For those wanting a new QB

[Fox007]

Are you prepared to gamble the season on a rookie quarterback who could be Matt Ryan or could be Ryan Leaf?

There are posters here who would answer yes to any or all of these questions, and as such would show why they're not working in pro football. Thankfully, none of them has any say in the matter.

Yep. Fans are like teenagers always want the fancy sports car. Meanwhile, "Dad" would rather have the used model that's not so fancy but more reliable.

"Dad" makes the decisions.

So your gambling your season if you draft a QB? If anything Jake is a bigger gamble than any first rounder that will go this year.

The Jake lovers posting here aren't exactly GM's and head coaches either now are they? So that doesn't show a damn thing, because they don't know poo either.

You guys just go with Fox's style like it's the way, yet here we are with no SB wins right?

You seriously think un-drafted QB's are the way to go in the NFL?....history says your wrong. http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history

You guys have a complete and total misconception. Look at how many 1st rounders are playing in the Super Bowl just over the last 12 years.(even the QB's that lost)

There was only 1 un-drafted QB to win a SB over that time frame, and we know who that was, 2 total played, and we know who that was as well.

I guess Harbaugh and Smith have no idea what they are doing and shouldn't be in the NFL.

Your saying Jake is the reliable car? rofl wow ok

[Fireball77]

You guys have a complete and total misconception. Look at how many 1st rounders are playing in the Super Bowl just over the last 12 years.(even the QB's that lost)

There was only 1 un-drafted QB to win a SB over that time frame, and we know who that was, 2 total played, and we know who that was as well.

SB winning team/QB/round/defensive ranking in points allowed:

1999: Rams/Warner/UDFA/4th

2000: Ravens/Dilfer/1st/1st

2001: Pats/Brady/6th/4th

2002: Bucs/Johnson/9th/1st

2003: Pats/Brady/6th/1st

2004: Pats/Brady/6th/tied for 2nd

2005: Pitt/Roethlisberger/1st/3rd

2006: Indy/Manning/1st/ 23rd

2007: NYG/Manning/1st/17th

2008: Pitt/Roehtlisberger/1st/1st

It's worth noting that in the case of the 2006 Colts, the offense helped them win the games in the regular season while the D struggled (much like the latter half of 2008 for Carolina), but the D was great in the postseason...good enough along with the run game to overcome a 3td 7 INT below Rex Grossman rating wise performance in the playoffs from their 1st rounder Manning. In the case of the NYG, they started HORRIBLE on defense in the beginning of 2007, new scheme, new DC. They improved vastly as the year went on and along with their running game and EFFICIENT play from their 1st rounder Eli (NOT WORLD BEATING.... EFFICIENT) were the main reasons they won SB 42.

Roethlisberger in 2005 had the worst ever performance by any QB in a SB. In the case of Roethlisberger in 2008 and Dilfer in 2000, yes they were first rounders, but were very average during the regular season while they played on teams that are considered to have two of the best defenses OF ALL TIME.

[Fox007]

SB winning team/QB/round/defensive ranking in points allowed:

1999: Rams/Warner/UDFA/4th

2000: Ravens/Dilfer/1st/1st

2001: Pats/Brady/6th/4th

2002: Bucs/Johnson/9th/1st

2003: Pats/Brady/6th/1st

2004: Pats/Brady/6th/tied for 2nd

2005: Pitt/Roethlisberger/1st/3rd

2006: Indy/Manning/1st/ 23rd

2007: NYG/Manning/1st/17th

2008: Pitt/Roehtlisberger/1st/1st

It's worth noting that in the case of the 2006 Colts, the offense helped them win the games in the regular season while the D struggled (much like the latter half of 2008 for Carolina), but the D was great in the postseason...good enough along with the run game to overcome a 3td 7 INT below Rex Grossman rating wise performance in the playoffs from their 1st rounder Manning. In the case of the NYG, they started HORRIBLE on defense in the beginning of 2007, new scheme, new DC. They improved vastly as the year went on and along with their running game and EFFICIENT play from their 1st rounder Eli (NOT WORLD BEATING.... EFFICIENT) were the main reasons they won SB 42.

Roethlisberger in 2005 had the worst ever performance by any QB in a SB. In the case of Roethlisberger in 2008 and Dilfer in 2000, yes they were first rounders, but were very average during the regular season while they played on teams that are considered to have two of the best defenses OF ALL TIME.

That isn't the argument now is it. Who said that good defenses don't win championships?

The fact of the matter is 99% of the QB's that play in the Super Bowl are A) actually drafted, and out of those a good portion are actually firsts.

The teams that can field a good defense are smart enough to draft a QB and develop him, they also have good coaching. Now you take that how you want it, because we have neither a good QB or a good defense.

[Fireball77]

So when the superstar big bucks guys didn't perform well in the playoffs or SB you are fine with that return on investment even when their defenses or run games bailed them out or they were just a piece of the puzzle the whole year rather than a huge part of why their team was winning (which is about what most people on here have always thought about middle of the pack compensated Jake whose head they scream for continuously)? It seemed to me that the argument you were making was that it more often than not REQUIRES a 1st rounder or big bucks spent on a QB to get into the SB. If you're happy to spend that kind of dollars on one position that is a singular position on the team merely to make it to a SB when the true winning formula is pretty much a great defense and a solid offense with efficient QB play, which in my book does not require being a first rounder or spending big bucks on a QB to be able to do, then that's certainly your prerogative to feel that way. I just disagree 100%.

[Fox007]

So when the superstar big bucks guys didn't perform well in the playoffs or SB you are fine with that return on investment even when their defenses or run games bailed them out or they were just a piece of the puzzle the whole year rather than a huge part of why their team was winning (which is about what most people on here have always thought about middle of the pack compensated Jake whose head they scream for continuously)? It seemed to me that the argument you were making was that it more often than not REQUIRES a 1st rounder or big bucks spent on a QB to get into the SB. If you're happy to spend that kind of dollars on one position that is a singular position on the team merely to make it to a SB when the true winning formula is pretty much a great defense and a solid offense with efficient QB play, which in my book does not require being a first rounder or spending big bucks on a QB to be able to do, then that's certainly your prerogative to feel that way. I just disagree 100%.

Then how do those great defenses have those high pick QBs? or Why?

They obviously know how to spend the money and get a QB who does what you say.

You don't get a QB to just play efficient and merely solid off the street.

So maybe you just have the wrong idea on where/how to get that QB to play solid and relatively mistake free.

[Fox007]

If you're happy to spend that kind of dollars on one position.

I am pretty sure those teams are perfectly happy with Big Ben, and the Mannings, so yea I would be too if I was winning SB's.

What is the single most important position in football? So why wouldn't they have the biggest salary on the team.

(some argue that QB is the most important position in all of sports)

[guyinchesapeake]

We have 3 QBs on the roster who represent a fair amount of continuity with the team and offensive system. Jake had a lackluster season individually, as well as one of the worst playoff games a QB on any team has ever had. He's now 34 years old, who has had his share of injuries, both major and the cumulative 'nagging' types. He may be the guy to continue leading this team, but I believe it will be healthy for the team to have an open QB competition for the starting job. If Jake ends up the backup, that's not too bad for either. I don't think things will go like that, it is Jake's job per the management and coaches. But I truly believe it SHOULD go like that.

[Fireball77]

I am not arguing about the importance of the position or that if they are great you shouldn't spend money on them AFTER THEY PROVE IT, but the point is that the way the NFL is now rookies get the $$ spent on them before they have proven an effing thing...and if you agree with that method you are telling me that you think that Ryan deserves to make more money than Brady does (I think Manning makes more already if you prefer him) in which case I would laugh hysterically. If the NFL would allow teams to spend an "entry level salary" amount on the 1st rounders, I would be much more in favor of a first rounder at QB. I just don't see it as the wisest thing to build a team around...a singular position that has a high bust rate due in part to how difficult it is to project from the college to the pro game and costs a bunch to draft in the first round. I think you build a pretty good team FIRST...with a solid vet type @ QB...then get the first rounder to develop.

Do you think that Eli is so much better than Jake that he should get what's going to be probably the top contract of any QB in the NFL this year if he signs an extension as is the talk? I disagree completely. If the Cats had beaten NE in the SB you would be happy with Jake? I don't think so, even though the passing game was the SINGLE REASON they were competitive in that game. If Jake had a last drive like Eli did to win the SB people would have been screaming how lucky he was because DBs dropped sure INTs or how much he got bailed out by his WRs. Eli got the MVP for that though. And make no mistake, I like Eli, but I think he's hardly an elite QB. Did the Cats run game get them into the playoffs in 2005? Nope, it pretty much sucked donkey balls, one of the worst YPCs in the league. It was the defense and passing game that got them to the playoffs.

Let me put it this way, to me drafting a QB that high and expecting him to start and be the savior when the team around him isn't good is like buying a Lamborghini as your sole car then keeping it outside in Ohio during the winter and expecting it to be at it's best also.

[Fox007]

I am not arguing about the importance of the position or that if they are great you shouldn't spend money on them AFTER THEY PROVE IT, but the point is that the way the NFL is now rookies get the $$ spent on them before they have proven an effing thing...and if you agree with that method you are telling me that you think that Ryan deserves to make more money than Brady does (I think Manning makes more already if you prefer him) in which case I would laugh hysterically. If the NFL would allow teams to spend an "entry level salary" amount on the 1st rounders, I would be much more in favor of a first rounder at QB. I just don't see it as the wisest thing to build a team around...a singular position that has a high bust rate due in part to how difficult it is to project from the college to the pro game and costs a bunch to draft in the first round. I think you build a pretty good team FIRST...with a solid vet type @ QB...then get the first rounder to develop.

Do you think that Eli is so much better than Jake that he should get what's going to be probably the top contract of any QB in the NFL this year if he signs an extension as is the talk? I disagree completely. If the Cats had beaten NE in the SB you would be happy with Jake? I don't think so, even though the passing game was the SINGLE REASON they were competitive in that game. If Jake had a last drive like Eli did to win the SB people would have been screaming how lucky he was because DBs dropped sure INTs or how much he got bailed out by his WRs. Eli got the MVP for that though. And make no mistake, I like Eli, but I think he's hardly an elite QB. Did the Cats run game get them into the playoffs in 2005? Nope, it pretty much sucked donkey balls, one of the worst YPCs in the league. It was the defense and passing game that got them to the playoffs.

Let me put it this way, to me drafting a QB that high and expecting him to start and be the savior when the team around him isn't good is like buying a Lamborghini as your sole car then keeping it outside in Ohio during the winter and expecting it to be at it's best also.

Well then you clearly don't care or want to win a SB because that's how teams are doing it. It doesn't really matter if you like it or prefer it or if it is right or wrong. The fact is it's there and the facts are too.(its not a coincidence that the good defensive teams draft those QBs)

Damn right I agree about the 1st rounders money being too high. There should definitely be a cap and limitation on how much unproven rookies/draft picks can make.

If's aren't really important, but yes I would be just fine with Jake had we won that Super Bowl. He played amazing in that game, and would have been the MVP.

If I won the lottery I would be rich too but hey.......

Edit: yes Eli is that much better than Jake. 1 ring to 0 plus Jake woudn't be able to scramble like Eli did to help win the game. Jake would have been sacked and probably fumbled. See its the little things really.

[manwithcake]

So your gambling your season if you draft a QB? If anything Jake is a bigger gamble than any first rounder that will go this year.

This is called "making utterly stupid statements when your emotions do your thinking for you." Do you even watch football?

[Fox007]

This is called "making utterly stupid statements when your emotions do your thinking for you." Do you even watch football?

Oh yes I am so emotional right now, someone get me a Valium.

No I do not watch football, who are the Panthers?

[Fireball77]

Well then you clearly don't care or want to win a SB because that's how teams are doing it. It doesn't really matter if you like it or prefer it or if it is right or wrong. The fact is it's there and the facts are too.(its not a coincidence that the good defensive teams draft those QBs)

You're right it doesn't matter one whit what I prefer...but to me the facts show something different than what they show you. You seemed to be merely looking at whether they are first rounders or not in your initial post about it, I am looking at a bunch of other contributing factors in conjunction with that.

If's aren't really important, but yes I would be just fine with Jake had we won that Super Bowl. He played amazing in that game, and would have been the MVP.

They are important when I am trying to figure out your reasoning. To me, the fact that he played great in the SB and they lost is no different than if he had played great and they had won. They lost because of their defense...he played well enough to win thus showed he was capable of it, and that's what matters...not if he does or doesn't have a ring.

Edit: yes Eli is that much better than Jake. 1 ring to 0 plus Jake woudn't be able to scramble like Eli did to help win the game. Jake would have been sacked and probably fumbled. See its the little things really.

Well if you think Eli is that much better than Jake I can't debate this with you at all. Their career QB ratings are +9 in JAKE'S favor. Even this past year Eli's QB rating wasn't even 2 points better than Jake's. Eli has always had a stellar run game to back him up too. You do realize that Eli and Jake fumbled the same amount of times this year, right? People exaggerate this issue with Jake greatly (I agree he used to fumble more than he should, but I happen think he has gotten better) and it is part of non objectivity when it comes to the QB of the team you root for vs other QBs. Jake has made his fair share of plays where he has bought time as well...even ....GASP.... this past year.

[Fox007]

You're right it doesn't matter one whit what I prefer...but to me the facts show something different than what they show you. You seemed to be merely looking at whether they are first rounders or not in your initial post about it, I am looking at a bunch of other contributing factors in conjunction with that.

We were just talking about QB's not the team, so really there is no reason to look at the contributions of anything else. I mean if you look at it no sh*t the team that wins the Super Bowl is a good team. I bet they had a winning record too. Come on now......

They are important when I am trying to figure out your reasoning. To me, the fact that he played great in the SB and they lost is no different than if he had played great and they had won. They lost because of their defense...he played well enough to win thus showed he was capable of it, and that's what matters...not if he does or doesn't have a ring.

No one remembers the loser that's why, a SB win can buy you longer time and love than a loss...not sure how or why you don't get that.

Like you said he WAS capable of it. Some of us are saying he IS NO LONGER, hence the was part.

Well if you think Eli is that much better than Jake I can't debate this with you at all. Their career QB ratings are +9 in JAKE'S favor. Even this past year Eli's QB rating wasn't even 2 points better than Jake's. Eli has always had a stellar run game to back him up too. You do realize that Eli and Jake fumbled the same amount of times this year, right? People exaggerate this issue with Jake greatly (I agree he used to fumble more than he should, but I happen think he has gotten better) and it is part of non objectivity when it comes to the QB of the team you root for vs other QBs. Jake has made his fair share of plays where he has bought time as well...even ....GASP.... this past year.

The career stats that really matter in the end are how many rings you're walking away with. So in that regard I believe Manning has the edge.

Manning is way younger, and has more potential to do it again/more.

Who cares if he has this or that bla bla, so his coaches and gm are good and ours isn't? That's a different matter.

Marino was probably the best pure passer ever, but do people say he is the best ever? Hell no, even if he really was no one thinks he is because hes got nothing to show but stats.

You think Jake would have won the Super Bowl on the Steelers roster this year? With that #1 defense? I say no, their line was bad(their run game was not good this year), and Jake would have been sacked and injured early.

[manwithcake]

Oh yes I am so emotional right now, someone get me a Valium.

No I do not watch football, who are the Panthers?

That's too bad. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.