|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
Quote:
Setting aside all the debates, the simple fundamental truth is that even if Weeden had never played a day of physical sports in his life, his physical prime will remain between the ages of 25-33.
All people get slower, lose flexibility, and become more frail as they age. You cannot stop Father Time.
You say his age is irrelevant.
You point to scouting reports to support your arguments.
Scouting reports say his age is a factor.
Now what?
Now what? You seem to totaly dismiss the truth at hand. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, I could go on but you already know there are many QB's past 35 that are playing as good or better than they ever have.
You also know the rules have been structured as such, that other than putting a skirt on the QB you couldn't do any more with the rules to preserve their health.
So you spout off all you wish, the game and the QB's in the league and those that have just retired such as Kurt Warner show point blank evidence that the QB position defies almost everything you tried to point out to bloster your claims.
This isn't th NFL of the 1960's anymnore. QB's are protected unlike the days of old. And the fact that they are being very productive well into their mid 30's and even later is the proof you seem to wish to dimiss and refuse to recognize.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Now what? You seem to totaly dismiss the truth at hand. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, I could go on but you already know there are manyGREAT QB's past 35 that are playing as good or better than they ever have.
There, I fixed your truth for ya.  (and the truth that Brees is 33).
It's good you used Manning as an example. As great as he is, he's clearly lost arm-strength, and that makes both points for me:
Sure, QB's can play at 35, but how many of them are just average QB's who are starting?
Here's two more names for truth: Tim Couch and Bernie Kosar. Neither guy saw 35 as a starter. Obviously that makes the point that physical skills go downhill in the case of Kosar, and that iffy QB's never get to see the age of 35 as a starter.
Quote:
So you spout off all you wish, the game and the QB's in the league and those that have just retired such as Kurt Warner show point blank evidence that the QB position defies almost everything you tried to point out to bloster your claims.
Warner. Another great QB who had lost arm-strength but was able to keep playing because he was great.
Let's look at some more truth here. How many starting QB's in the NFL right this moment are 35 or older:
Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.
Quote:
This isn't th NFL of the 1960's anymnore. QB's are protected unlike the days of old. And the fact that they are being very productive well into their mid 30's and even later is the proof you seem to wish to dimiss and refuse to recognize.
Maybe you can find me more QB's who are 35 or older who are starting. I can't. The answer is: Two.
One of my oldest saying is that fans fall for and argue for what's possible, not what's probable.
Is it possible Weeds is our starter at age 35? Absolutely. Is it probable? Far from it.
Bottom line is that his age was, and continues to be, a HUGE factor.
There are 32 teams in the NFL. There are 2 QB's who are 35 or older who are starting. You can blow until your blue in the face, but if you really want to argue facts, there isn't a fact that's more telling than that.
2 out of 32 means Weeden's age is a HUGE factor. Undeniable truth.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Toad it's easy... If a RB at 3 is a good pick although he will only have 6-7 prime years, then a 28yo QB who has as many or more left is as good/bad, and yes position longevity/durability was one of many reasons I didn't like the TRich selection and he's already had a "redshirted" rook season due to injury I remember saying jokingly after the draft that Weeds might be around in the league longer than TRich Sure, those 35+yo QBs are all GOOD, that's why they play  That's not an argument, think again please...of course "bad" 35yo QBs get passed over for some young "hope" QB, because with the AVG 35yo QB you know what you have (and don't)...the rook or 2nd year guy always has "upside" left. Also, who is that 35yo star RB again? or 32yo? Two 35yo starting QBs are 2 more than at RB, right? How many starting QB around 30? How many RBs? Many more old backup QBs than RB too, aren't there? How come? Do the math... Pretty much any position where burst is needed has less prime years, that shouldn't be news to anyone watching this game. QBs otoh are the red wine of this game: they get wiser with experience and as long as they can spin it (even losing some doesn't matter much with the best of them: see Peyton), they get even BETTER, not worse. QBs get better with every snap, RBs get more banged up with every snap (mileage), that's why I'm much more disappointed in TRich's season than Weed's: he should be a stud quickly, because his "prime years" are NOW, Weeds is where pretty much ALL of us expected him to be BEFORE the season (where's the damn Weeden numbers prediction thread?)...I'm not sure the same can be said of TRich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Sorry to interrupt a good argument, but I heard something on local sports talk that I'd like opinions on and this thread seemed like a good place to put it.
Tony Grossi was on a Friday NFL preview show, and the discussion was whether Weeden was a fit for the WCO, with the consensus being he was not. Grossi was asked what offense would be optimum for Weeden's skill set and he answered the K-Gun offense used by Buffalo with Jim Kelly in the 90's. If I recall correctly, the K-Gun was a shallow-shotgun set, no-huddle offense, with Kelly calling plays at the LOS, a la Peyton Manning. I do think Weeden would do much better in a shotgun than under center. The questions would be: (a) is Weeden ready to call plays at the LOS based on pre-snap reads; and (b) is there any way a modern NFL coach would give that much freedom to any QB, much less a 2nd year guy who may never have called his own plays in his whole life? I like the idea of a no-huddle that dictates what defenses can do via substitutions, the way it allows a QB to get into a rhythym, and gets defenses into a confused/panic mode. That Buffalo offense was formidable, but I'm just not sure that Weeden has the wherewithall and moxie to pull it off.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Oddly enough just a few weeks ago I was thinking about how closely our offensive weapons resemble the K-Gun offenses.
I don't know why the group drafted Weeden but refuse to run a shotgun offense.
From what I heard Holmgren somehow was dictating the stringent following of WCO. As he has left we have seen more gadgets, perhaps some more changes will come in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
I'm trying to remember if Buffalo's K-Gun was a one-back offense. It seems to me it was. If so, I could see Trent Richardson in the Thurman Thomas role very easily.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
If a RB at 3 is a good pick although he will only have 6-7 prime years, then a 28yo QB who has as many or more left is as good/bad
No, they are totally different.
A RB is going to be productive right out of the gate.
A QB won't hit his potential prime for 3-4 years.
There's no way you can compare a 29-year old rookie to anything in the league. It's uncharted territory and very indicative of why it was such a risky gamble.
Now if you could find a RB who entered the league at 27 you could make the comparison.
Quote:
Sure, those 35+yo QBs are all GOOD, that's why they play That's not an argument
It's a perfect argument, because if you're going to draft a QB who will be 29 as a rookie, you BETTER know he's going to be great. If he's developmental or just going to be average, you shouldn't make that gamble.
That's the point.
This is about whether or not his age is a factor. I've seen nothing which solidifies that belief or makes it's case.
If it's not a factor, why is it a factor in all the scouting reports...the same reports you use to validate Weeden's draft stock?
If Weeds becomes a great QB, even for 3-4 years, it'll have been a good selection. If he's anything short of that, it'll have been yet another huge waste of a pick for an organization that has made a career out of picking bad QB's.
I want to say this again: Weeden can't be just an average QB and be considered a good selection. With his likely playing career as a starter only being 4-6 years, he's got to be great or he's a failure.
Dave, if Weeden wasn't a good fit for the WCO (a theory I will refute to the day I die because I believe if a QB has "it" he can operate any offense) then that's an even bigger indictment against Holmgren because it means he shouldn't have ever been drafted.
I recall that the comments from the FO stated the routes he ran in Oklahoma are very-much the same routes in the WCO.
Weeden is either going to be a good QB or he's not. The offense won't play a factor in that. He's either smart enough to make NFL reads or he's not. He's either going to be accurate enough to throw strikes or he's not. That's the way I see it.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
Quote:
If a RB at 3 is a good pick although he will only have 6-7 prime years, then a 28yo QB who has as many or more left is as good/bad
No, they are totally different.
A RB is going to be productive right out of the gate.
A QB won't hit his potential prime for 3-4 years.
There's no way you can compare a 29-year old rookie to anything in the league. It's uncharted territory and very indicative of why it was such a risky gamble.
Now if you could find a RB who entered the league at 27 you could make the comparison.
Quote:
Sure, those 35+yo QBs are all GOOD, that's why they play That's not an argument
It's a perfect argument, because if you're going to draft a QB who will be 29 as a rookie, you BETTER know he's going to be great. If he's developmental or just going to be average, you shouldn't make that gamble.
That's the point.
This is about whether or not his age is a factor. I've seen nothing which solidifies that belief or makes it's case.
If it's not a factor, why is it a factor in all the scouting reports...the same reports you use to validate Weeden's draft stock?
If Weeds becomes a great QB, even for 3-4 years, it'll have been a good selection. If he's anything short of that, it'll have been yet another huge waste of a pick for an organization that has made a career out of picking bad QB's.
I want to say this again: Weeden can't be just an average QB and be considered a good selection. With his likely playing career as a starter only being 4-6 years, he's got to be great or he's a failure.
Dave, if Weeden wasn't a good fit for the WCO (a theory I will refute to the day I die because I believe if a QB has "it" he can operate any offense) then that's an even bigger indictment against Holmgren because it means he shouldn't have ever been drafted.
I recall that the comments from the FO stated the routes he ran in Oklahoma are very-much the same routes in the WCO.
Weeden is either going to be a good QB or he's not. The offense won't play a factor in that. He's either smart enough to make NFL reads or he's not. He's either going to be accurate enough to throw strikes or he's not. That's the way I see it.
While I agree with most of this I dont thing we can judge Weedens top end nore his worst based on the small sample size. Granted his sample is limited by as you say his age but I think today proved he is better then what was on the field before and that in and of itself should prove the pick was an upgrade at a position of need.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
A RB is going to be productive right out of the gate.
Tell that TRich's knees or ribs or ankle...you get the drift. Dude hasn't played 100% healthy for over a year now
You can dance around this all day Toad, but fact is most RBs have 5-7 good year's (at best) and that's it, even the best and most have 1 or 2 "waste" or "redshirt" seasons thrown in like TRich has this season...who cares if they come at age 23-29 and with Weeden theoretically at 31-37? Who cares? I don't....sure, it'd be nicer to have a 22yo QB with possibly 15+ years, but somehow nobody expects that out of a CB or RB drafted in the top 10, but the whole board is whining about Weed's age, it's, yet again, hypocritical....that's what I'm pointing out....if you complain about prime years value, anyone should have hated the TRich pick
So RBs produce out of the gate...that's a given, but still not an argument for anything. They produce earlier and fade out much quicker, with QBs it's the other way around...if a RB enters the league at age 25 and fades out at 30/31, that's the same as so many RB who enter at 22 and fade out at 27/28 because of injury or wear and tear....it's ALL about prime years and talent and position....and my point is that Weeden will have as many prime years (if not more) available as most RBs who enter the league through the draft
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,692
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,692 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If a RB at 3 is a good pick although he will only have 6-7 prime years, then a 28yo QB who has as many or more left is as good/bad
No, they are totally different.
A RB is going to be productive right out of the gate.
A QB won't hit his potential prime for 3-4 years.
There's no way you can compare a 29-year old rookie to anything in the league. It's uncharted territory and very indicative of why it was such a risky gamble.
Now if you could find a RB who entered the league at 27 you could make the comparison.
Quote:
Sure, those 35+yo QBs are all GOOD, that's why they play That's not an argument
It's a perfect argument, because if you're going to draft a QB who will be 29 as a rookie, you BETTER know he's going to be great. If he's developmental or just going to be average, you shouldn't make that gamble.
That's the point.
This is about whether or not his age is a factor. I've seen nothing which solidifies that belief or makes it's case.
If it's not a factor, why is it a factor in all the scouting reports...the same reports you use to validate Weeden's draft stock?
If Weeds becomes a great QB, even for 3-4 years, it'll have been a good selection. If he's anything short of that, it'll have been yet another huge waste of a pick for an organization that has made a career out of picking bad QB's.
I want to say this again: Weeden can't be just an average QB and be considered a good selection. With his likely playing career as a starter only being 4-6 years, he's got to be great or he's a failure.
Dave, if Weeden wasn't a good fit for the WCO (a theory I will refute to the day I die because I believe if a QB has "it" he can operate any offense) then that's an even bigger indictment against Holmgren because it means he shouldn't have ever been drafted.
I recall that the comments from the FO stated the routes he ran in Oklahoma are very-much the same routes in the WCO.
Weeden is either going to be a good QB or he's not. The offense won't play a factor in that. He's either smart enough to make NFL reads or he's not. He's either going to be accurate enough to throw strikes or he's not. That's the way I see it.
While I agree with most of this I dont thing we can judge Weedens top end nore his worst based on the small sample size. Granted his sample is limited by as you say his age but I think today proved he is better then what was on the field before and that in and of itself should prove the pick was an upgrade at a position of need.
Yep, it was Weeden that got the TD drive today.  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If a RB at 3 is a good pick although he will only have 6-7 prime years, then a 28yo QB who has as many or more left is as good/bad
No, they are totally different.
A RB is going to be productive right out of the gate.
A QB won't hit his potential prime for 3-4 years.
There's no way you can compare a 29-year old rookie to anything in the league. It's uncharted territory and very indicative of why it was such a risky gamble.
Now if you could find a RB who entered the league at 27 you could make the comparison.
Quote:
Sure, those 35+yo QBs are all GOOD, that's why they play That's not an argument
It's a perfect argument, because if you're going to draft a QB who will be 29 as a rookie, you BETTER know he's going to be great. If he's developmental or just going to be average, you shouldn't make that gamble.
That's the point.
This is about whether or not his age is a factor. I've seen nothing which solidifies that belief or makes it's case.
If it's not a factor, why is it a factor in all the scouting reports...the same reports you use to validate Weeden's draft stock?
If Weeds becomes a great QB, even for 3-4 years, it'll have been a good selection. If he's anything short of that, it'll have been yet another huge waste of a pick for an organization that has made a career out of picking bad QB's.
I want to say this again: Weeden can't be just an average QB and be considered a good selection. With his likely playing career as a starter only being 4-6 years, he's got to be great or he's a failure.
Dave, if Weeden wasn't a good fit for the WCO (a theory I will refute to the day I die because I believe if a QB has "it" he can operate any offense) then that's an even bigger indictment against Holmgren because it means he shouldn't have ever been drafted.
I recall that the comments from the FO stated the routes he ran in Oklahoma are very-much the same routes in the WCO.
Weeden is either going to be a good QB or he's not. The offense won't play a factor in that. He's either smart enough to make NFL reads or he's not. He's either going to be accurate enough to throw strikes or he's not. That's the way I see it.
While I agree with most of this I dont thing we can judge Weedens top end nore his worst based on the small sample size. Granted his sample is limited by as you say his age but I think today proved he is better then what was on the field before and that in and of itself should prove the pick was an upgrade at a position of need.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,226
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,226 |
jc
weeden sucks.
nuff said.
mccoy sucks
nuff said
we need a real qb
nuff said
Hunter + Dart = This is the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826 |
Quote:
we need a real qb
nuff said
Not nuff said.
Suggestions on who that Qb could be and how to obtain said Qb would be welcome
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,226
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,226 |
Quote:
Quote:
we need a real qb
nuff said
Not nuff said.
Suggestions on who that Qb could be and how to obtain said Qb would be welcome
I have not a clue who would be a good fit for a qb on this team but I do know we need a qb that can lead this team similar to what manning is doing for Denver.
Hunter + Dart = This is the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
No sense expounding on who the QB should be until you know who the HC will be.
That we'll know in about a week, me thinks (or at least we'll know who the HC isn't).
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
No sense expounding on who the QB should be until you know who the HC will be.
That we'll know in about a week, me thinks (or at least we'll know who the HC isn't).
I think that we all know who the coach will not be. It would be a stunning announcement if the Browns came out and said that they were retaining Shurmur.
Banner may insist, as most front offices do, that they will wait till after the season to evaluate the coaches and GM .... but they are 95% done with those evaluations. Shurmur isn't going to show new strengths in game #16 all of a sudden. They know what he is, and what they have. He's not going to change anyone's mind, even if he manages to sweep the Steelers.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
- he has the best pass protection of all rook QBs
Correct.
Quote:
- he has the most inexperienced (and with that come inconsistency) receiving group of all rooks, no Wayne or Garcon to throw to
Correct, but the receiving group seems to be making strides while Weeden does not.
Quote:
- he has the worst running game production (let's not discuss why, injury, inability to run or block...whatever, fact for the QB is that the running game has been crap for the most part)
The Colts average 9 ypg more than us and has the same crappy ypa at 3.9... Plus, if you want to grade out rushing, RGIII's rushing is part of who he is.. if you take his 750 yards, 6.6 ypa and 6 TDs out of the Redskins rushing stats, suddenly they don't look so great... they go back to about 15th in the NFL in rushing... so if we are comparing QB effectiveness, his rushing is part of what makes him great... will it get him hurt? Probably but that's not relevant to this conversation.
Quote:
- only Luck has to carry his Offense as much as Weeds has to
I disagree when you take RGIIIs rushing into account... If RGIII stood in the pocket like a statue, he wouldn't be nearly as effective. I think he carries the Skins more than you give him credit for...
Quote:
Also, I'm pretty sure there was a Weeden thread before the season where we posted numbers of what we expected of him. I can't find it anymore, but if someone knows how to, it'd be a fun read because I'm pretty sure he met or exceeded most posters expectation...same goes for our W-L record.
And Richardson had a similar thread and he was on track to have over 1000 yards rushing and 400 yards receiving and 12 TDs, which is probably not too far off from where most people expected him... And that's after being ignored for long stretches due to play calling.... Yet you don't have a single nice thing to say about him...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
Funny thing Toad, Peyton Manning threw for 56.7% as a rookie and had 26TD's and 28 int's. His YPA was 6.5 yards. I'm not saying Weeden will ecer be of the caliber of a Peyton Manning, but according to your theories and claims, if you had been a Colts fan in 1998, you would have sworn Peyton Manning would never become Peyton Manning and probably wouldn't play past age 32! 
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
Funny thing Toad, Peyton Manning threw for 56.7% as a rookie and had 26TD's and 28 int's. His YPA was 6.5 yards.
I'm not saying Weeden will ecer be of the caliber of a Peyton Manning, but according to your theories and claims, if you had been a Colts fan in 1998, you would have sworn Peyton Manning would never become Peyton Manning and probably wouldn't play past age 32!
Great point, and I'm not just directing anything at Toad. There are a ton of people on here who want to write off Weeden now. They'll say they could "see" all along even as a rookie that Manning had it and was going to be great. And they just don't "see" it with Weeden. Like you, I'm not saying Weeden will ever be Manning. The thing is, a lot of people would have been hard pressed to claim that Manning the rookie would have ever been Manning as his is now. It would be nice if cooler heads would prevail and give Weeden a chance to see if Weeden in year 5 or 6 (if he's still here, that would be a great sign) is a lot better than Weeden in year 1. That being said, if there's a clear cut upgrade at the position, it at least needs to be considered.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
The "problem" this year is that there have been a few rookie QBs who have come in and really, really lit it up.
In an ordinary year, with ordinary rookie QBs, Weeden would be looked upon with a fair degree of appreciation.
Unfortunately, we have seen several QB come in and really light it up. In most of these cases, the teams they play for have really tailored their offenses towards what the QB does best. The Redskins and Seahawks, for example, have incorporated some read option plays into their offenses. Their teams have helped them be square pegs in square holes.
In Cleveland, we saw, both this year and last, an unwillingness by the coaching staff to adjust the offense to best suit the abilities of the QB. Last year we had a QB who was clearly better off in the shotgun. Same thing this year. The Browns coaching staff seems almost defiant in their unwillingness to adjust the offense to fit the QB. I suspect that they will pay the price for that ...... and it may cost them into the future, as more flexible coaches and coordinators are seen as far preferable to coaches who adhere strictly to a particular philosophy despite what their players might do best.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
In an ordinary year, with ordinary rookie QBs, Weeden would be looked upon with a fair degree of appreciation.
I don't know that I agree with that idea. (Ok...I don't )
The game today is set up for QB's to succeed far more than a generation ago. Factor in the advancements in the passing game in college, and you get a standard for rookie QB's that has to be adjusted upwards for today's young signal callers. Going back over the last several years we see rookie QB's really taking off right out of the gate. Dalton, Newton, Ryan, Bradford...the names are many. Sure, there are bums like Clausen, but those guys shouldn't have ever gone as highly as they did. Weeden has far more talent than those guys, and his expectations were higher. He's behind the rookie curve in today's modern NFL.
IMO, if this were the NFL of 15-years ago, Weeden's numbers would be in the 60's.
I believe if you look at the advancements that all the other rookies have made during the 2nd half of the year, you'll find that while they are trending upwards, Weeds has stayed the same or perhaps even gone backwards.
I believe he isn't suffering a problem in terms of perception. I think the NFL and the fans have a very fair read on him based all on his own production.
Dj constantly wishes the preseason prediction thread was still here to see what everyone said. I know exactly what I said about Weeds, outside of how dumb I thought the gamble was. I stated he didn't even have to throw more TD's than INT's to have a successful season. I meant it then and I mean it now. However, he hasn't shown improvement as the year has gone on, and especially not compared to his rookie counterparts. (Thanks All-22 and Coaches Film.) In this offense and in today's NFL, even a rookie should have north of a 60% comp rating in any version of the WCO. Earlier in the year his receivers were dropping balls left and right, but in the second half his receivers have been bailing him out left and right. It's balanced out. Defenses have dropped more INT's than the offense has dropped TD's for him. He's also appeared more confused when coming off of his primary receiver as the year has gone on.
I wouldn't call this a successful rookie season for Weeds. IMHO he's been the 5th best rookie QB behind RG3, Wilson, Luck, and yes, Nick Foles. That doesn't mean I'm ready to toss him to the curb, but he hasn't made the strides that any of us expected him to make. If he were 24 it wouldn't be nearly as worrisome as it is knowing he's going to be 30 next year...
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
I can't say I've lost faith in him.. I'd have had to have a great deal of faith in him the first place. But he could have changed that with his performance,, he hasn't.
I don't think it's time to give up on him but I'm thinking the powers at the top are thinking differently.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 745
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 745 |
Weeden isn't passing the eye test.
He peaked way earlier in the season.
Now that teams have got some film on him,they have him figured out.
when was the last time the Browns had a QB rated in the upper half of the NFL?
I'm waiting for the Browns to draft a player on either side of the ball
that comes out like a house on fire.
None of this,"oh lets wait and give so and so 3 years to see if he has "it" or not
its the same ole same ole I've seen come down the road.
the Browns draft these players that never come around.
in the past it was Massaqiou. Now its guy like Jordan Cameron.
in the NFL,now if you are rookie, depending where you are drafted,you are expected to play at a high level sooner than later.
Weeden's job is to put points on the board.
He has a total of 14 TD passes.
thats not even 1 per game.
the Browns are averaging 19.5 points per game.
If you want to be a playoff team,your offense has to average about 23 per game.
Weeden is going to be 30 next year. how much better is he gonna get?
theres a reason why QBs over 25 are rarely drafted and when they are,they don't pan out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Newton was a really special QB last year. He was the #1 overall pick for a reason.
I would say that most of the others were able to be worked in as rookies as complementary pieces rather than the whole show.
Bradford was nothing special as a rookie, and he had Steven Jackson running over everyone, and he played in the weakest division in football .... and possibly in the history of football.
Ryan was OK as a rookie, but the Falcons were able to pummel people with their running game. (over 2400 yards rushing and 23 rushing TD)
The Bengals gave Dalton a strong running game and an excellent defense as well. The Bengals have been such an up and down team over the year ..... always having talent, but seeming to ride the roller coaster every other year. They went from 6th, to 24th, to 9th, to 8th in points allowed over the past 4 years. That 24th was the year they went 4-12. He was a solid rookie, but again, not that far off from what Weeden did this year.
Further, it could be argued that many of these teams did far more to help out their young QBs than the Browns did. Dalton worked out of the shotgun a great deal as a rookie. The Panthers tailored their offense to fit Newton quite well, and used his talents effectively. I honestly don't remember Ryan's rookie year, but I can tell from the rushing yards/TDs that he had a lot of help as a rookie. Bradford was only OK as a rookie ..... rarely taking chances with the ball at all ..... playing inferior competition ..... and doing a fair job. I honestly believe that if it weren't for him being the last QB to sign an obscene rookie deal that we could have seen RG3 in St Louis, and Bradford elsewhere.
Anyway, I cannot recall ever seeing a QB start as a rookie along with a rookie RB, WR, RT, and also have one of his 3rd down targets also being a rookie. Add in an intractable coaching staff determined to run their offense verbatim and it would seem to make any QB's job far more difficult.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 745
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 745 |
Y-town you are absolutely correct in your assesment to a point.
I have felt the Browns front office did not put enough experienced pieces
around Weeden.
I observed a couple months ago I don't recall a NFL team in recent history
starting a rookie QB, RB and RT on opening day.
yet some or many posters on here are applauding the Browns front office
for not being players in FA and I said all along they should have been more active especially on the offensive side of the ball.
"oooh Heckert is building it the right way" 14 wins in 3 years really doesn't reinforce the fact its the right way.
I don't think the Bengals had a real strong running game as Benson only averaged
3.9 YPC and had 6 TDS.
But I do know Gruden did not give Dalton a overloaded playbook.
Next year if I was the Browns I would bring in a vet to compete with Weeden.
best man in camp and preseason wins the job.
Weeden does have 2 wins in the AFC North. We can't totally discount that.
cause you have to win in your division to get it turned around.
If Weeden can beat the Steelers this weekend,that is something to build on.
I think the Steelers game will go a long ways in Weedens immediate future.
if goes out and lights the Steelers up for 325 and 4TDS in a loss or win,thats promising.
But he goes out and throws for 160 1 TD and 3 INTs.
He's got one more game to show he belongs as a starting QB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
I observed a couple months ago I don't recall a NFL team in recent history
starting a rookie QB, RB and RT on opening day.
Well Geez,, what was it you expect. According to many posters, we needed a new QB, RT and RB.. so what the hell was it you wanted.
Retreads?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Defenses have dropped more INT's than the offense has dropped TD's for him.
Did you really say that? lol
I mean, think about it again for a second. That sentence right there is true for EVERY QB since for possible INTs ALL PAs are scrutinized and for TDs mostly only RZ throws or 20% (max) of all throws. Killer argument, I'm impressed lol
and Nick Foles? Really? Have you seen him play?
and still the great "age" argument, huh? wonder why you never responded when I squashed that one earlier. A 28yo rook QB has as many "prime years" as a 22yo rook RB, as 35 for QBs is what 30 is for RBs
Someone should post Weeden's stat line since week 2, I don't know a site where to look that stuff up
I wouldn't call this a successful rookie season for Weeds. IMHO he's been the 5th best rookie QB behind RG3, Wilson, Luck, and yes, Nick Foles. That doesn't mean I'm ready to toss him to the curb, but he hasn't made the strides that any of us expected him to make. If he were 24 it wouldn't be nearly as worrisome as it is knowing he's going to be 30 next year...
and why do people keep responding to Kendall's posts? I hope for him that he isn't older than 20, lol
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
and still the great "age" argument, huh? wonder why you never responded when I squashed that one earlier.
Didn't respond to it?
I not only responded to it, I grabbed it, kicked it, shoved it's face in the snow, made it rub my bunions, dry-humped it, and made it fix me a balogny sandwich.
As I said then, you can't compare a 29-year old rookie to anything. If you want to compare a 29-year old rookie QB to a rookie RB, you have to make the RB 26 or 27.
I gave you scores of scouting reports that ALL used his age as a factor. And since you constantly reference scouting reports when supporting Weeden, you have no choice but to accept those same scouting reports as evidence when I state his age is a factor.
Pit and I debated about 35-year old QB's in the NFL. There are 2 out of 32 teams. That effectively means that unless Weeden turns into a something as great as Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, he's going to not be starting 5 years from now.
Sobering thought, that one...
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
Someone should post Weeden's stat line since week 2, I don't know a site where to look that stuff up
3,267 yards, 14 TDs, 13 INTs, 78.4 QB rating, 285/482 (59%).
Not as bad (obviously), but still bad. It takes him from Mark Sanchez/Matt Cassel/Chad Henne bad to Christian Ponder/Nick Foles/Mike Vick bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Someone should post Weeden's stat line since week 2, I don't know a site where to look that stuff up
271 of 480 for 56% completion rate
3063 yards
12 TD's 17 INT's
69.3 QB rating
Oh, wait, my bad...that didn't omit his first game, just the second game.
Gee...stat-manipulation is fun.
If Shurmur sweeps Pittsburgh we should keep him because it obviously means he's going to be great. Wait...you have to judge people by their entire body of work, not just part of it.
I wonder what my point could be...
Merry Christmas! 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,202
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,202 |
Quote:
If Shurmur sweeps Pittsburgh we should keep him because it obviously means he's going to be great.
Sweeping Pittsburgh,Makes me want to get my Swifter out.. Honestly, it would make him great for a few moments,just because of that...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
Quote:
I not only responded to it, I grabbed it, kicked it, shoved it's face in the snow, made it rub my bunions, dry-humped it, and made it fix me a balogny sandwich.
Maybe in your humble little mind.
And then this..........
Quote:
As I said then, you can't compare a 29-year old rookie to anything.
Yet you did and still do. I agree with that very last comment I quoted by you, but then you keep going on and contradicting yourself.
The punishment a RB takes verses the protection this league provides a QB, there is no comparison. But then you already know this.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
You gave me "scouting reports" that merely "mentioned" his age as a factor (most were not sure, since they are amateurs and wouldn't know HOW much of a facto it is AND because the tape was so good), not even as many said he should be drafted in the mid rounds (as you suggest) because of it, in fact many say what I say...that he has pretty good tape
Agenda squashing facts:
Top 10 RBs, age
AP, 27
Lynch, 26
Charles, 25
Morris, 24
Foster, 26
Martin, 23
Ridley, 23
CJohnson, 27
Spiller, 25
Gore, 25
other good RBs (ypc):
Rice, 25
Bradshaw, 26
Forte, 27
RBush, 27
McGahee, 31
Murray, 24
You see a trend here? A 30+yo RB is like a 38+ yo QB and 28 seems to be pretty old and declining already
Let's move to QBs, will we?
Rodgers, 29
RG3, 22
Peyton, 36
Ryan, 27
Brady, 35
Wilson, 24
Roethli, 30
Brees, 33
Romo, 32
Schaub, 31
Flacco, 27
Newton, 23
Dalton, 25
Rivers, 31
Palmer, 32/33 (bday tomorrow)
Eli, 31/32 (bday in a week)
Again, only 2 35+ yo QBs is mainly because normally QBs start at age 23/24 or so and playing 15 years in this league is pretty hard to do for any player. But what those liste clearly show is that QBs who have talent to start have more PRODUCTION years in this league than RBs....good RBs have 4-6 prime seasons between age 22-27 and then they just fall off and become RBBCs, QBs otoh easily have 8-10years of prime IF they have the talent...if they don't then they get replaced, that's the same at every position...and do I need to tell you that it's easier for young RBs to be good in this league than QBs? IF Weeden is good enough (should be determined next season), then he will have (at least) as many good seasons as TRich....so, if we should bump Weeden's value in the 20s because of "age" and longevity, what does that make the value of the TRich (or any RB) pick in the top 5? You knock one but hail the other? Sure, TRich was a much SAFER pick, but Weeden's position demands more risk and has a ton more value
I still say that it was a smart risk by Heckert, since he sandwiched Weeden between 2 pretty safe picks in TRich and Schwartz.
Also, I'd love to unearth all those names that were thrown around here who to pick instead where we took Weeden...I remember "great ones" like DeCastro, Adams, Stephen Hill, Jeffery...I'm pretty sure over 80% of this board would have gone with one of those bums...so before anyone trashes the Weeden pick, take a long look in the mirror first.
How about you switch the Schwartz and Weeden picks, maybe that makes everyone sleep better in their minds, since Schwartz is pretty much the 2nd best rook OT behind Kalil (there could be an argument for C.Glenn and some smart cookies wanted him, I know), he's easily worth a 20ish pick. Better? I know I like it better than Adams/DeCastro in the 1st and then Weeden in the 2nd...that would have been 2 boom or bust players. You ALWAYS have to look at a draft as a WHOLE and Heckert played it perfectly imho and I even said back then that the TRich pick made much more sense when he backed it up with a high risk-upside pick in Weeden at our position of need no1....that's part of the reason I was so disappointed in TRich this season....he was supposed to be at Schwartz level and better, but he was worse, even worse than Gordon and as inconsistent as Weeden, but at least there it was to be expected due to position and transition
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
My brother-in-law is a Stoolers fan and wants the Browns to beat them next Sunday. He wants a better draft position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
271 of 480 for 56% completion rate
3063 yards
12 TD's 17 INT's
69.3 QB rating
Oh, wait, my bad...that didn't omit his first game, just the second game.
Gee...stat-manipulation is fun.
Well silly me, I always thought the 2nd game came AFTER the 1st game, but what do I know....you know, rookie progress etc, the kind of stuff you wanted to see from Weeden (but somehow that high standard didn't apply to TRich, who got worse)
Quote:
I wonder what my point could be...
I don't know, my best guess is that you want to be right no matter what since you ask for progress but then turn around and apply double standard to rookies, ommitt progress when it's argued
Yeah Frog, what's your point?
Do you want me to post stats from Weeden and TRich in the first 8 games and since? I'd like to know why you bash one for "not progressing" despite improving his numbers but turn around and make all kind of excuses for the other. How come?
At least I am able to say when Weeden had a crap game or throw, I have yet to see you once even insinuate that TRich had a bad game period....and as much as you like to blame the Gs or Shurmur or Jesus Christ for not splitting the sea for him to run through, he DID have bad games, very bad ones at that
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
As I said then, you can't compare a 29-year old rookie to anything.
-----------
Yet you did and still do. I agree with that very last comment I quoted by you, but then you keep going on and contradicting yourself.
Context. You missed context.
Dj tried comparing a 29-year old rookie QB to rookie RB's. Can't do it. No team in the history of the NFL has attempted to do what the Browns are trying to do, and because of that and within that context, you can't compare a 29-year old rookie QB to anyone in history.
Now can you compare a 29-year old rookie's numbers to others in the league? Abso-freakin'-lutely, otherwise you'd have no basis for comparison and judgment.
Two. Totally. Different. Discussions.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
So it's not fair to compare two rookies if they are not the same age? But it's fair to compare a rookie to other people. Regardless of age? 
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
You gave me "scouting reports" that merely "mentioned" his age as a factor
Ummm...if they "mention" his age as a "factor" then his "age" is a "factor."
Quote:
Agenda squashing facts:
Top 10 RBs, age
Explain to everyone again why comparing a 29-year old rookie QB to RB's is applicable. You're comparing apples to hand-grenades.
Fact: QB's mature far slower than RB's and are polar-opposites in terms of the longevity of their playing careers.
Apples to hand-grenades.
Quote:
IF Weeden is good enough (should be determined next season), then he will have (at least) as many good seasons as TRich....so, if we should bump Weeden's value in the 20s because of "age" and longevity, what does that make the value of the TRich (or any RB) pick in the top 5?
OOOOOhhhhh.........I get it now. You're still angry about the T-rich selection and want to make this a discussion about Weeden versus Rich in terms of value. That's a bone for you and you alone to chew on. You're on record as being so angry about it that you will blame Richardson if this regime loses their jobs. It's Christmas so I won't put it back into my signature.
Sorry, that's not what this is about.
This thread is about Weeden's viability and whether or not it was a good gamble. You can't paint him in a better light by attempting to paint Richardson in a bad one.
Let's make this VERY simple and cut out all the secondary fluff:
I've stated that I believe if Weeden doesn't become great he'll have been a wasted gamble. I state that because if he isn't great, his career as a starter is going to be somewhere in the 3-5 year range.
You've acknowledged that only great QB's play to the age of 35, and therefore the odds of a QB playing at that age are very slim. (Even if Pit still hasn't ) Right now, there are only 2.
As badly as I trashed the gamble, I did say then, and still say now, that if he becomes a great QB he'll have been worth it. So here's the question I pose to you:
We obviously agree that if Weeden studs out it'll have been a great gamble and that I'll have been wrong. But if Weeden fails to become great, and only starts for a few years and gives pedestrian results, will the gamble have been worth it?
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
So it's not fair to compare two rookies if they are not the same age?
Not when they play two completely different position, no.
Quote:
But it's fair to compare a rookie to other people. Regardless of age?
When they play the exact same positions and you're comparing rookie seasons, yes.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
Agenda squashing facts:
Top 10 RBs, age
Explain to everyone again why comparing a 29-year old rookie QB to RB's is applicable. You're comparing apples to hand-grenades.
He has. Multiple times.
A 29 year old QB, if he plays till he's 35. Has 6 years of shelf life.
The average NFL RB has about a 6-7 year window of production.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Weeden 1st 7 games/last 7 games.
|
|
