against unbeatable odds, a great knight still, after great unwinnable battles against

    unbeatable foe, still...

    is a great knight. So too, is a quarterback. A great high school quarterback, who hast won himself many

    battles with a great high school team thusly around him. Hath he still greatness about him, when he goes

    to a small, low talent college team, and only then, starts losing to unbeatable foes?

    So, too, the great college quarterback, to an expansion or just very poor NFL team?

    And let it be known to be true and just - that some quarterbacks have skills that limit their level of greatness...

    and yet, those who have the skills to be great at all levels...

    hath not the great quarterback still have been great, when losing teams is not of his load to bear?

    I see greatness, yet, in those greats who lose to unbeatable foes, lest we get to not knowing greatness inherent

    in the knight, regardless of loss to dragons.

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #9

    There are 5 what I consider HOF QBs playing now: Brady, Peyton, Brees, BR, Rodgers. I am going to go back into history to see if there were that many playing at various points of time.

    (also....note: no one can claim that Wilson and Luck are HOF now....but they have that potential....thus my "franchise" designation for them)

    Since this is 2015, I will look at the years ending in a 5...going back to just after WWII up to 1995:

    1995: Warren Moon, John Elway, Dan Marino, Jim Kelley, Steve Young...and certain HOFer Brett Favre

    1985: Moon, Elway, Marino, Joe Montana, Dan Fouts, (plus Kelly and Young were playing in the USFL)

    1975: Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, Roger Staubach, Joe Namath, Terry Bradshaw, Bob Griese, Len Dawson...and possible HOF for next year: Ken Stabler

    1965: Tarkenton, Namath, Dawson, Sonny Jurgenson, Bart Starr, George Blanda, and John Unitas

    1955: YA Tittle, Norm Van Brocklin, Bobby Layne, Otto Graham, and George Blanda

    1945: Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh, Bob Waterfield, Arnie Herber, and Ace Parker (Otto Graham, while drafted in 1944 did not play until 1946).

    So, as I see it, it is entirely possible that 7-8 HOF QBs could be playing in the league this fall. You have the 5 I mention as sure things: Brady/Peyton/BR/Brees/Rodgers....plus possible future HOF in the likes of Luck/Wilson...and maybe one other? Who would that be? Rivers?

  • @the-gipper said:

    Not in my view. No more than say, Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan are.

    Dalton, Romo, and Ryan are all franchise QB's because they give their teams a chance to compete, win the division, and go to the playoffs every year.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #10

    @walterwhite said:

    Dalton, Romo, and Ryan are all franchise QB's because they give their teams a chance to compete, win the division, and go to the playoffs every year.

    To me, that just makes them "Solid".....to me a franchise QB is a guy that could take you to a Super Bowl win....and who with a little luck could turn into a HOF type QB....like Phillip Rivers.

    I put no faith in those 3 at this time to take that step up. It could happen....but they have to do much better. They are in with Stafford and others.

  • Alas, no great Knight who has faced vast numbers of slings and arrows, alone,

    and thereby dies a noble death...

    is he a "Great Knight"? A Knight who always won many battles, yet fails in battle

    with an unbeatable dragon...

    is the Knight not thusly doomed to not be great after all?

    I say, against unbeatable odds, a great knight still, after great unwinnable battles against

    unbeatable foe, still...

    is a great knight. So too, is a quarterback. A great high school quarterback, who hast won himself many

    battles with a great high school team thusly around him. Hath he still greatness about him, when he goes

    to a small, low talent college team, and only then, starts losing to unbeatable foes?

    So, too, the great college quarterback, to an expansion or just very poor NFL team?

    And let it be known to be true and just - that some quarterbacks have skills that limit their level of greatness...

    and yet, those who have the skills to be great at all levels...

    hath not the great quarterback still have been great, when losing teams is not of his load to bear?

    I see greatness, yet, in those greats who lose to unbeatable foes, lest we get to not knowing greatness inherent

    in the knight, regardless of loss to dragons.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #11

    @calfoxwc said:

    Alas, no great Knight who has faced vast numbers of slings and arrows, alone,

    and thereby dies a noble death...

    is he a "Great Knight"? A Knight who always won many battles, yet fails in battle

    with an unbeatable dragon...

    is the Knight not thusly doomed to not be great after all?

    I say, against unbeatable odds, a great knight still, after great unwinnable battles against

    unbeatable foe, still...

    is a great knight. So too, is a quarterback. A great high school quarterback, who hast won himself many

    battles with a great high school team thusly around him. Hath he still greatness about him, when he goes

    to a small, low talent college team, and only then, starts losing to unbeatable foes?

    So, too, the great college quarterback, to an expansion or just very poor NFL team?

    And let it be known to be true and just - that some quarterbacks have skills that limit their level of greatness...

    and yet, those who have the skills to be great at all levels...

    hath not the great quarterback still have been great, when losing teams is not of his load to bear?

    I see greatness, yet, in those greats who lose to unbeatable foes, lest we get to not knowing greatness inherent

    in the knight, regardless of loss to dragons.

    Mine was Hamlet.....are you paraphrasing Man of La Mancha? Don Quixote?

  • C calfoxwc wrote on last edited by
    #12

    I'm mixing wild and crazy. I didn't remember the rest of Hamlet. lol

    "to be, or not to be...

    whether tis nobler to suffer

    the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...

    to to take arms against a sea of troubles, and

    by dying....

    end them....

    something like that. It's just that I keep getting stuck in Archie Manning mode. and Bert Jones mode, etc.

    don't mind me...it was just one of my "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL NO !" moments....

  • Z Zombo wrote on last edited by
    #13

    If you don't think Tony Romo is a franchise QB, I don't think you know what a franchise QB is.

    Zombo

  • Z Zombo wrote on last edited by
    #14

    Romo 75-48 record 97.6 Rating

    Rivers 88-56 record 95.7 Rating

    What am I missing?

    Romo is better than Manning, Flacco and Newton who you correctly have listed as franchise QBs.

    Before you mention those Super bowls that Eli and Joe won all by themselves ... Cam?

    Zombo

  • W wargograw wrote on last edited by
    #15

    With Zombo re: Romo.

    I think if anyone could draft either today, they'd take Tannehill over Dalton. Maybe that's just me but that one jumped out at me.

  • Romo 75-48 record 97.6 Rating

    Rivers 88-56 record 95.7 Rating

    What am I missing?

    Romo is better than Manning, Flacco and Newton who you correctly have listed as franchise QBs.

    Before you mention those Super bowls that Eli and Joe won all by themselves ... Cam?

    Zombo

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #16

    Zombo said:

    Romo 75-48 record 97.6 Rating

    Rivers 88-56 record 95.7 Rating

    What am I missing?

    Romo is better than Manning, Flacco and Newton who you correctly have listed as franchise QBs.

    Before you mention those Super bowls that Eli and Joe won all by themselves ... Cam?

    Zombo

    Let's put it this way: Romo is borderline between franchise and solid. While his numbers are very good, to me, he still wears a jabot.

    And I would prefer the guys you mention to run my team, thank you very much.

  • With Zombo re: Romo.

    I think if anyone could draft either today, they'd take Tannehill over Dalton. Maybe that's just me but that one jumped out at me.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #17

    @wargograw said:

    With Zombo re: Romo.

    I think if anyone could draft either today, they'd take Tannehill over Dalton. Maybe that's just me but that one jumped out at me.

    Were they out of the same draft? I still have Tannehill as developmental.

    I think that is your A&M bias speaking.

    I didn't include a "mediocre" category, thinking that the "stopgap" category handled that. I think, unless he shows more this year, Tannehill could devolve into the Stopgap mode....meaning that if he doesn't perform the Dolphins will be looking for someone else. I mean, they have not had a winning season since he has been there. Going 6-10/7-9/8-8/8-8 could have your team looking at who is available in the draft before long.

    At least Dalton has gotten the Bengals to the playoffs each year....thus "solid". Tannehill I don't think is at that level. Apparent talent....not yet come to fruition.

  • W wargograw wrote on last edited by
    #18

    Not the same draft, I don't think.

    The Dolphins have a bottom 5 OL in the league. Tannehill IIRC was sacked more than anyone last year. How many Pro Bowlers are blocking for Dalton? He also has a great running game and defense. Miami's D was close last year but fell off late or their record would be better. Can't just look at records.

  • Not the same draft, I don't think.

    The Dolphins have a bottom 5 OL in the league. Tannehill IIRC was sacked more than anyone last year. How many Pro Bowlers are blocking for Dalton? He also has a great running game and defense. Miami's D was close last year but fell off late or their record would be better. Can't just look at records.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #19

    @wargograw said:

    Not the same draft, I don't think.

    The Dolphins have a bottom 5 OL in the league. Tannehill IIRC was sacked more than anyone last year. How many Pro Bowlers are blocking for Dalton? He also has a great running game and defense. Miami's D was close last year but fell off late or their record would be better. Can't just look at records.

    Well, it may be subjective criteria, but I put Dalton a rung up on Tannehill because Dalton has made 4 consecutive playoff appearances, and Tannehill none. Each is stuck with the team he has, and a QB's duty is to lead his team. Dalton has gotten it done where Tannehill has not, yet. That is why I still give him developmental status. As to how many Pro Bowlers Dalton has blocking for him: I think the Answer is One: Andrew Whitworth. The Browns have more Pro Bowlers on the OL than the Bengals.