jebrick Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 10 hours ago, Soko said: It’s happened enough times where you might say offensive coaches>defensive coaches for a QB overall, but it’s not a nail in the coffin. Like, if we’re talking 1-2 HOF guys that overcame that, sure, they’d be exceptions. But that’s not really the case. Roethisberger and Brady and Payton Manning come to mind. All depends on the OC. Perhaps offensive minded coaches have better OCs. Edited March 18 by jebrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 6 hours ago, mse326 said: You are moving the goal post here though as you did with some of your rebuttals. You go from Head Coach to now talking staff. There is no reason a defensive minded HC can't still have a really good to great offensive staff. If your statement was a bad offensive staff ruins a QB then no one would have questioned you. To gt a QB to hit you first need a decent team around them. There are exceptions (Payton Manning comes to mind) but the general success for the young QBs has been to come to a team that has an Oline. Mahomes, Hurts and Allen were pulled into teams that had either been in the playoffs the season before or were just one year out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamq Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 A lot of times QBs just are what they are, too. Drafting/projecting is hard. Baker for example.. exactly the same dude he was in Cleveland, except he isn't trying to play with multiple injuries. He was below average in Carolina, but with a much worse surrounding cast. Now he's in an offense with more weapons than ever and earned a huge contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 It becomes a point where, yes, having a rookie QB is better for the QB’s outlook. Having weapons is better. Having an offensive minded HC is probably better. Having a strong GM is better. Strong OLs are better. But there are enough exceptions where none of those things are absolutely necessary for a QB to turn out good. Maybe not in their rookie season, but enough where they won’t necessarily be broken in Year 1. Some may, but it’s not an absolute foregone conclusion. So sure, people might not love Williams’ outlook (or any other young QB being drafted to a team with suboptimal environments) but to say that they’ll be ruined because of XYZ is premature - obviously. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topwop1 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 16 hours ago, StatKing said: I don't know who's trying to do the damage control with this report. Fields or the Bears? I find it hard to believe he wanted to go be a backup. Well from what is being reported he didn't really have many options to be traded to as the unquestioned starter, so in his case why not go to Pittsburgh where there may be an easier path to start with Russ Wilson being near the end of his career? Rumor also had it that Philly was the other team interested in trading for Fields, and likely had a better offer on the table, however with Jalen Hurts fully entrenched as the starter over there it wouldnt have been the ideal landing spot for Fields and his camp. Fields is entering a contract year with it being highly unlikely thay Pittsburgh will be exercising his 5th year option, so if no team was going to trade for him guaranteeing him as the starter then I don't blame his camp for demanding to be tradee somewhere like Pittsburgh where he can have an easier path to winning the starting job I'm also thinking part of the trade rationale from Bears part was to get him out of the NFC if possible. I also don't see any way they'd ever have trades Fields to a division rival like Minnesota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfishwars Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 12 hours ago, Tugboat said: Huh. That's certainly an interesting wrinkle to this conversation. But i don't buy for one slick second, that the Bears had other "better" offers on the table for Fields that they simply chose not to take to "do right by" Fields. 😆 If someone Fields didn't want to go to had offered up a 3rd round pick straight up or whatever and Fields said, "i don't want to go there, only Pittsburgh", any sane front office would tell him pound sand and trade his *** to make their own team better. That's some bizarre spin doctoring happening, where i'm not even sure it flatters anybody in the situation. lol. Maybe...maybe it makes Fields look a little bit better because "he was actually worth more you see" and makes it sound like he's some sort of big deal who can "choose his landing spot". But any beneficial luster from believing that crock, is pretty fully offset by the fact that it makes him sound like a bit of a diva who will only play for one team of his choosing. So...not really coming out ahead there anyway. lol. 🤷♀️ While I do think the Bears absolutely would and should have taken the better if it was available - I do wonder if there's something going on with Fields and his camp which is genuinely putting suitors off. Vibes don't seem great, doesn't come across well in these recent interviews. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 5 hours ago, MacReady said: If your team needs a franchise QB and a head coach and you’ve got a top 5 pick. Would you rather hire an offensive minded head coach or a defensive head coach? I was in this position last season and wanted Demeco as our HC easily, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 33 minutes ago, mse326 said: I was in this position last season and wanted Demeco as our HC easily, so... If Charles Woodson was in the running as the next Packer head coach, I’d throw logic aside and want him, too. Like I spoke about in the Packer sub forum, major outlier there. I have my own sort of metric for guessing on which rookie quarterbacks will become elite veteran quarterbacks. It ignores TDs and interceptions, wins, yards and focuses solely on completion percentage and YPA. Stroud is in like the top 5%. Just incredible. So excited for Texans fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StatKing Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 5 hours ago, MacReady said: It’s really not worth the keystrokes to debate the issue, and the only issue is you’re Obi-Wanning and I’m Anakinning. You could just admit you were wrong but that's not your style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) You do sort of wonder if, since the Poles/Eberflus brain trust were not the party responsible for drafting Fields to begin with, they always had the out of "he's not our guy" to protect their jobs. Job one for a coach or executive is "remain employed" and I imagine sometimes that could run counter to "what you need to do to make a QB prospect work out." Like how many good QB prospects could have become solid NFL starters if they were given a full year or two to sit? Like the reason Fields "had" to play as a rookie was because Nagy was trying to keep his job. He was supposed to be the backup to Andy Dalton, and was thrust into starting since Dalton got hurt. That might have been a sliding doors moment for him. Edited March 18 by PossibleCabbage 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 21 hours ago, StatKing said: You could just admit you were wrong but that's not your style. You could read, but you don’t know how. To add to this, I’m not wrong and you know it. You’re the same as Bears fans and only get so ticked off because you know it’s true. If I put “Generally speaking,” in front of everything I said, nobody bats an eye. But since I use absolute terms, everybody feels the need to crap on the overarching point. Edited March 19 by MacReady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nagahide13 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) Has anyone dug up the "Fields is not worth a 4th rounder and nobody will pay that much" conversation yet? I remember ET being pretty adamant. Good call there. Edited March 18 by nagahide13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.