User avatar
Blue Shark
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018
Sand$: 692.68
und2006 wrote:Neither of them impressed me to be honest.

Run first QBs are a dime a dozen and flame out quickly.


this is why they should carry 3 on the roster at all times

constant recycling
Megalodon
Posts: 23853
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009
Sand$: 19,191.90
Vision wrote:
und2006 wrote:Neither of them impressed me to be honest.

Run first QBs are a dime a dozen and flame out quickly.


this is why they should carry 3 on the roster at all times

constant recycling


In both teams defence? Theyve both got backups capable of running their respective playbooks (RG3 & Tyree)
_______________________________________

“There is an art to flying ... learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 32665
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004
Sand$: 34,783.22
What would be really interesting is if one of these teams bottoms out in 2020 and has a shot at Lawrence. How soon do you give up on your “franchise QB” if you’re staring down the barrel of a possible generational talent?
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 28177
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 75,856.24
This is just me, but I could see it happen after 2 years, but some of the teams mentioned here will have had 3 years.

On the other hand the cards did it in 1 year.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 21147
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006
Sand$: 43,493.68
rugger48 wrote:This is just me, but I could see it happen after 2 years, but some of the teams mentioned here will have had 3 years.

On the other hand the cards did it in 1/2 a year.


ftfy
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 47253
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 41,517.75
SJSwarm wrote:What would be really interesting is if one of these teams bottoms out in 2020 and has a shot at Lawrence. How soon do you give up on your “franchise QB” if you’re staring down the barrel of a possible generational talent?


After 3 seasons if these teams are 2-14 or 3-13, nobody is going to care about their current quarterback
_______________________________________

#NewJackCity
”I want players who hate losing more than they love winning”
Megalodon
Posts: 23853
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009
Sand$: 19,191.90
SJSwarm wrote:What would be really interesting is if one of these teams bottoms out in 2020 and has a shot at Lawrence. How soon do you give up on your “franchise QB” if you’re staring down the barrel of a possible generational talent?

Steve Keim wrote:Not long
_______________________________________

“There is an art to flying ... learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
User avatar
Blue Shark
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018
Sand$: 692.68
jamcutpost wrote:
Vision wrote:
und2006 wrote:Neither of them impressed me to be honest.

Run first QBs are a dime a dozen and flame out quickly.


this is why they should carry 3 on the roster at all times

constant recycling


In both teams defence? Theyve both got backups capable of running their respective playbooks (RG3 & Tyree)


yes but this hasn't been the case until recently

the fear has always been to have running qb's run less, because of injury fears and no comparable backup as the qb2
Megalodon
Posts: 23853
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009
Sand$: 19,191.90
Vision wrote:
jamcutpost wrote:
Vision wrote:this is why they should carry 3 on the roster at all times

constant recycling


In both teams defence? Theyve both got backups capable of running their respective playbooks (RG3 & Tyree)


yes but this hasn't been the case until recently

the fear has always been to have running qb's run less, because of injury fears and no comparable backup as the qb2


RG3 was there last year... Before LJ was drafted.

And, youll forgive me if i dont see how you can be critical of a team that had/ has:

Depth holes everywhere
only about $5m in cap space
at a position that doesnt grow on trees
as soon as was possible (ie next draft cycle)
BEFORE they knew theyd be able to get "Their" guy.

In an ideal world, im sure all teams would like quality QB depth as even non-running Qbs get crocked every bit as often (Luck, Romo, Alice etc)

But im finding it hard to fault BAL or BUF for doing it "Only recently" when you actually look at the facts and context.
Last edited by jamcutpost on Mon 05.20.2019, 09:02, edited 1 time in total.
_______________________________________

“There is an art to flying ... learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
Great White Shark
Posts: 7261
Joined: Wed Jul 4, 2007
Sand$: 45,290.10
im going josh allen has higher upside and a much better arm,just needs weapons around him
Great White Shark
Posts: 3198
Joined: Sun Oct 7, 2012
Sand$: 10,422.36
mstrbass2000 wrote:im going josh allen has higher upside and a much better arm,just needs weapons around him


Curious what about Josh Allen makes you think he has higher upside?
_______________________________________

Some zig when others zag. I zug.
User avatar
Blue Shark
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018
Sand$: 692.68
whoa whoa

im not faulting any team specifically - even though flacco backed up lamar - that is just one example - yes i know it takes time to build the roster, but thats pretty extreme and they didnt draft lamar to "prove it" or "earn it"

they knew the system was in place for a running threat... good defense, conservative mgmt.. it was bound to work

im speaking in generalized terms, if you want an offense with a running qb, its not an issue of finding your guy

its an issue of sticking with the plan through coaches, gm misfires, and up and down years
Great White Shark
Posts: 7261
Joined: Wed Jul 4, 2007
Sand$: 45,290.10
zuggyawesome wrote:
mstrbass2000 wrote:im going josh allen has higher upside and a much better arm,just needs weapons around him


Curious what about Josh Allen makes you think he has higher upside?


when everyone zigs,i zag
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 57705
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 22,004.90
mstrbass2000 wrote:
zuggyawesome wrote:
mstrbass2000 wrote:im going josh allen has higher upside and a much better arm,just needs weapons around him


Curious what about Josh Allen makes you think he has higher upside?


when everyone zigs,i zag

Zagging is one thing. Saying he has higher upside is different than that.
Megalodon
Posts: 23853
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009
Sand$: 19,191.90
Vision wrote:whoa whoa

im not faulting any team specifically - even though flacco backed up lamar - that is just one example - yes i know it takes time to build the roster, but thats pretty extreme and they didnt draft lamar to "prove it" or "earn it"

they knew the system was in place for a running threat... good defense, conservative mgmt.. it was bound to work

im speaking in generalized terms, if you want an offense with a running qb, its not an issue of finding your guy

its an issue of sticking with the plan through coaches, gm misfires, and up and down years


It didnt read that way, but its possible i misread it - apologies.

Would still disagree on a few things though (like it was "Bound to work" for one & that the backups were only recently in place w/RG3 being put there before LJ)

But Sticking with a plan"? Sure. 100%

But thats rarely been a forte in the NFL. We see it all the time: "Yeah, but FO's should *KNOW* that if youve just spent 4yrs building the roster for a 3-4 you dont get in a 4-3 guy".

Jon Gruden: hey, how come the backup [Curtis Painter] not getting any reps
Tom Moore (Colts OC): Because fellas, if #18 goes down, we're f****d... and we dont practice f****d


I feel the same.

If a backup QB is actually good enough to start or win games? Then youre probably highly unlikely to pay all your actual starters that do start and are highly likely to lose him later anyway.
_______________________________________

“There is an art to flying ... learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams