Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

So .... Who's your QB in 2014 ?! - [edit] Mallett?

TexansSeminole said:
Totally disagree. I think people figured Keenum out, that his success was mostly through deep passes and when he was able to scramble. When teams started to come after him, he folded. It's not difficult to stop a quarterback when they can't handle the blitz and the offensive line isn't exactly stellar.
Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of both. Yes he struggled picking up the blitz, but i will give it to him based on his lack of experience. It was a tough situation to go from running the scout team to taking real, meaningful NFL snaps on a team that was so far gone. I do also agree that Kubiak lacked the ability to adjust his system to his players. That is what makes a great coach.

The real sniff test will come this season as we see how far Keenum has come from last season and what he's picked up from his playing time. If he jumps as much as he did from year 1 to year 2 we will be in good shape and i am optimistic about his future as our QB. If comes out and is still making the same mistakes then we have a problem.

Either way, I am very excited that OB is running the show now. I think Both Keenum and Yates will grow as QBs under him. We might not be as in bad of shape that we all think we are.
 
I dont expect Keenum to make the final roster cut. He's back up quality on his best of days. I look for O'Brien to sever any cat calling from the stands/media and end that experiment.
 
Not much about Mallett lately but I doubt very much that O'Brien has forgot about him as one of the possible options for the Texans as their long-term plan at QB.
 
BullNation4Life said:
until he finds out he can't "audible" at the line of scrimmage...


If I am not mistaken, Flacco was one of a few QBs in the NFL that call his own plays at the line, wonder how THAT is gonna go over with Kubiak...
Click to expand...

Yeah , because the audibles were built into each play. We've been thru this a dozen times or more.

Each play had many adjustments , even from pass to run and run to pass, you didn't change the entire play , you just made the proper adjustment based upon what the defense showed you.

QB cant audible is a complete and total myth .... started by Kubiak himself because he fell on the sword for his quarterback when he made poor decisions.


How many times does this have to be explained before people get it ?!
 
Corrosion said:
Yeah , because the audibles were built into each play. We've been thru this a dozen times or more.

Each play had many adjustments , even from pass to run and run to pass, you didn't change the entire play , you just made the proper adjustment based upon what the defense showed you.

QB cant audible is a complete and total myth .... started by Kubiak himself because he fell on the sword for his quarterback when he made poor decisions.


How many times does this have to be explained before people get it ?!
Click to expand...

Give or take a couple, I'm going to say........ infinity plus one. :D
 
Corrosion said:
Yeah , because the audibles were built into each play. We've been thru this a dozen times or more.

Each play had many adjustments , even from pass to run and run to pass, you didn't change the entire play , you just made the proper adjustment based upon what the defense showed you.

QB cant audible is a complete and total myth .... started by Kubiak himself because he fell on the sword for his quarterback when he made poor decisions.


How many times does this have to be explained before people get it ?!
Click to expand...

I get it, which is why I put "audible" into quotes, I understand how Kubiak did it, however Flacco is has been calling his own plays for a few years now and changes plays on the fly all the time. Not going into the play with only this option and that option...

When you have 2 controlling egos, can't say that is gonna mesh well...
 
BullNation4Life said:
I get it, which is why I put "audible" into quotes, I understand how Kubiak did it, however Flacco is has been calling his own plays for a few years now and changes plays on the fly all the time. Not going into the play with only this option and that option...

When you have 2 controlling egos, can't say that is gonna mesh well...
Click to expand...

Well, outside of the play offs, Flacco has sucked calling his own plays. If he wants to get to the play offs again, without Ray Lewis leading his defense, he'd do well to listen to Kubiak & start leading his team to victory.
 
BullNation4Life said:
I get it, which is why I put "audible" into quotes, I understand how Kubiak did it, however Flacco is has been calling his own plays for a few years now and changes plays on the fly all the time. Not going into the play with only this option and that option...

When you have 2 controlling egos, can't say that is gonna mesh well...
Click to expand...

This is inconsistent with a whole lot of reporting on their changes in OC over the last few years. Can you point to an article on Flacco's total control?
 
infantrycak said:
This is inconsistent with a whole lot of reporting on their changes in OC over the last few years. Can you point to an article on Flacco's total control?
Click to expand...

I'll do some digging. It was an article a year or so back about QBs in the NFL that call their own plays at the line. It had Rodgers, Rothlisberger, Manning, Brady and Flacco.

It basically said that these QBs would call their own plays at the line and the OC would make suggestions in their headset to what play would be more successful, run or pass and such but that these QBs controlled the tempo and plays on the field...

I remember being a little shocked that Flacco was among that group
 
BullNation4Life said:
I'll do some digging. It was an article a year or so back about QBs in the NFL that call their own plays at the line. It had Rodgers, Rothlisberger, Manning, Brady and Flacco.

It basically said that these QBs would call their own plays at the line and the OC would make suggestions in their headset to what play would be more successful, run or pass and such but that these QBs controlled the tempo and plays on the field...

I remember being a little shocked that Flacco was among that group
Click to expand...

Well a big story in their 2012 SB season was changing OCs mid season - Jim Caldwell and Cam Cameron. There was lots of talk about the changes in playcalling.
 
Nitrofish said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Let's see... a guy that some people think is already one of the 32 best QBs in the league vs. two guys that are rookies who may never develop into one of the best 32 guys in the league. A guy that has worked with OB before and that OB knows vs. two guys OB has never worked with and has no idea if they'll be able to step up. A guy who has been in the QB room with Tom Brady for a few years vs. a couple of guys who haven't.

:thinking:

Yeah, you're right. Why would someone prefer Mallett over a couple of untested rookies?
 
Nitrofish said:
Why?
Click to expand...

I would guess he thinks that Mallett is better than Mett/McCarron. (Not speaking for DX)

I do think Mallett (Same skillset) is better Mettenberger, healthier and already knows BOB's system. But I wouldn't give up more than 3-1 for him.

I'm higher on McCarron than most besides TK. 3-1
 
The Pencil Neck said:
Let's see... a guy that some people think is already one of the 32 best QBs in the league vs. two guys that are rookies who may never develop into one of the best 32 guys in the league. A guy that has worked with OB before and that OB knows vs. two guys OB has never worked with and has no idea if they'll be able to step up. A guy who has been in the QB room with Tom Brady for a few years vs. a couple of guys who haven't.

:thinking:

Yeah, you're right. Why would someone prefer Mallett over a couple of untested rookies?
Click to expand...

Some think? Who thinks Mallett is one of the 32 best QB's in the league?

Untested? :thinking: You mean Mallett is tested? Has Mallett ever "Stepped Up?"

Been in the QB room with Brady you say? Ever heard of Curtis Painter? He was in the QB Room with Manning.
 
Nitrofish said:
Some think? Who thinks Mallett is one of the 32 best QB's in the league?
Click to expand...

There was recently an article that said that. Since I didn't remember who was being quoted, I didn't say. And frankly, I don't much care.

Untested? :thinking: You mean Mallett is tested? Has Mallett ever "Stepped Up?"
Click to expand...

Well. Yeah. You think OB didn't test him while he was coaching him? You think OB drafted him and then sent him down to the hot-tub and never quizzed him on the offense, never worked on his mechanics, never talked football with him? Really? If OB wants him and trades for him, then apparently OB thinks he stepped up during those coaching sessions. If not, maybe not.

Don't know. Frankly. Don't care.

Been in the QB room with Brady you say? Ever heard of Curtis Painter? He was in the QB Room with Manning.
Click to expand...

And you think that's a point? Well, heck, let's not give Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young a shot, then.

BUT. Before you get your panties in a wad.

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just telling you why some people both on this board and off of it would prefer Mallett over McCarron or Mettenberger at 2-1.

Personally, I don't like any of those options. But just because YOU or I don't like an option doesn't mean it has no merit and doesn't deserve some consideration. Just because you or I don't like an option doesn't mean anyone who suggests it has to be attacked as though they just short-changed your mother and sister for their sexual favors.

Jeez.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
There was recently an article that said that. Since I didn't remember who was being quoted, I didn't say. And frankly, I don't much care.



Well. Yeah. You think OB didn't test him while he was coaching him? You think OB drafted him and then sent him down to the hot-tub and never quizzed him on the offense, never worked on his mechanics, never talked football with him? Really? If OB wants him and trades for him, then apparently OB thinks he stepped up during those coaching sessions. If not, maybe not.

Don't know. Frankly. Don't care.


And you think that's a point? Well, heck, let's not give Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young a shot, then.

BUT. Before you get your panties in a wad.

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just telling you why some people both on this board and off of it would prefer Mallett over McCarron or Mettenberger at 2-1.

Personally, I don't like any of those options. But just because YOU or I don't like an option doesn't mean it has no merit and doesn't deserve some consideration. Just because you or I don't like an option doesn't mean anyone who suggests it has to be attacked as though they just short-changed your mother and sister for their sexual favors.

Jeez.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAryFIuRxmQ
 
The Pencil Neck said:
There was recently an article that said that. Since I didn't remember who was being quoted, I didn't say. And frankly, I don't much care.
Click to expand...

You cared enough to post this message.

The Pencil Neck said:
Well. Yeah. You think OB didn't test him while he was coaching him? You think OB drafted him and then sent him down to the hot-tub and never quizzed him on the offense, never worked on his mechanics, never talked football with him? Really? If OB wants him and trades for him, then apparently OB thinks he stepped up during those coaching sessions. If not, maybe not.

Don't know. Frankly. Don't care.
Click to expand...

Test and quizzes are not playing, and they mean 0 when it comes to playing in the games. If you don't care, why such a lengthy response, or any response at all?


The Pencil Neck said:
And you think that's a point? Well, heck, let's not give Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young a shot, then.
Click to expand...

Did you really just compare Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young to Ryan Mallett?

The Pencil Neck said:
BUT. Before you get your panties in a wad.

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just telling you why some people both on this board and off of it would prefer Mallett over McCarron or Mettenberger at 2-1.

Personally, I don't like any of those options. But just because YOU or I don't like an option doesn't mean it has no merit and doesn't deserve some consideration. Just because you or I don't like an option doesn't mean anyone who suggests it has to be attacked as though they just short-changed your mother and sister for their sexual favors.

Jeez.
Click to expand...

Panties in a wad? Really? What are you 15?

I never attacked anyone. I asked you why so you would expand on why you thought that. There was no attack. just the word "why?" Your answer was less than sufficient, then you went on to insinuate my sister and mother are whores because I asked you why you believed what you did. That was real classy and really strengthened your argument regarding Mallett.

What your comments did however was highlight your inability to answer a simple question without resorting to adolescent insults about someone's family members. Good thing you have this message board to hide behind, because over the line comments like that can be a detriment to your health.
 
Nitrofish said:
Test and quizzes are not playing, and they mean 0 when it comes to playing in the games. If you don't care, why such a lengthy response, or any response at all?
Click to expand...

How about the player a coach is familiar with is better than the one he isn't familiar with.
And by "better" I mean, with Mallett O'Brien has a known commodity. With a rookie, ANY rookie QB brought in this year, O'Brien has to start from zero. The rookie has to learn what "open" really means in the NFL vs. college. They have to learn what "NFL game speed" means vs. college game speed. The rookie is at a disadvantage with respect to knowledge of what O'Brien expects out of the QB position - reads, accuracy, timing, what adjustments are available and make sense given the defensive formation vs. his offensive personnel group.
One would think that a 3 year vet (3 years in the same, or very similar, offensive system) would have an advantage over a rookie; at least going into training camp.

Can the rookie overtake the vet? Sure, there's always that chance. In fact, a good coach drafts to build in that competition - not just at QB but everywhere. So if he (the rook) is smart enough, has enough drive, and has the physical tools, he can take the job from the vet; if not in year one, maybe year two. Walsh was a genius at that. Not even Joe Montana's job was secure.

And I expect no less from O'Brien. Note that he told Fitzpatrick he would have a fair shot to compete for the starting job. He (O'Brien) didn't hand it to him on a platter. Bringing in Mallett would up the ante even farther.
 
Nitrofish said:
You cared enough to post this message.
Click to expand...

Not caring about who the "someone" is that thinks Ryan Mallet is in the top 32 QBs in the league and not caring about where that quote came from is not the same thing as responding to a post.

Test and quizzes are not playing, and they mean 0 when it comes to playing in the games. If you don't care, why such a lengthy response, or any response at all?
Click to expand...

Again, you're confusing caring about whether or not OB thinks Mallet is worth trading for with caring about whether or not I should respond to someone on a forum. Those are two totally different things.

Did you really just compare Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young to Ryan Mallett?
Click to expand...

Yes. Why shouldn't I? Because Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young finally came off the bench and had great careers while the jury is still out on Mallett? I could compare Mallett to anyone from Mother Theresa to Tom Brady to Dan Orlovsky. That's why it's called a comparison. And the situations where Aaron Rodgers was sitting on the bench behind Brett Favre is similar to Ryan Mallett sitting on the bench behind Tom Brady and just as similar to Curtis Painter sitting behind Peyton Manning. Just because you don't like Mallett or don't think he's going to have a good career means nothing -- it's still a valid comparison.

Your point -- that no one should expect Mallett to be any good because Curtis Painter turned out to be no good -- is not valid. Your point was that backup quarterbacks can never be any good because Curtis Painter turned out to be no good. It's a fallacious argument.

Panties in a wad? Really? What are you 15?
Click to expand...

No. I'm older than you. And I'm getting sick and tired of seeing you making crappy posts that attack people who have different opinions than you do.

I never attacked anyone. I asked you why so you would expand on why you thought that. There was no attack. just the word "why?"
Click to expand...

No. That wasn't me. I just responded to your asking "why" I was not the original poster. I just expanded on why someone -- not me, but someone -- might prefer Mallett over Mettenberger/McCarron at 2-1.

Your answer was less than sufficient, then you went on to insinuate my sister and mother are whores because I asked you why you believed what you did. That was real classy and really strengthened your argument regarding Mallett.
Click to expand...

My answer was sufficient unless you were looking for an argument. Which it appears you are almost every time you log onto this forum.

And I never insinuated anything about your mother and sister. That was directed entirely at you and your puerile behavior on this forum.

What your comments did however was highlight your inability to answer a simple question without resorting to adolescent insults about someone's family members. Good thing you have this message board to hide behind, because over the line comments like that can be a detriment to your health.
Click to expand...

If you compare our posting histories, you'll find that I rarely engage in this kind of foolishness while you seem to get into with every post you make. If you want to see the guy hiding behind a message board, look in the freaking mirror.
 
Nitrofish said:
Test and quizzes are not playing, and they mean 0 when it comes to playing in the games.
Click to expand...

Then why is the virtually universal opinion from GMs to HCs right on down to fans for QBs to sit on the bench for a while rather than starting immediately?

So specifically to your question, Mallett has done the time sitting in the NFL that most think would be a good idea for ANY of the rookie QBs.
 
thunderkyss said:
Does it really matter?

If we do acquire Mallet, then OB has his reasons. But right now, there's little reason to believe it's even on the table.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the Mallett thingy is done yet. I believe that BOB will do a deal for Mallett, but at most compensation is 3-1.

Unless BOB has a directive to pick Manziel, which would come from McNair.
 
steelbtexan said:
I don't believe the Mallett thingy is done yet. I believe that BOB will do a deal for Mallett, but at most compensation is 3-1.

Unless BOB has a directive to pick Manziel, which would come from McNair.
Click to expand...

I'd be seriously surprised if we get Mallett after having already signed Fitzpatrick. I think that if Mallett was a target -- or if Mallett was seriously available, which he may not be -- they would have gone with Yates and Keenum as the backups.

Not saying it's completely off the table, just that I'd be surprised at this point if it happens.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I'd be seriously surprised if we get Mallett after having already signed Fitzpatrick. I think that if Mallett was a target -- or if Mallett was seriously available, which he may not be -- they would have gone with Yates and Keenum as the backups.

Not saying it's completely off the table, just that I'd be surprised at this point if it happens.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the logic here. Yates and Keenum provide no veteran leadership to a young QB, any young QB. If you are planning on having any young QB via draft or trade or one from the roster it makes sense to bring in a vet. I hope Fitz starts a minimal number of games but he does have 77 games starting experience.
 
Well, first time I've signed on in a bit, and I'm sure all points and then some have been touched up in this thread. So I'll just blindly and loudly yell out my opinion :D

Who would I like to see in 2014? Manziel. All this talk about Bortles frightens me. The dude simply doesn't impress me and strikes me as Blaine Gabbert 2k14. He can make some of the throws that are necessary of an NFL quarterback, but so can most kids in college when they aren't facing NFL-level competition. In my opinion most instances where I see positive movement of the chains on a Bortles play, it's because his receivers catch a 10-15 yard pass with no one around them and then turn on the jets for big gains, or his guys having to make some serious freak catches. If anything, I'd be very high on the receiving talent coming out of UCF. Not sure if that's anyone this year, but those dudes are impressive.

Bridgewater. I'd be okay with him, but not first overall. I think he'll be a solid NFL quarterback. I was initially really down on him, but compared to Bortles, Bridgewater is a no-brainer for me.

Manziel is my pick. Highest ceiling of any of them, and that's what we need to go for. There is no Andrew Luck or RGIII in this draft class. None of these quarterbacks are safe. Some might be safer than others, sure, but how much safer are we talking? We're big-time gambling with no matter who we take, so we may as well take the guy who can take over games and spark the offense from the moment he steps onto the field.

On a side note, it's great to see you still here, thunderkyss! :excited: However...

thunderkyss said:
I wouldn't be surprised if we managed to trade our 1st for an extra 2nd & trade it to New England for their 2nd & Mallet.
Click to expand...

If this happened during the draft, I would totally puke up my hot wings and then sulk for the rest of the off-season under a blanket of infinite depression. That would just strike me as getting another Schaub, and at a much worse price. I'd imagine Houston would be in such an uproar that I'd be able to hear it from an entire state over.
 
BetaV1 said:
If this happened during the draft, I would totally puke up my hot wings and then sulk for the rest of the off-season under a blanket of infinite depression. That would just strike me as getting another Schaub, and at a much worse price. I'd imagine Houston would be in such an uproar that I'd be able to hear it from an entire state over.
Click to expand...

How is swapping 2nd rounders (TK's proposal) a worse price than straight up giving 2 2nd round picks?
 
infantrycak said:
How is swapping 2nd rounders (TK's proposal) a worse price than straight up giving 2 2nd round picks?
Click to expand...

Ah! I mis-read it. My mistake. I interpreted it as:
Patriots get: First overall pick
Texans get: Patroits 2nd round (62 overall) + Mallet.

But either way, my issue isn't so much trading down, as I'm open to do it with Bridgewater. My point is that going the Mallet route would be exactly what we've been saying for years now was our problem in the first place: go get a franchise quarterback and not some other team's trade bait.
 
thunderkyss said:
If we do acquire Mallet, then OB has his reasons. But right now, there's little reason to believe it's even on the table.
Click to expand...

Might not be completely dead this year. Something contingent on prospect availability at 3-1 or 4-1 could still be possible...

If not this year, Mallett could certainly be OB's fallback plan for 2015 as a free agent if whatever we do now doesn't pan out.
 
infantrycak said:
I don't understand the logic here. Yates and Keenum provide no veteran leadership to a young QB, any young QB. If you are planning on having any young QB via draft or trade or one from the roster it makes sense to bring in a vet. I hope Fitz starts a minimal number of games but he does have 77 games starting experience.
Click to expand...

I don't consider Mallett a "young" QB anymore. He might not have game experience but I don't consider him someone who needs veteran starter presence. I don't consider TJ or Case guys who need a veteran starter around, either.

I look at it like this. We have two paths we could go. We're either going to get a rookie and develop him or we're going to get a guy with some experience to be our long term starter.

If we're going to draft a rookie who's going to be our eventual starter (either this year or next), then we want a stopgap, veteran QB who can fill in until that rookie is ready. Fitzpatrick is that kind of QB.

If we're going to trade for a guy to be our long term starter (Mallett) who has been in the league for a while, then we don't need a guy like Fitzpatrick, an on-the-edge, almost good enough to be a starter guy.

Now... they could look at it like you apparently do, that Mallett might need a safety net and in that case, they could get both. But for me, that's a sign that they don't really think Mallett is the guy. In that case, I wouldn't even go after him.
 
BetaV1 said:
But either way, my issue isn't so much trading down, as I'm open to do it with Bridgewater. My point is that going the Mallet route would be exactly what we've been saying for years now was our problem in the first place: go get a franchise quarterback and not some other team's trade bait.
Click to expand...

First, I don't think there's a franchise QB in this draft. Several productive starter (Matt Schaub) types, but no franchise QBs.

Secondly, I still think the Matt Schaub trade was a good deal (I didn't at the time) but he had proven to be a better QB than any QB drafted between then (2007) & Russell Wilson (2012).
  • Flacco won a Super Bowl. He's been the best QB in the league in the post season, but I don't think he could have gotten our team to the play-offs to begin with.
  • Newton is probably my favorite QB in the league right now, but he's got a lot of growing, as a passer, to do.
  • Kaepernick another dynamic player, a game changer, but still has a lot of improving to do as a QB.
  • Luck the guy's got skills, but I think he's seriously under-performing his draft spot. Definitely not living up to the hype. A fine QB none the less. I just don't believe he's the franchise QB he was trumped up to be.
  • RG3 another kid with a bright future ahead of him, but have yet to have a season as good as Schaub's best.

Schaub gets knocked a lot because he couldn't make this team a winner sooner & his window burned out before the rest of our team's window opened up. If we could start over & put 2007 Schaub on this team, no doubt in my mind that we would be that "perennial" play-off team that we want to be.

So yeah, unlike most I believe repeating the Matt Schaub experience would be a good thing for this team right now. The fans might be upset on draft day, but once we start winning, they'll quietly wait for it all to blow up, while pimping the Houston Texans as the best team in the league.
 
BetaV1 said:
go get a franchise quarterback and not some other team's trade bait.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll play this game. Who? What franchise QB can we get this year? If you say Manziel, then you're going to lose all credibility with me. Manziel had Joeckel & Matthews (both highly considered future All-Pros in the NFL) blocking for him & he still wouldn't stay in the pocket. As one former player said, his muscle memory will take over & he'll take off running after the clock in his head goes off. It'll only take one or two times of him getting his clock cleaned by a 250lb block of steel called a linebacker before he faces the reality that he can't do that in the NFL. If you take away his running capabilities, then he becomes less effective than Bortles, Bridgewater & even Mallett.

The fact is, there are no franchise QB's in this year's draft & teams that have one aren't giving them away. So, I ask the question again, who is this franchise QB you think we can just "go get"?

I'm sorry if this came across as a little harsh, but I'm so sick & tired of hearing how Manziel walks on water or how all we have to do is go get a franchise QB.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
If we're going to trade for a guy to be our long term starter (Mallett) who has been in the league for a while, then we don't need a guy like Fitzpatrick, an on-the-edge, almost good enough to be a starter guy.

Now... they could look at it like you apparently do, that Mallett might need a safety net and in that case, they could get both. But for me, that's a sign that they don't really think Mallett is the guy. In that case, I wouldn't even go after him.
Click to expand...

I think they're planning for the worst, hoping for the best. Fitzpatrick gives us the ability to put a competent QB on the field, regardless what happens from here on out. If we draft a QB in the first, if we draft a QB to start, if we make a trade for Mallet, or not.

Having Fitzpatrick here is no different than having Schaub come to a team with Sage & Sage was still our back up in 2008.

They can want Mallett all they want, but they'll have to get Belichick to give him up.
 
Hottoddie said:
So, I ask the question again, who is this franchise QB you think we can just "go get"?

I'm sorry if this came across as a little harsh, but I'm so sick & tired of hearing how Manziel walks on water or how all we have to do is go get a franchise QB.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Are Franchise QBs on sale at Target this week? I must have missed that ad.

I kid of course, but to listen to the damn talking heads - very few of which had jobs that depended on them actually having to make a franchise pick and live with the repercussions - they're are at least three or four in every draft. Bulls#!t. Even the no-brainers like RGIII and Andrew Luck haven't reached Franchise status of a Peyton or a Drew Brees. Russell Wilson and Joe Flacco both have a Super Bowl rings and the verdict is very much still out on whether they are currently considered to be Franchise QBs.

Or maybe I'm too strict with my definition of a franchise QB. I think the player must match certain criteria to be considered a franchise quarterback: consistency, talent, leadership/maturity, and football intelligence. Are these attributes too much to expect?
 
ObsiWan said:
Even the no-brainers like RGIII and Andrew Luck haven't reached Franchise status of a Peyton or a Drew Brees.
Click to expand...

I remember when Peyton came into the league. Even though his team wasn't immediately successful, you could tell there was something about him.

I felt the same about Phillip Rivers when he was allowed to play.


Everyone else, it took time before I thought they were "franchise" QBs. Drew Brees, I didn't think too much of it when San Diego let him go. I thought New Orleans might have hitched their wagon to the wrong cart really. & though Aaron Rodgers was impressive when he finally started, he did sit for 3 years.

Still, Peyton & Drew Brees status is way more than just "franchise" those guys are HOF caliber.

Andrew Luck is a "sure thing" because he has all the measurables, played in a pro system, made good decisions, made smart decisions, was prolific playing in a major conference (albeit not at a "major" football program)
 
My point was - and is - you don't know what the hell you're gonna end up with until they get out on the field, in your system, playing against NFL defenses, at NFL speed. So this "just go get a franchise QB" attitude is misguided and fueled by the goofy-a$$ed talking heads. They throw that word around way too much for my tastes.

Let's look at 1st round QBs drafted starting with 2004 and see what the success rate looks like.... How many actual "franchise QBs" are in this group? Twenty-seven first rounders, I see maybe 6 - 7 franchise guys. How many do you guys see?
2004
Eli Manning (#1)
Phillip Rivers (#4)
Ben Roethlisberger (#11)
J. P. Losman (#22)
2005
Alex Smith (#1)
Aaron Rodgers (#24)
Jason Campbell (#25)
2006
Vince Young (#3)
Matt Leinart (#10)
Jay Cutler (#11)
2007
JaMarcus Russell (#1)
Brady Quinn (#22)
2008
Matt Ryan (#3)
Joe Flacco (#11)
2009
Matthew Stafford (#1)
Mark Sanchez (#5)
Josh Freeman (#17)
2010
Sam Bradford (#1)
Tim Tebow (#25)
2011
Cam Newton (#1)
Jake Locker (#8)
Blaine Gabbert (#10)
Jake Locker (#12)
2012
Andrew Luck (#1)
Robert Griffin (#2)
Ryan Tannehill (#8)
Brandon Weeden (#22)
 
ObsiWan said:
My point was - and is - you don't know what the hell you're gonna end up with until they get out on the field, in your system, playing against NFL defenses, at NFL speed. So this "just go get a franchise QB" attitude is misguided and fueled by the goofy-a$$ed talking heads. They throw that word around way too much for my tastes.
Click to expand...

I was pretty much agreeing with you, just saying it takes time for most franchise QBs to actually look like a franchise QB.

I honestly had no idea Drew Brees was going to be as special as he was. I don't know if he would have, honestly, had he not found his kindred spirit in Sean Payton.
 
thunderkyss said:
I was pretty much agreeing with you, just saying it takes time for most franchise QBs to actually look like a franchise QB.

I honestly had no idea Drew Brees was going to be as special as he was. I don't know if he would have, honestly, had he not found his kindred spirit in Sean Payton.
Click to expand...
Brees played well in San Diego but it was his shoulder surgery that expedited his exit if I'm remembering correctly. The Bolts were in position to take Rivers (The Charger coaching staff coached the Sr bowl that year) and Schotty's crew was in love with him so they took him and let go of the guy with the injury question mark.
 
Vinny said:
Brees played well in San Diego but it was his shoulder surgery that expedited his exit if I'm remembering correctly. The Bolts were in position to take Rivers (The Charger coaching staff coached the Sr bowl that year) and Schotty's crew was in love with him so they took him and let go of the guy with the injury question mark.
Click to expand...

I remember.

Even without the shoulder, I don't know that he played so well that they would have kept him over Rivers. I mean, Matt Schaub played well at times, for entire seasons even, but he never fooled anyone into believing he was a franchise QB.

His first year in NewOrleans though.... no question about it. He was better than "just" good.
 
thunderkyss said:
I remember.

Even without the shoulder, I don't know that he played so well that they would have kept him over Rivers. I mean, Matt Schaub played well at times, for entire seasons even, but he never fooled anyone into believing he was a franchise QB.

His first year in NewOrleans though.... no question about it. He was better than "just" good.
Click to expand...

He threw for around 7000 yards and 52 TD's his last two years at the Bolts...I know my football and I'm fairly positive they would have resigned him based on commentary and scuttlebutt. The shoulder problem and being at the end of his first contract just made them go to Rivers instead of gamble with a big contract going for possibly damaged goods.
 
ObsiWan said:
My point was - and is - you don't know what the hell you're gonna end up with until they get out on the field, in your system, playing against NFL defenses, at NFL speed. So this "just go get a franchise QB" attitude is misguided and fueled by the goofy-a$$ed talking heads. They throw that word around way too much for my tastes.

Let's look at 1st round QBs drafted starting with 2004 and see what the success rate looks like.... How many actual "franchise QBs" are in this group? Twenty-seven first rounders, I see maybe 6 - 7 franchise guys.
Click to expand...

Giving a little room for doubt I would say 7.

To me this gets back to there only being 1-2 solid QBs per year with some years having none. All this talk of "very deep QB class" is bunk to me because it isn't going to be some epic 4-5 starters year particularly when there is "no separation" and "none are worthy of being taken high." Those assertions are like oil and water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top