Heinicke Hive: The LEGEND of Taylor Heinicke Thread

[kingdaddy]

2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Its a mystery because we don't know who will be in it this year. That's why the rams gave up everything for Stafford (who has never won anything) but they think he can because he has all the tools. But he never did it with Detroit and we don't know how he'll do in the playoffs or in prime time. Tennessee is betting everything on Tannehill and they have lost so far. Does that mean that Tannehill doesn't deserve to be a starter? Pittsburgh has bet it all on Ben but he hasn't won in what 15 years? Heck Rodger hasn't won in 15 years. Its a lot of things coming together, one of them being a good to great QB but Wilson was thought to be a QB that couldn't win it all until he won it. Same with Brees. These two were doubted because of their size. But they won. Now that "formua" has changed and Murray is not doubted as much. But is Jackson a SB caliber QB? He hasn't won one and hasn't won much in the playoffs. 

 

First a QB needs to show they can make the playoffs (that's what I want Heinicke to do this year). Then they need to show they can win in the playoffs and thats a big hurdle to cross that many never cross and if Heinicke doesn't cross that but can continue to take us to the playoffs then I don't mind that being where he levels out. But we see these QBs on SB caliber teams that are now competing to show that they are not just good but SB level QBs. Allen, Herbert, Jackson, Prescott, Cousins, Stafford, Tannehill, Murray, etc. None of these guys have won it all. That doesn't mean they're not franchise guys because they have their teams competing for that spot consistently. Heinicke needs to show us he can compete with these teams, and so far he hasn't disappointed me. 

You are correct on all points. The Colts just showed Buffalo that the game is still won in the trenches and that running the football is still the key to winning games. If I can run the football with Heinicke then I can keep your Tom Brady off the field for long stretches and he cannot beat me. We saw this first hand last week. 

The NYG couldn't run the ball last night and had to watch Daniel Jones make an absolute mess of himself last night because he can't read defenses or make throws in window. Taylor does that.

Love your points about Ben, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc.....you need more than just a high priced QB to win the SB. The name QB's will usually keep you competitive but it's the complete roster teams that win in the trenches who win Super Bowls. Stafford and the Rams got pounded by SF on the ground last Monday night and it was a thing of beauty. 

TH is the man for us, keep building around him. We are on the right track...gotta get better.

[Jumbo]

the sports media is mainly about hyping themes up when they seem workable to keep viewers engaged ...it's just the basics...seize whatever theme is sellable in their minds and amplify/run with it while still trying to be credible in the process

 

what i'm saying here is media has an agenda all their own, and of course i'm not suggesting it's all built on deception---not even close---it's about highlighting and often spinning to serve a storyline

 

over and over and over, people tend to use most media sources in a certain manner...the post it when the piece serves their argument or position and criticize or minimize or flat out dismiss the same sources when they don't

 

the sports media in particular has to sell personalities, excitement, interest, and any form of intrigue or controversy they can find and every year we have 'media-hyped' storylines that don't see fruition and often even go in an opposite direction...and those same sources will then say "well that's the nfl, ya never know, everything looked like it was going this way and then it didn't", and they're still being fair enough in doing so

 

even facts stats and data will often get spun or just presented without all relevant context for a solid analysis

 

this is it about not blowing off justified praise for th to be clear again, of which there is  a lot, or sayin 'don't believe anything they say'...i'm being mindful of reality

 

we have eyes, brains, and watch football a lot ourselves, but we're also more emotionally-driven when it comes to sports and detaching from that for objective analysis isn't that much of a norm ime, especially when hot button topics like head coaches,, owners, qbs and high draft picks etc. are the focus of the story

 

just fwiw as i see so many articles being 'put into evidence'

 

without inferring anything about the sources, i know that many pick any halfway decent source and post it if it supports the view, yet the same folks don't routinely use that source (or often any others) in arguments where they're not all 'energized' by emotion

 

in the meantime, this view of mine will not affect my enjoyment, appreciation, or hope for th to be the guy...who really wouldn't if he can do it?   

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

You are correct on all points. The Colts just showed Buffalo that the game is still won in the trenches and that running the football is still the key to winning games. If I can run the football with Heinicke then I can keep your Tom Brady off the field for long stretches and he cannot beat me. We saw this first hand last week. 

The NYG couldn't run the ball last night and had to watch Daniel Jones make an absolute mess of himself last night because he can't read defenses or make throws in window. Taylor does that.

Love your points about Ben, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc.....you need more than just a high priced QB to win the SB. The name QB's will usually keep you competitive but it's the complete roster teams that win in the trenches who win Super Bowls. Stafford and the Rams got pounded by SF on the ground last Monday night and it was a thing of beauty. 

TH is the man for us, keep building around him. We are on the right track...gotta get better.

 

You seem to keep pointing to individual games as if it's some sort of proof. Sure, anything can happen in any given game, but over a 10 year period which team is going to be better on the aggregate and have the most shots of going all the way...the one with an elite QB or the one with a middle of the road QB? The answer is clear and we've seen it over and over.

 

You kept my Tom Brady off the field for this game. Good job. Here's a feather for your cap. Can you keep him off the field for 10-15 seasons? No. We'll send you free playoff tickets for your trouble so you don't have to keep watching at home every year.

 

And yes of course you need more than just a great QB. But that great QB gives you a good 10-15 year window to build and rebuild around him. If you have a mediocre QB and you try to win with him and a stellar cast you probably have a 3-5 year window at most before that great supporting cast inevitably breaks up.

[zCommander]

I think everyone loves a gunslinger. Joe Gibbs won three SBs with 3 different QBs and was constantly in the playoffs. His team won in the trenches! 

 

In the last two games we have run more then passed or equal to it. Hopefully Ron has figured that out and keeps on doing that and that takes a lot of pressure of of Taylor plus it takes time off the clock and keeps the other teams' QB on the sideline. 

 

Taylor does stuff and makes play that even some of the gunslingers can't do. He has that IT factor and that is something that can't be taught. 

[Malapropismic Depository]

14 hours ago, ananoman said:

On the Fox postgame show Bradshaw kept calling him Heineken

 

Another interesting Bradshaw quote...

 

"Taylor Heinicke has something...we don't know what that is...but..."

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, zskins said:

Joe Gibbs won three SBs with 3 different QBs and was constantly in the playoffs. His team won in the trenches! 

 

That was literally 30 years ago. It's a different game today.

[zCommander]

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

That was literally 30 years ago. It's a different game today.

 

I knew you were going to say that that is why I said in the last two games when we ran more than passed we won those two game.

 

So it really hasn't changed in the last 30 years. Everyone wants to air it out because it makes the game more fun. Winning makes it more fun to me. Grind it out. Get the W. Who care how you do it as long as you do it and get to the big stage. People keep on forgetting it was the turtle who won the race. 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by zskins

[Califan007 The Constipated]

28 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

Too small a sample size to know if he's in zone or who he is, right ?

 

 

I'm assuming the "doesn't fizzle out" part answer that question lol...

[PartyPosse]

We argue more about the QB position when someone looks good than we do when someone stinks.

[mistertim]

6 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

I knew you were going to say that that is why I said in the last two games when we ran more than passed we won those two game.

 

So it really hasn't changed in the last 30 years. Everyone wants to air it out because it makes the game more fun. Winning make it more fun to me. Grind it out. Get the W. Who care how you do it as long as you do it and get to the big stage. People keep on forgetting it was the turtle who won the race. 

 

Of course it has changed, and I doubt that you'd find a single NFL coach who would claim otherwise. Denying that is basically like denying that the sky is blue.

 

For various reasons it's a passing league now. Coaches aren't just passing more because it makes it "more fun". That's ridiculous. You think coaches get together to game plan, one says "Ok, we should be able to win if we run the ball and grind it out, so here's my plan" and the HC interrupts and says "No, that's not fun. We should make it more fun. Let's pass a bunch. That's super fun"?

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

What needs to be considered here is what gives you a greater chance of falling forward into a SB?

 

1)  Trading draft capitol to take a shot at a franchise QB or consuming a large portion of your salary cap to buy a franchise QB

2)  Build a solid team with a lot of depth that can win with above average (as opposed to all pro) level QB performance

 

Baltimore, Philly, Broncos, and Seattle have won SuperBowls using the 2nd option.  That's four out of the last nine SuperBowls.  It's not really a one off.  It's almost half.  

To your point, three of those four teams had absolutely elite defenses. Like not just good but elite. The Eagles, like the Giants’ wins, seem to have no logical explanation, which is why I have faith we can win a super bowl we have no business winning. Seems to be the only way a team from the NFC East can win nowadays.

[Koolblue13]

6 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

We argue more about the QB position when someone looks good than we do when someone stinks.

There's an entire cult around here that would disagree.

[zCommander]

42 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Of course it has changed, and I doubt that you'd find a single NFL coach who would claim otherwise. Denying that is basically like denying that the sky is blue.

 

For various reasons it's a passing league now. Coaches aren't just passing more because it makes it "more fun". That's ridiculous. You think coaches get together to game plan, one says "Ok, we should be able to win if we run the ball and grind it out, so here's my plan" and the HC interrupts and says "No, that's not fun. We should make it more fun. Let's pass a bunch. That's super fun"?

 

Ha ha you are funny. I bet coaches who like to air it out would disagree with you. McVey loves to throw more than run, for example. 

 

Regardless, you can win a lot of football games in the trenches. That hasn't changed at all. 

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

My point was that it's a one-off for that team. Teams with average QBs that go to the SB aren't perennial contenders. They generally manage to get there once when the planets align and never truly sniff it again with that QB. Happened with Foles, Flacco, Kaep, etc.

 

I'd rather keep trying to find that top end QB instead of hoping for one of those elusive long shot one-off SB appearances. 

I agree with your premise of course - let’s work on finding our version of Brees/Rodgers/Brady/etc. - but I think it’s fair to note that guys like Flacco  and Alex Smith won 10+ games 4 times each.  Point being, while the elite qbs get you more chances, other guys (with good rosters) can be more than one off contenders, even if they only reach the big dance once.  To me, Kaep and Foles are different stories - one seemingly blackballed (not getting into that) and the other didn’t get the full support of his team (and chased the money?).  

 

I have no idea where this puts Heinicke, but at a minimum, he’s shown he can win games with a decent roster.  I think there’s three ways to view him right now.  

1) The up and down guy of the past 10 games

2) The guy that can move the ball pretty consistently and gives the team a chance (against anyone) pretty much every week (past 4 games)

3) The very efficient guy that can get it done vs good opponents (the past 2 weeks)

 

If it’s 1, then I’m selling my soul for a qb.  If it’s 2, I’m looking to add a rookie qb with high end potential, but I’m not selling the farm to do so.  If it’s 3, I’m focusing on building the roster and maybe take a flyer on a qb, or punt and reevaluate (both TH and the draftable qbs) next year.  Personally, I think he is at #2 and that could work out nicely in a draft that should have decent/intriguing qb options beyond the top several picks.

Edited November 23, 2021 by skinny21

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, kingdaddy said:

You are correct on all points. The Colts just showed Buffalo that the game is still won in the trenches and that running the football is still the key to winning games. If I can run the football with Heinicke then I can keep your Tom Brady off the field for long stretches and he cannot beat me. We saw this first hand last week. 

The NYG couldn't run the ball last night and had to watch Daniel Jones make an absolute mess of himself last night because he can't read defenses or make throws in window. Taylor does that.

Love your points about Ben, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc.....you need more than just a high priced QB to win the SB. The name QB's will usually keep you competitive but it's the complete roster teams that win in the trenches who win Super Bowls. Stafford and the Rams got pounded by SF on the ground last Monday night and it was a thing of beauty. 

TH is the man for us, keep building around him. We are on the right track...gotta get better.

So, I agree that the game is in the trenches a lot but I'd say that a really good QB is a difference maker more than any other position on Danny other team sport. 

 

That said, there's such a poor definition of what a good QB is. We're seeing this definition of 10 year span by @mistertim but what kind of a goal post is that? You want to be going back but teams rebuild. It's what happens. The question is can you QB take you there and win it. I didn't believe in Kirk because he crumbled at crunch time. I believed in RG3 because he was the opposite. But he had injury problems and then didn't want to run any more. It's tough. But most QBs who have a 3 to 5 year span where they're competing for a SB is a lot. 

[mistertim]

23 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

Ha ha you are funny. I bet coaches who like to air it out would disagree with you. McVey loves to throw more than run, for example. 

 

Regardless, you can win a lot of football games in the trenches. That hasn't changed at all. 

 

Do you honestly believe that the reason coaches tend to pass more nowadays is because they think it's "fun" as opposed to it being how the game is played and mostly won now? They're risking their careers in order to see the ball in the air and have fun, regardless of whether it's the best actual strategy?

 

And there's no doubt that the trenches are still important. That hasn't changed. If your OL is horrible you're not going to be able to protect your QB or run the ball. But that also doesn't change the fact that the game now is much different than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

 

Controlling the clock and pounding the ball simply isn't a long term winning formula these days. There are just too many aspects of the game working against that. If it were, RBs wouldn't mostly be relegated to day 2 and later picks. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by mistertim

[mistertim]

@Thinking Skins The reason I throw out the 10-15 year number is that's around the average career length of a successful QB. Most teams aren't going to keep a mediocre QB around for that long; they'll move on. So if a team has kept a QB for that long, then I'm generally going to assume that he's a top tier player.

 

Yeah you'll have outliers like Flacco who stuck around with the same team for 10 years, but it's somewhat rare nowadays. Yes, Flacco won a SB, but I also don't think you'd find many people who would say that he was ever truly in the elite echelon of QBs.

Edited November 23, 2021 by mistertim

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

We argue more about the QB position when someone looks good than we do when someone stinks.

 

I didn't really think about it until now.  But I think that's true.  The amount of failure we've had at QB which has been beyond epic I think has led to two competiting camps as for hoping for the elusive chosen one at QB.

 

A.  You got a group that when they've seen glimpses of really good play -- they lean towards we've finally escaped the desert or think we are about to do it.  And they get annoyed at those who disagree because they are raining on their hope and positive vibes.  And they think this one is different from the other examples. 

 

B.  A group who is more cynical.  They shrug off the glimpses because they've seen glimpses before that have petered out with other QBs and want to see more consistency and a larger sample before being sold.  They get annoyed at the other group when those people call them haters.  In turn, they think the other group is a bit delusional and pie in the sky.

 

I've straddled both camps in this discussion but I am closer to B than A.    But I've been in the A camp sometimes during Dan's era so I can relate.  I do think everyone here wants that QB X.  We all rooting for whoever the QB is.    But the process to find out can be tense because of competiting thought processes.  

 

I know there is some discussion that alludes to some are rooting against Heinicke.  I think that's silly.  I think the emotion on these QB threads prove we all want that guy and are rooting for whomever the QB is at whatever given time.  

Edited November 23, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[zCommander]

43 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Do you honestly believe that the reason coaches tend to pass more nowadays is because they think it's "fun" as opposed to it being how the game is played and mostly won now? They're risking their careers in order to see the ball in the air and have fun, regardless of whether it's the best actual strategy?

 

And there's no doubt that the trenches are still important. That hasn't changed. If your OL is horrible you're not going to be able to protect your QB or run the ball. But that also doesn't change the fact that the game now is much different than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

 

Controlling the clock and pounding the ball simply isn't a long term winning formula these days. There are just too many aspects of the game working against that. If it were, RBs wouldn't mostly be relegated to day 2 and later picks. 

 

Where the hell did I say coaches tend to pass because it is "fun"? That is all you. Putting words in my post that are not even there. 

[ThomasRoane]

3 hours ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

I've had the same problem but if I copy the link and paste to a new web page it comes up...wierd

 

Nope...not there with me too...didn't work

 

Right-click the link.  And click open in a new tab.  That works for me

 

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

And yes of course you need more than just a great QB. But that great QB gives you a good 10-15 year window to build and rebuild around him. If you have a mediocre QB and you try to win with him and a stellar cast you probably have a 3-5 year window at most before that great supporting cast inevitably breaks up.

 

Where do these stats or examples come from?

 

Most people agree that Flacco isn't elite, yet he has 10 playoff wins to Aaron Rodgers 11, plus the same number of super bowl appearances and wins. 

 

Flacco had 6 playoff seasons to Rodgers 11, but the Ravens had almost the same amount of playoff success as the Packers in almost half the time.

 

And if Flacco was just a bridge QB until the Ravens got Lamar, well, I dont see the Ravens complaining.

 

The pattern I notice is once a team finds their franchise QB, especially if they are elite, they typically quickly hit a point where the talent that they won a super bowl with slowly dissipates and if arent replaced with good drafting wont be replaced with big free agent contracts because of how much money the QB is making.

 

It is really hard to do multiple superbowl runs while paying an elite QB and hitting on your rookie contacts.  Patriots and Steelers recently did this with HOF QBs, which is even harder to get then jus someone you can call the franchise guy or even elite.  Is Kansas City about to go through the same thing Seattle went through with early success only to never get back to that same platue?

 

Are we holding out for a franchise QB, and elite QB, or HOF QB?  We really need to figure out how to make due with what we got until we get any of that.

[mistertim]

7 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

Where the hell did I say coaches tend to pass because it is "fun"? That is all you. Putting words in my post that are not even there. 

 

2 hours ago, zskins said:

 

I knew you were going to say that that is why I said in the last two games when we ran more than passed we won those two game.

 

So it really hasn't changed in the last 30 years. Everyone wants to air it out because it makes the game more fun. Winning makes it more fun to me. Grind it out. Get the W. Who care how you do it as long as you do it and get to the big stage. People keep on forgetting it was the turtle who won the race. 

 

 

1 hour ago, zskins said:

 

Ha ha you are funny. I bet coaches who like to air it out would disagree with you. McVey loves to throw more than run, for example. 

 

Regardless, you can win a lot of football games in the trenches. That hasn't changed at all. 

 

If that's not saying they do it because it makes it "fun" then what did you mean? Why would coaches pass more now than run? Just for the hell of it? Because it's fun? Because the NFL asked them to? Or could it be because that's the way the game is mostly played now and that's the best strategy for winning?

[ananoman]

3 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

That was literally 30 years ago. It's a different game today.

While winning in the trenches  with a solid running game is no longer the norm, you can still win the old fashioned way.  Just look at the Titans.  They took that formula all the way to the AFC championship game in 2019

Edited November 23, 2021 by ananoman

[PartyPosse]

50 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I didn't really think about it until now.  But I think that's true.  The amount of failure we've had at QB which has been beyond epic I think has led to two competiting camps as for hoping for the elusive chosen one at QB.

 

A.  You got a group that when they've seen glimpses of really good play -- they lean towards we've finally escaped the desert or think we are about to do it.  And they get annoyed at those who disagree because they are raining on their hope and positive vibes.  And they think this one is different from the other examples. 

 

B.  A group who is more cynical.  They shrug off the glimpses because they've seen glimpses before that have petered out with other QBs and want to see more consistency and a larger sample before being sold.  They get annoyed at the other group when those people call them haters.  In turn, they think the other group is a bit delusional and pie in the sky.

 

I've straddled both camps in this discussion but I am closer to B than A.    But I've been in the A camp sometimes during Dan's era so I can relate.  I do think everyone here wants that QB X.  We all rooting for whoever the QB is.    But the process to find out can be tense because of competiting thought processes.  

 

I know there is some discussion that alludes to some are rooting against Heinicke.  I think that's silly.  I think the emotion on these QB threads prove we all want that guy and are rooting for whomever the QB is at whatever given time.  

I think this is the most spot on post I've ever read on ES.

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

There's an entire cult around here that would disagree.

Who??

[zCommander]

37 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

 

 

If that's not saying they do it because it makes it "fun" then what did you mean? Why would coaches pass more now than run? Just for the hell of it? Because it's fun? Because the NFL asked them to? Or could it be because that's the way the game is mostly played now and that's the best strategy for winning?

 

I said everyone wants to but doesn't have to. I also said you have to balance it. Like we did in the last two game. I know everyone wants a strong armed QB so they can throw the ball 65+ yards and Taylor can't. My point was you can win with Taylor with a strong running game. You don't need to air it out and can still win in the trenches. Sure it is not fun but it gets the job done. You said it is now a passing league. I said it doesn't have to be. 

 

But now I think about what you said about the coaches and "fun". I wasn't even thinking about the coaches. What I said was about the fans instead.  So, yes, the league has changed. Entertainment is more fun. This is what sells now. Big money is paid for commercial for games that are more fun to watch as more viewers will view them and the advertisement the companies pay will be worth the money they pay for the commercials. So yeah, the coaches wants to deliver that fun. (This could be a whole new thread on this topic for further discussion). 

 

I am just old school. Just give me a good smash mouth football game that moves the chains 10 yards at a time and wining the game/season.

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by zskins