The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Conn]

Kinda hard to say “these are the SB-winning QB’s of the past X years” and then say those guys are the prototype or the way the league is moving, etc. Those are for the most part HOF QBs. They are already by definition outliers—in talent, production, health, and longevity. So the fact that Brady and Peyton won like 70% of the SBs over X number of years is not really compelling evidence of anything except that they are generational, singular talents. I think you need to widen the sample size beyond SB-winning QBs and look at QBs who have kept their teams competitive over long periods of time (whether they have the conference championship and/or SB wins over obvious HOF-level rival QBs or not) and then go from there. Maybe you get the same answers, sure. But just pointing at SB-winning QBs narrows the pool too much to the already-exceptional QBs that aren’t really representative of anything except their own unique greatness. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

7 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Lamar being classified as mediocre is nonsensical. 
 

His impact is real. Most of Vegas has Ravens at 10 or 11 wins and right around 5th -7th in terms of wins. This is because of Jackson! 

 

Regular season yes he is fantastic. Playoff are a different matter as I had said.  

[mistertim]

24 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Lamar being classified as mediocre is nonsensical. 
 

His impact is real. Most of Vegas has Ravens at 10 or 11 wins and right around 5th -7th in terms of wins. This is because of Jackson! 

 

Can you actually point to anything quantifiable besides the team record that indicates his impact? Wins and losses are a whole team stat. Pretty much everything about him that can actually be measured and matter is mediocre. He has mediocre TD/INT numbers, mediocre to poor completion percentage, and even his rushing, while good, isn't anything insane. He rushed for a total of 5 TDs over the last 2 seasons.

 

You're basically just taking team stats and throwing everything else out and using some "feel" based metric to say it's all based on Jackson. This is eerily similar to other middle of the road QBs who don't put up good numbers but who are on teams that win so people throw around the record as if it's a QB stat and ignore everything else and say stuff like "He just wins!"

 

So you're using some sort of vaporware non-metric to measure Jackson's impact, but then you turn around in the next breath and say that Josh Allen isn't an elite passer and would be a backup if not for his running ability, despite his great passing TD numbers, high completion percentage, etc. And you say I'm on a mountaintop alone with regards to Jackson? The entire NFL would probably look at you like a crazy person if you told them what you thought about Josh Allen.

[wit33]

45 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Can you actually point to anything quantifiable besides the team record that indicates his impact? Wins and losses are a whole team stat. Pretty much everything about him that can actually be measured and matter is mediocre. He has mediocre TD/INT numbers, mediocre to poor completion percentage, and even his rushing, while good, isn't anything insane. He rushed for a total of 5 TDs over the last 2 seasons.

 

If Jackson is your QB, your team will have an elite running attack and dynamic overall in early downs. Also, your team will be in the playoffs. 
 

45 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

You're basically just taking team stats and throwing everything else out and using some "feel" based metric to say it's all based on Jackson. This is eerily similar to other middle of the road QBs who don't put up good numbers but who are on teams that win so people throw around the record as if it's a QB stat and ignore everything else and say stuff like "He just wins!"

 

Such a stretch on your part, Ravens often win because of Jackson— he’s in that class of QB.

 

45 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

So you're using some sort of vaporware non-metric to measure Jackson's impact, but then you turn around in the next breath and say that Josh Allen isn't an elite passer and would be a backup if not for his running ability, despite his great passing TD numbers, high completion percentage, etc. And you say I'm on a mountaintop alone with regards to Jackson? The entire NFL would probably look at you like a crazy person if you told them what you thought about Josh Allen.

 

Josh Allen early in his career without run ability would’ve been given up on, it almost happened regardless. Josh Allen now isn’t an elite passer of the football, but overall he’s an elite QB in large part due to his backyard abilities. Mahomes has graduated from this, Allen hasn’t. 

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Regular season yes he is fantastic. Playoff are a different matter as I had said.  

Im good with this. This is true for Aaron Rodgers , Dan Marino and Peyton Manning as well. 

1 hour ago, Conn said:

Kinda hard to say “these are the SB-winning QB’s of the past X years” and then say those guys are the prototype or the way the league is moving, etc. Those are for the most part HOF QBs. They are already by definition outliers—in talent, production, health, and longevity. So the fact that Brady and Peyton won like 70% of the SBs over X number of years is not really compelling evidence of anything except that they are generational, singular talents. I think you need to widen the sample size beyond SB-winning QBs and look at QBs who have kept their teams competitive over long periods of time (whether they have the conference championship and/or SB wins over obvious HOF-level rival QBs or not) and then go from there. Maybe you get the same answers, sure. But just pointing at SB-winning QBs narrows the pool too much to the already-exceptional QBs that aren’t really representative of anything except their own unique greatness. 

Weak argument that ignores what’s taking place in the NFL at the QB position. 

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Such a stretch on your part, Ravens often win because of Jackson— he’s in that class of QB.

 

 

Again, according to what metric? Nowadays he doesn't put a lot of points on the board, whether through the air or on the ground. So is this another one of those "feel" things where you just somehow know it?

 

Sure, I'll give you that his running ability makes the rushing game more dynamic. But teams mostly key in on that nowadays because they're not especially scared of him doing much through the air. After his one elite year teams seemed to steadily get better at defending against him.

 

This is why I say that being a great passer has to come first, then the scrambling/running ability is an outstanding add-on. If teams know you're not going to beat them through the air, it becomes easier to defend against a running QB. That's why Josh Allen's numbers are head and shoulders above Jackson's. He absolutely can and will beat you through the air, but if you sell out to try and defend that, he can also run over you if need be.

[Thinking Skins]

2 hours ago, Conn said:

Kinda hard to say “these are the SB-winning QB’s of the past X years” and then say those guys are the prototype or the way the league is moving, etc. Those are for the most part HOF QBs. They are already by definition outliers—in talent, production, health, and longevity. So the fact that Brady and Peyton won like 70% of the SBs over X number of years is not really compelling evidence of anything except that they are generational, singular talents. I think you need to widen the sample size beyond SB-winning QBs and look at QBs who have kept their teams competitive over long periods of time (whether they have the conference championship and/or SB wins over obvious HOF-level rival QBs or not) and then go from there. Maybe you get the same answers, sure. But just pointing at SB-winning QBs narrows the pool too much to the already-exceptional QBs that aren’t really representative of anything except their own unique greatness. 

Are we forgetting about SB hangover that teams tend to get and how hard it is to motivate them to get back to that game again? The Eagles are a good team but I really wonder how good they can be by just realizing how close they got and plays like that fumble that nobody's talking about. What McNabb did and what Kelly did are special because they're rare. SB teams collapse all the time. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Let’s not put the QB thread in the toilet before Training Camp even gets here. 😆

[wit33]

43 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Again, according to what metric? Nowadays he doesn't put a lot of points on the board, whether through the air or on the ground. So is this another one of those "feel" things where you just somehow know it?

 

Sure, I'll give you that his running ability makes the rushing game more dynamic. But teams mostly key in on that nowadays because they're not especially scared of him doing much through the air. After his one elite year teams seemed to steadily get better at defending against him.

 

Yes, it’s running the football, that’s the main metric! Penciling in an elite run game each season has tremendous value, what are you missing about that? The kind of direct value that essentially allows the team to escape mediocrity and be in the playoffs every year. 

Reminder, Jackson is still a young QB who will improve. 

 

43 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This is why I say that being a great passer has to come first, then the scrambling/running ability is an outstanding add-on. If teams know you're not going to beat them through the air, it becomes easier to defend against a running QB. That's why Josh Allen's numbers are head and shoulders above Jackson's. He absolutely can and will beat you through the air, but if you sell out to try and defend that, he can also run over you if need be.

 

 

Maybe I’m missing a few QBs, but ability to feel the pressure and transition to playmaking is a you have it or you don’t type skill. 
 

Fortunately for Washington we have a guy who’s been playing backyard football his entire football life, Sam Howell is a magician in and outside the pocket, no coach is teaching him what he does when a poor play call is made and he’s forced to play make— that’s when the QB strips control away from the coordinator and puts the team on his back. 
 

The coaches will teach and help with the 70% of plays that fall into the norm, but need that guy who looks forward to the outlier plays and takes control! 
 

 

Just now, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Let’s not put the QB thread in the toilet before Training Camp even gets here. 😆

No better time than now for these type of discussions lol 

[mistertim]

38 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Yes, it’s running the football, that’s the main metric! Penciling in an elite run game each season has tremendous value, what are you missing about that? The kind of direct value that essentially allows the team to escape mediocrity and be in the playoffs every year. 

Reminder, Jackson is still a young QB who will improve. 

 

 

 

Maybe I’m missing a few QBs, but ability to feel the pressure and transition to playmaking is a you have it or you don’t type skill. 
 

Fortunately for Washington we have a guy who’s been playing backyard football his entire football life, Sam Howell is a magician in and outside the pocket, no coach is teaching him what he does when a poor play call is made and he’s forced to play make— that’s when the QB strips control away from the coordinator and puts the team on his back. 
 

The coaches will teach and help with the 70% of plays that fall into the norm, but need that guy who looks forward to the outlier plays and takes control! 
 

 

What I'm missing is how that's going to help you when you don't have much of an air game. If teams aren't scared of your QB beating them through the air, then it's much easier to deal with a great rushing attack. As Jackson's passing attack flattened out to mediocre, the Ravens have started losing more games as well. People aren't scared of him passing the ball, and they know how to defend against him now for the most part.

 

It's a passing league now, which everyone knows. What seems to be a bit contradictory with you on this is that on one hand you talk about how the NFL game is evolving, so clearly you know it's not the 80s anymore. But then when it comes to defending Jackson, you basically start talking about a pound the rock, control the clock offense, which is mostly obsolete now. You're not going to be a dominant team in today's NFL with that sort of offense. You have to have a good passing attack to do that. 

 

And what evidence is there that Jackson will improve? His performance has gone down plenty since his one dominant season 4 years ago. Add to that he also has injury concerns now on top of it. If he loses a couple of steps from his injuries then that will basically take away his main weapon.

 

 

 

As far as QBs, I know you have a fervent obsession with "backyard football" but the vast majority of offensive plays in the NFL still go according to the playbook and gameplan. You make it sound like Allen and Mahomes get the ball snapped on every play and just start running around aimlessly looking for receivers who might be open. Yes those guys have a great ability to create something when the play breaks down, as well as have the potential to do designed runs, and that's a hugely nice trait to have, but they also know their playbook like the back of their hand. Why? Because most plays go precisely according to that.

 

That's why things that have made elite NFL passers for a long time: fast processing and decision making, great vision, great accuracy with the football, etc. are still extremely important today. Yes the game has evolved to favor QBs who at least have some dual threat ability, but those passing traits of the elite haven't changed. A guy who doesn't have those things isn't going to be any sort of long term elite QB in the league, regardless of how good a runner he is.

Edited July 2, 2023 by mistertim

[MartinC]

3 hours ago, Conn said:

Kinda hard to say “these are the SB-winning QB’s of the past X years” and then say those guys are the prototype or the way the league is moving, etc. Those are for the most part HOF QBs. They are already by definition outliers—in talent, production, health, and longevity. So the fact that Brady and Peyton won like 70% of the SBs over X number of years is not really compelling evidence of anything except that they are generational, singular talents. I think you need to widen the sample size beyond SB-winning QBs and look at QBs who have kept their teams competitive over long periods of time (whether they have the conference championship and/or SB wins over obvious HOF-level rival QBs or not) and then go from there. Maybe you get the same answers, sure. But just pointing at SB-winning QBs narrows the pool too much to the already-exceptional QBs that aren’t really representative of anything except their own unique greatness. 

Nick Foles? And it was the ghost of Peyton Manning who won that Super Bowl with the Broncos not the HOF player.

 

But you are right it’s not the way the position is moving, because it’s not the way College offenses have evolved. Colleges are developing QBs out of RPO many of who are also a key part of the running game. The NFL is adapting to the supply of talent available.

But it’s hard to keep a QB healthy with him being a key part of your running game, so to be successful over the long term I still think processing ability, decision making and accuracy from the pocket will separate the QBs who are successful at NFL level.

 

[Simmsy]

11 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

Are we forgetting about SB hangover that teams tend to get and how hard it is to motivate them to get back to that game again? The Eagles are a good team but I really wonder how good they can be by just realizing how close they got and plays like that fumble that nobody's talking about. What McNabb did and what Kelly did are special because they're rare. SB teams collapse all the time. 

 

I just don't see how so many people think the Eagles are just going to easily repeat what they did last year, it shows that people just reuse the same opinions from last year and state it as fact for the upcoming season. I believe the Eagles had the least injuries of last year, had all of their starters play in the SB and basically got to walk right thru the NFC playoffs. The Vikings "one score win" method finally ran out when it really mattered and the Eagles got the Giants...who regressed back to being the Giants after beating Minny. They the got play a 3rd string QB in San Fran...then a 4th stringer...than the 3rd stringer again minus one arm. I seriously doubt the planets will align like that again.

 

Not to mention they've lost (I believe) seven starters, five of those being on the defense along with three coaches on the defensive side. How people think the Eagles will be the same team as last year is beyond me. I guess players and coaching isn't a factor in winning football games.

[Number 44]

14 hours ago, mistertim said:

Can you actually point to anything quantifiable besides the team record that indicates his impact?

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e541f730-a4e0-4aef-9638-075175b3c5ad

[mistertim]

48 minutes ago, Number 44 said:

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e541f730-a4e0-4aef-9638-075175b3c5ad

 

I assume there was a point here?

[burgngold fan]

Looking at the last several pages in this topic.  I forgot what site I was in,  thought for sure I had wondered into the ravens qb thread.  😕

[Koolblue13]

15 hours ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Let’s not put the QB thread in the toilet before Training Camp even gets here. 😆

It's the first time in years that we're not fighting over which terrible back up is our better QB.

 

Nobody is making the argument that mobility isn't valuable, but wit is gallantly dyeing on that hill and it's glorious how he's keeping the thread alive. 

[zCommander]

45 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

It's the first time in years that we're not fighting over which terrible back up is our better QB.

 

Hey, at least I kept you all entertained last year while you all pulled out your hair... free haircut. You are welcome lol

[mistertim]

53 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

It's the first time in years that we're not fighting over which terrible back up is our better QB.

 

 

Speak for yourself, fool! Tim DeMorat should be our starting QB. Anyone who can somehow make a picture from 2022 look exactly like one from 1970, including the porn mustache, is clearly an elite NFL QB in the making.

 

[zCommander]

Finally, in a long time, we will have the chance to see if Howell can be our franchise QB and not the usual retreads since RG3 and Kirk. 

[Koolblue13]

[Thinking Skins]

6 hours ago, Simmsy said:

 

I just don't see how so many people think the Eagles are just going to easily repeat what they did last year, it shows that people just reuse the same opinions from last year and state it as fact for the upcoming season. I believe the Eagles had the least injuries of last year, had all of their starters play in the SB and basically got to walk right thru the NFC playoffs. The Vikings "one score win" method finally ran out when it really mattered and the Eagles got the Giants...who regressed back to being the Giants after beating Minny. They the got play a 3rd string QB in San Fran...then a 4th stringer...than the 3rd stringer again minus one arm. I seriously doubt the planets will align like that again.

 

Not to mention they've lost (I believe) seven starters, five of those being on the defense along with three coaches on the defensive side. How people think the Eagles will be the same team as last year is beyond me. I guess players and coaching isn't a factor in winning football games.

That's a good point too. The thing is, and it's an almost universal truth about the NFL, if we think we know anything at all, it's that we know nothing. 

 

People are trying to project the NFC with almost no legacy QBs and it's impossible and even when there are you have injury to QB, RB, WR, and OL that can be catastrophic. I see a big shakeup in the NFC this year because of the uncertainty. 

 

And really, it all comes down to QB. I like Howell but moreso because I think he can make our OL look better than it is because he has a quick release which is helpful and on the other hand her can escape which allows them to make mistakes. 

[Thinking Skins]

6 hours ago, Simmsy said:

 

I just don't see how so many people think the Eagles are just going to easily repeat what they did last year, it shows that people just reuse the same opinions from last year and state it as fact for the upcoming season. I believe the Eagles had the least injuries of last year, had all of their starters play in the SB and basically got to walk right thru the NFC playoffs. The Vikings "one score win" method finally ran out when it really mattered and the Eagles got the Giants...who regressed back to being the Giants after beating Minny. They the got play a 3rd string QB in San Fran...then a 4th stringer...than the 3rd stringer again minus one arm. I seriously doubt the planets will align like that again.

 

Not to mention they've lost (I believe) seven starters, five of those being on the defense along with three coaches on the defensive side. How people think the Eagles will be the same team as last year is beyond me. I guess players and coaching isn't a factor in winning football games.

Also, I want to point out that coaches like the Eagles sand Giants are new to the game. Other coaches have done well early in their tenure and been fired for incompetence. The Eagles have to manage a bunch of personalities and a young QB who may not be as good as advertised (one good winning season that may be like RG3s minus the injury). We still have to see him do it over and over again, battling injuries, making players better, etc. Heck he might be just above Dak or Allen. 

 

And Jones. Jones is a bum. I don't care how much he won. If Barkley doesn't play he's not winning 7. If that game is on the line you don't want the ball in his hands throwing it. They're trying to make him into Allen but he doesn't have the competitive fire. He's getting bailed out every way possible just like Kirk was. 

[lovemaskins]

5 hours ago, burgngold fan said:

Looking at the last several pages in this topic.  I forgot what site I was in,  thought for sure I had wondered into the ravens qb thread.  😕

Yep, our idiot fans are actually debating if Lamar Jackson (mvp) is a good qb...😖 

 

Harris can't take over soon enough.

Edited July 2, 2023 by lovemaskins

[757SeanTaylor21]

People really fault lamar for not being a great passer when who has he had at receiver besides Hollywood brown and their te? And that's if brown was healthy. Also people fault jackson when their oc was a heavy run rpo coordinator...

[zCommander]

58 minutes ago, lovemaskins said:

Yep, our idiot fans are actually debating if Lamar Jackson (mvp) is a good qb...😖 

 

Harris can't take over soon enough.

 

He had ONE year of good football back in 2019 (his 2nd year in NFL and MVP) and since then has been on the decline and getting injured and really not worth $260 million for a good QB. You pay that kind of money to a great QB instead. 

 

Good thing Dan sold or else he would have been stupid enough to get Lamar. 

 

34 minutes ago, 757SeanTaylor21 said:

People really fault lamar for not being a great passer when who has he had at receiver besides Hollywood brown and their te? And that's if brown was healthy. Also people fault jackson when their oc was a heavy run rpo coordinator...

 

But how much is that due to Lamar being a run 1st QB? The OC has to call plays to the strength of the QB. We have had some really pedestrian QBs and also only one WR as well in Terry who still ended up getting over 1000 yards back to back. Brown has only had one year of 1004 yards. That tells me the QB runs more than he throws. In 2019 and 2020 Lamar ran for over 1000 yards. In 5 years the lowest rushing yards were 695 and that was his rookie year.

 

Brown has only missed 9 games in the last 4 years.

 

One thing I have noticed about Lamar is that he is not the type of QB who will sit in the pocket and wait for the play to develop. He will start running almost immediately and trying to make plays with his legs instead more than he needs to or should. But then again he is not a pure pocket passer so there is that. In another words Lamar is not a great passer. He is okay. 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by zCommander

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, lovemaskins said:

Yep, our idiot fans are actually debating if Lamar Jackson (mvp) is a good qb...😖 

 

Harris can't take over soon enough.

 

Man you guys really are leg humping his one great season...which happened 4 years ago.

 

Imagine if I came into this forum and said "Hey there's a QB I want us to trade multiple 1at round picks for, and who would require a $260 million contract ($185 million fully guaranteed). He's averaged 16.5 TDs, 10 INTs, and 2.5 rushing TDs over the last two seasons. Oh and there are also injury concerns" without saying the name Lamar Jackson, I'd get absolutely roasted, and rightly so.

 

The issue with Lamar is that it's easy to get caught up in his sometimes electric and highlight-worthy style of play (I certainly enjoy watching him sometimes) to the point where it can overshadow the fact that he's been overall very pedestrian as a QB since his huge season 4 years ago. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by mistertim