mjp28 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 6 hours ago, Richiswhere said: Too subtle for you? No. I had a minor in sarcasm in school. Actually with all of the nationwide worship of Sir Thomas Brady it just seemed funny not seeing his name first in CAPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoolie Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 On 1/14/2018 at 7:27 PM, BaconHound said: None of the three are. All 3 have good defenses and solid running game Without Keenum, the defense and running game eat penis and stay home next week. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 15 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said: A rookie isn't taking this team anywhere but where we've already been. It's time to stop pinning our hopes on them Ain't nothing wrong with drafting the best QB in the land. Teams do it all the time and it often works out nicely. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 Foles is a bit of a misnomer because he took over a team built all season on the true franchise dude. Say what you will about Bortles, but he looked pretty damn good when it mattered Sunday. Exact same with Keenum. Man, the potential names available for a veteran QB are going to be very interesting this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 18 hours ago, The Gipper said: No. At least not with his play lately. The question may be can Kizer become like Bortles? A guy that still has episodes of erratic accuracy...but who cuts down on the TOs....and for some stretches can play up to his draft status. (Bortles was 3rd overall). No? Draft order a side they were picked for the same reason big strong arm blah blah blah. And Blake Bortles sucked for a good long time. Still not great but a running back and a strong defense got him to the show. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 None of the three franchises have ever won a Super Bowl. Obviously, Foles not > McNabb, Keenum not > than Tarkenton, and Bortles not > than Brunell in his prime ... but now it's "look you can win a SB without a franchise QB". Throw Philly out, they won their games with Wentz ... Foles won one home playoff game in which he scored 15 points. Minnesota and Jax are classic teams that win with defense with an occasional magic on offense ... 2000 Ravens, 2002 Buccaneers, 1986 Bears, all four of the Giants SBs, the first two Steeler SBs etc ... But they are all still two games away. For one of these QBs to win, they are going to have to beat another great defensive team AND slay Brady & Belichick (or two great defensive teams) which will be an outstanding accomplishment ... But I still wouldn't want any of these three guys for the Browns moving forward because IMO they don't have the makings of a QB that can carry a franchise ... they are just good enough to be in the right place at the right time. Trent Dilfer won a SB, which two games further than these guys have gotten, and then he came to Cleveland and won 4 games with Cleveland talent. Build the great defense, find the great running game ... but never settle at the QB position. Which is why the Dilfers, Johnsons and Hostetlers were all soon replaced in the continuous search for a "real" QB. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unsympathetic Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 I'd rather have any of these 3 QB's over Smith.. my guess on who will be available is Keenum. Clear path to whoever the future is.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Zombo said: None of the three franchises have ever won a Super Bowl. Obviously, Foles not > McNabb, Keenum not > than Tarkenton, and Bortles not > than Brunell in his prime ... but now it's "look you can win a SB without a franchise QB". Throw Philly out, they won their games with Wentz ... Foles won one home playoff game in which he scored 15 points. Minnesota and Jax are classic teams that win with defense with an occasional magic on offense ... 2000 Ravens, 2002 Buccaneers, 1986 Bears, all four of the Giants SBs, the first two Steeler SBs etc ... But they are all still two games away. For one of these QBs to win, they are going to have to beat another great defensive team AND slay Brady & Belichick (or two great defensive teams) which will be an outstanding accomplishment ... But I still wouldn't want any of these three guys for the Browns moving forward because IMO they don't have the makings of a QB that can carry a franchise ... they are just good enough to be in the right place at the right time. Trent Dilfer won a SB, which two games further than these guys have gotten, and then he came to Cleveland and won 4 games with Cleveland talent. Build the great defense, find the great running game ... but never settle at the QB position. Which is why the Dilfers, Johnsons and Hostetlers were all soon replaced in the continuous search for a "real" QB. Zombo Obviously we are going to wait and see how this all plays out, but to your point an elite defense has carried a team to a SB exactly twice since 2002 (Ravens, Trent Dilfer and Broncos, aging Peyton Manning). Even the latter one I mentioned is a bit dubious given the QB, albeit old, was still Peyton Manning, But yes, I totally agree that a team can win at a very high level by building the defense first and supplanting a serviceable QB while finding the elite guy under center. It's showing yet again this year. Definitely right on the mark with this comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Zombo said: None of the three franchises have ever won a Super Bowl. Obviously, Foles not > McNabb, Keenum not > than Tarkenton, and Bortles not > than Brunell in his prime ... but now it's "look you can win a SB without a franchise QB". Throw Philly out, they won their games with Wentz ... Foles won one home playoff game in which he scored 15 points. Minnesota and Jax are classic teams that win with defense with an occasional magic on offense ... 2000 Ravens, 2002 Buccaneers, 1986 Bears, all four of the Giants SBs, the first two Steeler SBs etc ... But they are all still two games away. For one of these QBs to win, they are going to have to beat another great defensive team AND slay Brady & Belichick (or two great defensive teams) which will be an outstanding accomplishment ... But I still wouldn't want any of these three guys for the Browns moving forward because IMO they don't have the makings of a QB that can carry a franchise ... they are just good enough to be in the right place at the right time. Trent Dilfer won a SB, which two games further than these guys have gotten, and then he came to Cleveland and won 4 games with Cleveland talent. Build the great defense, find the great running game ... but never settle at the QB position. Which is why the Dilfers, Johnsons and Hostetlers were all soon replaced in the continuous search for a "real" QB. Zombo And.....a potential model for the Browns. Browns have the making of a pretty good defense...imo...if they stay healthy and improve. But they also need a couple of outstanding pieces. Particularly DBs. Now, the one team you failed to mention was the 2005 Steelers. They were ALL about the defense and the running game..with Bettis. They had the second year BR...who at that time was by no means the BR of today. That team won despite the performance of BR, not because of it. (they also won the SB because of help from the refs...oh yes). But that BR was OK at best. He did not beat you...but he did not lose games either. (he transformed as he matured into one of the best QBs in the league). But that is a model. Have that D...have that OL...have that running game....and place the cherry on top with the QB that you hope can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 33 minutes ago, jrb12711 said: Obviously we are going to wait and see how this all plays out, but to your point an elite defense has carried a team to a SB exactly twice since 2002 (Ravens, Trent Dilfer and Broncos, aging Peyton Manning). Even the latter one I mentioned is a bit dubious given the QB, albeit old, was still Peyton Manning, But yes, I totally agree that a team can win at a very high level by building the defense first and supplanting a serviceable QB while finding the elite guy under center. It's showing yet again this year. Definitely right on the mark with this comment. Just a correction: Ravens and Dilfer won the SB in 2000....but yes, that team fits the bill. As does the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs with Brad Johnson...as does the 2005 Steelers with the very green BR, and as do those Broncos with Peyton. And to Z...it was the 1985, not '86 Bears. Don't mean to be pedantic...just setting the record straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Zombo said: None of the three franchises have ever won a Super Bowl. Obviously, Foles not > McNabb, Keenum not > than Tarkenton, and Bortles not > than Brunell in his prime ... but now it's "look you can win a SB without a franchise QB". Throw Philly out, they won their games with Wentz ... Foles won one home playoff game in which he scored 15 points. Minnesota and Jax are classic teams that win with defense with an occasional magic on offense ... 2000 Ravens, 2002 Buccaneers, 1986 Bears, all four of the Giants SBs, the first two Steeler SBs etc ... But they are all still two games away. For one of these QBs to win, they are going to have to beat another great defensive team AND slay Brady & Belichick (or two great defensive teams) which will be an outstanding accomplishment ... But I still wouldn't want any of these three guys for the Browns moving forward because IMO they don't have the makings of a QB that can carry a franchise ... they are just good enough to be in the right place at the right time. Trent Dilfer won a SB, which two games further than these guys have gotten, and then he came to Cleveland and won 4 games with Cleveland talent. Build the great defense, find the great running game ... but never settle at the QB position. Which is why the Dilfers, Johnsons and Hostetlers were all soon replaced in the continuous search for a "real" QB. Zombo Zombo-the Ghoolie doppelganger of opposite belief. I approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 Brady's unreal... he's so nimble in the pocket, yet can be timed with a sundial in full gallop. The Pat's started slow, but after the first couple weeks their D came together. You don't have issues "most of the season" and end up the #5 scoring Defense. 6 hours ago, jrb12711 said: Foles is a bit of a misnomer because he took over a team built all season on the true franchise dude. And yet the Iggles did not collapse. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer2011 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 On 1/14/2018 at 8:27 PM, BaconHound said: None of the three are. All 3 have good defenses and solid running game Bortles and Foles are horrible. Keenum is a Brian Sipe type playmaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacosman Posted January 17, 2018 Report Share Posted January 17, 2018 5 hours ago, Tour2ma said: Brady's unreal... he's so nimble in the pocket, yet can be timed with a sundial in full gallop. The Pat's started slow, but after the first couple weeks their D came together. You don't have issues "most of the season" and end up the #5 scoring Defense. And yet the Iggles did not collapse. Why is that? one could say the offense at leasthas mostly collapsed. They've played 4 games. In 2 of those games the offense was beyond dreadful. In the most recent game they scored 15 pts and although the final offensive stats were not terrible in terms of efficiency the offense was clearly incredibly limited. the team is 3-1 because the defense held the falcons to 10 pts and the raiders to 6 or whatever it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.