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!

     

If you believe QBs need to sit in order to be successful, you're basically a retard.

SmootsDaddy89

By SmootsDaddy89,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

teeray Rookie

teeray

Posted
Posted

It's the Steelers. They got to the Super Bowl with Neil O'Donnell and made the playoffs with Kordell Stewart. One thing I've learned from experience is that success in Pittsburgh doesn't always translate to success elsewhere (one reason I was never on the Cowher bandwagon).

The thing about Roethlisberger? At heart he's really more of a game manager, which is all you have to be in that system. A good number of plays he makes are essentially attributable to his being hard to bring down and/or lousy tackling (which is sadly rampant today). If teams did a better job tackling him or if DBs would stay on their coverage rather than breaking off when it looked like he was getting sacked, half those plays wouldn't happen.

But they do happen :confused:.

And I give him a little more credit then a game manager. That is what Dilfer was. Ben is a top shelf QB. Maybe not in the Brady Manning class, but top shelf nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marguide Newbie

Marguide

Posted
Posted

I don't think Cam should start week 1. I think he should start mid to late season once ready for the reps.

My sentiments as well.

Get him some playing time so we can see what we have going forward, but not at the beginning of the year. If he starts opening day, and plays poorly for several weeks, there will be pressure to put him back on the bench. That would definitely be a blow to any young QB's confidence.

If you play him late in the year and he sucks, you have the whole offseason to work with him before you need to get him back on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pox 08 Newbie

Pox 08

Posted
Posted

It's all about what the coaching staff thinks. This new regime has given me no reason to doubt them or think they couldn't take a raw qb and turn him into a starting qb his rookie year.

If they think he could start, then by all means, start him. If they think he needs half a season or a year or two on the bench, then by all means, sit him. Either way, until they prove otherwise, I'm happy with whatever action the new coaches take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carolinarolls Newbie

carolinarolls

Posted
Posted

for every Ryan there are probably 5 (or more) 1st round, 1st year starters who were complete failures throughout the history of the NFL. History flies in the face of the OP.

I think CRA should say what he is trying to say and not confuse himself by grandstanding a wacky and whimsical statement as an actual position that one could side with.

This is not a position at all CRA. What you propose is an impossibility per rule with a few anomalies out there that support the anti of what you are proposing more than you realize.

If you think Cam should be drafted and start day one in minicamp without question, fine.

No need to say all NFL rookies should not have sit and learn the game for a year to say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

for every Ryan there are probably 5 (or more) 1st round, 1st year starters who were complete failures throughout the history of the NFL. History flies in the face of the OP.

I think CRA should say what he is trying to say and not confuse himself by grandstanding a wacky and whimsical statement as an actual position that one could side with.

This is not a position at all CRA. What you propose is an impossibility per rule with a few anomalies out there that support the anti of what you are proposing more than you realize.

If you think Cam should be drafted and start day one in minicamp without question, fine.

No need to say all NFL rookies should not have sit and learn the game for a year to say that.

Ideally, I don't think Cam should start week 1. I think he should sit and come in about the time Freeman did. Have some washed up vet start the year. However, if our QB roster remains the same then Cam would simply need to go ahead and start week 1.

1st round rookies for the most part play and don't sit 2-3 years....that is reality in today's NFL. There are now more QBs that follow a Ryan or a Freeman path.....than an Aaron Rodgers path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frash.exe Apprentice

frash.exe

Posted
Posted

It's the Steelers. They got to the Super Bowl with Neil O'Donnell and made the playoffs with Kordell Stewart. One thing I've learned from experience is that success in Pittsburgh doesn't always translate to success elsewhere (one reason I was never on the Cowher bandwagon).

The thing about Roethlisberger? At heart he's really more of a game manager, which is all you have to be in that system. A good number of plays he makes are essentially attributable to his being hard to bring down and/or lousy tackling (which is sadly rampant today). If teams did a better job tackling him or if DBs would stay on their coverage rather than breaking off when it looked like he was getting sacked, half those plays wouldn't happen.

Roethlisberger's insanely talented physically and makes good decisions most of the time. He's worlds better than Kordell Stewart and O'Donnell and that's why they don't get eliminated in the postseason before the superbowl nearly every single year like they used to before his arrival. Had Cowher's influence been enough not to draft him Bill wouldn't have gotten his chance to get that ring. He had 3 outstanding road playoff performances before the superbowl.

If you're making the argument that teams win championships, i agree with it. But complete teams have a QB that's good enough. We're pretty much set at most positions but we are sorely hurting at QB. In Pittsburgh's case they know how to run the ball and they know how to play defense (which, btw, they didn't get their defensive reputation by buying every single top free agent and spending every first pick in the draft on defense either), but they didn't have a QB. Roethlisberger was the piece they had been missing for years to really do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...