@shep said:

You are still not getting that it is not Passing Vs, Running, it is Passing and Running.

They complement each other.

Running backs are complementary pieces like left tackles and wide receivers.

There are four QBs that can win regardless of who you have at RB or WR ... Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers.

We don't have one of them. 87.5% of the league doesn't have one of them.

And because of other weaknesses on their teams, Brees missed the playoffs last year while the other three were eliminated by the more balanced teams in Baltimore and San Fran.

No one has ever denied it's a QB league, but he can't do it alone. You need a lot of good pieces. He have an excellent one at RB. Good for us.

Zombo

@shep said:

Except we got that, plus Trent Richardson when we got the Commish in the supplemental.

Sanu was gone at 20, and Gordon > Blackmon on his worst day.

Tannehill/Weeden still a wash at this point. We'll see when the season shakes out.

@shep said:

As I recall you dropped Rodgers for Alex Smith the last month before the draft when he became the darling #1 pick.

If you love 75% of quarterbacks and one becomes a superstar it doesn't mean you know anything about quarterbacks.

Leinart, Quinn, Sanchez, Claussen ... you loved them all. But I will give you one thing ... you are persistent, You stuck by Joey Harrington's side until he was out of the league.

As for moving from 4 to 3 to grab Richardson once Luck and Grif were gone ... it was the thing to do. He was the best football player on the board.

Look at the guys that went 4-10, I would stil take Richardson over any of them, although we know you love Tans more than Weeds ... we'll see about that.

Zombo

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Exactly! Plus if you look at how these teams ran the ball in the playoffs, you would see that they had a much more balanced attack than Shep is letting on. The giants did suck at running the ball during the first 6 games of the season a couple years ago, then ran the ball well including the playoffs as they went on to win the Super Bowl. Running the ball well will always set up the pass.

@shep said:

Fair question and here's the answer: Last year was a bit of an anomaly, but consider:

- Prior to last year, the 10 participants in the prior 5 Super Bowls averaged 23rd in rushing. And we know who the QBs were (Brady, Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, etc.). That's a pretty big sample size.

- Most of the "great running backs" of the past decade could've gotten together to watch the Super Bowl in any year: Peterson, Jackson, MJD, Chris Johnson, Foster, etc. Not one of them has even played in a Super Bowl, let alone won one.

- If you look at the Niners, they do everything well. Their passer rating for the year between Smith and Kaep was 104, like third in the NFL, so they passed as well as they ran. They play incredible defense. They're the rare complete team.

Ravens were a bit of an anomaly: They didn't do anything all that well. They weren't top 10 in anything. They lost 4 of their last 5... then their QB got really hot and was the top passer in the post season (very Eli-esque).

Yet the Ravens won (and I picked them). It doesn't always make sense. This year more than ever. Like a lot of people, I figured Patriots of Broncos in the Super Bowl against Packers or Niners.

- Most of the top teams in the league, next year's serious contenders, don't have 1,500 type backs or a "star" at that position. They're generally teams led by Rodgers, Ryan, Manning, and Brady handing off to (NAME HERE).

Until a team that's much better at RB than at QB wins it all... it's a QB league.

And that's a bullshit reason. It's always been a near balanced attack, and then we have two years where some "passing" teams make it to the postseason and Shep gets a boner.

Fact of the matter is, you outmatch the team you're playing, you win. Passing, running, whatever. You play better football than they do and you win.

I'm growing tired of seeing every single response from Shep feature the term "passing league" ten times.

It's a "be better than your opponent" league.

@shep said:

Tannehill's a star. Not one thing lacking on his resume. Zilch.

Um...wins?

- Prior to last year, the 10 participants in the prior 5 Super Bowls averaged 23rd in rushing. And we know who the QBs were (Brady, Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, etc.). That's a pretty big sample size.

- Most of the "great running backs" of the past decade could've gotten together to watch the Super Bowl in any year: Peterson, Jackson, MJD, Chris Johnson, Foster, etc. Not one of them has even played in a Super Bowl, let alone won one.

- If you look at the Niners, they do everything well. Their passer rating for the year between Smith and Kaep was 104, like third in the NFL, so they passed as well as they ran. They play incredible defense. They're the rare complete team.

Ravens were a bit of an anomaly: They didn't do anything all that well. They weren't top 10 in anything. They lost 4 of their last 5... then their QB got really hot and was the top passer in the post season (very Eli-esque).

Yet the Ravens won (and I picked them). It doesn't always make sense. This year more than ever. Like a lot of people, I figured Patriots of Broncos in the Super Bowl against Packers or Niners.

- Most of the top teams in the league, next year's serious contenders, don't have 1,500 type backs or a "star" at that position. They're generally teams led by Rodgers, Ryan, Manning, and Brady handing off to (NAME HERE).

Until a team that's much better at RB than at QB wins it all... it's a QB league.

@shep said:

I have to disagree. Passing league, passing league, passing league, blah blah blah... Take a look at the statistics. 6 of the Top 8 rushing teams, including all of the top 4, were in the playoffs last year, while the top 3 passing teams missed the playoffs... The two super bowl teams finished the season 15th and 23rd in passing, and 4th and 11th in rushing. How do you explain that?

Tannehill was very good last night, but not Weeden good. I thought Weeds looked fantastic.

We'll disagree here: Sure, anybody's happy to inherit Richardson... but if you think they or about 31 other GMs would trade up to take him at #3, you're nuts. You'd have to be drunk to do that. (Heckert joke.)

Just can't have enough impact on the bottom line from that position anymore. They get hurt, they have short careers, and the top teams prove you don't need a great one to win it all. Been going on for a decade now.

Zombo said:

Did Joe Banner e-mail you telling you he would have drafted Tannehill?

I think they would have bit hard on RG3.

And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.

God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.

Zombo

@shep said:

Except Tannehill, as far as I am concerned, will not turn out to be nearly as good as Weeden. The only factor would have been age.

In retrospect, I would've taken Bernard Pierce at the top of round 3 (almost 600 yards last year, 5.0 a carry). Hell, the Packers were desperate for RBs and reached really high for one... in late round 2. I would've taken Tannehill with our #4 and probably a WR with our #22. Still Schwartz in 2.

If you compare Pierce and Richardson in Cleveland, there's only so much one can do better than the other in a passing league to really affect the bottom line, create more wins. Damn near impossible, in fact.

@poeticg said:

I would have been down for a Richardson/Tannehill combo. The only player who was more valuable than Trent was Luck in that draft, I'm glad we got him. We could have tried to trade back down into the top ten to get Tannehill but that would have been pricey. I'm okay with how it worked out, let's just hope Weeden worked out the bugs in his game. He was decent for being a rookie, if only he was 24 years old instead of 30 but that's how the cookie crumbled. I think he'll be fine until we find a QB good enough to be the long term answer.

@cdl15 said:

It gives me a headache even reading your shitty posts

@cdl15 said:

It would be dumb... and I don't see Banner letting that happen. Drafting a QB and developing him is never a bad idea, but there is no controversy when your guy won 8 or 9 games... unless the team won despite Weeden playing terrible...

@thenew23 said:

Also. it can't be stated enough that from day 1 it was known Trent was 'the guy'. I'm not knocking Martin, but I guarantee teams weren't scouting for him as hard as you said Jackson or their passing game. Couple that with the worst offensive scheme I've possibly ever seen and you're not gonna have a fantastic statisical year.

Zombo said:

Tannehill didn't look very good in the HOF game... not that it says much. I just don't see the NFL game in him. I do see it in Weeden, but he needs to become more consistent...

As far as Martin vs Richardson... If healthy, Richardson will out TD, out receive, and outrun Martin this year... problem is "IF healthy." TB has a respected deep threat on their team in VJax which opened up the line of scrimmage for Martin to run. CLE had a respected deep threat for a couple game, and I already put Richardson's statistics in those games on this board in another thread...

I think they would have bit hard on RG3.

And I doubt they groan about having Richardson on the roster ... every successful offense Turner/Chud ever had featured a stud RB.

God, I hope Weeden/Richardson outperforms Tannehill/Martin this year. We can only hope Tannehill has a touch of Brady Quinn or Jimmy Claussen in him, since you love him so much.

Zombo

But... it's done and we do have a ton of young talent. Let's just hope we have it in the right places. Left tackle and pass rushers certainly make sense.

@slowburn said:

Teddy should continue to shine this season. The Ville has an amazingly soft schedule.

@hunt-daddy said:

Teddy should continue to shine this season. The Ville has an amazingly soft schedule.

@browns149 said:

Then make the lottery apply to only the teams with the worst 5 or 6 records...or some such.