The QB Thread: Everything Carr, Stidham and beyond...

[Darbsk]

17 hours ago, dante9876 said:

The best results have come from bottoming out. I remember when the whole forum was making fun of the bills, cause they keep starting a guy who threw like 100 interceptions in one half. A few years later, same head coach. They got a top qb and a top defense.

Just re-reading and this I feel is not correct and history shows it. The Bills are the exception to the rule.

Kansas built a team and then inserted Mahones to take them to the next level which resulted in a Super Bowl. Rams built a team and then inserted Stafford and that resulted in a Super Bowl. Broncos built a team then added Manning and that resulted in a Super Bowl. Buccaneers built a team then inserted Brady to take them to the next level and that resulted in a Super Bowl. Even the mighty Tom Brady was eased into a good team rather than a rebuild and took it to the next level in New England. The 49ers are at the stage where they need to either add a QB or hope their young guy can take them to the next level, the Cowboys had a good team and added Prescott but haven’t gotten to the big dance just yet. Even our own last real success we had a solid team and dropped Gannon in. When we bottomed out we failed with JaMarcus.

So I would say the evidence clearly indicates that the best chance is build the roster then add the QB to take you to the next level. Now, whether you and I believe we can build the roster is another thing altogether 😄

Edited November 9, 2022 by Darbsk

[NYRaider]

7 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

Just re-reading and this is I feel not correct as history shows. The Bills are the exception to the rule. 

How are the Bills an exception? They never bottomed out. They went 9-7 in McDermott's first season, traded up to #7 to select Allen, went 6-10 his rookie season, and have been a playoff team ever since.

[Darbsk]

33 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

43 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

Just re-reading and this is I feel not correct as history shows. The Bills are the exception to the rule. 

How are the Bills an exception? They never bottomed out. They went 9-7 in McDermott's first season, traded up to #7 to select Allen, went 6-10 his rookie season, and have been a playoff team ever since.

Well, I never checked their record actually, I just took Dante9876’s word for it as it was his point he was making about ‘bottoming out’ and rebuilding from scratch. 😁

My point, and it seems the Bills might fit that too, is I believe it to be better and for a team to have a better chance if they build an at least competitive roster first and then acquire/trade up/draft for a QB to take them to the next level than to ‘bottom out’’ get a really high pick and use that to pick a QB and build that way.

[bucksavage1]

On 11/8/2022 at 10:40 AM, Darbsk said:

Again, it’s good in theory and you’re right, both the Chiefs and Eagles have made great moves. But, for every Eagles there’s a Jags or Redskins or Bears. I think the right approach, even if we are going to try and draft a QBoTF is to try and give him a solid team to step into, like the Eagles and Chiefs did very successfully.
 

We’ve never had good player acquisition and drafting for the last 20 years, I think even if we’d drafted a Fields or Murray or Haskins or Mac Jones we would have given him a Bears or Jags like situation to learn it and it would very likely failed spectacularly. 
 

IMHO the right approach is build a team then slide the young QBoTF in to a situation he can manage. Just throwing a rookie in I think has a really low chance of working in our particular situation with the rosters we’ve had. This year might actually be the best time, we’ve got WRs, a RB or two and a TE and some draft picks and $$ to help the OLine. Previous to that you’re hoping for a miracle IMO.

Bears are showing signs to turning around their franchise . Justin Fields has improved every game and it has energized the team. 
 

However I understand what you’re saying. I just feel we gotta try something new along the lines of what the rest of the league is doing

Edited November 10, 2022 by bucksavage1

[true2form]

20 hours ago, Darbsk said:

Well, I never checked their record actually, I just took Dante9876’s word for it as it was his point he was making about ‘bottoming out’ and rebuilding from scratch. 😁

My point, and it seems the Bills might fit that too, is I believe it to be better and for a team to have a better chance if they build an at least competitive roster first and then acquire/trade up/draft for a QB to take them to the next level than to ‘bottom out’’ get a really high pick and use that to pick a QB and build that way.

I've been a big supporter of this myself.  Especially in all of the arguments to get rid of Carr in the past.

If you want to win a super bowl, and that's the goal, the blueprint these days is to build at least an average team and insert a QB. You can then continue to build up the team while the QB is on a cheaper deal.

Having a bottom level team and adding a rookie QB to that almost never works. 

 

[#1RAIDER FAN]

2 hours ago, true2form said:

I've been a big supporter of this myself.  Especially in all of the arguments to get rid of Carr in the past.

If you want to win a super bowl, and that's the goal, the blueprint these days is to build at least an average team and insert a QB. You can then continue to build up the team while the QB is on a cheaper deal.

Having a bottom level team and adding a rookie QB to that almost never works. 

 

Problem is that it’s always hind sight and revisionist. Bad team has no talent. Then plug in a good QB and all of a sudden they are loaded with great talent. Chicken and egg.

QB is such an impactful role it elevates your whole team. 
 

I think you keep looking for your franchise QB until you have one. Of course you need to build the team meanwhile. 

[Darbsk]

11 minutes ago, #1RAIDER FAN said:

Problem is that it’s always hind sight and revisionist. Bad team has no talent. Then plug in a good QB and all of a sudden they are loaded with great talent. Chicken and egg.

QB is such an impactful role it elevates your whole team. 
 

I think you keep looking for your franchise QB until you have one. Of course you need to build the team meanwhile. 

Not sure I agree with this. A bad team with a new QB just doesn’t suddenly turn around like magic in most instances. Most times the new QB struggles and if he’s a rookie usually fails. Teams like the Bengals added a QB and then a number of high picks too and it’s worked for them but they are kind of the exception to the rule.

Most terrible teams seem to drag their new QBs down rather than the QB suddenly turning the franchise around. Of course there are exceptions but statistically a new QB going to an already decent, established team like the Bills, Chiefs, Buccs, Rams, Ravens, Broncos even the Raiders with Gannon seems to be the more consistent recipe for success. 

[#1RAIDER FAN]

4 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

Not sure I agree with this. A bad team with a new QB just doesn’t suddenly turn around like magic in most instances. Most times the new QB struggles and if he’s a rookie usually fails. Teams like the Bengals added a QB and then a number of high picks too and it’s worked for them but they are kind of the exception to the rule.

Most terrible teams seem to drag their new QBs down rather than the QB suddenly turning the franchise around. Of course there are exceptions but statistically a new QB going to an already decent, established team like the Bills, Chiefs, Buccs, Rams, Ravens, Broncos even the Raiders with Gannon seems to be the more consistent recipe for success. 

I think you can find examples on both ends. Look at the bottom of the standings and aside from teams who traded their players for draft capital, you’ll find talented players who will be elevated by a QB.

If you get a chance at an elite QB prospect you take him. You don’t pass to build your roster. Your QB is so crucial to any talent you already have. 

This team will be kicking itself, yet again, when we pass on an elite QB who on a rookie contract let’s us sign or trade for other great players. 

The offense is plenty talented for a rookie QB. The o line will look 10x better when you have a qb that can roll out of pressure or scramble for third down conversions. One that stands and makes a big throw before getting hit and doesn’t fumble at the slightest contact. Those things make the entire team better.

[Darbsk]

1 hour ago, #1RAIDER FAN said:

I think you can find examples on both ends. Look at the bottom of the standings and aside from teams who traded their players for draft capital, you’ll find talented players who will be elevated by a QB.

If you get a chance at an elite QB prospect you take him. You don’t pass to build your roster. Your QB is so crucial to any talent you already have. 

This team will be kicking itself, yet again, when we pass on an elite QB who on a rookie contract let’s us sign or trade for other great players. 

The offense is plenty talented for a rookie QB. The o line will look 10x better when you have a qb that can roll out of pressure or scramble for third down conversions. One that stands and makes a big throw before getting hit and doesn’t fumble at the slightest contact. Those things make the entire team better

Oh, I don't disagree that if you've got a shot at an Elite prospect then take him provided you're not already set. However, you say look at the bottom of the standings and imagine how those teams would be improved. The likelihood us if they're at the bottom of the standings a top prospect would likely improve them somewhat but what I'm suggesting is that those circumstances often lead to busts and the QB not achieving their potential. That is shown over and over, the Jets had Darnold, The Browns when they were terrible took a few QBs, the Jags have taken three QBs, the Raiders took Jamarcus when were terrible.

Now, you might we'll say those QBs were all rubbish hence they didn't work out, but the numbers are much, much better for decent teams to cultivate their QBs so as some may have been a product of their environments and some may have worked out if say, Darnold had gone to Baltimore or Haskins had gone to San Francisco. All those QBs may have flamed out at top teams too but what we know is the percentages are demonstrably  better when you build a team first and add the QB into that. History shows us that as a fact.

[true2form]

3 hours ago, #1RAIDER FAN said:

Problem is that it’s always hind sight and revisionist. Bad team has no talent. Then plug in a good QB and all of a sudden they are loaded with great talent. Chicken and egg.

QB is such an impactful role it elevates your whole team. 
 

I think you keep looking for your franchise QB until you have one. Of course you need to build the team meanwhile. 

Can I get an example?  Because I can't think of anybody that fits that mold.

[#1RAIDER FAN]

2 hours ago, true2form said:

Can I get an example?  Because I can't think of anybody that fits that mold.

Clearly some subjectivity to "good QB' and "great talent", but point is the QB can elevate your offense.

What were the expectations for the Seahawks this year? Now Geno is playing out of his mind and they are leading the division. Apparently, that team was in rebuild mode and their O-line was trash Wilson's entire career. Pete Carroll should retire and they should fire their GM.

Still rest of the season to go, but looks a lot better than the offseason would have said. Of course you can find any perspective if you scourer the internet long enough, but now seeing comments like "QB friendly offense" and "he's in a good situation".  Is it possible that the Seahawks just got really lucky and all their players are exceeding expectations and its not at all due to Geno? Sure but I think he is getting a lot of the credit and deservedly so for his play.

Maybe I'm not saying what I mean well enough. I'm not sure its controversial to say that a good/great/elite QB can change your entire franchise trajectory. 

Sure getting a elite DT would be amazing. And I would take one in a heartbeat over an average/bad QB. But it seems every year we go "well, how would we know that QB would turn out so good? Hindsight is 20/20" but if you never take a chance to get that elite QB, I can tell you the chance of finding a great one is 0. 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by #1RAIDER FAN

[bucksavage1]

11 hours ago, #1RAIDER FAN said:

Problem is that it’s always hind sight and revisionist. Bad team has no talent. Then plug in a good QB and all of a sudden they are loaded with great talent. Chicken and egg.

QB is such an impactful role it elevates your whole team. 
 

I think you keep looking for your franchise QB until you have one. Of course you need to build the team meanwhile. 

I remember Josh Allen rookie year the Bills were the lowest rated team pre season. Now a few years later they are loaded. A superstar young QB flips a team around. All of the sudden Bills have the most talent

[bucksavage1]

7 hours ago, #1RAIDER FAN said:

Clearly some subjectivity to "good QB' and "great talent", but point is the QB can elevate your offense.

What were the expectations for the Seahawks this year? Now Geno is playing out of his mind and they are leading the division. Apparently, that team was in rebuild mode and their O-line was trash Wilson's entire career. Pete Carroll should retire and they should fire their GM.

Still rest of the season to go, but looks a lot better than the offseason would have said. Of course you can find any perspective if you scourer the internet long enough, but now seeing comments like "QB friendly offense" and "he's in a good situation".  Is it possible that the Seahawks just got really lucky and all their players are exceeding expectations and its not at all due to Geno? Sure but I think he is getting a lot of the credit and deservedly so for his play.

Maybe I'm not saying what I mean well enough. I'm not sure its controversial to say that a good/great/elite QB can change your entire franchise trajectory. 

Sure getting a elite DT would be amazing. And I would take one in a heartbeat over an average/bad QB. But it seems every year we go "well, how would we know that QB would turn out so good? Hindsight is 20/20" but if you never take a chance to get that elite QB, I can tell you the chance of finding a great one is 0. 

 

Spoiler

well, how would we know that QB would turn out so good?

I’ve heard this a lot in defense of keeping Carr and not drafting QB. I agree 100% with you . If we never draft a QB, we will never know if they can be great. The NFL teams that win take chances. KC was a perennial wild card team that didn’t have enough to get out of the Wild Card. Alex Smith was a decent starting QB but he had limits to game and sometimes was average. They traded up from 26 and grabbed Mahomes. Before Mahomes was draft many people had him pegged as a project or raw prospect. 

What we do know is Carr doesn’t have the modern QB skill set where they can affect the defense with their legs. He also seems to be regressing in his ball placement even with Gruden last season. The film also shows he’s missing WRs.

My opinion is that we don’t have a choice but to replace Carr next season. We can’t fix the o-line and defense with rookies and 1 year deal defenders then Pay Carr. His starting record shows that he’s average 

 

[big_palooka]

5 hours ago, bucksavage1 said:

I remember Josh Allen rookie year the Bills were the lowest rated team pre season. Now a few years later they are loaded. A superstar young QB flips a team around. All of the sudden Bills have the most talent

Finding a superstar QB is the difficult part. Then you have to develop him. Allen took patience and worked hard to become who he is. Early on, he did not look good with major accuracy issues that are often hard to overcome. They had Dabol and Dorsey working with him, two great offensive guys. 

For every Josh Allen, there is a Baker, Darnold, Rosen in the class waiting to blow your franchise up. There is not an exact science to finding a franchise QB. You need the right guy, then the right people to develop him. 

[big_palooka]

5 hours ago, bucksavage1 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

well, how would we know that QB would turn out so good?

They traded up from 26 and grabbed Mahomes. Before Mahomes was draft many people had him pegged as a project or raw prospect. 

You need to stop using examples of the 2 best QBs in the game. They are anomalies who went to the right situations. If your expectations are landing a unicorn, you will be disappointed. 

Now, I do agree you have to take a chance on QB until you get it right. But simply drafting a guy and throwing him in the fire is not wise. Ideally, he sits a year behind Carr to learn the offense. Of course that doesn't help your cap situations, but it's for the health of your young QB. 

Problem with Raider fans, they want instant gratification.