Shanahan Needs To Stand Now On Own Two Feet

[fansince62]

Amen.

I like the porn analogy to the qb. We know a great qb when we see one performing. It's the guy who can lead that comeback, who makes the necessary throw, and doesn't make the timely mistake. It's the guy you can trust almost all the time. Sure, that guy needs a line to protect him, receivers who can get open and catch; plus a runner to deflect attention, but nontheless, that great qb shines.

To say, you can't determine if he was a great qb is to say we can't tell if any player was great and I don't know if one can say that. Was Barry Sanders great? Was Jim Brown a function of his O-line? Would Joe Jacoby be remembered as a great tackle if there wasn't a Russ Grimm?

Nothing is in a vaccuum, but everything can be assessed.

you meant untimely mistake! unless, of course, you were thinking of Rex.

 

[burgold]

you meant untimely mistake! unless, of course, you were thinking of Rex.

lol... I certainly did. Too many years as a Redskins fan I suppose. That timely mistake has been our trademark for the last decade.

 

[Oldfan]

Neo ~ I'm not sure there is a "grading process", per se. Like someone once said about porn, he couldn't define it but he knew it when he saw it.

Porn can be seen. The attributes you talked about, “situational awareness,” “leadership,” and the “it” factor can’t be seen and yet, when you publish your list to prove that you need a franchise QB to win Super Bowls, you will get almost unanimous agreement. How can that be? How do you all agree on the evaluation of things that can’t be seen?

I think the obvious truth is that bandwagon opinions on QBs are based on team accomplishments, and if the team was successful but the QB lacks an impressive tangible skillset, the bandwagon agrees his intangibles must be extraordinary.

Tom Brady’s skillset and Marc Bulger’s are about equal, but Bulger will have to buy a bus ticket to get to Canton because the bandwagon doesn’t sense the intangibles in him that make Brady great.

Joe Montana’s skillset was about the equivalent of Chad Pennington’s, but the bandwagon credits Joe with magical intangibles.

Bill Walsh supported Montana with a scheme that gave him a big competitive edge over defenses and a supporting cast second to none. If Mike Shanahan could do the same, he could build a dynasty with a QB only as good as Chad Pennington.

 

[Neophyte]

Porn can be seen. The attributes you talked about, “situational awareness,” “leadership,” and the “it” factor can’t be seen and yet, when you publish your list to prove that you need a franchise QB to win Super Bowls, you will get almost unanimous agreement. How can that be? How do you all agree on the evaluation of things that can’t be seen?

I think the obvious truth is that bandwagon opinions on QBs are based on team accomplishments, and if the team was successful but the QB lacks an impressive tangible skillset, the bandwagon agrees his intangibles must be extraordinary.

But all the QBs on my list of SB winners have very tangible skill sets. Or are you just taking a shot at my suggestion that Tebow might, just might, be a franchise QB? I would remind you that Kyle Orton was 1-4 or something as the starter that team before Tebow took over.

Joe Montana’s skillset was about the equivalent of Chad Pennington’s, but the bandwagon credits Joe with magical intangibles.

Tom Brady’s skillset and Marc Bulger’s are about equal, but Bulger will have to buy a bus ticket to get to Canton because the bandwagon doesn’t sense the intangibles in him that make Brady great.

By "skillset" I assume you are talking about their physical abilities. At least, that is how your statements read to me. What about the mental part of the game? Does that have no place in your evaluation? Do you really believe that Montana and Pennington are equals in this area of the game?

I'll give you Bulger. I have thought for a long time he was underrated as a QB and sadly considered just a product of the Martz system. I saw him make the Ravens offense flat dangerous though. So much so, I am not sure why they went back to Flacco.

 

[servumtuum]

Uh, Neo, Bulger never played for the Ravens-at least he never started for them. He was with the Rams from 2002 first as a third string QB and finally becoming a starter after the Rams released Warner in 2004. His stats were pretty decent until he started having injury problems and was put on IR in 2009. His stats at that time were like Grossmans including having more INTs than TDs. Baltimore signed him as a back up in june 2010 and he retired from football that August.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Bulger

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BulgMa00.htm

The second link is to Pro Football Reference's stat page on him where you can see how badly he declined in his last few seasons.

 

[Ax]

One step North, one step West, repeated over and over... doesn’t get you North or West. It’s a Northwest plan. It’s not a good win-now plan and it’s not a good roster building plan.

And, as a professional roster builder for, who? You know this, how?
I understand you have to hold to the ridiculous notion that moves can't be made, which are simultaneously good for the short term, and the long term. Trying to win, as you build, is not only possible, it is the goal of every team in the league.

So, then it's safe to say that you understand that the rules of games, like the rules of War, sometimes make a strategic withdrawal a sound move.

Well of course, my friend. The only problem is, what you're advocating is not a strategic withdrawal. It's more like giving some of our best tried and true weapons to the enemy, while we go back to using rocks and sling shots.

The game we’re playing is NFL Roster Building. The objective is to build a Grade A roster, one capable of competing annually for championships. One of the rules of the game is that the teams with the worst records get to pick earlier in the draft.

Oh goody, I love games. BTW, isn't it also a rule that the teams with really good records, can still trade places with the teams with the worst records in any particular round, of any particular year?

And now, for your Kobayashi Maru

So, let me give you a strategy question.

Your young and future roster is a poor one. You have Grade D talent, a team likely to win three games.
Nope. My young and future team is filled with C+ grade youngsters who are well on their way to being A&B grade veterans. We will likely win 9 games.

You can augment your current grade by filling 25% of your roster with older vets. This move improves your talent to a D+ for the current season. Your D+ team will win five games.
Wrong again. All the older vets I sign will be B grade, or better, improving my overall grade to B-. This team will win 11 regular season games, and then lose in the championship game on a lousy friggin call by the ref's, that even you would agree was a bad call.

What’s your call, Ax? Which is the smarter move if the object of the game is to build a Grade A roster?
Obviously, me and James Tibirius Kirk don't believe in your no win scenario. So, like my hero, I changed the conditions of the test so I could save the team.

"I don't like to lose".

Win three games now, use 25% more roster in the auditioning and development of young players, and pick higher in the draft or...

win five games now?


Bear in mind that you win this NFL game by building a Grade A roster. That’s the objective. Counting wins-per-season is not a meaningful statistic showing progress toward that goal.
Well, I won this one easily.

 

[Neophyte]

Uh, Neo, Bulger never played for the Ravens-at least he never started for them. He was with the Rams from 2002 first as a third string QB and finally becoming a starter after the Rams released Warner in 2004. His stats were pretty decent until he started having injury problems and was put on IR in 2009. His stats at that time were like Grossmans including having more INTs than TDs. Baltimore signed him as a back up in june 2010 and he retired from football that August.

I think it was Preseason Game, serv. Did not mean to give the impression it was regular season.

 

[Oldfan]

Neo,

I use the terms “skillset” and “tangibles” interchangeably. These are the things that can be seen and reliably graded by scouts and knowledgeable fans-- what the QB can do with his arms and legs, and his athleticism.

But all the QBs on my list of SB winners have very tangible skill sets.

I’m not sure what you are claiming. Off your list, the very athletic Elway, Rodgers and Young had/have much better skillsets than Brady, Warner, and the Manning brothers.

I would remind you that Kyle Orton was 1-4 or something as the starter that team before Tebow took over.

I don’t grade QBs on team accomplishments, so the 1-4 stat means nothing to me.

What about the mental part of the game? Does that have no place in your evaluation?

As I wrote earlier, the intangibles are important, but can’t be seen and reliably graded by anyone except the OC and then only after a play-by-play film review.

Do you really believe that Montana and Pennington are equals in this area of the game?

I have no idea how they compare and I don’t believe anyone who claims they do.

We would need an impartial expert to offer his opinion -- and there’s no such animal. Bill Walsh was an expert on Montana’s intangibles, but he was not impartial and he knew nothing at all about Chad Pennington’s intangibles.

 

[GSF]

Tom Brady’s skillset and Marc Bulger’s are about equal, but Bulger will have to buy a bus ticket to get to Canton because the bandwagon doesn’t sense the intangibles in him that make Brady great.

Joe Montana’s skillset was about the equivalent of Chad Pennington’s, but the bandwagon credits Joe with magical intangibles.

Bill Walsh supported Montana with a scheme that gave him a big competitive edge over defenses and a supporting cast second to none. If Mike Shanahan could do the same, he could build a dynasty with a QB only as good as Chad Pennington.

The abilities to read defenses, perform under pressure, lead the team, ect, ect are not some mystical intangibles that only exist in the perception of the "bandwagon". They are the qualities that separate the Tom Bradys from the Malc Bulgers.

Just b/c Pennington runs about as fast or throws about as far as Joe Montana doesn't mean you can plug Chad into the 80s 49ers and he'll have the same career as joe Montana.

 

[Oldfan]

About your Post #139, being an argumentative smartass doesn't cut it in a debate. You're a loser, Ax. <giggle>

 

[Boone]

About your Post #139, being an argumentative smartass doesn't cut it in a debate. You're a loser, Ax. <giggle>

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8ul-gmLyA[/media]

Don't hate Ax because he's beautiful Oldfan

 

[Ax]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8ul-gmLyA[/media]

Don't hate Ax because he's beautiful Oldfan

You tell him Boone.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY[/media]

 

[Oldfan]

...Don't hate Ax because he's beautiful Oldfan

Actually, I was thinking of inviting Ax to play Poker next Friday night... love those guys who say they won't ever back off.

 

[Ax]

Actually, I was thinking of inviting Ax to play Poker next Friday night... love those guys who say they won't ever back off.

Cool. I'm sure the deck will be as stacked as your self serving scenarios are.

 

[Oldfan]

The abilities to read defenses, perform under pressure, lead the team, ect, ect are not some mystical intangibles that only exist in the perception of the "bandwagon". They are the qualities that separate the Tom Bradys from the Malc Bulgers.

Intangibles exist, of course. But I don't believe that you, or anyone else, can grade them fairly.

Just b/c Pennington runs about as fast or throws about as far as Joe Montana doesn't mean you can plug Chad into the 80s 49ers and he'll have the same career as joe Montana.

Did someone claim he would? The fact is...no one knows what would have happened.

 

[Henry]

This is aimed at no one in particular - just saying something here.

This is why I have stayed away from this thread. Don't ever tell me that I am "deceiving myself" or that I am thinking in a way that is not true to myself. Don't tell me how to think, what to think, where to think, and when to think. Disagree with me all you want and we can debate the topic at hand. But never, ever tell me what to say, think, or do when it doesn't suit your line of thinking. I'll respect what you think and feel and the vice should be the versa.

If it simmers down a notch or two, I will have some thoughts (read, mine) on the subect(s). If not, feel free to beat the snot out of each other and I will get some good entertainment.

Pass the popcorn.

 

[Oldfan]

This is aimed at no one in particular - just saying something here.

This is why I have stayed away from this thread. Don't ever tell me that I am "deceiving myself" or that I am thinking in a way that is not true to myself. Don't tell me how to think, what to think, where to think, and when to think. Disagree with me all you want and we can debate the topic at hand. But never, ever tell me what to say, think, or do when it doesn't suit your line of thinking. I'll respect what you think and feel and the vice should be the versa.

If it simmers down a notch or two, I will have some thoughts (read, mine) on the subect(s). If not, feel free to beat the snot out of each other and I will get some good entertainment.

I was going to let this post pass until it got a couple of amens.

I think it’s a super-sensitive reaction to this comment I made to Neo.

My most basic argument is that you are deceiving yourself. You aren’t grading quarterbacks at all. You just think you are.

I went on to explain why it was self-deception: grading the team quarterbacked by Brady does not actually grade Brady as intended

I intended no more offense than if I had opened by writing that Neo had committed a logical fallacy, then describing the fallacy.

We are all capable of logical fallacies and we are all capable of self-deception, so I can’t imagine why anyone would get bent out of shape when accused of either in debate. So, this Burgundy Burner line is perplexing:

Don't ever tell me that I am "deceiving myself"...

And the rest of this is the equivalent of a Strawman Argument. I said nothing that even remotely deserved this kind of interpretation.

...or that I am thinking in a way that is not true to myself. Don't tell me how to think, what to think, where to think, and when to think. Disagree with me all you want and we can debate the topic at hand. But never, ever tell me what to say, think, or do when it doesn't suit your line of thinking. I'll respect what you think and feel and the vice should be the versa.

I have never intentionally drawn first blood in a debate, but I don’t “walk on eggshells” either. I am thick-skinned. I cut other posters a lot of slack in an Internet forum because I realize the limits of the medium -- and I expect posters to do the same for me.

 

[Neophyte]

So what I am getting out of this, Oldfan, is that you only grade quarterbacks on tangibles and anything you can't measure then gets attributed to the team as a whole. Got it.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Oldfan]

So what I am getting out of this, Oldfan, is that you only grade quarterbacks on tangibles and anything you can't measure then gets attributed to the team as a whole. Got it.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

That's pretty close, Neo.

IMO, the bandwagon method makes no sense at all. My way is poor, limited, but at least it makes sense. I grade the QB, not the QB+Team.

 

[burgold]

That's pretty close, Neo.

IMO, the bandwagon method makes no sense at all. My way is poor, limited, but at least it makes sense. I grade the QB, not the QB+Team.

But using your tangibles, wouldn't John Beck be an equal or superior quarterback to Drew Brees. Beck has an equal arm, more mobility, and is about the same height.