|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
Quote:
Quote:
Who ever made the decision to waste the 22nd pick in the draft on a QB halfway to the average retirement age was to say the least, foolish. I didn't see anything worth keeping. He is not a scrambler and the spread offense is going to blossom. Archeologists will be looking for pocket passers in less then one season.
RGIII, great as he is, suffered a concussion and a major knee injury in his FIRST YEAR. Think he can continue racking up those kinds of injuries, year after year? Chip Kelly went through QBs like they were toilet paper at Oregon. The spread/read option offense is exciting, but it is not the way to build and sustain a team for the long haul.
If RGIII has another year or two last his rookie year then he may not outlast Weeden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Chip Kelly went through QBs like they were toilet paper at Oregon. The spread/read option offense is exciting, but it is not the way to build and sustain a team for the long haul.
Jeremiah Masoli, who took them to a Rose Bowl.. Suspected of Theft, Suspended..
Darren Thomas, who took them to a Rose Bowl and NC.. Left for the draft after his 2nd year of starting..
Marcus Mariota, who just started his first season and won a BCS game..
3 QBs in 4 years, yep, went right through them.. 
Last edited by ThatGuy; 02/12/13 10:34 AM.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Any player? I can think of a few players that should have their jobs even if they miss all the OTAs and training camp.
Yes. Any player.
Quote:
That is harder to do than almost anything. You have to be bad and have a "can't miss" prospect be available in the same year. If we could draft an Andrew Luck I would obviously just do that.
It really isn't as rare as you might think and it's easy to do when you're picking #1 overall.
Quote:
I was hoping we could draft a QB in free agency. 
Well, it was redundant. I meant 'this draft'. As opposed to next year... or last year. 
Quote:
I don't really understand this statement.
Why? What was difficult to understand? Flacco may become a free agent if BallsNoMore doesn't sign him. And BallsNoMore would have to essentially sign Flacco to trade him. Or to be more precise, they would have to tender him and make other teams meet or beat that tender. If another team did so, the team that signed him would have to surrender two first round draft choices to the Ravens. I would oppose such a move by the Browns to sign Flacco if that was the circumstance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People point to a lot of flaws in Weedens game. I mean, don't most rookies make those mistakes? Or, are only Browns QB's supposed to be perfect.
Just wondering.
I just want the QB to be more mature and better than Russel Wilson.
64%
3,000 Yards
26 TDs
10 INTs
100.0 Passer Rating
11-5
Two plays away from Conference Title Game
No... Your expectations seem realistic...
They are realistic considering it was done by a 3rd round rookie whom the Browns past over 3 times to get a MATURE Weeden. Im hoping Chud and Turner can do something with Weeden so the Browns dont have the QB position to fill. But if a 3rd rounder can get those stats, the optimist in me hopes Weeden can get those stats next season. Especailly since he has a smaller window of oppurtunity due to his age. But it is very realistic expectations for Weeden to get those stats next season. This is his last year to prove he can do it before they go in another direction, if they arent planning that already.
Because of his touted maturity by the Holmgren regime, my optimistic Browns fan in me had expectations that he would have better stats then Luck, Tannenhill, RGIII and Wilson. I just mentioned Wilson because my expectations were that a 1st round rookie would have done better than a 3rd round rookie. But I didnt see any poise in Weeden and probabley the slowest feet.
Lets hope Chud and Turner can turn him around. Not unrealistic. If it is unrealistic, then it was a waisted pick and the new regime is probabley scrambling to get a new QB. The West Coast offense didnt fit Weeden. Especially since he was in the shotgun less than 30 other QBs. The draft pick didnt fit right from the get in my opinion but Im hoping he can do it this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
Quote:
Any player? I can think of a few players that should have their jobs even if they miss all the OTAs and training camp.
Yes. Any player.
You are flat out wrong on that one.
Quote:
Quote:
That is harder to do than almost anything. You have to be bad and have a "can't miss" prospect be available in the same year. If we could draft an Andrew Luck I would obviously just do that.
It really isn't as rare as you might think and it's easy to do when you're picking #1 overall.
So are you suggesting we tank a season to get the #1 pick?
Quote:
Quote:
I don't really understand this statement.
Why? What was difficult to understand? Flacco may become a free agent if BallsNoMore doesn't sign him. And BallsNoMore would have to essentially sign Flacco to trade him. Or to be more precise, they would have to tender him and make other teams meet or beat that tender. If another team did so, the team that signed him would have to surrender two first round draft choices to the Ravens. I would oppose such a move by the Browns to sign Flacco if that was the circumstance.
I understand that process. I didn't understand your previous wording.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People point to a lot of flaws in Weedens game. I mean, don't most rookies make those mistakes? Or, are only Browns QB's supposed to be perfect.
Just wondering.
I just want the QB to be more mature and better than Russel Wilson.
64%
3,000 Yards
26 TDs
10 INTs
100.0 Passer Rating
11-5
Two plays away from Conference Title Game
No... Your expectations seem realistic...
They are realistic considering it was done by a 3rd round rookie whom the Browns past over 3 times to get a MATURE Weeden.
So you expect every 3rd round rookie to be able to go 11-5 and come with a few plays of a shot at a Super Bowl?
Seems legit.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Any player? I can think of a few players that should have their jobs even if they miss all the OTAs and training camp.
Yes. Any player.
You are flat out wrong on that one.
So if Tom Brady sits out OTAs and Training Camp, then Bellichek should start Mallet over him?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is harder to do than almost anything. You have to be bad and have a "can't miss" prospect be available in the same year. If we could draft an Andrew Luck I would obviously just do that.
It really isn't as rare as you might think and it's easy to do when you're picking #1 overall.
So are you suggesting we tank a season to get the #1 pick?
Apparently, because every year the best QB prospect in the last 20 years is coming out just waiting to take any team to the playoffs..
Last edited by ThatGuy; 02/13/13 10:22 AM.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People point to a lot of flaws in Weedens game. I mean, don't most rookies make those mistakes? Or, are only Browns QB's supposed to be perfect.
Just wondering.
I just want the QB to be more mature and better than Russel Wilson.
64%
3,000 Yards
26 TDs
10 INTs
100.0 Passer Rating
11-5
Two plays away from Conference Title Game
No... Your expectations seem realistic...
They are realistic considering it was done by a 3rd round rookie whom the Browns past over 3 times to get a MATURE Weeden.
So you expect every 3rd round rookie to be able to go 11-5 and come with a few plays of a shot at a Super Bowl?
Seems legit.
I dont know where I said that anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
You just said that a 3rd round rookie taking his team to 11-5 and to the playoffs seemed realistic...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
jc...
The Browns don't need a QB in this draft...we already have a QB, Weeden.
Those who buy the crap that Weeden is junk and the Browns need to find another QB...you could not be anymore WRONG !
Compare the "rookie" stats of these two QBs...
.Rk.....Player.....Comp..Att.....Pct......Yds...Avg...Yds/G...TD...Int...Sck...Rate ..
19.....Weeden... 297...517....57.4...3,385..6.5....225.7...14 ...17.. 28...72.6 ...
.Rk.....Player.....Comp..Att....Pct......Yds.....Avg...Yds/G...TD...Int...Sck...Rate ..
..3....Manning....326...575.....56.7....3,739...6.5....233.7...26....28...22....71.2..
Anyone doing an honest assessment of Peyton Manning's rookie performance VS Weeden's rookie performance would have to agree, Weeden did an acceptable job considering the supporting cast he had to work with.
Weeden was the rookie QB of the least experienced offensive unit in the entire NFL...all of us are aware of "that fact"...
...but some simply ignore it or pretend our inexperienced receivers, who were playing in the West Coast Offense for the first time...that it had no effect on Weeden's performance.
Then there is the way Haslam, Banner and Lombardi have supported their starting QB.
Have any of the other starting rookie QBs from last season been told they have to compete for their starting job?
Is Andrew Luck competing for his job, this season?
RGIII?
Tannehill?
Wilson?
Everyone of these QBs are being supported by their team as the starter, going into the 2013 season...everyone but Weeden.
Weeden passed for more yards than Wilson and Tannehill and had higher completion percentage than Andrew Luck and luck had more INTs than Weeden...yet Weeden is not supported by Haslam, Banner and Lombardi, as the Browns starter.
Now I'm not saying Weeden's performance as a rookie was the best among the rookie QBs, BUT considering the supporting cast Weeden had to work with, he didn't do a bad job.
I do have a big problem with the Browns front office and how they refused to support Weeden as our starter. None of the other teams that started a rookie QB for the 2012 season, treated their rookie QB like the Browns did.
What thanks did Weeden get from Haslam, Banner and Lombardi?...Weeden got a kick in the teeth !
The actions of this front office only confirm my concern about the leadership of this franchise. The Browns have the worst front office in the NFL...until they prove differently.
I look at how the other teams have encouraged their young QBs and done as much as they could to support them. Then I look at my Cleveland Browns and wonder, what would happen if we actually treated our QBs like Andrew Luck was treated in Indy...or pick any of the other rookie starters from last season and look at how their teams supported their starting QB.
...what would happen if the Browns actually supported their QB and added to the supporting cast, in an effort to take advantage of Weeden's talent?
Since 1999, the Browns have been among the worst franchises in the NFL when it comes to supporting and developing QB talent...and nothing changed when Haslam bought the team.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,197
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,197 |
First off in regards to competition at quarterback it is not a question of "if". It is only a question of "who".
The organization is not committed to Brandon Weeden. They didn't draft him. They have come to the conclusion that Weeden will not be given the starters job. He will have to win the job.
So it will be Alex Smith or someone else.
This draft does not have a quarterback that has been identified as a top tier guy. No quarterback is currently projected as top ten on talent. Of course because of the position people will reach for a quarterback.
It would not surprise me if the Browns went after Alex Smith and still drafted a quarterback later as a project (EJ Manuel).
Alex Smith is an upgrade over Weeden. Haslam, Banner, Lombardi, Chud all would like to come out and win next year. Show improvement from years of sub 500 football. They have cap money.
These moves give the Browns a decent chance to win more games then they lose.
There have been a good number of quarterbacks who blossomed late in their careers. Plunkett, Gannon, Doug Williams, Warner. Smith has proven he can win games. His early career was marked by constant change in coaching and schemes. Experience benefits those who persevere.
Alex Smith can come in and challenge Weeden right off the bat. If Weeden beats him out then ok he wins the job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
imagine if you compared Weeden to the other Manning's rookie year.
i think the comparison is a bit stale. not all QBs are created equally and we need our coaching staff to evaluate what they like and don't like about Weeden and figure out what to do from there.
he did some good things, but he also didn't seem to progress much. we'll see.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
Alex Smith is an upgrade over Weeden.
In this offense? It's not so cut and dry.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Compare the "rookie" stats of these two QBs...
.Rk.....Player.....Comp..Att.....Pct......Yds...Avg...Yds/G...TD...Int...Sck...Rate ..
19.....Weeden... 297...517....57.4...3,385..6.5....225.7...14 ...17.. 28...72.6 ...
.Rk.....Player.....Comp..Att....Pct......Yds.....Avg...Yds/G...TD...Int...Sck...Rate ..
..3....Manning....326...575.....56.7....3,739...6.5....233.7...26....28...22....71.2..
Anyone doing an honest assessment of Peyton Manning's rookie performance VS Weeden's rookie performance would have to agree, Weeden did an acceptable job considering the supporting cast he had to work with.
You have now posted this about 9 times.. in his second season, Peyton threw for over 4100 yards, had a QB rating over 90 and went 13-3... thank you for establishing the baseline of what we should expect.... I'm really looking forward to next season now, it should be exciting.. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Have any of the other starting rookie QBs from last season been told they have to compete for their starting job?
Is Andrew Luck competing for his job, this season?
RGIII?
Tannehill?
Wilson?
Everyone of these QBs are being supported by their team as the starter, going into the 2013 season...everyone but Weeden.
Every one of them has the same owner, coach, system they had last year... and the oldest of them is 24...
Seriously, just keep ignoring the fact that about week 6 next year Weeden will be 30 years old.... If he was 24, he would be getting considerably more support than he is right now..
And honestly, I see a lot of people being critical of him, I also see the vast majority of people stating he should get at least another year... He's not getting blasted nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Those who buy the crap that Weeden is junk and the Browns need to find another QB...you could not be anymore WRONG !
Son, you don't pay much attention do you. Hardly anyone is saying he's junk. Mostly what folks seem to be saying is that he doesn't have time (given his age) to become the leader we need. He needs to speed up the learning curve.
He made a ton of rookie mistakes. If he can turn that around under Turner, we could have a pretty darn good QB for the next 3 to 6 years. In that time frame, we should be able to find something better if needed.
Oh hell, lets be honest, if your starter is Payton Manning or Tom Brady quality, you should always be looking for something better anyways..
#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: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
It's effectively a different era for QBs. Emphasis on calling defensive holding and limiting hits on defenseless players have significantly inflated QB stats/ratings.
I don't think Manning had a top 5 O-line his rookie year either, and he certainly wasn't 29 years old. That's not to say you give up on the guy. It's just not really a valid comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Oh hell, lets be honest, if your starter is Payton Manning or Tom Brady quality, you should always be looking for something better anyways..
Weeden is Peyton Manning quality.. their rookie numbers prove it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Weeden's age is the problem. Like my sig has said since the moment we drafted the guy, if he didn't light it up as a rookie he was screwed. It's not fair but his age gives him an insanely short leash and given that the guys who drafted him are all gone, it's even shorter now. NO one is going to want to start a 30 year old developmental QB that they didn't draft if given the opportunity to upgrade him.
Trust me, if Weeden were going to be 23-24 this year like pretty much every rookie QB is in Year 2, you wouldn't see people so ready to dump him. As is, if the front office going to develop a QB, why wouldn't they go get a 21-22 year old of their choosing? They have nothing invested in Weeden. He's a sunk cost of a past regime... he's not a 2nd year investment to them, he's a 30 year old QB who isn't ready to play well in the NFL yet. Don't be surprised when he's treated as such.
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
The biggest thing Weeden has going for him is the lack of other quality options.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Well put... exactly what some have been trying to say...I like Weeden, I'd just like him a whole lot more if he was <25.... the thing that benefits Weeden the most right now is that this is such a weak QB class both in the draft and in FA... there is NOBODY that represents a clear upgrade and that alone will probably buy him a 2nd year.. but if he doesn't make major strides... and that includes winning games, whether that's fair or not is irrelevant.. if we aren't .500, I think he will be gone (or at least not starting any more)...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
The biggest thing Weeden has going for him is the lack of other quality options.
The best thing he has going for him is Chud. IF he can't succeed under Chud and Norv then there is literally no hope. I think it will be interesting how Cam does without Chud.
Last edited by Mourgrym; 02/15/13 03:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
In one way, QB is no different than any other position in football: if there is no CLEAR upgrade, it is best to go with what you have and build the team elsewhere. Ultimately, that is where I think we are with Weeden. I think the has the physical tools to do well under Chud's / Turner's tutelage. The question is, does he have the head to play at this level? We'll see... if he doesn't show signs of "getting it" this season, we'll be looking for a new QB (or two) next off-season. Actually, we may be anyway because, even if Weeden shows something in 2013, we're going to need to start grooming his replacement as soon as we can. 
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
In one way, QB is no different than any other position in football: if there is no CLEAR upgrade, it is best to go with what you have and build the team elsewhere. Ultimately, that is where I think we are with Weeden.
The biggest difference is that there is only 1 starting QB and there isn't any good way to platoon them.. if you have a good ILB, there is no harm in getting another good ILB because you can use them both either at the same time or in rotation.... if it's WR, you can play 2, 3, sometimes 4 at a time to get a feel for them... You can have, in fact it's good to have, 2 or 3 RBs that get carries.. in that sense, QB is pretty unique.. Plus, if you start a different OG, most people aren't going to care, the coach isn't going to have to answer 40 questions on which OG he plans to start next week...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
It won't be Tarvaris Jackson. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8951930/tarvaris-jackson-re-signed-buffalo-billsBills re-sign QB Tarvaris Jackson Updated: February 15, 2013, 2:07 PM ET ESPN.com news services BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Backup quarterback Tarvaris Jackson has re-signed with the Buffalo Bills. Jackson signed a one-year deal that could be worth up to $4.5 million, a league source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. ESPN.com's James Walker writes about all things AFC East in his division blog. Returning starter Ryan Fitzpatrick also will remain part of the team's future for now. In announcing Jackson's signing on Friday, new coach Doug Marrone ended a month of speculation regarding Fitzpatrick's status. Marrone says he's informed Fitzpatrick and Jackson that he intends to have both compete for the starting job next season. This was Marrone's most definitive statement regarding Fitzpatrick and his plans regarding the quarterback spot since the coach took over last month. Marrone replaced Chan Gailey, who was fired after three consecutive losing seasons. Jackson never saw the field in spending all of last season as the Bills' third-stringer. He's a seven-year NFL veteran who was acquired by the Bills in a trade with Seattle in August.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
It was almost certainly never going to be Jackson.
If we were truly not interested in Alex Smith, then we would never be interested in Jackson.
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: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
If we were truly not interested in Alex Smith, then we would never be interested in Jackson.
I didn't think he would be likely to play here, but I don't follow the logic. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
Quote:
If we were truly not interested in Alex Smith, then we would never be interested in Jackson.
I didn't think he would be likely to play here, but I don't follow the logic.
Jackson is a step below Smith. If we did not want Smith, there is no way we'd want Jackson.
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: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Well, Jackson was a mobile, strong-armed free agent QB, while Smith was a mobile, timing QB under (large) contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
It's effectively a different era for QBs. Emphasis on calling defensive holding and limiting hits on defenseless players have significantly inflated QB stats/ratings.
I don't think Manning had a top 5 O-line his rookie year either, and he certainly wasn't 29 years old. That's not to say you give up on the guy. It's just not really a valid comparison.
Manning had Marshall Faulk, who ran for over 1300 yards. He had Jerome Pathon, Torrence Small, and Marvin Harrison at WR. He had Marcus Pollard and Ken Dilger at TE.
It's not like he walked into a talent deficient locker room.
Now, the Colts couldn't stop the run to save their lives .... and gave up over 2500 yards rushing (and 20 rushing TD) in Manning's rookie year .......
In Manning's 2nd season, the Colts traded away Faulk, drafted James ....... he still had Pollard and Dilger at TE ...... Harrison and Pathon at WR ...... and he improved dramatically.
Now, I'm not saying that just because one QB had a similar rookie season that he'll develop like another QB did. I'm sure that if someone wanted to look, they could find a wide range of QBs with similar rookie stats whose sophomore performances were all over the place.
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: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
I'll give you Harrison and Faulk... 2 all time great players, even if neither were anything special back in '98. The other guys... well, I'm not going to claim to know the '98 Colts roster very well, but if those were the standout players then maybe that explains why they were picking #1  It doesn't really matter though... Quote:
Now, I'm not saying that just because one QB had a similar rookie season that he'll develop like another QB did. I'm sure that if someone wanted to look, they could find a wide range of QBs with similar rookie stats whose sophomore performances were all over the place.
This is pretty much the main point. We're not comparing arm strength, accuracy, age/experience, leadership, decision making, fundamentals, physical stature, or even college performance. We are comparing rookie stats without context from different eras. It's just completely meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Faulk ran for more than 1300 yards in 1998. He averaged, IIRC, 4 yards/carry. He went on to St Louis in 1999, and began a great stretch with the Rams, including winning the Super Bowl, and running for 5.5 yards/carry and 7 TD ..... then 18 TD the following year. He was hardly washed up, or a player who hadn't arrived yet.
Harrison was in his 3rd season with the Colts. 1999 was his breakout year ..... which was also, ironically enough, Manning's breakout year as well.
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: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
yeah, Indy definitely made a mistake letting Faulk go, especially with what he brought in the passing game. It really wasn't until he got to St. Louis though that he started putting up HOF numbers.
I still don't think this really matters though to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
The Colts replaced Faulk with Edgerrin James.
In James' rookie season (also the first year without Faulk) he led the league in rushing with 1,553 rushing yards and he also had 586 receiving yards. In James' second season he had 1,709 rushing yards and 594 receiving yards.
James was a total beast.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Ya Edge was a beast, but this is all revisionist history at this point. And really, if you think Marshall Faulk is a hall of famer, it's because of those '99-'01 years. For example in '99: 253 att for 1381 yards/5.5 average and 1048 yards receiving(!)/12.0 average. Both were obviously studs but if you keep Faulk (not sure what the dynamics were at the time to be honest, and don't care), you also free up the #4 pick in the draft. Do you take Faulk and Torry Holt... or Faulk and Champ Bailey (next 2 non-RBs taken), or Edge by himself? .... none of which really has a whole lot to do with the whole Manning vs Weeden thing, but I assume that just about everyone knows how ridiculous that is and won't touch it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,228
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,228 |
Quote:
.... none of which really has a whole lot to do with the whole Manning vs Weeden thing, but I assume that just about everyone knows how ridiculous that is and won't touch it.
false...
there are a few people that run around sayin "stats are for loser" until they try to make a point with Weeden and say something like "Look at what Peyton did- Weeden has similar stats"
I just SHM
Hunter + Dart = This is the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Manning threw twice the number of Td's...IDK y we comparing the two
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
It's not comparing..
It's the people that use Weeden's stats to say he's a worthless bust..
One year of stats (especially a QBs Rookie Year) doesn't mean as much as some people think it does...
The point is that just because Weeden had iffy stats this year, doesn't mean he's going to forward (ala Manning)
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
It's not comparing..
It's the people that use Weeden's stats to say he's a worthless bust..
One year of stats (especially a QBs Rookie Year) doesn't mean as much as some people think it does...
The point is that just because Weeden had iffy stats this year, doesn't mean he's going to forward (ala Manning)
It's the poor rookie performance AND his age.
I know, I know. Rookie record yards. Blah, blah. Still had 14 TDs vs. 17 INTs and only 5 wins. From a statistical standpoint, the yards are all they have to hang as an accomplishment.
Sorry, for those that would use such an argument, I ain't buying it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Manning had 28 and 29 and only 3 wins..
That's my point, beyond saying "it means nothing" because it obviously means something, it means nothing...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Who will be the QB III
|
|
