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!

     

Matt Rhule's QBs troughout his coaching career


JABANOG
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, PootieNunu said:

We dont know what Fields is, he did not look great against the bills backups. He could be a massive bust. 

Look at the Bears offense....now look at ours. QBs are not saviors of franchises like that -- the Brady / Manning / Brees / Rodgers QBs are generational. 

The way football is now you need +athleticism / talent. Fields puts you in the Jackson / Murray field allowing you to vary your pass / run game as the QB is ALWAYS a threat. 

We lessened that with the signing of Teddy, and even more so moving to Darnold, not to say I haven't seen his highlights on a read option, but it's less a part of the function of the offense as it is an option. 

Cardinals trending up, and the Ravens have been a playoff teams since Lamar became the starter. 

All I'm saying is we had a chance to draft a very talented QB, and settled on the one we traded for because we traded for him. I we could move TB we could have moved Darnold and his at the time 4M in salary with little hit to the cap.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frankw said:

There is no point in going back to Temple and Baylor to judge this. As of now he is tied to Bridgewater and Darnold and going 0 for 2 isn't an option. The man needs a hit. The fact such a basic discussion triggers some is a reflection of how long mediocrity has settled in with this fanbase.

For comparisons Kliff in ARZ took Murray w the 1st overall pick.. who did he coach in college? MAHOMES he KNOWS what a good QB looks like... and who did they just draft in the top 3 the year before who was trash? Josh Rosen, imo Rosen = Darnold Murray = whatever QB we could've gotten this year that would've been an true upgrade over Teddy 

  • Beer 1
  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many don't seem to realize where Baylor was post-Briles.  That program had nothing, was stripped to the ground and he built it up super well.

QB wise; what's been said in response is pretty clear.  Programs can only pull what they can pull.  

NFL wise, our guys had their board.  They saw a 24 y/o Darnold ahead of Fields and Mac Jones.  Simple as that.  So how about we see Darnold first? 

I mean he pulled out at 3200+ 19 TD 13 INT, 62% season with a crap team in 2019 and this past year was a bit of a dumpster fire with the team and NYJ coaching.  Rhule & Brady aren't making decisions in a vacuum and now they have Fit to help guide things.

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, frankw said:

There is no point in going back to Temple and Baylor to judge this. As of now he is tied to Bridgewater and Darnold and going 0 for 2 isn't an option. The man needs a hit. The fact such a basic discussion triggers some is a reflection of how long mediocrity has settled in with this fanbase.

If anything has settled in then it's Alzheimer's with how repetitious this has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Look at the Bears offense....now look at ours. QBs are not saviors of franchises like that -- the Brady / Manning / Brees / Rodgers QBs are generational. 

The way football is now you need +athleticism / talent. Fields puts you in the Jackson / Murray field allowing you to vary your pass / run game as the QB is ALWAYS a threat. 

We lessened that with the signing of Teddy, and even more so moving to Darnold, not to say I haven't seen his highlights on a read option, but it's less a part of the function of the offense as it is an option. 

Cardinals trending up, and the Ravens have been a playoff teams since Lamar became the starter. 

All I'm saying is we had a chance to draft a very talented QB, and settled on the one we traded for because we traded for him. I we could move TB we could have moved Darnold and his at the time 4M in salary with little hit to the cap.  

The problem is we did not want Fields, he was the 4th QB taken. We traded for Darnold because we knew the top guys were gone and we did not want to trade three 1st round picks to go up and get one of them. 

Fields is neither Lamar or Murray. We still need to see him in real NFL games, right now he is still behind Andy Dalton on the depth chart. 

Im not saying Darnold is the answer, but they did not think Fields was either. More than likely our QB search is still ongoing.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SetfreexX said:

Look at the Bears offense....now look at ours. QBs are not saviors of franchises like that -- the Brady / Manning / Brees / Rodgers QBs are generational. 

The way football is now you need +athleticism / talent. Fields puts you in the Jackson / Murray field allowing you to vary your pass / run game as the QB is ALWAYS a threat. 

We lessened that with the signing of Teddy, and even more so moving to Darnold, not to say I haven't seen his highlights on a read option, but it's less a part of the function of the offense as it is an option. 

Cardinals trending up, and the Ravens have been a playoff teams since Lamar became the starter. 

All I'm saying is we had a chance to draft a very talented QB, and settled on the one we traded for because we traded for him. I we could move TB we could have moved Darnold and his at the time 4M in salary with little hit to the cap.  

I agree we could have taken advantage of Fields or Mac whether by picking or trading down.  However we could easily find ourselves in a similar situation the Titans have been in the past 2-3 years w/a reclaimed QB (Tann:Darnold), a MVP caliber RB (Henry:CMC) and that young WR core but with a better defense with Burns, Brown, Chinn, Horn, etc.  Not to mention a touted coach in league circles w/ a young aspiring OC (Arthur:Brady).  We simply didn't identify a QB to roll with in the draft but it's clear they looked hard if you remember the pro days.

I also caution those thinking the Cards will be good.  Same with Ravens.  Those are two teams that should have continued an upward trend and are stalling a bit.  Big make/break seasons ahead and they're both in packed divisions.

Kingsbury is not successful and they've made plenty of questionable moves.  And Murray has yet to show he can really take over a game minus a cool play here and there.  They aren't producing and other teams have been in shorter turnaround times.  8-8 last year and it wasn't pretty.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darknight said:

Back in the day you would need 100 posts to start a new thread. I don't know if that's still a thing.

Unfortunately the owner does not care about quality.

Tinfoil hat would say this is a connected troll.

Edited by Moo Daeng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I don’t know if the Sam experiment is going to work out…but Fitterer is a WC guy, a scout for the Seahawks in the western region.  He saw Sam, a lot, play for SC, plus Pete Carroll remains close to the program to this day, so he has more of an inside about Sam than anyone in the NFL.  
 

On your draft day special, he seemed all in on Sam, and sounded pretty determined to give Sam the best chance to succeed.  Impressive from a UCLA guy.
 

Soon enough, you’ll find out if your coaches and GM missed their opportunity with a rookie QB in the draft.

Edited by 1usctrojan
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...