Former University of Houston QB Case Keenum agrees to a contract with the Texans

[76Texan]

Prior to the OTA's my position was that it all depended on Matt's health.

If Matt is healthy, then any veteran brought in is a camp arm and we'll end up with Matt, TJ, and Case as our QBs.

If Matt is not healthy, then the vet brought in will be looked at as a #2 behind Yates to start the season.

However, word from the OTAs is that Matt looks like he's in good shape. So, unless there's some sort of meltdown or something, I expect us to go with Matt, TJ, and Case. If Case just doesn't look like he's getting it OR if Beck steps up and kicks ass, Case might get cut and placed on the PS.

TJ would have to meltdown pretty bad to lose the #2 job, I think.

Honestly, I don't have any ill will against any player competing for a roster spot.
Let the best man win the job.
As fans, what we do is to share knowledges and observations.

If, somehow, Kubiak can help Beck become a better QB, so much as he can be a competent 3rd QB, I would be good with it.

All the same, let's see if we can (try to) decipher what Kubiak meant in this paragraph on Beck:

“He’s a great young man,” Kubiak said. “I knew that. Anytime you play for how many teams he’s played with, and he’s played with a few, he’s played with a lot of coaches, which tells you he can handle all of that. Maybe we’ll settle him down right here and hopefully he’ll be here for a few years.”

....

What I read from that paragraph: the best hope for Beck is that he can be a third string QB for a little while; but it's not even a guarantee by any stretch of imagination.

 

[Hervoyel]

Prior to the OTA's my position was that it all depended on Matt's health.

If Matt is healthy, then any veteran brought in is a camp arm and we'll end up with Matt, TJ, and Case as our QBs.

If Matt is not healthy, then the vet brought in will be looked at as a #2 behind Yates to start the season.

However, word from the OTAs is that Matt looks like he's in good shape. So, unless there's some sort of meltdown or something, I expect us to go with Matt, TJ, and Case. If Case just doesn't look like he's getting it OR if Beck steps up and kicks ass, Case might get cut and placed on the PS.

TJ would have to meltdown pretty bad to lose the #2 job, I think.

I don't think TJ would lose the #2 job even if he did give the coaches that WTF? moment I mentioned. I just think that it would do enough to make Gary think he needed another viable option with experience on the roster as opposed to a promising project (Case).

 

[ObsiWan]

I don't think TJ would lose the #2 job even if he did give the coaches that WTF? moment I mentioned. I just think that it would do enough to make Gary think he needed another viable option with experience on the roster as opposed to a promising project (Case).

I'm going with what I said earlier. Kubiak doesn't want to face the new season with only half a season's worth of NFL experience between his two backups.

I agree with 76T's interpretation of Kubiak-speak: If we can coach Beck up, he's my 3rd stringer until Case shows me he's NFL-ready. Case being "NFL-ready" to Kubiak's satisfaction is unlikely - not impossible, just unlikely - to happen this season.

 

[Thorn]

I'm going with what I said earlier. Kubiak doesn't want to face the new season with only half a season's worth of NFL experience between his two backups.

I agree with 76T's interpretation of Kubiak-speak: If we can coach Beck up, he's my 3rd stringer until Case shows me he's NFL-ready. Case being "NFL-ready" to Kubiak's satisfaction is unlikely - not impossible, just unlikely - to happen this season.

TJ, for a backup, seemed NFL ready his rookie year. Hell, he's the only QB on the roster with a playoff win under his belt. LOL

Right now Case is more "potential" than anything else, it's just I think there is so much potential there we'd be stupid to let him slip away to another team. I can't wait until the pre-season games are being played so we can get some real answers to our questions.

 

[TejasTom]

... I can't wait until the pre-season games are being played so we can get some real answers to our questions.

I think all you get in pre-season are clues not answers. In 2009 John Busing made some great plays at safety in the 4th pre-season game to make the team. He was awful thereafter.

There may be more recent examples, this is just one that I remember saying during the game, "he just made the team".

We do seem to be improved at our NFL readiness evaluation(excluding Kareem Jackson, Jacoby Jones). Apologist need not respond to this last sentance, I was one.

I too am anxious to see Case in a pre-season game.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

I think all you get in pre-season are clues not answers. In 2009 John Busing made some great plays at safety in the 4th pre-season game to make the team. He was awful thereafter.

There may be more recent examples, this is just one that I remember saying during the game, "he just made the team".

We do seem to be improved at our NFL readiness evaluation(excluding Kareem Jackson, Jacoby Jones). Apologist need not respond to this last sentance, I was one.

I too am anxious to see Case in a pre-season game.

I agree with you in example (Busing). However, you usually get a much greater sample of play when you are trying to evaluate a QB than most other positions. Nothing is a sure deal, but after the completion of a TC stint, there is more material to make a weighted and "educated" decision in choice of QBs vs. many other positions. Of course, only in-season performance truly validates the impressions.

 

[76Texan]

Interview with Jerry Rhome (you can skip the interview with Keenum - it's pretty lengthy - and come back to it whenever you have some time).

Rhome mentioned guys, including Steve Largent (5'10) and Dave Krieg (6'1).
I doubt that these guys were that "tall".

Toward the end, Rhome shared his though; that Keenum will make the team, and that "if" Keenum has to come in due to the injury to the starters, he'll do well.

http://old.houstontexans.com/news/PodcastCentral2.asp?AUTO=Y&EID=2181

 

[thunderkyss]

I'm all for Case Keenum making the team & I hope in a few years, he can be a true franchise QB..... heck, I'd like it if that were the case today.

But we've got enough to worry about with the two guys ahead of him on the depth chart.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

No stranger to skeptics, Keenum making most of chance

Posted Jun 25, 2012

By Nick Scurfield


Case Keenum has heard it all before.

He’s not tall enough. His arm isn’t strong enough. He’s a system quarterback.

Keenum had a record-setting career at the University of Houston, but he went undrafted in April before signing with the Texans as a rookie free agent. One of the biggest knocks on him was his height, measured at 6-0 and 5/8 inches at the NFL Scouting Combine. Critics roundly questioned if he was tall enough to succeed in the NFL.

“I’d like to see some statistic where they talk about guys who are less tall,” Keenum said last week at Reliant Stadium. “Obviously, most other quarterbacks are taller rather than shorter, but there’s got to be more than being 6-4 to be quarterback. I know there is. That’s something I’ve had to deal with a lot, especially in the last couple months, but when it comes down to being on the field, I haven’t heard it at all from any of my coaches or anything. It’s about playing to your strengths, and everybody’s got different strengths. I think I’ve got great footwork and can move around in the pocket and find throwing lanes and move around and find my vision and be able to find receivers and get the ball in their hands.

“If you’re moving the ball down the field as a quarterback and breaking records like Drew Brees, nobody says anything about how tall you are, if you’re six-foot or not. If something’s going wrong, then they’re going to look for something. ‘What’s causing this? Oh, well he’s short, so that’s why he can’t do it.’ Or, ‘His arm strength’s not good enough.’ If the ball’s where it needs to be and the offense is moving down the field, I think it doesn’t matter if you’re 5-2 or 6-2.”

Keenum’s height didn’t seem to matter in college. He left Houston as the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) career record-holder in passing yards (19.217) and passing touchdowns (155). He ranked seventh in FBS history in completion percentage (69.4) and eighth in passer efficiency rating (160.6). He finished in the top-10 in Heisman Trophy voting twice and had a 37-14 record as a starter.

And yet, Keenum’s name wasn’t one of the 253 called during the seven rounds of the 2012 NFL Draft.

“That wasn’t a fun day,” he said. “That night was a lot better when I knew where I was going and everything like that. The entire draft process, everything leading up to it, was not a blast, either. I tried to look at it in that there’s not many people that even get this chance, and that’s all I needed was a chance somewhere. I’m truly blessed that it just came down the street from where I live, and I’m blessed that one of the best organizations in the NFL is down the street from where I live.

“When it comes down to it, hopefully, one of these days, it won’t really matter how I got here. I’m here. I’m going to attack each day like it’s my last, and I’ve tried to get as much out of each day and put in as much into each day as I possibly can. I have so far. I’m going to do that the entire time I’m here. Hopefully, it’s longer than shorter.”

The draft experience mimicked Keenum’s college recruitment – or lack thereof. He was a second-team all-state selection at Wylie High School in Abilene, Texas, where he passed for 6,783 career yards and 48 touchdowns, ran for 2,000 yards and had a career record of 31-11. Only one school, Houston, offered him a scholarship.

Six years later, Keenum left the Cougars as the leading passer in NCAA history. He had proven the skeptics wrong.

He’s looking to do the same thing in Houston yet again – this time for its NFL team.

“I tell any high school football player I talk to that it’s not about how many stars you have on Rivals or Scout.com or if you’re invited to the Elite 11 quarterback deal, because I wasn’t,” Keenum said. “I wasn’t one of those guys. There’s a lot of coaches out there that didn’t offer me a scholarship, and I’d be willing to bet that of the 119 Division I teams out there, I bet 118 are maybe thinking twice about that now. That’s the way I see it, and I think that high school kids should see that, too. All that stuff is good to some extent…but it’s not the only way to get into college and to get on even a Division I football program and to go be successful.

“All you need is a chance, whether that’s walking on somewhere or going wherever. Just make the most of that chance, and that’s what I’m going to do here.”

 

[GP]

The draft experience mimicked Keenum’s college recruitment – or lack thereof. He was a second-team all-state selection at Wylie High School in Abilene, Texas, where he passed for 6,783 career yards and 48 touchdowns, ran for 2,000 yards and had a career record of 31-11. Only one school, Houston, offered him a scholarship.

Six years later, Keenum left the Cougars as the leading passer in NCAA history. He had proven the skeptics wrong.

He’s looking to do the same thing in Houston yet again – this time for its NFL team.

“I tell any high school football player I talk to that it’s not about how many stars you have on Rivals or Scout.com or if you’re invited to the Elite 11 quarterback deal, because I wasn’t,” Keenum said. “I wasn’t one of those guys. There’s a lot of coaches out there that didn’t offer me a scholarship, and I’d be willing to bet that of the 119 Division I teams out there, I bet 118 are maybe thinking twice about that now. That’s the way I see it, and I think that high school kids should see that, too. All that stuff is good to some extent…but it’s not the only way to get into college and to get on even a Division I football program and to go be successful.

“All you need is a chance, whether that’s walking on somewhere or going wherever. Just make the most of that chance, and that’s what I’m going to do here.”

To me, the great QBs are the guys who play with a chip on their shoulder. They defy the odds. They overcome. All of this is what makes the teammates around such a QB strive to go harder, faster, longer in their own NFL lives.

Nobody saw Tom Brady coming. He played with a chip on his shoulder:

FOXBORO (CBS) – New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, speaking from Gillette Stadium on Friday, remembers back to when he first met Tom Brady.

The 22-year-old Brady was just as confident as the 34-year-old version that takes the field every Sunday for the Patriots.

“I still have the image of Tom Brady coming down the old Foxboro stadium steps with that pizza box under his arm, a skinny beanpole, and when he introduced himself to me and said ‘Hi Mr. Kraft,’ he was about to say who he was, but I said ‘I know who you are, you’re Tom Brady. You’re our sixth round draft choice,’” recalled Kraft. “And he looked me in the eye and said ‘I’m the best decision this organization has ever made.’ It looks like he could be right.”

Link to story here.

When I read Case Keenum's quotes, he sounds like a guy who knows he can deliver and all he wants is a chance to show it.

 

[thunderkyss]

No stranger to skeptics, Keenum making most of chance

What a maroon.

Case, not you doc.

He should hold a slumber party at his house & call it "practice" that way everyone would know he's a leader & a real NFL QB.

 

[thunderkyss]

Nobody saw Tom Brady coming. He played with a chip on his shoulder...

No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

 

[GP]

No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

Oh, I was just thinking that somehow he took the reins of the Patriots and won the Super Bowl fairly quickly...when the guy before him, Bledsoe, failed to do so. My bad.

6th round QBs who win multiple SBs, let alone a single SB, are special. If anybody could have seen the talent...he would have been #1 overall.

Case Keenum has the chance to fly as low under the radar as Tom Brady. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up the Texans' starter and having a pretty decent career at it.

 

[Texan_Bill]

No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

Are you freaking kidding me? I hope you're being facetious.

Forget about 2000 (he was a back-up to Bledsoe), but from 2001 to 2005:

Pro-Bowl - 3 times
TD's/Int's - 123/66
Completion % - 62%
QBRating - 88.6%

I dunno know man, but maybe you could re-evalute your standards, because those numbers are pretty freakin' solid in my book. Yes, they had a good defense and yes they had a pretty good kicker but to suggest that Brady wasn't very good is pretty ludicrous, TK.

And this is coming from someone that despises that douche.

 

[drs23]

What a maroon.

Case, not you doc.

He should hold a slumber party at his house & call it "practice" that way everyone would know he's a leader & a real NFL QB.

Is that this color, or is this one closer to what you have in mind?

Help me out here TK.

 

[ObsiWan]

What a maroon.

Case, not you doc.

He should hold a slumber party at his house & call it "practice" that way everyone would know he's a leader & a real NFL QB.

Is that this color, or is this one closer to what you have in mind?

Help me out here TK.

it's ain't about color
(hmm... could you be that young?!)

It's a Bugs Bunny thing... from the olden dayz
(pre-P.C.) cartoons

Maybe TK should have used a Dilbert reference...

 

[Texan_Bill]

it's ain't about color
(hmm... could you be that young?!)

It's a Bugs Bunny thing... from the olden dayz
(pre-P.C.) cartoons

Maybe TK should have used a Dilbert reference...

Really?? The "Olden Days"??

Hey ****ers, it's you people that brought us into the world of young hipsters AND us into you're terrible "times"...

Wait, WHAT??? Scooby Doo rocked!!! Yosemite Sam? Bugs??? Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

 

[Grams]

No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And his 4th - 2003.
That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

 

[GP]

No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

I think you stepped out there and didn't know the history of Tom Brady as well as you thought you did.

Your entire premise is way off.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Draft ANALYSIS

Positives... Touch passer with the ability to read and diagnose defensive coverages...Confident leader who knows how to take command in the huddle...Very tough and mobile moving around in the pocket...Has a quick setup and is very effective throwing on the move...Throws across his body with great consistency...Hits receivers in stride and improvises his throws in order to make a completion...Puts good zip behind the short and mid-range passes...Shows good judgement and keen field vision...Has a take-charge attitude and is very cool under pressure...Hits receivers in motion with impressive velocity...Has superb pocket presence and uses all of his offensive weapons in order to move the chains...Has solid body mechanics and quickness moving away from center... Elusive scrambler with the body control to avoid the rush.link











Oh, did I fail to mention that this was a 2001 Brees draft profile?

 

[thunderkyss]

I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And his 4th - 2003.
That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

Team game. The name on the back, not the front...... to quote a wise old sage.

 

[thunderkyss]

I think you stepped out there and didn't know the history of Tom Brady as well as you thought you did.

Your entire premise is way off.

I hold by my original statement. Couldn't care less about popular opinion. His first 4 or 5 years, he didn't belong in the conversation with Peyton, regardless how many rings Peyton didn't have.

Dan Marino, Dan Fouts..... Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, great QBs, no rings.

Troy Dilfer, Brad Johnson... suck with rings.

It's not my premise that is off.

 

[badboy]

No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

So if you have basic skills, desire, a good coach and right system, you could succeed in NFL.

 

[thunderkyss]

So if you have basic skills, desire, a good coach and right system, you could succeed in NFL.

yes

 

[JB]

Really?? The "Olden Days"??

Hey ****ers, it's you people that brought us into the world of young hipsters AND us into you're terrible "times"...

Wait, WHAT??? Scooby Doo rocked!!! Yosemite Sam? Bugs??? Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

Old ****

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I hold by my original statement. Couldn't care less about popular opinion. His first 4 or 5 years, he didn't belong in the conversation with Peyton, regardless how many rings Peyton didn't have.

Dan Marino, Dan Fouts..... Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, great QBs, no rings.

Troy Dilfer, Brad Johnson... suck with rings.

It's not my premise that is off.

But aren't you the one who categorized QBs by whether they were SB caliber or not?

 

[thunderkyss]

But aren't you the one who categorized QBs by whether they were SB caliber or not?

I don't think Dilfer or Brad Johnson are SB caliber. I don't think either of them could lead their team to a SuperBowl. Riding on the coat-tails of one of the greatest defenses of all times is not leading your team to a super bowl.

Ben Rothlisberger was not a great QB when he won his first Super Bowl was he? He's a much better QB now, than he was then. Same holds true for Brady.

 

[GP]

I don't think Dilfer or Brad Johnson are SB caliber. I don't think either of them could lead their team to a SuperBowl. Riding on the coat-tails of one of the greatest defenses of all times is not leading your team to a super bowl.

Ben Rothlisberger was not a great QB when he won his first Super Bowl was he? He's a much better QB now, than he was then. Same holds true for Brady.

Ben was better than people expected him to be. He won a SB, not many NFL sophomores win a SB. I don't care what they have around them, they're still between a rock and a hard place when it comes to being a starting QB in the NFL (let alone WINNING a SB!).

What in da hell else can make a QB be recognized as being "great?"

Your standards are so quirky. You're the only guy on this board who thought Steve Slaton was running BETTER his last year here than his first season here. I really don't grasp your analytical skills when it comes to grading players.

 

[thunderkyss]

Ben was better than people expected him to be. He won a SB, not many NFL sophomores win a SB. I don't care what they have around them, they're still between a rock and a hard place when it comes to being a starting QB in the NFL (let alone WINNING a SB!).

Do you think Ben was better, worse, or the same in 2011 as he was the year he won the Super Bowl?

Are you saying as a sophomore, Ben was a better NFL QB because he won a Super Bowl, than he was in 2011, when his team missed the play-offs?

 

[ckhouston]

Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Boesch

Paul Boesch was awesome. The first airing from the Sam Houston Coliseum would be late Friday night, around 11pm if I remember, but I would always stay up to watch. They would then re-air it the next morning on Saturday.

Wahoo McDaniel, Ivan Putsky, Gorgeous Gino Hernandez, Von Erich Brothers, etc. Good times.

 

[drs23]

it's ain't about color
(hmm... could you be that young?!)

It's a Bugs Bunny thing... from the olden dayz
(pre-P.C.) cartoons

Maybe TK should have used a Dilbert reference...

Dang, and I used to watch BB/RR hour in black-n-white with rabbit ears. Maybe I couldn't read yet.

 

[GP]

Do you think Ben was better, worse, or the same in 2011 as he was the year he won the Super Bowl?

Are you saying as a sophomore, Ben was a better NFL QB because he won a Super Bowl, than he was in 2011, when his team missed the play-offs?

Clearly he was better in 2005.

You are always trying to flip conventional wisdom on its head. You think Steve Slaton ran better in his last year than he did in his best season ever (rookie year). You think Brady wasn't a great QB his first 5 years. And you think Ben was better last year than he was in his Super Bowl year in 2005.

Do you not see a pattern with your analysis???

Even Ben admitted recently that he feels he wasn't that great in 2011. He says he's going to try and get back what he HAD BEEN prior to 2011.

You're getting Kubiak Cute with player analysis.

 

[thunderkyss]

Clearly he was better in 2005.

You are always trying to flip conventional wisdom on its head. You think Steve Slaton ran better in his last year than he did in his best season ever (rookie year). You think Brady wasn't a great QB his first 5 years. And you think Ben was better last year than he was in his Super Bowl year in 2005.

Do you not see a pattern with your analysis???

Even Ben admitted recently that he feels he wasn't that great in 2011. He says he's going to try and get back what he HAD BEEN prior to 2011.

You're getting Kubiak Cute with player analysis.

Is this correct? Is this the way the rest of you think? Am I alone on this one?

Ben was better in 2005 because he won a Super Bowl than he was in 2011 because he didn't make the play-offs...

Is that conventional wisdom?

 

[infantrycak]

Is this correct? Is this the way the rest of you think? Am I alone on this one?

Ben was better in 2005 because he won a Super Bowl than he was in 2011 because he didn't make the play-offs...

Is that conventional wisdom?

OK on the one hand I don't disagree with all your contrarian positions. OTOH yes Ben was better in 2005 because he was more efficient in almost every regard. It isn't that he won the SB - that is a team achievement. It is that he was efficient within what the team wanted to do. He has adopted a bit of a gunslinger mentality and is making mistakes.

 

[TheEastwood]

I dont know why you keep on saying that he didn't make the playoffs in 2011... if you mean last year, then they made it and got bounced out by the broncos. If you mean the year before that.... the Steelers made it to the freakin Superbowl lol.

And imo, of course Big Ben is better know than he was back then. A great defense and some sketchy calls won him that first ring. Football is a TEAM game. For the first couple of years, Brady has good. not great, good. He was a solid game manager that relied on the defense and running game to win. His specialty was that he was always so clutch at the end of the game. And even then, without adam venateri, nobodies talking about how clutch Tom Brady is imo. Dont you remember people talking about Peyton vs Brady? Peyton has the stats but Brady has the rings? That's cause his first few years in the nfl, Tom Brady wasnt the TB of today. He has completely elevated his game to something special and is now, today, one of the best ive ever seen.

 

[thunderkyss]

OK on the one hand I don't disagree with all your contrarian positions. OTOH yes Ben was better in 2005 because he was more efficient in almost every regard. It isn't that he won the SB - that is a team achievement. It is that he was efficient within what the team wanted to do. He has adopted a bit of a gunslinger mentality and is making mistakes.

So Ben has regressed is what you're saying?

I believe we've had discussions about Brady/Manning on this board (or the old one) around that time. My opinion (as contrarian as it may seem) was the same then as it is now. Brady didn't belong in the conversation at that time.

I think he's a much better QB now than he was then, even though he didn't win an MVP last year.

 

[thunderkyss]

I dont know why you keep on saying that he didn't make the playoffs in 2011... if you mean last year, then they made it and got bounced out by the broncos.

You're right.. thank you for correcting me & not being smug about it.

If you mean the year before that.... the Steelers made it to the freakin Superbowl lol.

Belay my last.

And imo, of course Big Ben is better know than he was back then. A great defense and some sketchy calls won him that first ring. Football is a TEAM game.

So you agree with me.

For the first couple of years, Brady has good. not great, good. He was a solid game manager that relied on the defense and running game to win. His specialty was that he was always so clutch at the end of the game.

And even then, without adam venateri, nobodies talking about how clutch Tom Brady is imo. Dont you remember people talking about Peyton vs Brady? Peyton has the stats but Brady has the rings? That's cause his first few years in the nfl, Tom Brady wasnt the TB of today.

He has completely elevated his game to something special and is now, today, one of the best ive ever seen.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Thanks again. I'm not alone.

 

[infantrycak]

So Ben has regressed is what you're saying?

Wouldn't say regressed so much as has taken too much on himself and has become a less efficient QB. The Steelers were about team. Now Ben thinks they are about him.

 

[GP]

You're right.. thank you for correcting me & not being smug about it.

Belay my last.

So you agree with me.


Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Thanks again. I'm not alone.

Well, "not being alone" is not exactly having a crowded room of supporters either. If the bar you're setting is that low, then congrats.

The issue is that Ben, whether it be from injuries or declining team around him (injured o-line, inconsistent RB situations, etc.), is not the same guy he was in 2005. He was good in 2004, too. He's been decently consistent, IMO. But to say he's better now than he was early on...it's a reach.

Tom Brady. Look, the Pats found a way to win with Brady at QB early on. Since then, they've been adding weaponry to the arsenal. As weapons have been added, YES there has been an increase in his productivity. But I still think he was fundamentally the same QB early on that he is now. Growth? Yes. But it's not like he was mediocre those first four or five years. To me, with what you typed, you're saying Tom Brady wasn't even in the running as being a "great QB" his first four or five years. That bit of text was hyperbole, surely. Right?

You need to quote the other two people, such as the quote Grams made, and not just the lone supporter of your thoughts on this topic. I'll re-post it, and let's discuss to what degree Tom Brady is massively better now than he was his first four or five years.

Grams said:

I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And in his 4th season in 2003. That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

And Texan Bill said:

Are you freaking kidding me? I hope you're being facetious.

Forget about 2000 (he was a back-up to Bledsoe), but from 2001 to 2005:

Pro-Bowl - 3 times
TD's/Int's - 123/66
Completion % - 62%
QBRating - 88.6%

I dunno know man, but maybe you could re-evalute your standards, because those numbers are pretty freakin' solid in my book. Yes, they had a good defense and yes they had a pretty good kicker but to suggest that Brady wasn't very good is pretty ludicrous, TK.

And this is coming from someone that despises that douche.

Now, SBs can be held in a vacuum...but when the guy has multiple SBs and a trio of Pro Bowl starts in four years' time, he's doing something right. Consistently. Eli Manning outplayed Tom Brady in this previous SB....so is the window on Brady as a "great QB" closing? No. He just got outplayed in the singularly most important game of his season, that's all. So when he DOES play well in 2001 and 2004 and gets a ring both those years, he was doing things really well back then as well. To say he's better now than he was in 2001 and 2003, it doesn't seem to hold water.

 

[TheEastwood]

GP, if Brady plays those games the exact same way and Venetari misses those kicks, he doesnt have 3 rings. Is he still the best?

That's what I mean by football being a team game. When you look at a qb, you cant just look at rings. If that's how your judging qbs then Dilfer > Marino. Ugh, I feel dirty for even typing that.

 

[GP]

GP, if Brady plays those games the exact same way and Venetari misses those kicks, he doesnt have 3 rings. Is he still the best?

That's what I mean by football being a team game. When you look at a qb, you cant just look at rings. If that's how your judging qbs then Dilfer > Marino. Ugh, I feel dirty for even typing that.

The kicker doesn't get to make those kicks if the QB hadn't performed all reg season, all playoffs, and in the SB game itself to even get the kicker to that point in the first place. Team game? Yes. But that's a problematic viewpoint to take in this discussion.

How about this:

I am the commissioner and I just decided that extra points are no longer a part of the game. In fact, I'm removing the kicker completely. Now you don't even have field goals, and instead you've got to score TDs to score points and the only way to break ties is by virtue of 2-point conversions............

So in those same scenarios, Tom Brady is going to end up playing the deciding role in the outcome of those games. If we remove the kicker(s) from the equations, to have an apples-to-apples comparison between QBs, Tom Brady wins that battle 9 times out of 10 vs. opposing defenses and opposing QBs. He's THAT consistently "great." Does Trent Dilfer stack up when we examine it in this way? No. Therefore SB outcomes can play a role if we consider those SB wins within a proper context of the full body of work.

Ben is consistently GOOD. Tom is consistently great and has been for more than just the past several years.

 

[thunderkyss]

Well, "not being alone" is not exactly having a crowded room of supporters either. If the bar you're setting is that low, then congrats.

I'm just glad someone other than me remembered the Brady/Manning arguments back then... maybe I'm not crazy. There was a reason we had that argument. One guy looked like the best QB of all time & the other looked like a lucky sumbix

The issue is that Ben, whether it be from injuries or declining team around him (injured o-line, inconsistent RB situations, etc.), is not the same guy he was in 2005. He was good in 2004, too. He's been decently consistent, IMO. But to say he's better now than he was early on...it's a reach.

Tom Brady. Look, the Pats found a way to win with Brady at QB early on. Since then, they've been adding weaponry to the arsenal. As weapons have been added, YES there has been an increase in his productivity. But I still think he was fundamentally the same QB early on that he is now. Growth? Yes. But it's not like he was mediocre those first four or five years. To me, with what you typed, you're saying Tom Brady wasn't even in the running as being a "great QB" his first four or five years. That bit of text was hyperbole, surely. Right?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Look, Ben & Tom were lucky to get on good teams. They didn't have to do much & their coaches didn't ask them to do much. They've both got much better since. I don't really see how anyone could argue.

So when he DOES play well in 2001 and 2004 and gets a ring both those years, he was doing things really well back then as well. To say he's better now than he was in 2001 and 2003, it doesn't seem to hold water.

What? Take Venitari off those teams in 2001 & 2004, what are the odds they even get to the Super Bowl? Get us a referee in 2001 who knows a fumble when he sees one... & we're not having this conversation.

By your logic..... if we can call it that, Dilfer is a better QB than Moon & Marino.

Winning a Super Bowl in 2001 does not make Tom Brady a better QB than he was in 2011. It's a team game. Put Brady on a team with a defense half as good as the one he played with in 2001 & it's not even close they'd have beat anyone.

Aaron Rodgers. Better QB his Super Bowl year, or did he just have a better defense?

SuperBowls are about the name on the front of the Jersey, fans with nothing better to do make it about the name on the back.

 

[TheEastwood]

You wont find me argueing that Brady is not great now. He is. Absolutely. One of the best of all time. But back in his early career, he was more of a game manager that relied on short quick passes, running game, and defense. One of the biggest indicators of a QB, to me, is the avg YPA. A higher number shows that they're pressing the ball downfield and seeing the whole field.

For his first 4 years, Tom Brady didn't even break 7 YPA. To me, this shows that he relied on the safe short throw to his rb or te (which he did early on) and if they didnt get the first down, trusted their defense to hold the other team.

Yes, Tom Brady is clutch but he cant do it by himself. He was able to win games this year with no defense, but do you really believe that he would have been able to do the same in 2001? That defense helped him out tremendously.

 

[TheEastwood]

And if you want to take kickers out of the equation, then Matt Schaub is one of the most clutch players ever, right? It's crazy how many times he led the team back, only to have the kickers shank it or the defense lay it down in the final minute.
But you cant just dismiss an entire third of the game imo. Kickers are an important part of the game. If you don't have a good kicker, that's a huge detriment to your team.

Viniteri made two kicks in the last seconds of two superbowls to win the game for them. If he misses those, does Brady have the reputation for being clutch that he does now?
Hell, in the AFC championship, Flacco hit a reciever in the hands in the endzone and had the pass dropped. That would have won the game. Then cundiff shanked his kick shortly after. That changed what would have been an amazingly clutch win by Flacco to just another loss. If the team round them doesn't play up to par, no QB can win. Football is still a TEAM game

 

[GP]

By your logic..... if we can call it that, Dilfer is a better QB than Moon & Marino.

Winning a Super Bowl in 2001 does not make Tom Brady a better QB than he was in 2011. It's a team game. Put Brady on a team with a defense half as good as the one he played with in 2001 & it's not even close they'd have beat anyone.

Aaron Rodgers. Better QB his Super Bowl year, or did he just have a better defense?

SuperBowls are about the name on the front of the Jersey, fans with nothing better to do make it about the name on the back.

By MY Logic Trent Dilfer is better than Moon and Marino??? No, I never said a single SB win outweighs other factors. In fact, if you would have represented what I said a little more honestly/thoughtfully...you would see (as others did) that I said a SB win, or multiple SB wins, has to be held in context to the larger body of a QB's work. In this case, we can say that Tom Brady is consistently great no matter if his kicker "won" the game or if he failed to get the win vs. the Giants, etc. His larger body of work when coupled with his SB appearances and wins, and the close losses as well, show that he's better than Dilfer by a mile. Marino and Moon, by virtue of their body of work, both are better than Dilfer.

But you're obfuscating, as you always do, and trying to rabbit trail the topic away from the main point and take it into alleys and backroads it doesn't need to go to. If you can't even re-post, correctly, what I said (which is well covered) then I won't follow you down the rabbit hole any further. This cat chooses to turn around and head back to the city limits.

 

[GP]

And if you want to take kickers out of the equation, then Matt Schaub is one of the most clutch players ever, right? It's crazy how many times he led the team back, only to have the kickers shank it or the defense lay it down in the final minute.
But you cant just dismiss an entire third of the game imo. Kickers are an important part of the game. If you don't have a good kicker, that's a huge detriment to your team.

Viniteri made two kicks in the last seconds of two superbowls to win the game for them. If he misses those, does Brady have the reputation for being clutch that he does now?
Hell, in the AFC championship, Flacco hit a reciever in the hands in the endzone and had the pass dropped. That would have won the game. Then cundiff shanked his kick shortly after. That changed what would have been an amazingly clutch win by Flacco to just another loss. If the team round them doesn't play up to par, no QB can win. Football is still a TEAM game

You're still not addressing the CORE issue. We have a thousand BUTs and WHAT IFs that we can ramrod into a discussion.

All things considered, removing other variables that cannot be held against a QB's ability and his overall stats and impact upon a team's performance...do you rank Matt Schaub into the same zone as Tom Brady? You surely wouldn't.

Because Neil Rackers won the 2010 game vs. Redskins, not Matt Schaub. Schaub and AJ hooked up for a desperation TD that sent it to overtime. Rackers nailed the game-winning FG in OT. But that doesn't mean Schaub didn't have a hand in it, in fact he had a HUGE hand in it. Likewise, in the 2010 loss to the Ravens on a Monday Night game...Schaub threw a pick-six and the Ravens won the game on it...by this measure, Schaub failed in epic fashion because he never even gave Rackers a chance to win the game. So it goes a lot of ways, but ultimately at the end of the day WHICH QB is better if we remove all extraneous factors (such as a kicker saving the day or shanking a kick).

There's an element of Homer in us that wants to believe Matt Schaub is near, or at, that same level and he juuuuuust hasn't had the breaks that other guys have had, I call B.S. on that. He is who he is, and he won't be ranked or considered any higher until he takes the team on his back consistently and pushes us all the way to the top. Team game? Yes. But that doesn't discount the idea that a proven, "great" QB is worth a bushel full of RBs and defenses.

 

[thunderkyss]

And if you want to take kickers out of the equation, then Matt Schaub is one of the most clutch players ever, right? It's crazy how many times he led the team back, only to have the kickers shank it or the defense lay it down in the final minute.

I'll admit, when discussing Matt Schaub I don't factor this in as much as I should.

You're right & this is a very good point.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

To me, winning a Super Bowl should be totally divorced from the conversation when discussing whether a QB is good or not. There are simply too many other factors involved in winning a SB and that makes it so that a bad QB can win a SB and a great QB might never make it to the game.

But how the QB performs in big games should be considered. How the QB performs in pressure situations should be considered. But whether the team ultimately wins or loses, shouldn't. If a kicker misses a FG or a defense gives up a last second TD or if a WR drops a pass that hits him in the hands, that's not the QBs fault and shouldn't be a negative assigned to him.

Because of that, I'll never use the "SB Caliber" label when talking about someone. I believe that any mediocre QB can win a SB given the right team and the right set of circumstances. And the term "SB Caliber" should be defined to mean "able to win a SB." If you win a SB, then you are obviously "able" to win a SB.

I don't think Bob Griese was a great QB. I don't think Terry Bradshaw was a great QB. I don't think Trent Dilfer was a great QB. I don't think Brad Johnson was a great QB. I think you have to look at how the QB performs his function: reading the defenses, making the throws, play-faking, running his offense. If a guy puts up good numbers against weak defenses and then disappears against tough ones or when the game is on the line, then he's not a great QB.

 

[drs23]

To me, winning a Super Bowl should be totally divorced from the conversation when discussing whether a QB is good or not. There are simply too many other factors involved in winning a SB and that makes it so that a bad QB can win a SB and a great QB might never make it to the game.

But how the QB performs in big games should be considered. How the QB performs in pressure situations should be considered. But whether the team ultimately wins or loses, shouldn't. If a kicker misses a FG or a defense gives up a last second TD or if a WR drops a pass that hits him in the hands, that's not the QBs fault and shouldn't be a negative assigned to him.

Because of that, I'll never use the "SB Caliber" label when talking about someone. I believe that any mediocre QB can win a SB given the right team and the right set of circumstances. And the term "SB Caliber" should be defined to mean "able to win a SB." If you win a SB, then you are obviously "able" to win a SB.

I don't think Bob Griese was a great QB. I don't think Terry Bradshaw was a great QB. I don't think Trent Dilfer was a great QB. I don't think Brad Johnson was a great QB. I think you have to look at how the QB performs his function: reading the defenses, making the throws, play-faking, running his offense. If a guy puts up good numbers against weak defenses and then disappears against tough ones or when the game is on the line, then he's not a great QB.

I'm in complete agreement with all but the bolded. I think Bradshaw is one of the best to be behind center. I couldn't have admitted that 30 years ago when he was constantly throttling the Oilers but I've gotten over it now. In retrospect I appreciate his "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach to the game. One of the original "gunslingers" I think.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I'm in complete agreement with all but the bolded. I think Bradshaw is one of the best to be behind center. I couldn't have admitted that 30 years ago when he was constantly throttling the Oilers but I've gotten over it now. In retrospect I appreciate his "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach to the game. One of the original "gunslingers" I think.

For me, the Steelers teams were so dominating from a defensive and running standpoint that they were able to overcome and make up for Bradshaw's deficiencies.

Like you said, he was a gunslinger. I don't like that type of QB. I find it a selfish and self-destructive style. I don't particularly like Favre as a QB, either, but I have to admit he's put up some gaudy numbers. If I were putting a team together, I wouldn't want a Bradshaw, a Favre, or a Roethlisburger. I just don't like the approach.