|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 629
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 629 |
Quote:
You should know, you invented them.
LOL!
YOU STARTED IT!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848 |
Quote:
Quote:
Soup from what I've seen actually participates in a healthy debate with some knowledge on what he's talking about.
I guess u and I have different definitions and levels of what knowledge is .. anyone who isn't intelligent enough to know that the QB is much more than just a cog in the machine doesnt even pass the minimum requirments for me ..
CLUELESS is the adjetive or noun i would use ... not knowledgable .. 
Didn't you say Quinn should be taken at #3 over Thomas? So, does that make Savage clueless? I do get it. By the way, of your last 10 Super Bowls - 2 Left Tackles are going to the Hall of Fame. 1 RB is a shoe in for the HOF, another in Corey Dillon has a strong possability. Then factor in Ray Lewis, Edreed Willie Mcginest and the FACT that NE defense in the 3 AFC Champ games had 15 takeaways and you'll notice that the QB is a cog in the machine. The one thing you'll notice about all 10 teams is they had a stellar o-line. You can't deny that. 100% is greater than 60%. To think the QB is the utmost important just shows how blind you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848 |
Quote:
Phil agreed with you because he got Thomas first and BQ second? How does that make you right as you never argued that? All you ever argued was that Frye could do the job. Well, I would say Phil proved you wrong as drafting BQ went against everything you ever said on the situation. Yet somehow in your illogical mind that made you right? Okay....LMAO.
I am not sure how you could have been proven more wrong. Charlie is clearly not the QB you have made him out to be for the last 5 months. If he was, we would not have drafted BQ no matter who the LT was.
And Diam said he wanted BQ but, would be "smiling ear to ear" if we got Thomas. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't get it, especially considering the man crush Diam has on BQ. Diam has pimped OL and LT for the 5 years I have been around on the various boards. He is the original OL/LT, "trenches win football games" pimp. No one wanted the OL and LT addressed more than he did. The proof is that he said he would be fine with Joe over the golden boy who he has a man crush on. You're dreaming soup.
How you twist things is amazing. I guess it doesn't matter how wrong your logic is as long as it makes you happy and gets you though the day, as thats all that truly counts, I'm sure.
I hate to say it soup but someone has to ... Diam was right and you were wrong .. AS USUAL ...
No, actually, I was right. If you ever actually shrank your head so you could see around your inflated ego, you'd have noticed that I wrote several times we needed to get a line BEFORE WE GOT OUR QB OF THE FUTURE. I stated that Frye wasn't given a fair shake and anyone behind that line would get massacred. I was right in the FACT that at #3 we went LT because as Phil stated (to paraphrase) "We wouldn't take BQ without a left tackle." Everything I said all along was correct, we needed a LT (actually a line) BEFORE a future QB. We took the LT and then we grabbed our QB AFTERWARDS in the same round. Have I complained about it since after the draft? NOPE. Did we get the LT to secure the line FIRST like I stated we've needed to do since '99? YEP. Get off your high horse and shrink your big head back to reality. We went LT and str=arted to FIX the line. Everytime I brought up Frye, I brought up 11 injured QBs for a reason. It wasn't to say Frye was great, it was to say all QBs get crushed behind our line. Face the facts, just like my Garcia statements (it still burns you I was right prior to game 1 being played) I was right about the LT. And FYI, for right now Frye is still the starter until Quinn takes over so we'll know whether or not I was right about Frye improving a great deal with a line in a few months. By the way, I NEVER once stated Frye was the future of the team.
Last edited by Soup; 05/04/07 05:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065 |
Quote:
No, actually, I was right. If you ever actually shrank your head so you could see around your inflated ego, you'd have noticed that I wrote several times we needed to get a line BEFORE WE GOT OUR QB OF THE FUTURE.
Just to stir the pot a little more here.......
Soup, so what would your argument have been if Oakland passed on Russell and we took Russell over Thomas? Kind of puts a hole in your theory huh?
You were right based on circumstance, that's why I'm trying to figure out why you are tooting your own horn so hard? If Russell was there, Savage goes QB over OL and there's no disputing that whatsoever. Savage and our scouts prefered the #1 LT over the #2 QB....I don't see how that proves your point?  If Russell was there, we would have taken a QB over a LT and you would'nt even have bothered to come on here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
To stir the pot even more saying that a QB is more than just a cog.
What held back the Ravens for so long? And what is holding back the Jags from being consistently playoff contenders?
Would the Colts even sniff the playoffs with another QB?
They say you can't win without a QB, I don't believe that's true, but it makes it an up hill battle, and you'll constantly be in limbo like the Broncos (pre-Cutler, we'll see how he turns out), Jags or Ravens, you'll make the playoffs, maybe win a Superbowl, but you won't consistently be in that hunt year in and year out.
Of course the O-line huge, it's football 101.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848 |
Quote:
To stir the pot even more saying that a QB is more than just a cog.
What held back the Ravens for so long? And what is holding back the Jags from being consistently playoff contenders?
Would the Colts even sniff the playoffs with another QB?
They say you can't win without a QB, I don't believe that's true, but it makes it an up hill battle, and you'll constantly be in limbo like the Broncos (pre-Cutler, we'll see how he turns out), Jags or Ravens, you'll make the playoffs, maybe win a Superbowl, but you won't consistently be in that hunt year in and year out.
Of course the O-line huge, it's football 101.
And without their running games or o-lines, the Jags, Broncos, Ravens and Colts don't sniff the playoffs. It's part of a machine. You need all the parts, but in the end there's only one winner. People on here beleieve you can forgo o-line and running game if you have a QB - that's a completely false notion. I'm a firm believer that your last "cog" should be a QB. Perfect the rest and then get your QB. You talk about Russell - that would have PURELY been an emotion pick - just like Ted Ginn was.
Colts, Ravens, St. Louis, Cincy, etc. all got their LT PRIOR to their QB. We finally did something right. I'm happy about that. If we picked Russell, I'd be blasting the pick. Unless Oaklands o-line has a major change in attitude, Russell will be a major bust - which he would have been on the Browns without an o-line.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
To stir the pot even more saying that a QB is more than just a cog.
What held back the Ravens for so long? And what is holding back the Jags from being consistently playoff contenders?
Would the Colts even sniff the playoffs with another QB?
They say you can't win without a QB, I don't believe that's true, but it makes it an up hill battle, and you'll constantly be in limbo like the Broncos (pre-Cutler, we'll see how he turns out), Jags or Ravens, you'll make the playoffs, maybe win a Superbowl, but you won't consistently be in that hunt year in and year out.
Of course the O-line huge, it's football 101.
And without their running games or o-lines, the Jags, Broncos, Ravens and Colts don't sniff the playoffs. It's part of a machine. You need all the parts, but in the end there's only one winner. People on here beleieve you can forgo o-line and running game if you have a QB - that's a completely false notion. I'm a firm believer that your last "cog" should be a QB. Perfect the rest and then get your QB. You talk about Russell - that would have PURELY been an emotion pick - just like Ted Ginn was.
Colts, Ravens, St. Louis, Cincy, etc. all got their LT PRIOR to their QB. We finally did something right. I'm happy about that. If we picked Russell, I'd be blasting the pick. Unless Oaklands o-line has a major change in attitude, Russell will be a major bust - which he would have been on the Browns without an o-line.
I'm a firm believer that receiver is the last cog in the machine. We've seen teams like the Eagles and Patriots go deep into the playoffs with terrible talent at wideout.
Where did I say anything about Russell? I wanted no part of him. And I agree that Russell's career won't turn out well, if for any reason because of the lack of O-line.
It's why I'm still flying in space because we got both Thomas AND Quinn. As much as you need the other cogs in the machine to get to the playoffs, you need to quarterback to lead you towards the Lombardi. Very rarely (see: 2000 Ravens) does it happen behind rotten QB play.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 848 |
Oops!! Nas mentioned Russell, my mistake. NAs - see my last post. My "extreme" of inserting the QB last comes from the fact that every QB to play in Cleveland has come into a failing situation. Looking at the team (or lack there of) you knew the best you could hope for was mediocrity. I want it done the other way so that finally, if the QB is mediocfre - it will actually be the fault of the QB (for the first time since our return)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Oops!! Nas mentioned Russell, my mistake. NAs - see my last post. My "extreme" of inserting the QB last comes from the fact that every QB to play in Cleveland has come into a failing situation. Looking at the team (or lack there of) you knew the best you could hope for was mediocrity. I want it done the other way so that finally, if the QB is mediocfre - it will actually be the fault of the QB (for the first time since our return)
hey I don't blame you for thinking that way.
My theory is that QB is probably the last cog in the machine as a rookie, but when he becomes a veteran, receiver becomes that last cog. Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb have elevated their receivers' play, but when you're a rookie, you need that safety net.
Fortunately, we have safety nets at receiver and tight end, with a gamebreaker at receiver. I have to assume that Thomas is better than Shaffer already if Shaffer was as bad as we all say, and Jamal Lewis will only benefit from the enhanced line, and I don't think he's been healthy recently. I truly think we'll see Jamal Lewis circa 2003 back. Even 90% of what he was then would be huge.
My whole theory is that everyone said Matt Leinart came into a great situation in Arizona, I think Quinn comes into a situation as good as or better than that. We're parallel to where they were last year, except we got ourselves supposedly the best LT prospect since Tony Boselli.
We'll see how it shakes out. I'm not declaring us good yet, but the potential is there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
except we got ourselves supposedly the best LT prospect since Tony Boselli.
Or best prospect since Robert Gallery. Robert Gallery was supposed to be the next Orlando Pace, if you remember.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
except we got ourselves supposedly the best LT prospect since Tony Boselli.
Or best prospect since Robert Gallery. Robert Gallery was supposed to be the next Orlando Pace, if you remember.
That's why I said supposedly. Can't anoint anyone anything yet, although it's tempting given all the media attention we're getting lately.
Even then, people say that Thomas is ahead of Gallery in terms of how he played in college.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Savage: Quinn no Boller - Canton
Repository Article
|
|
