PDA

View Full Version : John Clayton QB Article


HoustonFrog
04-16-2007, 05:39 PM
Interesting article about how QBs aren't as ready for the pros. The one quote I found intersting, since it has been discussed before regarding Carr and teams with top defenses was this:

"But finding a quarterback ready to take over an offense is the most important decision an organization can make. To win a Super Bowl, a team must have a quarterback who can win against Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. The days of winning despite the quarterback are gone. Teams with the best quarterbacks seem to be the higher-seeded teams during the playoffs while teams with poor quarterback play tend to draft in the top 10 after 10- or 11-loss seasons."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft07/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2839055

It was always the exception to the rule in my book

Double Barrel
04-16-2007, 06:22 PM
I don't dislike Clayton, but anytime an 'expert' makes a black & white statement ("The days of winning despite the quarterback are gone."), I have to chuckle.

I remember when NFL "parity" from the salary cap and free agent era would mean an end to dynasties, and then New England wins three Super Bowls in four years.

Then we were told that the traditional pocket passer would soon be a thing of the past as the new breed of "running QBs" were going to dominate the league and make the NFL rewrite the rulebook. Then Tom Brady and Peyton Manning (among many others) prove time and time again that pocket passers are not going away anytime soon.

And now we're being told that winning championships will be next to impossible with mediocre QBs...even though the Bears made it to the big game with a less than competent Grossman. (And what about Big Ben? The team won with dominant defense and a solid running game, creating a situation where the QB just had to avoid making mistakes.)

I think these guys run out of stuff to write about so they make these bold predictions that never seem to materialize.

Vinny
04-16-2007, 06:26 PM
I think that having excellent QB play is a HUGE part of having long term success in the NFL. Teams with mediocre QB's may be able to piece together one run or a couple of runs when all the cards all right but the teams with elite QB's tend to be in the hunt year in, year out.

Double Barrel
04-16-2007, 06:29 PM
I don't disagree with you, Vinny. I just disagree that no team will ever make a run with a mediocre QB again. I think some team will always catch lightning in a bottle every once in awhile.

That being said, I want a great QB on my team that can consistently lead the team to the playoffs year after year. Clayton did hit the nail on the head with that one, but I don't think it's any great revelation that great QBs usually lead winning teams over time.

HoustonFrog
04-16-2007, 07:03 PM
I don't dislike Clayton, but anytime an 'expert' makes a black & white statement ("The days of winning despite the quarterback are gone."), I have to chuckle.

I remember when NFL "parity" from the salary cap and free agent era would mean an end to dynasties, and then New England wins three Super Bowls in four years.

Then we were told that the traditional pocket passer would soon be a thing of the past as the new breed of "running QBs" were going to dominate the league and make the NFL rewrite the rulebook. Then Tom Brady and Peyton Manning (among many others) prove time and time again that pocket passers are not going away anytime soon.

And now we're being told that winning championships will be next to impossible with mediocre QBs...even though the Bears made it to the big game with a less than competent Grossman. (And what about Big Ben? The team won with dominant defense and a solid running game, creating a situation where the QB just had to avoid making mistakes.)

I think these guys run out of stuff to write about so they make these bold predictions that never seem to materialize.

I agree with where you are coming from in part but there seemed to be a faction here for a bit that thought just loading up our defense and taking the ball out of Carr's hands was a simple way to go through the NFL landscape. Like we could just set that up because everyone was doing it. It really is the exception though when it happens.

Vinny
04-16-2007, 07:06 PM
I agree with where you are coming from in part but there seemed to be a faction here for a bit that thought just loading up our defense and taking the ball out of Carr's hands was a simple way to go through the NFL landscape. Like we could just set that up because everyone was doing it. It really is the exception though when it happens.I think we did it because we had to do it so we could give ourselves a chance to win a game. I don't think that was the way that Kubiak wants to run a team long term...as we see this offseason.

Double Barrel
04-16-2007, 07:16 PM
I agree with where you are coming from in part but there seemed to be a faction here for a bit that thought just loading up our defense and taking the ball out of Carr's hands was a simple way to go through the NFL landscape. Like we could just set that up because everyone was doing it. It really is the exception though when it happens.

At one time, when we thought we were going to keep Carr, I was trying be optimistic and said some crazy things in my delusional state-of-mind. Stuff about Trent Dilfer and a dominant defense and consistent running game come to mind, and honestly, I was just sniffing glue, that's all! :shades:

But yeah, it is lightning in a bottle. My two examples - Dilfer and Brad Johnson - were traded/let go after their Super Bowl seasons. It is definitely not the way to build long term success, IMO. I just took exception to Clayon's black & white statement, but that's about it. As a general rule, he's not too far off.

HoustonFrog
04-16-2007, 07:57 PM
I think we did it because we had to do it so we could give ourselves a chance to win a game. I don't think that was the way that Kubiak wants to run a team long term...as we see this offseason.

Definitely. I think Kubes just wanted to end the season with some consistency and a chance at Ws..a way to bridge the gap and lead into this off-season.

HoustonFrog
04-16-2007, 07:59 PM
At one time, when we thought we were going to keep Carr, I was trying be optimistic and said some crazy things in my delusional state-of-mind. Stuff about Trent Dilfer and a dominant defense and consistent running game come to mind, and honestly, I was just sniffing glue, that's all! :shades:

But yeah, it is lightning in a bottle. My two examples - Dilfer and Brad Johnson - were traded/let go after their Super Bowl seasons. It is definitely not the way to build long term success, IMO. I just took exception to Clayon's black & white statement, but that's about it. As a general rule, he's not too far off.

Who doesn't :party: