<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>No doubt this thread is about Beef trying to justify his hero overpaying for the "Princess".</div> And no doubt you avoided participating out of fear of validating such justification.... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>I can hardly wait for the season to start!</div> As a group, we can hardly wait for the season to start so you will disappear for 6 months.... standard operating procedure: Zack has hope and participates in NFL discussions....a month into the season, Lions are 0-4....no one heres from Zack until February....the cycle of life continues....
Yeah the Bart Starr thing isn't really fair at all. He played in an era where running the ball was the 1st, 2nd & 3rd option.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>The NFL was a way different game in the first 60 years. QB numbers today are way over blown in my opinion. All that needs to be done to prove my theory is post a "Greatest QB's of All-Time" thread. Nine out of ten posters base their picks on modern "QB's Wear Dresses Era" numbers. To most younger fans, it's as if the NFL was founded in 1980 rather than 1920.</div> Exactly. Even QBs in the 80's had lower stats that QBs do now - just look at Elway's initial stats. His completion % was fairly poor. FWIW, I do think this is an interesting excercise in seeing just how quickly we lose patience with QBs. I would agree with Beef that we give QBs far too little time to develop before we write them off as no good. Its one of those casualties of the 'what can you do for me now' league that we have.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>No doubt this thread is about Beef trying to justify his hero overpaying for the "Princess".</div> And no doubt you avoided participating out of fear of validating such justification....</div> Yeah, this was a elaborate Dwo black op to justify JH to Miami & then read Zack's conspiratorial like rants. If I want to listen to someone complain about cunning plots then I'll watch the X Files. I kept Jim Kelly but cut Elway. Is my Dwo membership safe? LOL. It surprises me that I cut Warren Moon but kept Mirer.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>The NFL was a way different game in the first 60 years. QB numbers today are way over blown in my opinion. All that needs to be done to prove my theory is post a "Greatest QB's of All-Time" thread. Nine out of ten posters base their picks on modern "QB's Wear Dresses Era" numbers. To most younger fans, it's as if the NFL was founded in 1980 rather than 1920.</div> Exactly. Even QBs in the 80's had lower stats that QBs do now - just look at Elway's initial stats. His completion % was fairly poor. FWIW, I do think this is an interesting excercise in seeing just how quickly we lose patience with QBs. I would agree with Beef that we give QBs far too little time to develop before we write them off as no good. Its one of those casualties of the 'what can you do for me now' league that we have.</div> I think it has lot to do with how big rookie contracts are for those QB's drafted in the first part of the first round. When a team ties up such a large portion of cap space on a player with no track record in the NFL it's a crap shoot. When a QB drafted that high fails in his first 3-5 years there's a feeling that management and fans get that's much like having been raped and robbed. If rookie contracts could be based more on performance/production/wins/losses the hit teams take when they draft a bust would be less. I'd be willing to bet teams would give some of these guys more time if they weren't on the hook for so much money. Rookie contracts of old were more in line with the real world and much less of a financial risk for a team. The change in patience all boils down to the huge dollars a risk.
I agree with you Beef on patience. Draft strategy goes hand-in-hand with this same patience. Everyone is looking for job security, and its better for them to miss on a big name than on a "reach". Same goes for young QBs. If the owner doesn't give the coach/GM/etc. time, they in return aren't going to give the player the time to develop (or be coached). That said, not only the style of an era is important, but also the style of a team, regardless of era. Take Starr again and move him to 2006. It still doesn't matter. Can I put up with Starr's numbers if I have the #1 defense and the #1 running game? Sure. If Starr is on my bad team, it maybe easier to plug in a different quarterback that would win a few more games and save my job. With regards to the era thing too, don't give the past owners too many props. They didn't have free agency, so they really had less options to replace a sub-par or questionable player.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>not only the style of an era is important, but also the style of a team, regardless of era.</div> For example, Look @ Wanny's offensive philopsophy and his blind, unexplainable loyalty to Jay Feidler.
Let's keep this going a little bit. What reasoning did you all use for your decisions? Was it just a gut decision or was there a trend in the stats that you looked for? I don't know that I could say all went this way for me, but I looked for the completion percentage to improve and the TD/INT ratio to improve. If the INTs stayed the same but the completion improved, then I let it slide. After all, as Beef said, I am one of the best coaches in the world, I should be able to coach him out of bad decisions as long as he had the talent. Total TDs and total yards really did not play into anything other than it making a difference as to whether it was a strong passing team or not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>not only the style of an era is important, but also the style of a team, regardless of era.</div> For example, Look @ Wanny's offensive philopsophy and his blind, unexplainable loyalty to Jay Feidler.</div> Well, the are a few things that can't be explained by statistics....or explained at all for that matter.
i definatly looked at the trend in completion percentage, btw zach i hope ur joking that this was all a plan to show that signing Harrington is justifyable how was he supposed to know that NO ONE would cut Harrington interesting
Well Bart Starr's stats were just horrible. As for Warren Moon, his comp% & INTs kept getting worse. But b/c his passing yards were very strong I decided to only bench him. Rick Mirer I probably should have just cut, but I guess I have more patience than others.
I was a little late on this one, but I marked them and then saw the results at the bottom. I cut Bart Starr (Gulp!) and Rick Mirer, but kept everyone else.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think it has lot to do with how big rookie contracts are for those QB's drafted in the first part of the first round.</div> I dont agree with a lot of your theories, but im with you on this one....overall, the money that high draftees get is out of whack....I suspect that a lot of teams passed on trading up to #1 this year becuase of contract demands....further, the trend has been that if you draft a QB in the top 10 and he doesnt win within a few years you get fired....then the new regime wants to "start fresh" and thus the jettison of the young QB....sometimes its too soon in my opinion though....
