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

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 11/17/2022 at 9:49 AM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

it’s tough for me to see this as sustainable, even against lesser competition.

I guess the question is sustainable for how long and against whom?

 

For the remainder of the season against the teams on their schedule?  I'd say yes, it's probably sustainable.  They just beat an 8-0 team with a top-flight offense.  So, I think saying they CAN'T beat anybody left on their regular season schedule if they play at that level would be a mistake.  

 

But it really comes down to 3 factors:

 

1. The defense has to not just be good, but has to be elite.  Because they can't get behind.  Almost at all.  And I don't mean by 1 score, that's basically even if you can score your next drive. But if they get down to the point where they have to make up points quickly, this offense just won't be able to do it.  They can't protect TH well enough to throw down-field in known passing situations, and he doesn't have the ability to do it.  So the defense HAS to keep the game close.  If they don't, they are toast.  

 

2. They have to stay madly committed to the run and get into 3rd and less than 4 a whole lot.  If an opponent manages to stop the run to the point where they are in known-passing 3rd downs more often, they will not be able to convert them at a high percentage.  

 

3. They have to convert a VERY high percentage of 3rd downs to keep drives alive.  Because they are going to have a lot of them if they run a lot.  You're not picking up a lot of first downs on first and second down if you're running 60%+ of the time.  That's fine.  But you have to be REALLY good on third down, or else you're punting a whole lot.  Now, if the defense is elite and keeps getting the ball back, that's not terrible.  But if it's not, and they get into a hole, they're toast.  

 

3a.  They have to minimize the bonehead mistakes, which include penalties and turnovers.  They don't have the margin of error for them.  

 

This type of football only works if EVERYTHING works properly: The defense has to be elite, the running game has to be consistent, they have to convert 3rd downs and they have to minimize mistakes.

 

And if you run into a hot QB with a hot offense, you're sunk because there's just no way to catch up.  I get they just stifled the Eagles. So you're counting on that every week.  I just don't think you can count on it every week... 

 

Basically, they have to be just about perfect in everything, because that's the only way they can win playing this style of football.

 

I think they can do it for the remainder of the season.  But I don't think it's a sustainable long-term solution.  They need a better QB to be able to take the next step and not have to drive 80 yards in 3 yard chunks the majority of the game.  It's REALLY REALLY hard to do.  

[TMK9973]

17 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Carson dropped back almost twice as much as Heinicke, making for twice as many opportunities to be sacked. 

 

 

Carson Dropped back 92% more times and took 155% more sacks.

Or to be more exact -Every 10.8 times Wentz went back to pass he got sacked vs every 13.4 times TH goes back to pass. 

 

I like numbers.  

Edited November 18, 2022 by TMK9973

[Voice_of_Reason]

15 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

Yeah...once Wentz is "healthy"...

 

 

 

 

Any post with an image of Drew gets a thumbs up from me.  One of my earliest crushes...

3 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

"Cereal is soup"

Now that thought is going to fester....

 

[TMK9973]

Anyone else having any flash backs about who should start? The former 9th round pick who was out of football and played the world league before having some "Lucky wins" vs a former #1 pick who had a crazy good arm but seemed to never be the right solution for different teams?

 

We decided to go with Jeff George in that case while Brad Johnson went on to win a super bowl.  

 

 

[ColonialWBSkinsFan]

4 hours ago, wit33 said:

My preferred formula that I believe has highest percentage to happen is drafting a competent mobile QB and going all in during his rookie contract. 
 

Obviously, if you can find an elite guy, that’s the way. 

 

Sam Howell says hi

[Voice_of_Reason]

16 minutes ago, TMK9973 said:

Anyone else having any flash backs about who should start? The former 9th round pick who was out of football and played the world league before having some "Lucky wins" vs a former #1 pick who had a crazy good arm but seemed to never be the right solution for different teams?

 

We decided to go with Jeff George in that case while Brad Johnson went on to win a super bowl.  

I think comparing Wentz to George is not fair.  George never really had any success at all except for one season when he had probably the best receiving group in the history of the NFL, and the team still sent him packing. He was also a complete curmudgeon, and everybody hated him.

 

Nobody really has ever hated Wentz.  He might not have been the most popular guy because he didn't quite fit in, but I don't think I've heard anybody really have a beef with him.  Except for Irsay.  Remember, the Eagles wanted to keep him, he kindof wanted out.

 

Also, Brad Johnson, when that decision was made, had set the franchise record or yards in a single season, and led a 10 win team that won a playoff game.  He was considered one of the better QBs in 1999, and made the probowl.  While he never had a great arm, he had a good enough arm, had good size, and was a legitimate starting NFL QB.  

 

Brad Johnson was a MUCH better QB at the point when we dumped him for George because of our idiot owner than Heinicke has the ability to be.  

 

 

1 minute ago, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

 

Sam Howell says hi

It would really be great if Howell turned out to be a star.  But frankly, the chances of that happening are pretty slim. We'll see.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

It would really be great if Howell turned out to be a star.  But frankly, the chances of that happening are pretty slim. We'll see.  

 

From what wit33 said, he only has to be competent...

[zCommander]

8 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

It would really be great if Howell turned out to be a star.  But frankly, the chances of that happening are pretty slim. We'll see.  

 

But we really haven't even seen Howell play a regular season game yet. We all need to see that first before we can say he is not what we thought he could be or is.  

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by zCommander

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

From what wit33 said, he only has to be competent...

Ok, fine.  I guess he could be competent. 

 

The problem with that is I don't think "competent" QB play wins a lot in the NFL playoffs. Maybe in the regular season, but ... maybe not that much?

 

In recent memory, I guess the guy who'd point to who is "competent" but not really good who's had significant playoff success is Jimmy G.  I guess an Ryan Tannehill... Neither are on rookie deals, however.  

 

Last year's playoff field:

NFC:

1. GB - Rodgers

2. TB - Brady

3. Dallas - Dak

4. Rams - Stafford

5. Arizona - Murray

6. San Fran - Jimmy G.

7. Eagles - Hurts

 

If you wan to say Murry, and Hurts were "competent," I'd give you that, and they both lost in the first round.  Jimmy G. got to the conference finals and lost to Stafford, who's WAY more than competent.  @wit33 also is saying a QB on his rookie deal, that would only be Hurts and Murray (Murray got his deal in the off-season.)  

 

AFC:

1. Tennessee - Tannehill

2. KC - Mahomes

3. Buffalo - Allen

4. Cincy - Burrow

5. Vegas - Carr

6. NE - Mac Jones

7. Pitt - Very, very old Ben Rothlisburger (I put him in the "along for the ride" category.)

 

So the only "competent" rookie QB in that group is Jones, if he qualifies as competent, and they lost.... badly to the Bills

 

Burrow is on a rookie deal, but he was a star #1 overall pick who was a lot more than competent.  

 

Tannehill is probably Competent, but not on his rookie deal and not cheap. Same probably with Carr, and Ben is just old and owes the playoff appearance to Tomlin.  

 

So, last year, not one rookie-deal, competent QB won a game in the playoffs, and only 3 out of 14 would qualify (Murray, Hurts and Mac Jones.)  All three teams were BLOWN OUT.  

Rams 34 - Cards 11

TB 31 - Eagles 15

Buffalo 47 - NE 17

 

The literal only example of a competent QB being "good enough to win" is Jimmy G.  And he's far from cheap.  

 

NFC Divisional round:

GB (Rodgers) vs. 49ers (Jimmy).  Jimmy wins. An example of the Competent QB beating the great QB.  

Rams (Stafford) vs. Bucs (Brady - Stafford Wins.  Stafford played lights out for a lot of last season, and is much better than competent.  Maybe not elite, but last year he was VERY VERY good in that McVay offense.

 

AFC Divisional round:

Bengals (Burrow) vs. Tennessee (Tannehill) - Burrow Wins

Buffalo (Allen) vs. Chiefs (Mahomes) - Mahomes Wins

 

In the divisional round, I'd argue Mahomes, Allen, Brady, Stafford, Rodgers and Burrow were 6 of the 8 QBs in the round, and were probably the 6 best QBs last season. Herbert might have something to say about that, maybe a few others, but those 6 were clearly in the top 10 of QBs last season.   Funny how that works.  And a bunch of them (read: all but Burrow) cost A LOT of money.

 

I've said this from the beginning: No price is too much to pay for an elite QB.  However, you ONLY pay elite QBs elite money.  Where you get into trouble (ahem Vikings up until this year) is paying a non-elite QB elite money.  That is death.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

19 minutes ago, zCommander said:

 

But we really haven't even seen Howell play a regular season game yet. We all need to see that first before we can say he is not what we thought he could be or is.  

 

The reason I said it was slim is because it's always slim, and the math says the later you're picked, the slimmer it is.  

 

I can, off the top of my head, think of 2 QBs picked after the 4th round (or in one case not picked) who developed into top-end starters.  Both are in the HOF:

Brady (6th round)

Warner (undrafted)

 

I might be missing a few guys, and apologies to them.  But it's a short list.  If you want to add 3rd and 4th round picks, then Cousins, Dak and Wilson would be the recent QBs I can think of which have made it to be be legitimate starters.  Wilson probably being a HOFer, assuming he doesn't completely screw everything up in Denver.  

 

Nothing against Howell, it's just unlikely.  Guys are picked in the 5th round because the entire league passed on them 4 times.  Which means the entire league views them as a project at best.  Could the entire league be that wrong?  Sure.  It happens, just not very often.  

[CommanderInTheRye]

 

"Taylor Heinicke has been THE ANSWER... at quarterback all along." 

[Est.1974]

We are gonna need another starting QB under the new ownership. Top 3 draft pick or we’ll established vet QB. You don’t buy an NFL franchise and go with the flow.

 

There will be a major investment at QB immediately.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

41 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Ok, fine.  I guess he could be competent. 

 

The problem with that is I don't think "competent" QB play wins a lot in the NFL playoffs. Maybe in the regular season, but ... maybe not that much?

 

In recent memory, I guess the guy who'd point to who is "competent" but not really good who's had significant playoff success is Jimmy G.  I guess an Ryan Tannehill... Neither are on rookie deals, however.  

 

 

 

- You have to find out what wit33 defines as "competent"

 

- You have to find out what wit33 defines as "going all in"

 

Not sure any of the teams you listed above went all in while their competent QB was still on his rookie contract.

 

 

30 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

"Taylor Heinicke has been THE ANSWER... at quarterback all along." 

 

Was their question "Which backup QB can win you some games despite his noodle arm?" lol...

Edited November 18, 2022 by Califan007 The Constipated

[FootballZombie]

Outside of players who were brought in on short notice and never had a chance to learn (like your Sanchez or Gilberts of the world) I can't remember a QB on our team that has been relegated away by their Offensive coordinator as consistently as TH has been, and this has been ongoing for over a year at this point.

 

THs most valuable trait may in fact be that his O coordinator believes in him so little that he wont even try to run an offense through him, which allows you to lean on the rest of the team.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, TMK9973 said:

Carson Dropped back 92% more times and took 155% more sacks.

Or to be more exact -Every 10.8 times Wentz went back to pass he got sacked vs every 13.4 times TH goes back to pass. 

 

I like numbers.  

*tips cap*
 

You sir, are a mathematical wizard.

*I don’t care enough to do that math myself.

 

I really could care less about seeing Wentz play again, and my point was not to suggest Carson isn’t prone for taking a sack.  Just that 23-9 figure looks worse than it really is when you take into account the pass attempts.

 

It’s clear the 2 QB’s have been asked to do different things.

[Ball Security]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I guess the question is sustainable for how long and against whom?

 

For the remainder of the season against the teams on their schedule?  I'd say yes, it's probably sustainable.  They just beat an 8-0 team with a top-flight offense.  So, I think saying they CAN'T beat anybody left on their regular season schedule if they play at that level would be a mistake.  

 

But it really comes down to 3 factors:

 

1. The defense has to not just be good, but has to be elite.  Because they can't get behind.  Almost at all.  And I don't mean by 1 score, that's basically even if you can score your next drive. But if they get down to the point where they have to make up points quickly, this offense just won't be able to do it.  They can't protect TH well enough to throw down-field in known passing situations, and he doesn't have the ability to do it.  So the defense HAS to keep the game close.  If they don't, they are toast.  

 

2. They have to stay madly committed to the run and get into 3rd and less than 4 a whole lot.  If an opponent manages to stop the run to the point where they are in known-passing 3rd downs more often, they will not be able to convert them at a high percentage.  

 

3. They have to convert a VERY high percentage of 3rd downs to keep drives alive.  Because they are going to have a lot of them if they run a lot.  You're not picking up a lot of first downs on first and second down if you're running 60%+ of the time.  That's fine.  But you have to be REALLY good on third down, or else you're punting a whole lot.  Now, if the defense is elite and keeps getting the ball back, that's not terrible.  But if it's not, and they get into a hole, they're toast.  

 

3a.  They have to minimize the bonehead mistakes, which include penalties and turnovers.  They don't have the margin of error for them.  

 

This type of football only works if EVERYTHING works properly: The defense has to be elite, the running game has to be consistent, they have to convert 3rd downs and they have to minimize mistakes.

 

And if you run into a hot QB with a hot offense, you're sunk because there's just no way to catch up.  I get they just stifled the Eagles. So you're counting on that every week.  I just don't think you can count on it every week... 

 

Basically, they have to be just about perfect in everything, because that's the only way they can win playing this style of football.

 

I think they can do it for the remainder of the season.  But I don't think it's a sustainable long-term solution.  They need a better QB to be able to take the next step and not have to drive 80 yards in 3 yard chunks the majority of the game.  It's REALLY REALLY hard to do.  

They were down two scores in the fourth against Indy and won.

[Zim489]

40 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Ok, fine.  I guess he could be competent. 

 

The problem with that is I don't think "competent" QB play wins a lot in the NFL playoffs. Maybe in the regular season, but ... maybe not that much?

 

In recent memory, I guess the guy who'd point to who is "competent" but not really good who's had significant playoff success is Jimmy G.  I guess an Ryan Tannehill... Neither are on rookie deals, however.  

 

Last year's playoff field:

NFC:

1. GB - Rodgers

2. TB - Brady

3. Dallas - Dak

4. Rams - Stafford

5. Arizona - Murray

6. San Fran - Jimmy G.

7. Eagles - Hurts

 

If you wan to say Murry, and Hurts were "competent," I'd give you that, and they both lost in the first round.  Jimmy G. got to the conference finals and lost to Stafford, who's WAY more than competent.  @wit33 also is saying a QB on his rookie deal, that would only be Hurts and Murray (Murray got his deal in the off-season.)  

 

AFC:

1. Tennessee - Tannehill

2. KC - Mahomes

3. Buffalo - Allen

4. Cincy - Burrow

5. Vegas - Carr

6. NE - Mac Jones

7. Pitt - Very, very old Ben Rothlisburger (I put him in the "along for the ride" category.)

 

So the only "competent" rookie QB in that group is Jones, if he qualifies as competent, and they lost.... badly to the Bills

 

Burrow is on a rookie deal, but he was a star #1 overall pick who was a lot more than competent.  

 

Tannehill is probably Competent, but not on his rookie deal and not cheap. Same probably with Carr, and Ben is just old and owes the playoff appearance to Tomlin.  

 

So, last year, not one rookie-deal, competent QB won a game in the playoffs, and only 3 out of 14 would qualify (Murray, Hurts and Mac Jones.)  All three teams were BLOWN OUT.  

Rams 34 - Cards 11

TB 31 - Eagles 15

Buffalo 47 - NE 17

 

The literal only example of a competent QB being "good enough to win" is Jimmy G.  And he's far from cheap.  

 

NFC Divisional round:

GB (Rodgers) vs. 49ers (Jimmy).  Jimmy wins. An example of the Competent QB beating the great QB.  

Rams (Stafford) vs. Bucs (Brady - Stafford Wins.  Stafford played lights out for a lot of last season, and is much better than competent.  Maybe not elite, but last year he was VERY VERY good in that McVay offense.

 

AFC Divisional round:

Bengals (Burrow) vs. Tennessee (Tannehill) - Burrow Wins

Buffalo (Allen) vs. Chiefs (Mahomes) - Mahomes Wins

 

In the divisional round, I'd argue Mahomes, Allen, Brady, Stafford, Rodgers and Burrow were 6 of the 8 QBs in the round, and were probably the 6 best QBs last season. Herbert might have something to say about that, maybe a few others, but those 6 were clearly in the top 10 of QBs last season.   Funny how that works.  And a bunch of them (read: all but Burrow) cost A LOT of money.

 

I've said this from the beginning: No price is too much to pay for an elite QB.  However, you ONLY pay elite QBs elite money.  Where you get into trouble (ahem Vikings up until this year) is paying a non-elite QB elite money.  That is death.  

And Jimmy G is only competent because of Kyle. Arguably the best Offensive mind of his generation 

29 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

We are gonna need another starting QB under the new ownership. Top 3 draft pick or we’ll established vet QB. You don’t buy an NFL franchise and go with the flow.

 

There will be a major investment at QB immediately.

Just don’t see how they are getting a Top 3 pick with out a massive sell off. Which they should do 

[Dan T.]

Speaking of quarterbacks...

 

 

[Est.1974]

21 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

 

Just don’t see how they are getting a Top 3 pick with out a massive sell off. Which they should do 

I’m not sure which direction we’ll go but in my opinion when we get a new owner there will be a major investment at QB. Seems a no brainer to me. Looking forward to it to be honest.

[HigSkin]

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

Outside of players who were brought in on short notice and never had a chance to learn (like your Sanchez or Gilberts of the world) I can't remember a QB on our team that has been relegated away by their Offensive coordinator as consistently as TH has been, and this has been ongoing for over a year at this point.

 

THs most valuable trait may in fact be that his O coordinator believes in him so little that he wont even try to run an offense through him, which allows you to lean on the rest of the team.

 

I think Scott Turner does believe in TH for now....

 

Commanders offensive coordinator Scott Turner told the press Thursday, he likes how quarterback Taylor Heinicke can bounce back after a bad play or bad series.

 

“I think he just has a short memory. I mean, he’s a confident guy. He understands like a lot of good players that, you make a mistake, you move on, don’t let it affect you. And he does the same when he has a big play positively. You move on to the next play. You never get too high, never get too low.”

 

Turner even alluded to Heinicke’s key interception when Washington led the Vikings in the fourth quarter before losing 20-17.

“Like I’ve said about him after the Vikings game when obviously it was negative or anything that happens, he’s gonna walk that line, and I don’t want him to lose his stinger, and you want him to be aggressive, and that’s why everyone loves him. We coach around the other stuff and you want him to be a good decision-maker, but I want him to play confident and loose, and that’s what you’re gonna get from him sometimes.”

 

Turner was asked regarding Heinicke being given advice concerning the starter at times being undecided.

“I don’t worry about that. I mean, Taylor’s been through a lot in his career, so he doesn’t really take much for granted. He’s an ultimate team player, so he’s ready to go whatever his role is. Obviously, he’s a competitor, and he wants to play. He’s gonna be starting this week and coach will obviously make those decisions as we go down the road. I don’t worry about him with that stuff. He’s good to go.”

[CommanderInTheRye]

On 11/18/2022 at 3:28 PM, Dan T. said:

Speaking of quarterbacks...

 

 

 

 

I was at that game and looking back at it there was a lot of ugliness taking place that night that I am ashamed of that history seems to have conveniently forgotten.

 

Theisman was having a bad year, and to the best of my recollection, a particularly bad night prior to the injury.

 

We (at least the people in my section, if not the larger crowd) were booing him mercilessly and calling for Gibbs to put in the strong armed former baseball pitcher, Jay Schroeder, who we thought was another Bobby Beathard super sleeper.

 

When Joe first got tackled and went down, a good percentage of the stadium spontaneously cheered.

 

To my eternal dismay (in retrospect) I happened to be among them. We said things like get the bum outta there and even worse-- initially.

 

Note: WE HAD NO IDEA AT THE TIME HOW GRUESOME THE INJURY WAS. 

 

When Joe didn't immediately get back up and we saw the reaction of the players around him everyone in the entire stadium got deathly quiet. 

 

There was a pall over everything that I had never experienced at a live event before.

 

I personally felt (and honestly still feel) somewhat guilty for having wished even briefly, not for injury, but just a change at the qb position any way we could get it.

 

The worst part, in some ways, is what happened after they put Joe on the stretcher and began wheeling him off the field for what would be his final game.

 

If my memory is accurate, the very first play (while Theisman was still in the stadium about to go through the tunnel) was a perfectly thrown long bomb by young Jay Schroeder.

 

The stadium absolutely erupted (myself included) it was as if  it was "out with the old, in with the new"

 

I've often wondered what that must have felt like to Joe, as he was entering that dark tunnel in sheer agony, his football career, like his leg, completely shattered.

 

While the game just continued to go on without him, the fans love and adoration seamlessly transferred to their new golden haired hero.

 

A stark and brutal reminder that, "all (earthly) glory is fleeting".

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by CommanderInTheRye

[FootballZombie]

16 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

I think Scott Turner does believe in TH for now....

 

I don't think he does. At all. He's making due with what hes got and he won't say much otherwise.

 

If he had a modicum of faith in TH he would not consistently gameplan his own QB outta the game to the strongest degree possible week in and week out. We have seen it long enough to know its not a trend, or some extraneous factor like not knowing enough of the playbook or injury. After this much time it seems he is gameplaning his QB into even a smaller role this year as opposed to last. Given everything Scott has seen he has not chosen to expand TH's role, but decrease it instead.

 

At various points:

 

He has had TH with a great pass protecting Oline

He has had TH with weapons that are more than good enough to get the job done

He has TH with a good supporting Run game

He has had TH playing opposite a Good D

He has had TH playing opposite a sieve of a D.

 

Scott Turners gameplan is always the same with TH regardless. Run. Da. Ball. If he had faith, that would not be a constant in the way that it is.

[redskinss]

I'm sure by now everyone knows about the titans offensive coordinator getting a dui.

The scuttlebutt is that the league, during its investigation is going to want to know where he consumed the alcohol because it is against league rules to have alcohol on the plane.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't heinicke have a Busch light on the plane ride home Monday evening?

 

Is there any chance this blows back on us or are the articles talking about strict rules on team planes regarding alcohol not accurate?

 

[zCommander]

 

 

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 hour ago, redskinss said:

I'm sure by now everyone knows about the titans offensive coordinator getting a dui.

The scuttlebutt is that the league, during its investigation is going to want to know where he consumed the alcohol because it is against league rules to have alcohol on the plane.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't heinicke have a Busch light on the plane ride home Monday evening?

 

Is there any chance this blows back on us or are the articles talking about strict rules on team planes regarding alcohol not accurate?

 

I think it varies team by team, some coaches may be fine with alcohol on board, some may not. My dad said today that when he was with the team, Gibbs only allowed alcohol in first class for coaches/owners/team execs, but not for players, though players would sneak some through TSA.