what the broncos showed the skins

[SoCalWizFan]

His turnovers were his biggest problem but hardly the only one. As recently as 1/3 of the way into this year he was still missing open receivers, something he did in college as well. He also failed in several late game drives in the past. For those reasons as well as the turnovers I questioned if he would ever be a top QB. Now obviously he turned that around and I'm totally on board signing him to a big deal. But the questions remain.

The questions remain with just about every QB in the NFL. If they are older (Brees, Manning, etc) it is a matter of whether they are slowing down & will injuries get the best of them. If they are younger it is a matter of whether they will be consistent & will they let pressure & other things get to them.

Heck - a can't miss # 1 overall QB like Luck has real question marks rt now. For all of his MVP glory Newton now has some question marks. Romo was considered on the cusp of being elite & now has real question marks. Big Ben has some injury concerns. Palmer looked like garbage in his last 3 games. Dalton can't win the big game. Even Rodgers was being questioned during a lot of last season. Face it - very few NFL QBs come into this or any season w/o question marks.

I am trying to understand your pt. Are you suggesting that the Redskins draft a QB in the 1st rd as some type of insurance policy? If not - then let's just ride the next few seasons with Cousins and see what happens and acknowledge that there is no sure thing QB for most NFL teams.

 

[skinz2winz]

I believe the thread started was, "what the Broncos showed the skins"... Well, let's see.
1. A very experienced defensive coordinator goes a long way
2. Very good players who are motivated can make a D coordinator look very good
3. The skins lack NFL starting caliber players at most positions on defense, not all
4. Von Miller & DeMarcus Ware are on a different level in every way than our Smith & Kerrigan
5. The Broncos have 2 solid inside LB's, the skins have 2 back ups starting
6. The Broncos attacked Cam consistently from the edge forcing turn overs and mistakes. The skins
under Barry this year typically rush 4 and fall into zone coverage 70% of the time.
7. The Broncos are willing to spend big to bring in star players in their prime (Ware/Ward/Talib) The skins
are known for bringing in stars past their prime.
8. The Broncos were lack luster on offense during the SB but didn't collapse. The skins usually are lack luster
on one side of the ball during loses and seem to just *hit the bed. (Again, lacking players & coaching)

We could go on and on but the narrative here is we have a long ways to go to reach this level of play imo.

HTTR!

 

[skinsdad62]

I went back to 1990, it was a nice round number. As I said I didn't have the time to go back further. Had I gone back 5 more years to 1985 I would have had 8 more 1st rounders. So much for your cherry pick theory. If I went back any further. we would get into the age of totally unsophisticated drafting. Unless you are prepared to argue that they picked players in 1970 as well as they do now.

As for your argument about the Chiefs etc go look up the passing numbers from 1970 and compare them with today. Len Dawson threw for 146 yards/game in 1970. The Mad Bomber Daryle Lamonica's biggest year was 3,304 yards or 235 a game. Just stop.

Again my argument was the majority of SB QBs were taken in the first round when compared to round 4 and beyond. Considering the first round has only 32 oicks now, less in the years past, and rounds 4+ involve many more players than round 1. So it's even more clear that top picks have more success.

manning threw for about 141 in the super bowl and they ran 28 times

stats for super bowl one winners 34 rushes 24 passes broncos 28 rushes 23 passes

the more things change the more they stay the same .

my argument , that you dont need an elite qb to make super bowls holds up and i listed 19 non 1st rounders using all the super bowls all of which have been played in my life time

history didnt start in 1990

 

[gkekoa]

i believe you are wrong the raiders threw the ball a lot as did the chiefs the game had a defensive tilt making it tougher on offenses .

and again if some are going to quote history of super bowls then you damn sure better count them all and not cherry pick to make your talking points mean more does the 89 super bowl team play a hugely different game then the 90 one ? or the 88 ? seems like an arbitrary cut off to me

Different eras of football make some positions more important now. RB in the past was top pick worthy. There isn't a single RB in today's game that would go number one overall.

 

[Sharkinva]

Different eras of football make some positions more important now. RB in the past was top pick worthy. There isn't a single RB in today's game that would go number one overall.

Agreed... but I will also say that about 85% of the QBs that go in the top ten end up being over rated as well.

O-line
D-line
CB
and occasionally LB

Anything else is a serious walk on the dont believe the hype side.

 

[ehb5]

I think if there's one thing that this Denver team can show us is that we shouldn't be afraid of big name free agents just because we've been burned before. A lot of this team came through FA - manning, sanders, ware, ward, Talib, and maybe others. That's not to say we shouldn't be careful but I'm absolutely ok with looking into players like Mo Wilkerson and alshonn jeffery.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

The questions remain with just about every QB in the NFL. If they are older (Brees, Manning, etc) it is a matter of whether they are slowing down & will injuries get the best of them. If they are younger it is a matter of whether they will be consistent & will they let pressure & other things get to them.

Heck - a can't miss # 1 overall QB like Luck has real question marks rt now. For all of his MVP glory Newton now has some question marks. Romo was considered on the cusp of being elite & now has real question marks. Big Ben has some injury concerns. Palmer looked like garbage in his last 3 games. Dalton can't win the big game. Even Rodgers was being questioned during a lot of last season. Face it - very few NFL QBs come into this or any season w/o question marks.

I am trying to understand your pt. Are you suggesting that the Redskins draft a QB in the 1st rd as some type of insurance policy? If not - then let's just ride the next few seasons with Cousins and see what happens and acknowledge that there is no sure thing QB for most NFL teams.

My point started by acknowledging this last SB fit Dad's view that you don't need a top QB however I pointed out that the scoreboard is heavily tilted my way. You responded by saying the majority of SB winning QBs were either not first rounders or late first and not drafted to be franchise QBs. Since I'm now woking from home and had the time, and because I'm a stubborn old fool, I went ahead and researched it.

So no not recommending we do anything other than roll with Kirk. As for Luck last year was weird for sure but I think his future is certainly bright. 1st overall pick by the way.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

manning threw for about 141 in the super bowl and they ran 28 times

stats for super bowl one winners 34 rushes 24 passes broncos 28 rushes 23 passes

the more things change the more they stay the same .

my argument , that you dont need an elite qb to make super bowls holds up and i listed 19 non 1st rounders using all the super bowls all of which have been played in my life time

history didnt start in 1990

Dang Dad you are as stubborn as I am. I have already agreed this year fit your argument. But comparing the league now to 1970 is really a silly argument when discussing the game and the draft history, this last game doesn't change that. In his biggest yardage year The Mad Bomber threw it 32 times/game. And this is the most extreme example of that era. Today QBs routinely have that figure by the 3rd quarter.

But if you insist on going there the crux of your argument, specifically that you don't need a top QB to win it all, continues to fall apart. Go look at he entire list and tell me how many guys are named Starr, Dawson, Staubach and other top QBs and then compared that to the middle of the road guys. When you consider there are far more middle of the road and worse guys than top QBs at any given time again it shows just how valuable the top guys are. Here are the first 10 years

Starr
Starr
Namath
Dawson
Morrell
Staubach
Griese
Griese
Bradshaw.

You got 1, I got 9.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Next 10 years

Bradshaw
Stabler
Staubach
Bradshaw
Bradshaw
Plunkett
Montana
Theisman
Plunkett
Montana

Again Plunkett is the only one you can argue wasn't a top QB and that's a weak argument, he was really good in Oakland.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

And the next 10

McMahon
Simms
Williams
Montana
Montana
Hostettler
Rypien
Aikman
Aikman
Young

This is your best era and even then you only have 3, Williams, Hoss and Ryp.

Do I really need to continue? Let's just say the next 10 years had 8 SBs won by either Hall of Famers or a soon to be HOF in Kurt Warner and Roth.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I believe the thread started was, "what the Broncos showed the skins"... Well, let's see.

4. Von Miller & DeMarcus Ware are on a different level in every way than our Smith & Kerrigan

This is what I've been saying all year. Kerrigan finally recovered his burst later in the year but it's not at that level. Few are. I love Smith but have always had concerns that he lacked that burst which is why I coukd see him at DE. It's exactly why I wanted an edge rusher in the last draft. I had assumed Williams would be gone so the discussion last spring was speed rusher or OL. I've always believed if you get the chance to grab a potentially great edge rusher you have to take it, they are much harder to find than a great OG.

 

[skinsdad62]

starr was a number one pick , eh no dawson no stabler no staubach eh no

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

starr was a number one pick , eh no dawson no stabler no staubach eh no

The number one pick discussion I was having was with SoCal. I already addressed that with figure going back 25 years. You jumped in and wanted me to go all the way back. Again I addressed that by pointing out the draft was way less sophisticated then and the last 25 years is certainly representative. Especially considering how much the game has changed, again I provided those stats too.

But again your entire argument has been exactly what you posted yesterday, specifically: "my argument , that you dont need an elite qb to make super bowls holds up". This is what I have been arguing today and I even went back to the era you kept referencing to prove I was not cherry picking the timeline.

Frankly I'm not sure what more you need to see. Of the first 40 Super Bowls 32 were won by a top QB, again this is the era you kept referencing. For the record I never said "elite". There are only a few of them at any given time. I said "top" as opposed to middle of the pack guys that you have been arguing.