"It's a passing league"
-
Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
We also need some bruiser OGs to open up lanes for the RBs.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
When we had hoyer we still couldn't run the ball.
-
We also need some bruiser OGs to open up lanes for the RBs.Ahh, good, then we are in agreement. I am ALL FOR opening up the running lanes with a QB that defenses have to respect. To me, that is different than the rabid shouts of "It's a passing league!" Opening up running lanes with the pass sounds more like a balanced offense. And, if we're all on board with a balanced offense, then I imagine we can all agree that passing as much as the Browns did this past year is not ideal, and, in the future, the team should make an effort toward integrating more running into the offense. Right?
When we had hoyer we still couldn't run the ball.
-
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
-
Well, I started the thread, so I'll answer that. The answer is: "kind of". Someone hit the nail on the head earlier when they pointed out that it depends on what people mean when they say it. If a person means that "the rules of the league benefit the passing game", or if they mean that "the majority of the league prefers a passing offense to a rushing offense", then I don't think there's room for much debate about that. What I was actually arguing against was the group that exists (at least in my mind?) that seems to believe that a nearly purely vertical offense is the ONLY means of finding success in the league.
I think most of us have come to the agreement now that the first version (the rule and teams favor passing) is basically true, that a good QB is definitely beneficial to the success of a team, and that the last version (only passing is the only answer) is a little extreme.
-
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
Without Brady, the Pats don't make it to any Super Bowl in the last 10 years.
Nobody is arguing that it's not about balance. But a team devoid of a franchise quarterback is a hell of a lot less likely to make the postseason than one devoid of a franchise runningback.
Gore had less than 15 rushing yards yesterday and the 49ers were still only one play away from winning. They're not relying on him by any means.
A team can get by with a mediocre runningback more than they can a mediocre quarterback. Look at the Patriots. Blount had 6 games this season where he recorded less than 15 yards. 1/5 of his season totals came from last weeks playoff game. But he has one good game and now the Patriots successes are because of him?
Blount was undrafted. Gore was a third round pick. Lynch was a very mediocre first round pick in Buffalo. Moreno hasn't lived up to his first round billing, either.
The league is becoming a passing league. The rules favor QB's and WR's. The NFL is trying to trend away from contact and toward flat out speed, similar to college. We're seeing more spread sets and offenses are featuring more mobile quartebacks running read-option plays than ever before. Its not to say there isn't any value in grinding the defense down by pounding the rock, but big backs are slowly being phased out by rule changes. The traditional fullback position is disappearing. Smaller, zone blocking guards are being sought after and quarterbacks are throwing 35-40 times a game. It's not to say that's theore successful way, but that is the way things are currently heading, it seems.
Are you suggesting we take a runningback in the first round?
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
Drafting BPA is useless without a quarterback.
I'm not even saying I want Manziel. I want Bortles.
Taking a QB is penultimate.
Yeah, and you weren't paying attention either. 3 of the 4 quarterbacks in the Championship games weren't drafted in the first round.
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
#Justsayin' -
While I agree its a passing league...what the Browns lack is a true mudder like OJ anderson who can pound the rock consistently and run down the clock...not the fastest guy. But he was a bull late in his career and was used by Parcells noriously to run down the clock.
-
So what if there isn't a "franchise quarterback" there in the top 4 picks? You going to guarantee me there is? So sure, let's just swing and miss again on the wrong guy. I'm sick of that horseshit. If you will put it in writing one of the top prospects is going to be at least as good as Kaepernic, I'm all for it. Not exactly seeing that right now. This "gotta take a qb @ #4" is getting mighty old. It may increase your odds, but it's not a sure thing either. Nick Foles anyone?
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
I already told you- only if you see a guy @ #4 that's actually worth drafting at #4. Just because he happens to be a quarterback doesn't automatically mean he's worth it. Reaching for a qb because you happen to need one will get you a Gabbert or Ponder (or worse, Jamarcus Russell) more often than not. I'm yet to be convinced there's "the guy" at the top of round one this year. Gip pointed out in another thread players you'd consider "franchise quarterbacks" don't happen every draft.
-
How many times do I have to point this out???
When's the last time the Browns spent a top 15 pick on a QB? Couch...
Our "swing and miss" has been on guys drafted in the late first round, the second or 3rd, or wasted FAs past their prime...
When are we going to actually "swing" on a guy in the early first??
I already told you- only if you see a guy @ #4 that's actually worth drafting at #4. Just because he happens to be a quarterback doesn't automatically mean he's worth it. Reaching for a qb because you happen to need one will get you a Gabbert or Ponder (or worse, Jamarcus Russell) more often than not. I'm yet to be convinced there's "the guy" at the top of round one this year. Gip pointed out in another thread players you'd consider "franchise quarterbacks" don't happen every draft.
I already told you- only if you see a guy @ #4 that's actually worth drafting at #4. Just because he happens to be a quarterback doesn't automatically mean he's worth it. Reaching for a qb because you happen to need one will get you a Gabbert or Ponder (or worse, Jamarcus Russell) more often than not. I'm yet to be convinced there's "the guy" at the top of round one this year. Gip pointed out in another thread players you'd consider "franchise quarterbacks" don't happen every draft.
I'd be happy with any of the top three qbs at #4. These guys aren't perfect but they each have the potential to be really good QBs.
Remember when everyone said that Cam Newton would bust because of how simple the Auburn offense was?
It seems that people are still stuck in the Couch mindset, but in reality, we have a more than competent team for a rookie qb to work with.
Couch, like Carr, was put in a terrible situation and had the misfortune of playing behind a historically bad offensive line.
Our line is a lot better than some people are willing to admit, we undoubtedly have better offensive weapons and with a little diligence can find a back who can turn the run game situation around.
While comparing the current Brown's roster to some of the teams fielded in the past one has to admit that the team, from a personnel stand point, is far better than it has been.
I was an advocate of building up the team to a point where we could plug in a QB and expect immediate success.
In my opinion, that's where we are right now. The Browns need to stop taking shots on bargain basement QBs. One good QB can take this team to the playoffs.
After the seasons we have endured, aren't you ready to take a chance? Bridgewater has a slight build and Manziel is a scrambler and Carr doesn't have the brain power and Bortles' last name sounds like a Pokemon.
No one is perfect, but if this FO can find a QB who can play well enough and afford his HC enough time to set up a culture of winning I'll be a happy dude.
All this money and all these draft picks?! We can afford to take a chance on a QB at #4 as well as one in the third round (I'm liking the idea of Garoppolo more and more as the days pass).
the WRs will be there, the O-line guys will be there, the CBs will be there, the linebackers will be there. Find a guy who can be a top 15 QB his rookie year and this franchise will do a 180.
At this point, I fear muddling around in mediocrity due to poor qb play way more than I fear a QB bust.
-
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
Wilson and Kaepernick struggled with the teams they are on now. I didn't see much of anything in the NFC Championship game that made me think they are a lock for long-term franchise QBs. Of course this has only been year 2 for both of them as starting QBs.
That being said, with the current Browns team plus a Kaep/Wilson type QB (and an RB that is at least capable), everyone will be happy ecstatic if in their first two years they go to the playoffs one year and a SB appearance the other. But defense needs to seriously step up their game too.
The other option is to find a Peyton, Brady, Luck in the draft. (And here would still need a serviceable RB.)
My question for the long run: Peytons, Bradys, Lucks are long term solutions. How will teams with a Kaep or Wilson or stay relevant in comparison? Will they go to the playoffs year after year and maybe win a SB or two within a decade? Or will it be a fast and furious five year plan? I might be generous going five years even.
I might be living in the past with my preference for pocket passers. Somebody show me that drafting a Kaep, Wilson, RGIII (i.e. Manziel) is the answer, beyond a couple blazing years. It would be a fun ride for sure, but I'd rather have relevance for 10-12 years with a couple Championships in the mix.
-
recipe for winning the AFC North.....bring in a 240lb'ish RB who can accelerate hard on the snap, put another 250-260lb FB who can accelerate equally as hard infront of him and have them maul a defensive front for the first couple possessions. Than when the inevitable 8th man has to be brought up to stop this, you have a qb that can make them pay for this. That might actually be the recipe for the entire NFL but let's focus on the North while we sit here at the bottom of it. And lets be thankful that none of the teams in the north have, yet, a secondary like Seattle's or our "it's a passing league" FO would be even further exposed as the football frauds that they seem to be.
-
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
Wilson and Kaepernick struggled with the teams they are on now. I didn't see much of anything in the NFC Championship game that made me think they are a lock for long-term franchise QBs. Of course this has only been year 2 for both of them as starting QBs.
That being said, with the current Browns team plus a Kaep/Wilson type QB (and an RB that is at least capable), everyone will be happy ecstatic if in their first two years they go to the playoffs one year and a SB appearance the other. But defense needs to seriously step up their game too.
The other option is to find a Peyton, Brady, Luck in the draft. (And here would still need a serviceable RB.)
My question for the long run: Peytons, Bradys, Lucks are long term solutions. How will teams with a Kaep or Wilson or stay relevant in comparison? Will they go to the playoffs year after year and maybe win a SB or two within a decade? Or will it be a fast and furious five year plan? I might be generous going five years even.
I might be living in the past with my preference for pocket passers. Somebody show me that drafting a Kaep, Wilson, RGIII (i.e. Manziel) is the answer, beyond a couple blazing years. It would be a fun ride for sure, but I'd rather have relevance for 10-12 years with a couple Championships in the mix.
Wilson and Kaepernick struggled with the teams they are on now. I didn't see much of anything in the NFC Championship game that made me think they are a lock for long-term franchise QBs. Of course this has only been year 2 for both of them as starting QBs.
That being said, with the current Browns team plus a Kaep/Wilson type QB (and an RB that is at least capable), everyone will be
happyecstatic if in their first two years they go to the playoffs one year and a SB appearance the other. But defense needs to seriously step up their game too.The other option is to find a Peyton, Brady, Luck in the draft. (And here would still need a serviceable RB.)
My question for the long run: Peytons, Bradys, Lucks are long term solutions. How will teams with a Kaep or Wilson or stay relevant in comparison? Will they go to the playoffs year after year and maybe win a SB or two within a decade? Or will it be a fast and furious five year plan? I might be generous going five years even.
I might be living in the past with my preference for pocket passers. Somebody show me that drafting a Kaep, Wilson, RGIII (i.e. Manziel) is the answer, beyond a couple blazing years. It would be a fun ride for sure, but I'd rather have relevance for 10-12 years with a couple Championships in the mix.
How does Kaep fit into that group? Just because he's a runner?
Kaep and Wilson still finished the regular season in the top ten in passer rating. Both of them threw nearly three times as many touchdowns and interceptions, and neither of them had double digit interceptions.
When I hear "pocket passer", I hear "old". Just because a guy can run doesn't mean he isn't a pocket passer. Wilson ran a designed bootleg in the NFC Championship and stayed behind the line and turned that play into a 30 yard passing gain. He had four blockers in front of him and could have picked up a first down, yet he didnt.
I think looking for quarterbacks with no mobility just to fill your "pocket passer" category severely limits he potential of the team.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Wilson and Kaepernick struggled with the teams they are on now. I didn't see much of anything in the NFC Championship game that made me think they are a lock for long-term franchise QBs. Of course this has only been year 2 for both of them as starting QBs.
That being said, with the current Browns team plus a Kaep/Wilson type QB (and an RB that is at least capable), everyone will be
happyecstatic if in their first two years they go to the playoffs one year and a SB appearance the other. But defense needs to seriously step up their game too.The other option is to find a Peyton, Brady, Luck in the draft. (And here would still need a serviceable RB.)
My question for the long run: Peytons, Bradys, Lucks are long term solutions. How will teams with a Kaep or Wilson or stay relevant in comparison? Will they go to the playoffs year after year and maybe win a SB or two within a decade? Or will it be a fast and furious five year plan? I might be generous going five years even.
I might be living in the past with my preference for pocket passers. Somebody show me that drafting a Kaep, Wilson, RGIII (i.e. Manziel) is the answer, beyond a couple blazing years. It would be a fun ride for sure, but I'd rather have relevance for 10-12 years with a couple Championships in the mix.
How does Kaep fit into that group? Just because he's a runner?
Kaep and Wilson still finished the regular season in the top ten in passer rating. Both of them threw nearly three times as many touchdowns and interceptions, and neither of them had double digit interceptions.
When I hear "pocket passer", I hear "old". Just because a guy can run doesn't mean he isn't a pocket passer. Wilson ran a designed bootleg in the NFC Championship and stayed behind the line and turned that play into a 30 yard passing gain. He had four blockers in front of him and could have picked up a first down, yet he didnt.
I think looking for quarterbacks with no mobility just to fill your "pocket passer" category severely limits he potential of the team.
How does Kaep fit into that group? Just because he's a runner?
Kaep and Wilson still finished the regular season in the top ten in passer rating. Both of them threw nearly three times as many touchdowns and interceptions, and neither of them had double digit interceptions.
When I hear "pocket passer", I hear "old". Just because a guy can run doesn't mean he isn't a pocket passer. Wilson ran a designed bootleg in the NFC Championship and stayed behind the line and turned that play into a 30 yard passing gain. He had four blockers in front of him and could have picked up a first down, yet he didnt.
I think looking for quarterbacks with no mobility just to fill your "pocket passer" category severely limits he potential of the team.
That's what I'm saying TC- a mobile qb is fine, it's becoming more and more of a necessity. Manning and Brady may be the last of that genre. I'll take a Kapernic or a Wilson good @ 4- Manziel is not either of them. He might (possibly) have the passing ability, but IMHO he doesn't have the frame to stay healthy if he takes off running on a consistent basis.
Yeah- so how about Bortles @ 4, and Tre Mason with the second first rounder? I can even live with Watkins, and then Carr or Mason, and\or take Garrapolo in the second round. IMHO a stud run blocking OG should be high on the Browns shopping list- Pinkston and Lavaou suck.
-
wasn't the name of this thread intended to start a discussion on whether or not the league is now considered a 'passing league'?
w/o lynch the seahawks don't even make the playoffs. w/o blount last week and an 'inept franchise QB' on the other side of the ball the pats don't make it to yesterday's game. gore will be 30 and if san fran doesn't find a replacement work-horse back they'll prob be out next year. denver, well i won't even discuss the running game since manning is the only legit leader of the opposite of a running game being important.
it's all about balance, good D and good offense that can stretch the field when needed and can also pound it up the middle to get in the endzone when you are first and goal on the 2.
Without Brady, the Pats don't make it to any Super Bowl in the last 10 years.
Nobody is arguing that it's not about balance. But a team devoid of a franchise quarterback is a hell of a lot less likely to make the postseason than one devoid of a franchise runningback.
Gore had less than 15 rushing yards yesterday and the 49ers were still only one play away from winning. They're not relying on him by any means.
A team can get by with a mediocre runningback more than they can a mediocre quarterback. Look at the Patriots. Blount had 6 games this season where he recorded less than 15 yards. 1/5 of his season totals came from last weeks playoff game. But he has one good game and now the Patriots successes are because of him?
Blount was undrafted. Gore was a third round pick. Lynch was a very mediocre first round pick in Buffalo. Moreno hasn't lived up to his first round billing, either.
The league is becoming a passing league. The rules favor QB's and WR's. The NFL is trying to trend away from contact and toward flat out speed, similar to college. We're seeing more spread sets and offenses are featuring more mobile quartebacks running read-option plays than ever before. Its not to say there isn't any value in grinding the defense down by pounding the rock, but big backs are slowly being phased out by rule changes. The traditional fullback position is disappearing. Smaller, zone blocking guards are being sought after and quarterbacks are throwing 35-40 times a game. It's not to say that's theore successful way, but that is the way things are currently heading, it seems.
Are you suggesting we take a runningback in the first round?
Without Brady, the Pats don't make it to any Super Bowl in the last 10 years.
Nobody is arguing that it's not about balance. But a team devoid of a franchise quarterback is a hell of a lot less likely to make the postseason than one devoid of a franchise runningback.
Over the past decade, Brady plays behind one of the best offensive lines in the league.
-
How does Kaep fit into that group? Just because he's a runner?
Kaep and Wilson still finished the regular season in the top ten in passer rating. Both of them threw nearly three times as many touchdowns and interceptions, and neither of them had double digit interceptions.
When I hear "pocket passer", I hear "old". Just because a guy can run doesn't mean he isn't a pocket passer. Wilson ran a designed bootleg in the NFC Championship and stayed behind the line and turned that play into a 30 yard passing gain. He had four blockers in front of him and could have picked up a first down, yet he didnt.
I think looking for quarterbacks with no mobility just to fill your "pocket passer" category severely limits he potential of the team.
That's what I'm saying TC- a mobile qb is fine, it's becoming more and more of a necessity. Manning and Brady may be the last of that genre. I'll take a Kapernic or a Wilson good @ 4- Manziel is not either of them. He might (possibly) have the passing ability, but IMHO he doesn't have the frame to stay healthy if he takes off running on a consistent basis.
Yeah- so how about Bortles @ 4, and Tre Mason with the second first rounder? I can even live with Watkins, and then Carr or Mason, and\or take Garrapolo in the second round. IMHO a stud run blocking OG should be high on the Browns shopping list- Pinkston and Lavaou suck.
That's what I'm saying TC- a mobile qb is fine, it's becoming more and more of a necessity.
When was the last time a mobile QB won a superbowl.
Even a stiff like Flacco won last year.
I say TAKE the BEST player available.
A great defensive player could anchor your defense for a decade, leaving many years of drafting to get a potential QB right.
-
Without Brady, the Pats don't make it to any Super Bowl in the last 10 years.
Nobody is arguing that it's not about balance. But a team devoid of a franchise quarterback is a hell of a lot less likely to make the postseason than one devoid of a franchise runningback.
Over the past decade, Brady plays behind one of the best offensive lines in the league.
Over the past decade, Brady plays behind one of the best offensive lines in the league.
And that offensive line throws his passes?
I'm a lineman. I understand the value of a good offensive line. I also understand the exasperation behind blocking perfectly for a quarterback who holds on to the ball for 10 seconds and then throws an interception.
Our line looked so much better with Hoyer than Weeden, and that's not a coincidence.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
recipe for winning the AFC North.....bring in a 240lb'ish RB who can accelerate hard on the snap, put another 250-260lb FB who can accelerate equally as hard infront of him and have them maul a defensive front for the first couple possessions. Than when the inevitable 8th man has to be brought up to stop this, you have a qb that can make them pay for this. That might actually be the recipe for the entire NFL but let's focus on the North while we sit here at the bottom of it. And lets be thankful that none of the teams in the north have, yet, a secondary like Seattle's or our "it's a passing league" FO would be even further exposed as the football frauds that they seem to be.
recipe for winning the AFC North.....
We're dealing with the Baltimore, Pitts and Cin folks.
To win this division, we need players in the trenches that can beat the crap out of them.
-
DaBuckeye. Exactly. I think people are calling Wilson and Kaepernick "franchise QBs" because their teams have been successful, but I think both of those guys struggle on a team like the Browns. This goes back to the whole ugly circle of people equating team success with QB skill and vice versa. It's what led to millions of rabid Tebow fans insisting that Tebow was a great QB.
Wilson and Kaepernick struggled with the teams they are on now. I didn't see much of anything in the NFC Championship game that made me think they are a lock for long-term franchise QBs. Of course this has only been year 2 for both of them as starting QBs.
That being said, with the current Browns team plus a Kaep/Wilson type QB (and an RB that is at least capable), everyone will be happy ecstatic if in their first two years they go to the playoffs one year and a SB appearance the other. But defense needs to seriously step up their game too.
The other option is to find a Peyton, Brady, Luck in the draft. (And here would still need a serviceable RB.)
My question for the long run: Peytons, Bradys, Lucks are long term solutions. How will teams with a Kaep or Wilson or stay relevant in comparison? Will they go to the playoffs year after year and maybe win a SB or two within a decade? Or will it be a fast and furious five year plan? I might be generous going five years even.
I might be living in the past with my preference for pocket passers. Somebody show me that drafting a Kaep, Wilson, RGIII (i.e. Manziel) is the answer, beyond a couple blazing years. It would be a fun ride for sure, but I'd rather have relevance for 10-12 years with a couple Championships in the mix.
I would argue kaepernik is the biggest reason SF stayed in the NFC game.Wilson and Kaepernick struggled with the teams they are on now. I didn't see much of anything in the NFC Championship game that made me think they are a lock for long-term franchise QBs. Of course this has only been year 2 for both of them as starting QBs.
That being said, with the current Browns team plus a Kaep/Wilson type QB (and an RB that is at least capable), everyone will be
happyecstatic if in their first two years they go to the playoffs one year and a SB appearance the other. But defense needs to seriously step up their game too.The other option is to find a Peyton, Brady, Luck in the draft. (And here would still need a serviceable RB.)
My question for the long run: Peytons, Bradys, Lucks are long term solutions. How will teams with a Kaep or Wilson or stay relevant in comparison? Will they go to the playoffs year after year and maybe win a SB or two within a decade? Or will it be a fast and furious five year plan? I might be generous going five years even.
I might be living in the past with my preference for pocket passers. Somebody show me that drafting a Kaep, Wilson, RGIII (i.e. Manziel) is the answer, beyond a couple blazing years. It would be a fun ride for sure, but I'd rather have relevance for 10-12 years with a couple Championships in the mix.
Both are solid guys, not Peyton Manning's but as of right now they are the franchise guys.
Kaep was down over last year, but not much.
Wilson had a good year.
-
That's what I'm saying TC- a mobile qb is fine, it's becoming more and more of a necessity.
When was the last time a mobile QB won a superbowl.
Even a stiff like Flacco won last year.
I say TAKE the BEST player available.
A great defensive player could anchor your defense for a decade, leaving many years of drafting to get a potential QB right.
Drew Brees. Aaron Rodgers. Ben Roethlisberger.When was the last time a mobile QB won a superbowl.
Even a stiff like Flacco won last year.
I say TAKE the BEST player available.
A great defensive player could anchor your defense for a decade, leaving many years of drafting to get a potential QB right.
All three have above average mobility. All have recorded 40 times in the 4.7's. All are also..."pocket passers".
That's why it's stupid to pigeonhole a QB based on his mobility.
What would you qualify Luck as?
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login