Jayden Daniels ~ ‘that’s our QB’

[j_y19]

DGF is being foolish . Joe Gibbs had sustained success with 3 different, avg qbs none were elite .

Eli Manning isn’t elite and he won 2 titles

Stafford has a Super Bowl win and the rams have been playoff contenders since then even with his career sub 500 record

Joe Flacco won a superbowl and his ravens were year in year out contenders

Now is it easier with an elite qb ? Hell yes it is and no one is or was saying anything different.

What is being challenged is it is an absolute! It is not

And no matter how many times he wants to move the debating goal posts it won’t change

Couldn’t say it better myself.

 

[Stymietee]

DGF is being foolish . Joe Gibbs had sustained success with 3 different, avg qbs none were elite .

Eli Manning isn’t elite and he won 2 titles

Stafford has a Super Bowl win and the rams have been playoff contenders since then even with his career sub 500 record

Joe Flacco won a superbowl and his ravens were year in year out contenders

Now is it easier with an elite qb ? Hell yes it is and no one is or was saying anything different.

What is being challenged is it is an absolute! It is not

And no matter how many times he wants to move the debating goal posts it won’t change

There's a reason why I stopped debating this and other things that were falsely attributed to others here. There are posters who will interject something like "it being an absolute" then argue against it as if the person they are in exchange with actually said/wrote it. To be clear, no one has ever suggested that "it was an absolute!" I don't understand why this is a honest debate point.

 

[skinsdad62]

There's a reason why I stopped debating this and other things that were falsely attributed to others here. There are posters who will interject something like "it being an absolute" then argue against it as if the person they are in exchange with actually said/wrote it. To be clear, no one has ever suggested that "it was an absolute!" I don't understand why this is a honest debate point.

I beg to differ sty , he plainly said it in the past. In fact in this latest rendition of this debate he clearly stated that the avg qbs could not sustain it as the new standard .

 

[Stymietee]

I beg to differ sty , he plainly said it in the past. In fact in this latest rendition of this debate he clearly stated that the avg qbs could not sustain it as the new standard .

He's correct, average is average and his point is... sustaining the exceptional one offs that can happen with average guys.
Statistically, I'm sure that any one here can throw out a couple of names that have become anomalies, but anecdotal evidence isn't evidence that supports probable when talking about statistical norms.

 

[skinsdad62]

He's correct, average is average and his point is... sustaining the exceptional one offs that can happen with average guys.
Statistically, I'm sure that any one here can throw out a couple of names that have become anomalies, but anecdotal evidence isn't evidence that supports probable when talking about statistical norms.

Well I gave 4 examples of sustained contender ship by the avg qb using his standard

 

[Stymietee]

Well I gave 4 examples of sustained contender ship by the avg qb using his standard

Exactly!! 4 out of 58 does not a statistical probability make. A possibility? Yep!!

 

[skinsdad62]

Exactly!! 4 out of 58 does not a statistical probability make. A possibility? Yep!!

Sty are we talking about 58 Super Bowls ? It was said you had to have one to win one . Then it was changed to consistently win after winning a superbowl.

I have stated quite a bit even in this thread that it’s easier to win one with a great qb

But if it’s 4 out of 58. , 1 out of 100 or 1000 the fact is if it was done once , then absolutely needing one is proven not to be the case and we are talking about absolutely needing one

 

[Stymietee]

Sty are we talking about 58 Super Bowls ? It was said you had to have one to win one . Then it was changed to consistently win after winning a superbowl.

I have stated quite a bit even in this thread that it’s easier to win one with a great qb

But if it’s 4 out of 58. , 1 out of 100 or 1000 the fact is if it was done once , then absolutely needing one is proven not to be the case and we are talking about absolutely needing one

Ok, the last word is yours, if we're going to repeat debating points not entered into the conversation. I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong so,
Let me ask directly to @Darrell Green Fan... did you or did you not at some point state/write that you "absolutely needed" a star, stud or whatever, type QB to win a SB. Perhaps I misread what you wrote, so I'm turning to you for clarity on this. Thanks!

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Ok, the last word is yours, if we're going to repeat debating points not entered into the conversation. I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong so,
Let me ask directly to @Darrell Green Fan... did you or did you not at some point state/write that you "absolutely needed" a star, stud or whatever, type QB to win a SB. Perhaps I misread what you wrote, so I'm turning to you for clarity on this. Thanks!

I have Dad on ignore, and I"m not taking him off to read that particular post. So not sure exactly what you are asking but I know where it's coming from.

My position has always been you need a top QB for lasting success. I never said it's a requirement to win a Super Bowl. I simply used the status of SB winning QBs to illustrate my point. While I never said it was essential to win a SB I did however say it is essential for lasting success, I pointed out how Flacco,, Ryp etc were one offs and how in those years they played like franchise QBs but of course that was ignored. .

Dad someone got it in his head that this meant elite, that I was claiming you have to have Patrick Mahomes. Of course I never once made that claim. I used the terms "top QB' or "franchise QB" or whatever and that describes maybe 8-10 QBs at any given time. . I never claimed you have to have Tom Brady. I simply said you can't have Jimmy Garrapalo and expect to be a contender for a decade. And the best way to turn around a franchise it to find a franchise QB, not find 52 players who are good enough to overcome a game manager.

 

[j_y19]

I have Dad on ignore, and I"m not taking him off to read that particular post. So not sure exactly what you are asking but I know where it's coming from.

My position has always been you need a top QB for lasting success. I never said it's a requirement to win a Super Bowl. I simply used the status of SB winning QBs to illustrate my point. While I never said it was essential to win a SB I did however say it is essential for lasting success, I pointed out how Flacco,, Ryp etc were one offs and how in those years they played like franchise QBs but of course that was ignored. .

Dad someone got it in his head that this meant elite, that I was claiming you have to have Patrick Mahomes. Of course I never once made that claim. I used the terms "top QB' or "franchise QB" or whatever and that describes maybe 8-10 QBs at any given time. . I never claimed you have to have Tom Brady. I simply said you can't have Jimmy Garrapalo and expect to be a contender for a decade. And the best way to turn around a franchise it to find a franchise QB, not find 52 players who are good enough to overcome a game manager.

Reread post 456 in this thread. This was the post I originally responded to from you that started this debate. There was no mention of sustained or perennial success and your post also said there was no evidence to support that a game manager QB could win a SB. It was only that claim I responded to. Because, as we have shown you, there have been multiple times where a mediocre QB has. That’s it. Never once mentioned sustained success because you didn’t either.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Reread post 456 in this thread. This was the post I originally responded to from you that started this debate. There was no mention of sustained or perennial success and your post also said there was no evidence to support that a game manager QB could win a SB. It was only that claim I responded to. Because, as we have shown you, there have been multiple times where a mediocre QB has. That’s it. Never once mentioned sustained success because you didn’t either.

When you have as many debates on this as I have you are bound to misspeak on occasion. So I apologize, let me clarify: Yes you CAN win a Super Bowl with an average QB. But it's very rare and takes extrodinary situations such as an all time great defense or this mediocre QB playing like a franchise QB during their playoff runs. It is simply not sustainable therefore it's not the way to go as history has proven. A point I have made repeatedly.

Why can't you guys ever acknowledge that Flacco, Eli and Ryp played like franchise QBs in those title runs? And that once their magic ran out their teams fell off, in most cases these QBs were replaced? This was always the key to my argument as Dad would trot out Gibbs and his 3 QBs agrument when those QBs played like franchise QBs in those playoff runs. But to expect an average QB to play above his level for a long period of time is simply not going to happen so this is not the way to go.

 

[j_y19]

When you have as many debates on this as I have you are bound to misspeak on occasion. So I apologize, let me clarify: Yes you CAN win a Super Bowl with an average QB. But it's very rare and takes extrodinary situations such as an all time great defense or this mediocre QB playing like a franchise QB during their playoff runs. It is simply not sustainable therefore it's not the way to go as history has proven. A point I have made repeatedly.

Why can't you guys ever acknowledge that Flacco, Eli and Ryp played like franchise QBs in those title runs? And that once their magic ran out their teams fell off, in most cases these QBs were replaced? This was always the key to my argument as Dad would trot out Gibbs and his 3 QBs agrument when those QBs played like franchise QBs in those playoff runs. But to expect an average QB to play above his level for a long period of time is simply not going to happen so this is not the way to go.

I did acknowledge it. But they may have played like franchise QBs, but they weren’t. They were avg QBs in the right scheme. Everything else you state on this topic I agree with.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I did acknowledge it. But they may have played like franchise QBs, but they weren’t. They were avg QBs in the right scheme. Everything else you state on this topic I agree with.

But I seem to recall you were one of those who supported the average QB, great roster theory as being perfectly fine. Flacco and the others stayed in the same scheme the following year, their play fell off and with it so did the team.

After what we have seen this season in Washington it should be perfectly clear. It's better to simply find one player to turn around your team than to try to find 52. To get an average QB to play above his level, as Ryp did, for any length of time is simply not going to happen. The best way to have lasting success by far is to have a franchise (top 10 or so) QB. This is a position you and Dad (among others) debated with me for years.

 

[Stymietee]

I have Dad on ignore, and I"m not taking him off to read that particular post. So not sure exactly what you are asking but I know where it's coming from.

My position has always been you need a top QB for lasting success. I never said it's a requirement to win a Super Bowl. I simply used the status of SB winning QBs to illustrate my point. While I never said it was essential to win a SB I did however say it is essential for lasting success, I pointed out how Flacco,, Ryp etc were one offs and how in those years they played like franchise QBs but of course that was ignored. .

Dad someone got it in his head that this meant elite, that I was claiming you have to have Patrick Mahomes. Of course I never once made that claim. I used the terms "top QB' or "franchise QB" or whatever and that describes maybe 8-10 QBs at any given time. . I never claimed you have to have Tom Brady. I simply said you can't have Jimmy Garrapalo and expect to be a contender for a decade. And the best way to turn around a franchise it to find a franchise QB, not find 52 players who are good enough to overcome a game manager.

Thanks! That's what I thought you meant and I support this position.
Top QB for sustainability
Average QB is generally a one off who plays above his/their status, because of the team around him/them. Generally not sustainable.

 

[j_y19]

But I seem to recall you were one of those who supported the average QB, great roster theory as being perfectly fine. Flacco and the others stayed in the same scheme the following year, their play fell off and with it so did the team.

After what we have seen this season in Washington it should be perfectly clear. It's better to simply find one player to turn around your team than to try to find 52. To get an average QB to play above his level, as Ryp did, for any length of time is simply not going to happen. The best way to have lasting success by far is to have a franchise (top 10 or so) QB. This is a position you and Dad (among others) debated with me for years.

Nope, not me. I said one could argue it was possible, based on evidence. Never endorsed it as the best method to building a SB winning team, let alone a perennial winner.

 

[Stymietee]

I had to ask!
That's a really long running debate over a misunderstanding!

 

[Rowdy]

It’s just common sense. Finding the QB is the most important part to building a team, so many resources and time are spent trying to find the qb

 

[deanpet21]

It’s just common sense. Finding the QB is the most important part to building a team, so many resources and time are spent trying to find the qb

i agree and finding a stud rookie Qb that you didn't have to trade for and paying him rookie money contract is huge for 5 years.

 

[Stymietee]

It’s just common sense. Finding the QB is the most important part to building a team, so many resources and time are spent trying to find the qb

Completely agree!
The caveat is knowing what to do after you get the QB. There have been many talented guys drafted into the league and the difference between then having successful careers and being a bust is the team/organization that drafted them.

 

[Stymietee]

i agree and finding a stud rookie Qb that you didn't have to trade for and paying him rookie money contract is huge for 5 years.

I'm not disagreeing with you Dean,but let me ask... if you knew for certain that you were getting the QB for the next 10 to 12 years but you had to trade up in the draft to get him, would you do it?
That's question #1
Question #2, how far up in a draft would you go in order to get "that guy?"