PDA

View Full Version : Regarding Franchise QB's



Dreadnought
12-21-2011, 10:15 AM
An interesting piece. My own thinking is becoming more in line with the idea that nothing guarantees long term futility like constant QB changes as you search for the next Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. Its simply stupid, because you never quite know who will actually turn out to be the next Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. You can end up as the NFL equivalent of the old maid that never married because nobody ever met her standards. Or, put another way, win with who ya got.


Cassel, Kolb misfires show the value of Bridge Quarterbacks

Through the last decade, the dominant narrative in the NFL has been that if you want to build a dynasty and win Super Bowls, you must have a franchise quarterback. Teams who use league-average bridge players at that position tend to underwhelm in the end, which is why some teams have gambled and lost on quarterbacks just high enough in the food chain to tantalize, and just low enough on the reality scale to disappoint when the time comes to validate that elite-level contract.

Two teams are paying the price for those errant decisions, both literally and figuratively. The Kansas City Chiefs rewarded former New England Patriots quarterback Matt Cassel with a six-year, $63 million contract in July of 2009 after Cassel helped the Pats go 11-5 without Tom Brady, who suffered a season-ending knee injury on the first quarter of the first game. In his nearly three seasons with the Chiefs, Cassel has never posted a DYAR efficiency ranking higher than 14th in the league through a season, and the hand injury that put him on injured reserve this season has made him all to replaceable in some eyes.

When the Chiefs upset the formerly undefeated Green Bay Packers last Sunday, interim head coach Romeo Crennel said that if backup Kyle Orton continued to play as he did, he should get a chance to be the team's starting quarterback in 2012. Given the fact that Orton's better play would increase Crennel's chances of turning his own "interim" tag to "permanent," it isn't hard to see the writing on the wall. Cassel got a $4.75 million base salary and a $7.5 million option bonus in 2011; Orton will be a free agent on the comeback trail next year...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Cassel-Kolb-misfires-show-the-value-of-bridge-q?urn=nfl-wp14402&print=1

P.S. I've seen enough of Kyle Orton now to recognize the opposite problem. The Chiefs will learn too, in their own good time :D

TXBRONC
12-21-2011, 10:18 AM
An interesting piece. My own thinking is becoming more in line with the idea that nothing guarantees long term futility like constant QB changes as you search for the next Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. Its simply stupid, because you never quite know who will actually turn out to be the next Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. You can end up as the NFL equivalent of the old maid that never married because nobody ever met her standards. Or, put another way, win with who ya got.



P.S. I've seen enough of Kyle Orton now to recognize the opposite problem. The Chiefs will learn too, in their own good time :D

Orton's performance against the Packers was typical. Lots of yards and very little point production and in the case of this particular game he had none.

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 10:23 AM
But here lies the problem.

Take Brady, Brees, Rogers, Mannings, Ben out of the equation. Who is the best of the rest? What set of QB's after that group would be considered elite?

I just think that after a handful of QB's, the rest of the league is mediocre to bad. So if the game and the rules are set up now to play to the benefit of the passing game, then these QB's realistically have to be considered the favorites to win the SB year after year.

It requires more than a Franchise QB...it requires a HoF quarterback. Look at the last 20+ years. Other than Dilfer and Johnson, show me a QB that isnt in...on their way in...or in the process of having that type of a career. If you dont have a guy with one of the names listed above...you're pretty much in a constant state of playing for next year

MOtorboat
12-21-2011, 10:29 AM
I know people here hate Orton but that's the type of quarterback the guy is referring to. Pay a mediocre guy mediocre money (yes $9 million is mediocre quarterback money for tw years) while you search for a franchise guy and maybe the mediocre guy will surprise you. Obviously that didn't happen this year, but it probably was the right approach to take with Orton.

Chef Zambini
12-21-2011, 10:30 AM
CAM newton will get there.
Matt stafford too.
but regardless of the QB, he and his team aint going nowhere without a solid run game and capable defense.
BRONCO fans should know this better than most!
at least bronco fans over the age of 30.

chazoe60
12-21-2011, 10:32 AM
It's a catch22. Your chances of winning a SB without an elite QB are very low, but the chances of hurting your franchise for years by getting on and off the QB carrousel is very high. So, you almost have to have one but the search itself can destroy your franchise for big chuncks of time.

Hopefully, we have ours now and we can prove that franchise QBs don't all have to fit into a specific mold.

Jsteve01
12-21-2011, 10:33 AM
Orton's performance against the Packers was typical. Lots of yards and very little point production and in the case of this particular game he had none.

That said, Orton getting to throw to the likes of Breaston, Baldwin and Bowe is the ideal situation for a guy like him.

lgenf
12-21-2011, 10:34 AM
CAM newton will get there.
Matt stafford too.
but regardless of the QB, he and his team aint going nowhere without a solid run game and capable defense.
BRONCO fans should know this better than most!
at least bronco fans over the age of 30.

Is that a hint at the fact that even john couldn't get it done without a running game?

Dreadnought
12-21-2011, 10:34 AM
But here lies the problem.

Take Brady, Brees, Rogers, Mannings, Ben out of the equation. Who is the best of the rest? What set of QB's after that group would be considered elite?

I just think that after a handful of QB's, the rest of the league is mediocre to bad. So if the game and the rules are set up now to play to the benefit of the passing game, then these QB's realistically have to be considered the favorites to win the SB year after year.

It requires more than a Franchise QB...it requires a HoF quarterback. Look at the last 20+ years. Other than Dilfer and Johnson, show me a QB that isnt in...on their way in...or in the process of having that type of a career. If you dont have a guy with one of the names listed above...you're pretty much in a constant state of playing for next year

I have to disagree here. I think there is a whole slew of 2nd tier QB's fully capable of winning a Superbowl. In the case of Eli Manning he actually did (I disagree that he is an elite QB, just very good). Jake DelHomme and Matt Hasselback came within a whisker of doing it as well, as did an old Kurt Warner. I would say the next tier down includes

Jay Cutler
Eli Manning
Tony Romo
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Matt Schaub

A third tier - guys who are capable or might be capable - or who the Hell knows...anyways, they are good enough to win regularly now or have won regularly in the past. They are guys with enough upside you don't go looking to replace them just yet, or who might well move up a level or two very soon.

Maybe Stafford, Vick, Flacco, Dalton, Tebow, Newton, A. Smith, Palmer, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick

Yes there are some chump QB's and some bad situations. I rate say Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton, Dan Orlovsky, T. Jackson as just such chump QB's. These you must rid yourself of, sooner rather than later, or dedicate as short term backups

Chef Zambini
12-21-2011, 10:42 AM
I have to disagree here. I think there is a whole slew of 2nd tier QB's fully capable of winning a Superbowl. In the case of Eli Manning he actually did (I disagree that he is an elite QB, just very good). Jake DelHomme and Matt Hasselback came within a whisker of doing it as well, as did an old Kurt Warner. I would say the next tier down includes

Jay Cutler
Eli Manning
Tony Romo
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Matt Schaub

A third tier - guys who are capable or might be capable - or who the Hell knows...anyways, they are good enough to win regularly now or have won regularly in the past. They are guys with enough upside you don't go looking to replace them just yet, or who might well move up a level or two very soon.

Maybe Stafford, Vick, Flacco, Dalton, Tebow, Newton, A. Smith, Palmer, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick

Yes there are some chump QB's and some bad situationswith few exceptions I like your list !
but lets trey to remeber that EVERY QB listed here is dog meast without the right sytem, O-line, run game and play-calling.

MOtorboat
12-21-2011, 10:45 AM
I wish the guy hadn't used Orton, because you cannot have a rational discussion about Orton on a Broncos message board. He's the same as Orlovsky? Really?

chazoe60
12-21-2011, 10:45 AM
with few exceptions I like your list !
but lets trey to remeber that EVERY QB listed here is dog meast without the right sytem, O-line, run game and play-calling.

For the most part you're right but how is that INDY system, OL, and running game without Manning?

This season convinced me that Peyton Manning is the best QB ever. I have been called an idiot before for saying Manning has done more with less for years but I think this season proves it, at least somewhat.

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 10:47 AM
CAM newton will get there.
Matt stafford too.
but regardless of the QB, he and his team aint going nowhere without a solid run game and capable defense.
BRONCO fans should know this better than most!
at least bronco fans over the age of 30.

I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

Jsteve01
12-21-2011, 10:48 AM
For the most part you're right but how is that INDY system, OL, and running game without Manning?

This season convinced me that Peyton Manning is the best QB ever. I have been called an idiot before for saying Manning has done more with less for years but I think this season proves it, at least somewhat.

or their new hc is horrid. listen Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Joseph Addai, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James are not slouches by any stretch. They've also always had great line play.

MOtorboat
12-21-2011, 10:53 AM
I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

I want to see how San Francisco does with that defense in the playoffs. They shut down Pittsburgh without Willis (granted Roethlisberger was not himself).

chazoe60
12-21-2011, 10:53 AM
I wish the guy hadn't used Orton, because you cannot have a rational discussion about Orton on a Broncos message board. He's the same as Orlovsky? Really?

The thing about Orton is that he does nothing particularly well. Everything he does is either average(accuracy), below average(mobility), or woefully inept(clutch performance). The one thing we thought he did at close to an elite level was protect the ball, but even when it looked like that it was more about his unwillingness to take a chance which hurt us bad. This season he proved he could turn the ball over as much as anyone.

The even bigger problem and the thing that I believe puts him in the category of "needs to be replaced" is that he performs his worst when he is needed the most. We saw it for 2+ years.

I honestly consider Orton to be one of the bottom five starting QBs in the NFL.

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 10:55 AM
I have to disagree here. I think there is a whole slew of 2nd tier QB's fully capable of winning a Superbowl. In the case of Eli Manning he actually did (I disagree that he is an elite QB, just very good). Jake DelHomme and Matt Hasselback came within a whisker of doing it as well, as did an old Kurt Warner. I would say the next tier down includes

Jay Cutler
Eli Manning
Tony Romo
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Matt Schaub

A third tier - guys who are capable or might be capable - or who the Hell knows...anyways, they are good enough to win regularly now or have won regularly in the past. They are guys with enough upside you don't go looking to replace them just yet, or who might well move up a level or two very soon.

Maybe Stafford, Vick, Flacco, Dalton, Tebow, Newton, A. Smith, Palmer, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick

Yes there are some chump QB's and some bad situations. I rate say Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton, Dan Orlovsky, T. Jackson as just such chump QB's. These you must rid yourself of, sooner rather than later, or dedicate as short term backups

I guess it's a matter of opinion on whether Eli is 2nd tier or not. But assuming he is, I'll again ask how many QB's...other than the elite...have won a SB in the last few decades? 2?

I think the 2nd tier guys require much more talent around them than the top guys do. Again, compare the favorites this year to the bottom ranked defenses and see how many common denominators you find.

MOtorboat
12-21-2011, 10:57 AM
The thing about Orton is that he does nothing particularly well. Everything he does is either average(accuracy), below average(mobility), or woefully inept(clutch performance). The one thing we thought he did at close to an elite level was protect the ball, but even when it looked like that it was more about his unwillingness to take a chance which hurt us bad. This season he proved he could turn the ball over as much as anyone.

The even bigger problem and the thing that I believe puts him in the category of "needs to be replaced" is that he performs his worst when he is needed the most. We saw it for 2+ years.

I honestly consider Orton to be one of the bottom five starting QBs in the NFL.

I'd hate to see this fan base with the types of quarterbacks that we're seeing Orton compared to here.

Dreadnought
12-21-2011, 10:59 AM
I wish the guy hadn't used Orton, because you cannot have a rational discussion about Orton on a Broncos message board. He's the same as Orlovsky? Really?

Orlovsky > Orton

Orton > Jimmy Clausen. But its close

MOtorboat
12-21-2011, 11:00 AM
Orlovsky > Orton

Orton > Jimmy Clausen. But its close

I'll drop it after this, but that is absurd.

chazoe60
12-21-2011, 11:04 AM
I'll drop it after this, but that is absurd.

You should have changed your name to MOrton. J/K


Agree to disagree I guess.

underrated29
12-21-2011, 11:10 AM
While I agree with you coach, Eli Manning. IMO he is in no way going or playing like a HOF QB.



But here lies the problem.

Take Brady, Brees, Rogers, Mannings, Ben out of the equation. Who is the best of the rest? What set of QB's after that group would be considered elite?

I just think that after a handful of QB's, the rest of the league is mediocre to bad. So if the game and the rules are set up now to play to the benefit of the passing game, then these QB's realistically have to be considered the favorites to win the SB year after year.

It requires more than a Franchise QB...it requires a HoF quarterback. Look at the last 20+ years. Other than Dilfer and Johnson, show me a QB that isnt in...on their way in...or in the process of having that type of a career. If you dont have a guy with one of the names listed above...you're pretty much in a constant state of playing for next year







CAM newton will get there.
Matt stafford too.
but regardless of the QB, he and his team aint going nowhere without a solid run game and capable defense.
BRONCO fans should know this better than most!
at least bronco fans over the age of 30.

Why do people keep saying this. That one drunk dude said it in his thread. What the hell does the age of 30 have to do with anything?

Its like saying all of us bronco fans should remember what its like to have a top 5 running game, unless of course you have a tatoo, then you just wouldnt understand.

underrated29
12-21-2011, 11:13 AM
Orlovsky > Orton

Orton > Jimmy Clausen. But its close



I think I would flip those two around. I dont have much like for orton, but I think he is better than Dano, but not ghey jimmy.

Dreadnought
12-21-2011, 11:20 AM
I think I would flip those two around. I dont have much like for orton, but I think he is better than Dano, but not ghey jimmy.

I wouldn't argue with you very hard. They all blow regardless. Its like ranking crabs, the clap, and penile warts in order of preference.

wayninja
12-21-2011, 11:21 AM
I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

That's actually a pretty compelling argument, but I don't think 1 year is a large enough sample size. The KC game was pretty darn good proof that if you neglect defense, it only takes 1 bad game from your QB to be eliminated.

Let's be honest here... KC didn't really 'win' that game, the packers simply played terribly and Rogers/packers has no answer for pressure and good coverage.

chazoe60
12-21-2011, 11:21 AM
I wouldn't argue with you very hard. They all blow regardless. Its like ranking crabs, the clap, and penile warts in order of preference.

I'll take crabs thanks. Easiest to get rid of and delicious when didpped in butter.

wayninja
12-21-2011, 11:23 AM
I'll take crabs thanks. Easiest to get rid of and delicious when didpped in butter.

I think we should move any discussions about Ron Mexico to the other teams forum.

Poet
12-21-2011, 11:24 AM
I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

But last year two top five defenses played in the SB.

The NFL is always in flux. There is no longer a real blueprint anymore.

Dreadnought
12-21-2011, 11:25 AM
That's actually a pretty compelling argument, but I don't think 1 year is a large enough sample size. The KC game was pretty darn good proof that if you neglect defense, it only takes 1 bad game from your QB to be eliminated.

Let's be honest here... KC didn't really 'win' that game, the packers simply played terribly and Rogers/packers has no answer for pressure and good coverage.

Downside of depending so totally on an elite QB. One bad game and you have no other way to win. the exception is the Steelers, which is why Ben has multiple rings, and Peyton Manning only has one. I would also argue that Brady won his three rings prior to becoming a truly elite QB as we think of them. The 01, 03, and 04 Pats played sound defense, and in 04 they ran very well too. they haven't won it all since and I don't think that is an accident. Also, Brees won one because the '09 Saints forced crazy turnovers - another form of defense, and one the Pack is doing this year.

catfish
12-21-2011, 11:33 AM
I think it use to be that way. But the Saints, Packers and Colts have proven that an opportunistic defense will help you get a title as much as a "good" defense will.

If the two favorites (Green Bay and NE) play for the title this year, there is no better proof that a good defense is merely a luxury in todays NFL

both those teams have above average scoring defenses...they give up yards, but make up for it in the redzone and with turnovers.

BroncoJoe
12-21-2011, 11:35 AM
We all (myself included) kind of ripped Orton for his redzone shortcomings. It may have played in their favor, as if they had scored more, chances are it would have woke up Green Bay. All those FG's instead of TD's kept the game relatively in reach.

Speculation, of course.

wayninja
12-21-2011, 11:36 AM
both those teams have above average scoring defenses...they give up yards, but make up for it in the redzone and with turnovers.

I'll take a consistently stout defense that gives up few yards and forces a QB to make quick, super accurate throws while under pressure to one that gives up lots of yards and gets turnovers any day.

I've always kind of felt that chance plays a large part into turnovers. There's definitely teams that take the ball away better than others, but sometimes you simply get flat-out lucky.

I definitely think that Denver is one of those teams that doesn't catch a lot of breaks with opposing teams making mistakes a lot to turn the ball over. We don't help ourselves either since most of our DB's can't seem to catch the ball.

catfish
12-21-2011, 11:40 AM
I'll take a consistently stout defense that gives up few yards and forces a QB to make quick, super accurate throws while under pressure to one that gives up lots of yards and gets turnovers any day.

I've always kind of felt that chance plays a large part into turnovers. There's definitely teams that take the ball away better than others, but sometimes you simply get flat-out lucky.

I would say I don't really care how it gets done as long as they don't score the points. Yards aren't a good measure for a team like NE or GB....once they are up on you by 20 the D can get real soft and will give up a bunch of yards I have to imagine some of these games garbage time starts mid 3rd quarter

wayninja
12-21-2011, 11:43 AM
I would say I don't really care how it gets done as long as they don't score the points. Yards aren't a good measure for a team like NE or GB....once they are up on you by 20 the D can get real soft and will give up a bunch of yards I have to imagine some of these games garbage time starts mid 3rd quarter

I think I would agree with that about NE, but not so sure about Greenbay. Their D has simply been pretty bad. They do get some turnovers, no doubt, but their core defensive play has been weak all year.

KCL
12-21-2011, 11:47 AM
I may be wrong but sounds like some of you guys are a little disappointed that Orton didn't fail vs the Pack,wasn't sacked or picked off numerous times.

And to whomever said KC really didn't win that game..The Chiefs are a very inconsistent team but the last few weeks (minus the Jets game due to them being on the field too long) the D has been playing very well.Hali sacked Rodgers 3 times.

As far as not being able to get the ball in the EZ..one of the passes dropped by McClain was on him,not Orton.

Firing Haley and sitting Palko did wonders for the attitude and motivation of the team last week.Not only the D but the O played well and the OL gave Orton plenty of time to find the open receiver.

Am I sold on him and Romeo? Hell no but I enjoyed the game a hell of a lot more than seeing Palko struggle and Haley acting like a effin fool.

chazoe60
12-21-2011, 11:48 AM
I may be wrong but sounds like some of you guys are a little disappointed that Orton didn't fail vs the Pack,wasn't sacked or picked off numerous times.

And to whomever said KC really didn't win that game..The Chiefs are a very inconsistent team but the last few weeks (minus the Jets game due to them being on the field too long) the D has been playing very well.Hali sacked Rodgers 3 times.

As far as not being able to get the ball in the EZ..one of the passes dropped by McClain was on him,not Orton.

Firing Haley and sitting Palko did wonders for the attitude and motivation of the team last week.Not only the D but the O played well and the OL gave Orton plenty of time to find the open receiver.

Am I sold on him and Romeo? Hell no but I enjoyed the game a hell of a lot more than seeing Palko struggle and Haley acting like a effin fool.

Of course we wanted Orton to stumble, he plays for the Chiefs.

KCL
12-21-2011, 11:51 AM
Of course we wanted Orton to stumble, he plays for the Chiefs.

Sorry you were disappointed! Especially on the day the Broncos lose..OUCH! I know that had to hurt!

wayninja
12-21-2011, 11:54 AM
Sorry you were disappointed! Especially on the day the Broncos lose..OUCH! I know that had to hurt!

Packers shot themselves in the foot. No disappointment though, we still lead the division and the chiefs are out...

chazoe60
12-21-2011, 11:55 AM
Sorry you were disappointed! Especially on the day the Broncos lose..OUCH! I know that had to hurt!

The Broncos loss hurt much more.

catfish
12-21-2011, 11:56 AM
as far as the you need an elite QB to win a superbowl...you kind of get into a chicken and egg argument there...is big ben's teams in the superbowl because he is elite or is he considered elite because he has been to so many superbowls. I have a hard time defining an elite QB as it is totally subjective. Is it a player who has a top 5 QBR consistently, team wins consistently, comp% top 5 consistently?

Northman
12-21-2011, 12:02 PM
An interesting piece. My own thinking is becoming more in line with the idea that nothing guarantees long term futility like constant QB changes as you search for the next Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. Its simply stupid, because you never quite know who will actually turn out to be the next Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. You can end up as the NFL equivalent of the old maid that never married because nobody ever met her standards. Or, put another way, win with who ya got.



P.S. I've seen enough of Kyle Orton now to recognize the opposite problem. The Chiefs will learn too, in their own good time :D

Now Dread, why you got to be hating on Orton? :lol:

Slick
12-21-2011, 12:02 PM
Coach, that Colts team started running the ball too. They didn't beat the Bears on the arm of Manning. Addai and Rhodes ran wild.

The Saints finally got some production out of Thomas and Bush in the playoffs as well.

Also the Pack last year. Winning as the wild card team on the road for 3 weeks wouldn't have happened had Starks not started producing.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
12-21-2011, 12:06 PM
I know people here hate Orton but that's the type of quarterback the guy is referring to. Pay a mediocre guy mediocre money (yes $9 million is mediocre quarterback money for tw years) while you search for a franchise guy and maybe the mediocre guy will surprise you. Obviously that didn't happen this year, but it probably was the right approach to take with Orton.

Unfortuantely, you cant shovel out money to a QB who is more detrimental to your team than a positive. In 5 games this year Orton was downright horrible and clearly not worth the mediocre money he was getting. In our case, when you can have a young QB who may not be "worlds" better than that mediocre guy but can give you wins i think any HC, FO, fans would take that over the other.

Northman
12-21-2011, 12:08 PM
I have to disagree here. I think there is a whole slew of 2nd tier QB's fully capable of winning a Superbowl. In the case of Eli Manning he actually did (I disagree that he is an elite QB, just very good). Jake DelHomme and Matt Hasselback came within a whisker of doing it as well, as did an old Kurt Warner. I would say the next tier down includes

Jay Cutler
Eli Manning
Tony Romo
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Matt Schaub

A third tier - guys who are capable or might be capable - or who the Hell knows...anyways, they are good enough to win regularly now or have won regularly in the past. They are guys with enough upside you don't go looking to replace them just yet, or who might well move up a level or two very soon.

Maybe Stafford, Vick, Flacco, Dalton, Tebow, Newton, A. Smith, Palmer, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick

Yes there are some chump QB's and some bad situations. I rate say Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton, Dan Orlovsky, T. Jackson as just such chump QB's. These you must rid yourself of, sooner rather than later, or dedicate as short term backups

Unfortuantely, i have to agree with Coach here. While those QB's you listed are "capable" of getting it done the reality is very few of them do or have at this point.

catfish
12-21-2011, 12:14 PM
Unfortuantely, i have to agree with Coach here. While those QB's you listed are "capable" of getting it done the reality is very few of them do or have at this point.

in response if any of them actually did win a SB they most likely would be considered to have taken the step to elite....chicken and egg

Northman
12-21-2011, 12:20 PM
in response if any of them actually did win a SB they most likely would be considered to have taken the step to elite....chicken and egg

Depends for me. Eli got there, made one great play in the SB but i still dont consider him among the Elite. And even though his brother is 1-1 in SB's i think Peyton is just light years ahead of his brother. For me, the proof is pretty much in the pudding. When i see the teams that are winning consistently and going to SB's they are guys who are either in the HOF or will be.

Ive stated it before, while i would enjoy a SB win with Tebow at the helm im more hoping that he becomes a HOF QB and takes us to many. I think Bmore has allowed their great defense to go this past decade to waste because of their inability to find "the" guy under center.

catfish
12-21-2011, 12:23 PM
Depends for me. Eli got there, made one great play in the SB but i still dont consider him among the Elite. And even though his brother is 1-1 in SB's i think Peyton is just light years ahead of his brother. For me, the proof is pretty much in the pudding. When i see the teams that are winning consistently and going to SB's they are guys who are either in the HOF or will be.

Ive stated it before, while i would enjoy a SB win with Tebow at the helm im more hoping that he becomes a HOF QB and takes us to many. I think Bmore has allowed their great defense to go this past decade to waste because of their inability to find "the" guy under center.

I guess in my mind Peyton is a better QB than Big Ben, but Big Ben has had more success..argues to the better overall team for a SB with a qb getting hot at the right time rather than a stud QB with a bunch of scrubs for consistent SB appearences/wins

Northman
12-21-2011, 12:27 PM
I guess in my mind Peyton is a better QB than Big Ben, but Big Ben has had more success..argues to the better overall team for a SB with a qb getting hot at the right time rather than a stud QB with a bunch of scrubs for consistent SB appearences/wins

From a x's and o's standpoint i would agree. Manning is sharpe and can pick apart any defense if he has the time.

But, Ben brings a whole different element to his profile. He is tough, makes plays when things breaks down. The only problem for him right now is he is just taking too much of a beating.

So while on one hand you have Manning who has had "decent" defenses but a much better Oline and Ben who has a terrible Oline but a better defense it all kind of washes out.

But both to me are playmakers on a consistent basis and both would make any team better than they currently are. Cant say the same for guys like Orton, Cassell, etc.

catfish
12-21-2011, 12:35 PM
From a x's and o's standpoint i would agree. Manning is sharpe and can pick apart any defense if he has the time.

But, Ben brings a whole different element to his profile. He is tough, makes plays when things breaks down. The only problem for him right now is he is just taking too much of a beating.

So while on one hand you have Manning who has had "decent" defenses but a much better Oline and Ben who has a terrible Oline but a better defense it all kind of washes out.

But both to me are playmakers on a consistent basis and both would make any team better than they currently are. Cant say the same for guys like Orton, Cassell, etc.

I guess I look at elite as a QB that is a get on my back I will make us win, where a good QB is a I will make some good plays, and not **** this up for us type of player. I would say Peyton and Brady are the former, Ben the later. I think you need a good QB to win a SB for sure, but i think too many people are looking at a qb's best 2 years and labeling them as elite. Brady/Peyton proven they can take their team to the postseason year in and year out...the rest, jury is out Rogers/Brees has potential if they keep up what they have been doing

TXBRONC
12-21-2011, 12:39 PM
But here lies the problem.

Take Brady, Brees, Rogers, Mannings, Ben out of the equation. Who is the best of the rest? What set of QB's after that group would be considered elite?

I just think that after a handful of QB's, the rest of the league is mediocre to bad. So if the game and the rules are set up now to play to the benefit of the passing game, then these QB's realistically have to be considered the favorites to win the SB year after year.

It requires more than a Franchise QB...it requires a HoF quarterback. Look at the last 20+ years. Other than Dilfer and Johnson, show me a QB that isnt in...on their way in...or in the process of having that type of a career. If you dont have a guy with one of the names listed above...you're pretty much in a constant state of playing for next year

I'm not sure Eli Manning would fit into the Hall of Fame category. Not all franchise quarterbacks end up being Hall of Fame quarterbacks but all Hall of Fame quarterbacks are franchise quarterbacks.

Northman
12-21-2011, 12:39 PM
I guess I look at elite as a QB that is a get on my back I will make us win, where a good QB is a I will make some good plays, and not **** this up for us type of player. I would say Peyton and Brady are the former, Ben the later. I think you need a good QB to win a SB for sure, but i think too many people are looking at a qb's best 2 years and labeling them as elite. Brady/Peyton proven they can take their team to the postseason year in and year out...the rest, jury is out Rogers/Brees has potential if they keep up what they have been doing

Well, i think Ben can be just like Brady and Manning. The SB vs the Cardinals pretty much solidified that for me personally. But i agree with you that the book is still to be written with Brees and Rodgers. However, from a regular season standpoint i think Brees and Rodgers have shown they are the top of the class but time will tell.

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 12:42 PM
I'm not sure Eli Manning would fit into the Hall of Fame category. Not all franchise quarterbacks end up being Hall of Fame quarterbacks but all Hall of Fame quarterbacks are franchise quarterbacks.

If Eli plays 8 more years with numbers equivalent to what he's been putting up the past few years...he'll be a HoF QB

elsid13
12-21-2011, 12:56 PM
If Eli plays 8 more years with numbers equivalent to what he's been putting up the past few years...he'll be a HoF QB

He is getting in because a) he plays in NY and b) he is a Manning. Maybe not first time he is up but he will get in.

TXBRONC
12-21-2011, 12:58 PM
I know people here hate Orton but that's the type of quarterback the guy is referring to. Pay a mediocre guy mediocre money (yes $9 million is mediocre quarterback money for tw years) while you search for a franchise guy and maybe the mediocre guy will surprise you. Obviously that didn't happen this year, but it probably was the right approach to take with Orton.

Hate Orton? No I don't hate him. I also don't think he was worth 9 million dollars not for what we got out of him for the last three seasons. So I disagree it was the right approach with Orton. Orton always looked good in practice and preseason games but that never really translated to meaningful games. I'm not saying he never had a good game but if you should at least be competitive and lose as many close games with him at the helm. While it's pure speculation we were 1-4 with him leading the team this year maybe we would have won more games in that time period if Tebow had started.

jhildebrand
12-21-2011, 01:03 PM
But here lies the problem.

Take Brady, Brees, Rogers, Mannings, Ben out of the equation. Who is the best of the rest? What set of QB's after that group would be considered elite?

The next tier guys would be Rivers, Stafford, Matt Ryan.

Poet
12-21-2011, 05:24 PM
But here lies the problem.

Take Brady, Brees, Rogers, Mannings, Ben out of the equation. Who is the best of the rest? What set of QB's after that group would be considered elite?

I just think that after a handful of QB's, the rest of the league is mediocre to bad. So if the game and the rules are set up now to play to the benefit of the passing game, then these QB's realistically have to be considered the favorites to win the SB year after year.

It requires more than a Franchise QB...it requires a HoF quarterback. Look at the last 20+ years. Other than Dilfer and Johnson, show me a QB that isnt in...on their way in...or in the process of having that type of a career. If you dont have a guy with one of the names listed above...you're pretty much in a constant state of playing for next year

Drew Brees wasn't on pace to be a HoFer when he won a SB and when he got to NO many wondered if he was just another bust decision that NO was known for making.

Rivers is an elite QB. He's having a bad year, it is what it is. Cutler is an elite quarterback. I don't like the guy who but he works wonders with nothing.

It's also hard for me to think that Big Ben is an elite QB. He's an alright passer, is a playmaker...both ways and he's had two awful SB's and one really good one.

Tom Brady was never even close to playing at a HoF level when he won SB's.

Eli's career is up and down. At no point has he ever been an elite top five guy. He puts up good numbers, but they're not really great sans maybe one or two years.

In short, I think your premise is faulty after a cursory glance.

TXBRONC
12-21-2011, 06:01 PM
Drew Brees wasn't on pace to be a HoFer when he won a SB and when he got to NO many wondered if he was just another bust decision that NO was known for making.

Rivers is an elite QB. He's having a bad year, it is what it is. Cutler is an elite quarterback. I don't like the guy who but he works wonders with nothing.

It's also hard for me to think that Big Ben is an elite QB. He's an alright passer, is a playmaker...both ways and he's had two awful SB's and one really good one.

Tom Brady was never even close to playing at a HoF level when he won SB's.

Eli's career is up and down. At no point has he ever been an elite top five guy. He puts up good numbers, but they're not really great sans maybe one or two years.

In short, I think your premise is faulty after a cursory glance.

You make some good points but you're mistaken about Brady. Brady reached elite certainly by the time he and the Patriots won their third title in four years.

Roethlisberger also pretty good. Winning weighs heavy in how a quarterback is judged.

Rivers if he's not elite is probably as close as you can get without being elite imho. If he wins some games as if can at very least get the Chargers to the Super Bowl that would probably get him over the hump.

Bottom line all three of the guys are franchise quarterbacks and so is Cutler for that matter.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Poet
12-21-2011, 06:04 PM
Brady was not a great passer during any of his SB's. That's how you judge a player, by their duties.

Roethlisberger has been ass in two SB's. IDK, give me the passer. Give me the guy who makes the defense pay. Not the guy who lines up on the same team with a dominant defense and grinds out games. That's not as hard as truly being the man.

Who do you think did more for their team? Elway before the SB years or Bradshaw?

TT15Superman
12-21-2011, 06:27 PM
It's a catch22. Your chances of winning a SB without an elite QB are very low...Is it the chicken or the egg, though? Coaching has A LOT to do with whether a QB develops or not. Likewise, coaching has a lot to do with HOW the team is built...thus, some teams are perennial playoff contenders because of great coaching...elite QB or not IMO.

With that said, the QB is integral, too. Without the correct QB, the team may not make the playoffs. Many many examples of that - starter goes down, and team disintegrates. Not all franchise QBs are elite (yet, if ever): Stafford, Cutler, Smith, Vick, Romo

TXBRONC
12-21-2011, 06:42 PM
Brady was not a great passer during any of his SB's. That's how you judge a player, by their duties.

Roethlisberger has been ass in two SB's. IDK, give me the passer. Give me the guy who makes the defense pay. Not the guy who lines up on the same team with a dominant defense and grinds out games. That's not as hard as truly being the man.

Who do you think did more for their team? Elway before the SB years or Bradshaw?

Brady had solid numbers during that period. They don't have to be on record setting pace every year.

I don't think it's a very good comparison of Bradshaw's early years and Elway's.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Poet
12-21-2011, 07:02 PM
Brady had solid numbers during that period. They don't have to be on record setting pace every year.

I don't think it's a very good comparison of Bradshaw's early years and Elway's.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Solid is one thing, elite is another. That's my point, he was not elite. He actually was really overrated as far as what he did on the field. He was a great story and a media darling.

I think it's a great comparison. You have one guy doing most of the heavy lifting with an above average cast around him. You have another guy with a HoF starting offensive line, two HoF WR's, a HoF RB and still was an awful passer.

But, judging them by winning, Bradshaw whips Elway.

Ergo judging a QB by winning is the laziest thinking ever. Judging someone by stats alone is not much better, but it's better.

TXBRONC
12-21-2011, 08:09 PM
Solid is one thing, elite is another. That's my point, he was not elite. He actually was really overrated as far as what he did on the field. He was a great story and a media darling.

I think it's a great comparison. You have one guy doing most of the heavy lifting with an above average cast around him. You have another guy with a HoF starting offensive line, two HoF WR's, a HoF RB and still was an awful passer.

But, judging them by winning, Bradshaw whips Elway.

Ergo judging a QB by winning is the laziest thinking ever. Judging someone by stats alone is not much better, but it's better.

Well we'll just have to disagree. When you can lead a team to championships that's one of the mark of an elite quarterback. You can't judge what elite is purely by either stats or championships. Using stats alone is just as lazy as using just wins or championships.

Apparently you're not up on when the core of the Steelers dynasty of the '70s was built. The core of that team wasn't drafted until 1974. Anyway the bottom line for me is that's not good comparison because were talking about two different eras.

Poet
12-21-2011, 08:24 PM
Stats are at least factual. I can tell you throughout the course of a career judging a guy by his stats is far more accurate than by wins or losses.

Go take a look at Bradshaw's numbers in his era. Compare them to the other greats in his time and it's not close and he had way more talent than most quarterbacks ever.

He had a far easier job than most other quarterbacks ever. That's subjective, but hey, it's not quite as subjective as throwing around the 'intangible' and 'winner' card that so many love to do.

:salute:

VonMiller58
12-21-2011, 08:25 PM
I hate to look in the past of our team, especially as rocky as it's been in the past 5 years. But could anyone imagine what our team would be like had Shanny not been fired and we had our offense the way it was? All we had to do was draft defense right?

I could safely say we'd be the AFC version of the Saints. An explosive offense, with a solid defense (had we drafted some serious talent in the front 7).

It's all in the past now, but it's fun to think about. The only thing that bugs me about the NFL is, everyone is so "old fashioned" to think you NEED a pocket passer to win in this league. You can be just as successful if you have a QB like Vick. Remember when the Falcons played the Eagles in the NFC Championship? Only problem was, the Falcons lacked that extra explosive player. HoF Qb's need talented players around them to succeed.. they can't do it all. Let's see Elway without Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, Rod Smith, and Eddy Mac. You're only as good as the players you surround your self with.