Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Steve Smith: Bridgewater is QB for "right now"


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Granted, but when they start really sliding, there's generally a reason.

Among the droppers we've taken in the past are Rashard Anderson, Greg Hardy, Rae Carruth and of course Jimmy Clausen.

Yes, but there is also Ryan Kalil, Steve Smith, James Bradberry, etc.  Guess it is more about the team picking than the actual pick.

Not trusting Hurney I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Since 2003 only 2 SB winning teams didn’t draft the QB they won it with, Saints and Broncos (Manning and Brees). So there is some truth to what he’s saying 

Foles... Wentz didn't take 1 snap in the post-season. That list is also inflated when Brady owns 6 of those rings... 

That's mainly because FA QBs are too expensive. Falcons have been trash since Matt Ryan's raise.

Edit: I know the Eagles drafted Foles, but they picked him up on FA so draft is irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's always interesting to me that steve has been cited as some kind of expert on what carolina is going to do or why they've done what they've done. he doesn't have a lot of inroads into the organization anymore. especially with the coaching regime change and the ownership change. he knows as much about our plans as any other analyst. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pantherzack179812 said:

Foles... Wentz didn't take 1 snap in the post-season. That list is also inflated when Brady owns 6 of those rings... 

That's mainly because FA QBs are too expensive. Falcons have been trash since Matt Ryan's raise.

Edit: I know the Eagles drafted Foles, but they picked him up on FA so draft is irrelevant. 

Foles played very well but let’s not discount Wentz. He was playing at an MVP level and the Eagles were 11-2 with him. They finished 13-3 with the #1 seed. In the last 3 regular season games Foles wasn’t close to Wentz’s production. Again, not to discount Foles but a healthy Wentz easily gets them to the Super Bowl and has a great shot at winning it. Until the SB, Foles didn’t do anything spectacular that got them a win they wouldn’t have gotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Foles played very well but let’s not discount Wentz. He was playing at an MVP level and the Eagles were 11-2 with him. They finished 13-3 with the #1 seed. In the last 3 regular season games Foles wasn’t close to Wentz’s production. Again, not to discount Foles but a healthy Wentz easily gets them to the Super Bowl and has a great shot at winning it. Until the SB, Foles didn’t do anything spectacular that got them a win they wouldn’t have gotten.

But again, Lamar Jackson had an MVP season and flopped in the playoffs... Winning 2 playoff games home or away is no gimmee. Caron Wentz very well might've done the same. Foles ultimately won 3 games in the postseason, Wentz played 0. Wentz is an alright QB, but I don't think Foles starting that year would've made a difference.

The Eagles sucked the next year when they brought back Wentz. Then Foles returns and they almost upset the Saints in the superdome, but Alshon batted the ball up. Still do not see how they kept Wentz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think identifying players by team results can be deceptive. to further narrow the window to 1 specific game is even more deceptive. it takes so damn much going right for a team to win a super bowl and a lot of damn good quarterbacks have gone through the league without it ever happening for them. we don't hold it against guys like barry sanders that he wasn't able to bring the lions a championship by force of will. to me, you get tremendous value out of a quarterback if said quarterback raises the profile of your team substantially. 

to me, it's more important that your quarterback comes in and makes your team relevant in the discussion for the super bowl on a yearly basis. by that definition, guys like carson palmer, andrew luck, jared goff, cam newton, and to a degree matthew stafford who gets the lions exemption accomplished that. jameis didn't. sam bradford did before his injuries derailed his career. eli manning did it. michael vick did it. there aren't a ton of super bowl wins among those guys, but there's a lot of wins among them and in a world where tom brady doesn't exist, a lot more of them have rings. it's just not a fair metric to say if you don't win a super bowl your career was a failure. that's just substantially unfair to teams who got fantastic quarterback play from their stars and lost the big games in other phases.

use a stat like wins over replacement  or something if you want to know who, individually, met or exceeded the expectation of their draft slot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Beat me to it.

Back it up three more years to an even twenty and you can add Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer to the list.

 

Don't forget Kurt Warner, Matt Hasselback (though they didn't win) appeared in SBs with teams they signed with in FA. Peyton Manning appeared in 2 with Denver. 

I don't contribute it to the draft, as much as good QBs NEVER hit FA. Kirk Cousins is average to me, and he was a god in the FA market. 

Jimmy G was also one qtr from one. 

I think this league is slowly moving towards skill players. The new generation doesn't follow teams, they follow players (NBA). It pisses me off when I see a college friend I know who says he is a Panther fan wearing OBJ, Mike Evens, and Brady jerseys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...