Josh Rosen. How much of his horrific play would you blame the cast around him & how much on him?

[ET80]

8 minutes ago, RamblinMan99 said:

No, it isn't.  

Three of Murray's wins this season were against New York, Atlanta, and Cincinnati.  

They're three of the worst teams in the league.  

 

But it's not as if Arizona's W/L is strictly due to his performance or talent level. Arizona is just as bad as those teams at just about every single position group, a real lack of any sort of player outside of "JAG" designation. 

Murray has also fared well in some of those losses Arizona had - this is a team that can claim a few "moral victories" because they were so bad last season, and they would be just as bad as that season if Murray wasn't playing well.

[ET80]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

I love NFL gen. Dear Lord

You got my back, I got yours.

[Nick_gb]

4 minutes ago, Forge said:

So,

A) yes it is. Murray may be good, he may not be, a single game doesn't determine that, and using a single game to push that narrative is silly. 

B) his wins have nothing to do with what I was talking about, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. I'm talking about the idea of using a single game to determine someone's ability / worth when they played a backup quarterback. These have nothing to do with one another

C) Atlanta is not one of the worst teams in the league. They are 6-9, closer to the middle of the pack them they are the bottom, and currently don't even have a top ten pick next year. They are a team that can beat the niners and saints but lose to the cards. 

D) I like the way you are saying this without any consideration to Arizona as a team. Are you forgetting that they aren't good? That they had the first pick in the draft and were one of the worst teams in football last year? 

I love NFL gen. Dear Lord

Too much speaking factually here, he won't understand.

[ClutchDJ]

34 minutes ago, DirtyDez said:

Rosen would be much better with Kingsbury and Kugler.  Also the OL was much more healthy this year for Kyler...  Rosen has had horrible luck but he’s just not the level of talent to overcome it.  

He would better(because hell, I don’t you can’t be any more atrocious than he was last year), but I doubt “much” better. 
 

Imo, Rosen wasn’t in the same ballpark as prospect than Kyler.

[RamblinMan99]

22 minutes ago, Forge said:

 

 I like the way you are saying this without any consideration to Arizona as a team. Are you forgetting that they aren't good? That they had the first pick in the draft and were one of the worst teams in football last year? This is not a good team around him. Why are you expecting to magically get wins against good teams with what he's working with?

 

Actually, history does tell that it works exactly like that.  

Take Ben Roethlisbeger for example.  Pittsburgh was 6-10 in 2003, the year right before they drafted Ben in the first round.  The  year after, they went 15-1 and went all the way to the AFC title game.  They haven't had a losing season since.  

You mention Russell Wilson earlier.  Same kind of example, yet he wasn't even a first round draft pick.  Seattle was 7-9 in 2011 right before they drafted him in the third round.  They were 11-5 the next year and went to the divisional playoff round.  Haven't had a losing season since. 

There are many other examples.  

So yes, a team can look seemingly terrible from the outside, when all they really need is a QB.  

They can have all the tangibles on both sides of the football, and all of the intangibles other than talent and awareness at the QB position.  

And most of the time, the QB either has it right out of the gate or he doesn't.  

Murray doesn't have it long term.  

Edited December 28, 2019 by RamblinMan99

[TecmoSuperJoe]

2 hours ago, tyler735 said:

Rosen sucks and is a bust. Really isn't much more to it. Look at how Murray has done compared to him with the Cardinals and how Fitzmagic has done compared to him with the Dolphins. I don't buy the supporting cast argument one bit, Rosen is just not a good QB.

Well, Rosen got a raw deal with Wilks as his head coach, and Mike McCoy as his OC. 

[Toddfather]

I'm sure he will get another chance or two, but it doesn't look to good at the moment. He just needs a couple decent games and maybe he can channel his inner Osweiler.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Toddfather

[DirtyDez]

2 minutes ago, ClutchDJ said:

He would better(because hell, I don’t you can’t be any more atrocious than he was last year), but I doubt “much” better. 
 

Imo, Rosen wasn’t in the same ballpark as prospect than Kyler.

Doesn’t have any bearing on last season.  Kyler would look like trash with Steve Wilks and a decimated OL and this is coming from someone who thinks Murray will be great.  
 

Rosen’s problem is he’s been battered since UCLA.  He’s a shot fighter.  Some of it is bad luck and some is just not having the talent to be a franchise QB.

[NJerseypaint]

Good football players overcome adversity. Look at his QB class, Darnold, Mayfield, Allen, and Jackson all went to teams that were either average or bottom feeders. Most of them had terrible OLs, bad coaches, severe lack of weapons going in and are making it through. It looks to me that Rosen lacks the fire and I bet players see that. The Dolphins roll with Fitz because players will go to bat for him. Play Rosen and you suck the life out of the team. That's why he'll be a backup for the rest of his career.

[RamblinMan99]

4 minutes ago, NJerseypaint said:

Good football players overcome adversity. Look at his QB class, Darnold, Mayfield, Allen, and Jackson all went to teams that were either average or bottom feeders. Most of them had terrible OLs, bad coaches, severe lack of weapons going in and are making it through. It looks to me that Rosen lacks the fire and I bet players see that. The Dolphins roll with Fitz because players will go to bat for him. Play Rosen and you suck the life out of the team. That's why he'll be a backup for the rest of his career.

I'd agree with all of those examples except for Sam Darnold.  

He's like the Matt Stafford 2.0.  

[Forge]

45 minutes ago, RamblinMan99 said:

Actually, history does tell that it works exactly like that.  

Take Ben Roethlisbeger for example.  Pittsburgh was 6-10 in 2003, the year right before they drafted Ben in the first round.  The  year after, they went 15-1 and went all the way to the AFC title game.  They haven't had a losing season since.  

You mention Russell Wilson earlier.  Same kind of example, yet he wasn't even a first round draft pick.  Seattle was 7-9 in 2011 right before they drafted him in the third round.  They were 11-5 the next year and went to the divisional playoff round.  Haven't had a losing season since. 

There are many other examples.  

So yes, a team can look seemingly terrible from the outside, when all they really need is a QB.  

They can have all the tangibles on both sides of the football, and all of the intangibles other than talent and awareness at the QB position.  

And most of the time, the QB either has it right out of the gate or he doesn't.  

Murray doesn't have it long term.  

Yep, because comparing Murray's roster around him from this year is comparable to the roster surrounding both of those guys their rookie years. Not to mention, Big Ben was essentially a game manager his first year tasked with not screwing up the game more so than winning it (the same could be said for Russell Wilson in the first half of his rookie year, before they cut him loose in the second half). 

Let's ignore the fact that the 2012 Seattle Defense was part of one of the greatest defensive constructions we have seen in the last 30 years, or act like Wilson wasn't surrounding be three first team all pros that year (Sherm, Thomas, Lynch).  That two members of that defense are Hall of Famers hitting their strides (Sherm, Earl Thomas), that Bobby Wagner could have a legitimate shot at the Hall. That the defense didn't lead the league in points against, 2nd in dvoa. It was all about Wilson, no doubt. 

Let's ignore the fact that Pittsburgh also gave up the fewest points in 2004, was third in defensive dvoa (both up from 15th the year before, but hey, I'm sure that improvement had nothing to do with their success in 2004). It was all about Big Ben, no doubt. 

And sure, I suppose that the Cardinals going from fielding one of the worst offenses in the history of the NFL last year (third worst in history by dvoa, and one of the teams worse was a first year expansion team) to a top 13 offense by dvoa while mainly just adding Murray to it's offense has absolutely nothing to do with Murray. I'm sure that going from dead last in points per game to almost middle of the pack (17th) while improving their overall yards per play by more than a yard has nothing to do with Murray and should be completely disregarded. 

Also, lol the idea of saying a guy isn't good because his rookie season may not match up with two hall of fame quarterbacks, even if the idealized version of what happened in those rookie seasons is erroneous. 

I don't care if you like Murray or not, but the reasoning you've spouted is just bad. 

[Elky]

Rosen is not even worth a roster spot as a backup. He's terrible.

[NJerseypaint]

Just now, RamblinMan99 said:

I'd agree with all of those examples except for Sam Darnold.  

He's like the Matt Stafford 2.0.  

Because Sam Darnold is clearly lofting 3TDs a game to a prime a Calvin Johnson.

 

Jets and Browns have the same record. Darnold has better stats than Mayfield. Darnold has a worse offensive cast than Mayfield. So if you aren't taking exception to Mayfield, you can't take exception to Darnold.

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, NJerseypaint said:

Because Sam Darnold is clearly lofting 3TDs a game to a prime a Calvin Johnson.

 

Jets and Browns have the same record. Darnold has better stats than Mayfield. Darnold has a worse offensive cast than Mayfield. So if you aren't taking exception to Mayfield, you can't take exception to Darnold.

Sure you can. Darnold hasn't shown the ability to carry three facial hair styles in a single day like Mayfield. 

[RamblinMan99]

12 minutes ago, Forge said:

 Not to mention, Big Ben was essentially a game manager his first year tasked with not screwing up the game more so than winning it. 

 

What are you talking about here?? This doesn't make much sense.  

Bill Cowher had to bench Tommy Maddox after getting injured and Ben got his shot.  He was great right away.  

16 minutes ago, Forge said:

 

Let's ignore the fact that the 2012 Seattle Defense was part of one of the greatest defensive constructions we have seen in the last 30 years, or act like Wilson wasn't surrounding be three first team all pros that year (Sherm, Thomas, Lynch).  That two members of that defense are Hall of Famers hitting their strides (Sherm, Earl Thomas), that Bobby Wagner could have a legitimate shot at the Hall. That the defense didn't lead the league in points against, 2nd in dvoa. It was all about Wilson, no doubt. 

 

You're forgetting the fact that Richard Sherman, Cam Chancellor, and Earl Thomas were all in Seattle before Russell Wilson got there. 

Marshawn Lynch also joined Seattle from Buffalo two years before Wilson got there.  

So, the difference obviously had to be Russel Wilson.  

19 minutes ago, Forge said:

And sure, I suppose that the Cardinals going from fielding one of the worst offenses in the history of the NFL last year (third worst in history by dvoa, and one of the teams worse was a first year expansion team) to a top 13 offense by dvoa while mainly just adding Murray to it's offense has absolutely nothing to do with Murray. I'm sure that going from dead last in points per game to almost middle of the pack (17th) while improving their overall yards per play by more than a yard has nothing to do with Murray and should be completely disregarded. 

I'm not saying that the team hasn't improved with Murray being there.  That was never the point I made from the beginning, as I clearly stated that he is definitely better than Josh Rosen was.  

Yes, Arizona's offense improved, but it hasn't improved by a large enough degree to validate Murray being a long term answer for them.  He lucky to have Larry Fitzgerald (as old has he is) and doesn't even know how to utilize him.  

22 minutes ago, Forge said:

Also, lol the idea of saying a guy isn't good because his rookie season may not match up with two hall of fame quarterbacks, even if the idealized version of what happened in those rookie seasons is erroneous. 

Did it ever occur to you that a team's talent on both offense and defense might already be in the building but they need a sense of leadership from a QB they can back up?  

That's why the QB position is qualitatively different than other positions on the field.  

If a defensive unit sees that their QB has long term potential, they might just play like they have long term potential. Same with an offensive line, and so on.  

Simple as that.