OFFICIAL NFL week 8 thread

[mvbighead]

I don't understand the praise of Cam Newton. He's shown flashes of brilliance, but ultimately the only important factor is your ability to WIN.. and he hasn't shown that yet. Same goes for Sam Bradford.. show me some wins. As for Matt Ryan, he is certainly above average, but his stats really don't really show greatness, and his inability to get his team to the next level is a problem. They got DESTROYED last year in the playoffs by Green Bay, and they were at home.

I'm not saying QB's CAN'T come out of nowhere and start immediately and be successful, I'm saying its not extremely likely. Peyton and Ben.. sure.. exceptions though i think. I also think it makes it much more difficult when expectations are not realistic. There are a ton of factors involved of course, but I think personally Tebow is doomed to failure.

The media has already won you over. The line I bolded above is beyond ridiculous. TEAMS win games. TEAMS allow a QB to aid his offense in outscoring the opponent.

If Manning throws for 7 TDs, 500yds, 0 INTs, and his team is beaten 52 to 49, you're telling me that the loss goes on Manning? That's bullshit.

A QB is one of the biggest factors in a team putting up points offensively. To think that you can judge the quality of a QB solely on the W/L column is simply absurd.

Trent Dilfer is not a good QB, but he still won a SB because the team around him was pretty darned good (especially on defense).

Cam Newton is taking a team that was overall pretty shoddy last year, and giving them some semblance of hope. He's thrown for the 2nd highest amount of yards so far this season, has a completion percentage over 60, and is the 13th rated passer in the league, as a rookie.

Another exception to my previous group was Andy Dalton. His TEAM is sitting at 5-2, in large part due to a defense that's actually doing something. In another part due to the Andy Dalton to AJ Green connection.

The main gist being that QBs frequently enter the league, and start right away and become successful, at least at some point.

 

[zinfamous]

Aaron Rodgers was expected to go much earlier in the draft. Although you still have a point in that it's uncommon for an early first round pick to sit on the bench. Then again, Jake Locker was picked 8th overall and is holding a clipboard this year.

Rivers was on the bench for 2 years.

 

[AstroManLuca]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_morning_rush_tebow_struggles_103111

Detroit keeping it classy.

What do you expect when you have a college QB trying to play with the big boys? Maybe he should try not sucking, then he might get some respect.

The media has already won you over. The line I bolded above is beyond ridiculous. TEAMS win games. TEAMS allow a QB to aid his offense in outscoring the opponent.

If Manning throws for 7 TDs, 500yds, 0 INTs, and his team is beaten 52 to 49, you're telling me that the loss goes on Manning? That's bullshit.

A QB is one of the biggest factors in a team putting up points offensively. To think that you can judge the quality of a QB solely on the W/L column is simply absurd.

Trent Dilfer is not a good QB, but he still won a SB because the team around him was pretty darned good (especially on defense).

Cam Newton is taking a team that was overall pretty shoddy last year, and giving them some semblance of hope. He's thrown for the 2nd highest amount of yards so far this season, has a completion percentage over 60, and is the 13th rated passer in the league, as a rookie.

Another exception to my previous group was Andy Dalton. His TEAM is sitting at 5-2, in large part due to a defense that's actually doing something. In another part due to the Andy Dalton to AJ Green connection.

The main gist being that QBs frequently enter the league, and start right away and become successful, at least at some point.

Hell, even judging a team by its W/L record is misleading. The Panthers could easily be sitting on a .500+ record right now with how they've been playing. A few slip ups here and there have cost them games. Same with the Vikings, same with a lot of teams, and by the same token, plenty of teams have been lucking into wins as well.

 

[spidey07]

Possibly, but their team is so bad right now. I know part of that is because they're built to play with the lead+Manning on both sides of the ball, but there's a real dearth of talent on that team. Whatever talent there was is only getting older... Freeny, Mathis, Clark, Brackett are all over 30 and only getting older. It's hard to believe that there are really no younger top tier players on that Colts team, although I may be forgetting some.

LB Angerer is my new (this season) favorite defensive player for the Colts. Dude seems to be involved in every good defensive play.

 

[thraashman]

Cam Newton is helping Carolina put up near 30 points or more per game.

when does the Carolina D ever come into the argument of "helping the team win?"


As for Matt Ryan and the Falcons--they lost to the SB champs, that also destroyed the Steelers, the same team that is destroying most everyone else in the league...

I don't particularly like Cam Newton, but I can't deny the numbers he's putting up. There's a reason that the Panthers had the #1 pick to get Newton, they're a bad team with bad personel. If Cam can stay uninjured and continue throwing like he has been, once Carolina gets him some better people around him, he'll be nasty good.

As far as Matty goes, I'm a Falcons fan. And he's been showing himself to be pretty damn good. Yeah we lost in the playoffs badly last year. But every team has a bad game. The Jets got dominated in the regular season by the Patriots last year, then beat them in the playoffs. Atlanta has definitely been struggling this year to be the team they were last year. I think perhaps they've finally got some rhythm going though. And while we aren't out of it yet, I think the Falcons need to add to the offensive line before Matty can get us that long awaited Superbowl win that Atlanta needs.

 

[dougp]

Which begs the question -- when will they finally decide to get rid of Romo? Hasn't the experiment gone on long enough?

Yes, completely his fault they lost last night ... not the defense or WR problems at all ...

 

[zinfamous]

LB Angerer is my new (this season) favorite defensive player for the Colts. Dude seems to be involved in every good defensive play.

He also has the new awesomest name in the NFL.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't particularly like Cam Newton, but I can't deny the numbers he's putting up. There's a reason that the Panthers had the #1 pick to get Newton, they're a bad team with bad personel. If Cam can stay uninjured and continue throwing like he has been, once Carolina gets him some better people around him, he'll be nasty good.

As far as Matty goes, I'm a Falcons fan. And he's been showing himself to be pretty damn good. Yeah we lost in the playoffs badly last year. But every team has a bad game. The Jets got dominated in the regular season by the Patriots last year, then beat them in the playoffs. Atlanta has definitely been struggling this year to be the team they were last year. I think perhaps they've finally got some rhythm going though. And while we aren't out of it yet, I think the Falcons need to add to the offensive line before Matty can get us that long awaited Superbowl win that Atlanta needs.

I agree on all counts. I was with most others in the anti-Cam crowd before the season started, but you simply can't deny what he has done so far. The dude throws up some consistent INT numbers--but so did a guy like Favre. Those aren't really costing his team, in any way--and I think it just shows that he isn't afraid to make the big play. I haven't had much of a chance to watch him play, though, so I'm not really sure about how he is on the field.

And I do like the Falcons and Matt Ryan. Atlanta seems to be only a few pieces away from a top tier time, and there really is nothing wrong with Matt Ryan from what I can tell.

 

[bignateyk]

LOL @ ESPN's headline:

"Polamalu's end-of-game ball slap against rules"

 

[manly]

What is especially amazing to me is how bad some QB's are in this league.

I've been musing about this myself.

I wonder if it's due to the fewer number of pocket passers that are being developed at every level. It's evidently easier to win playing the spread with an athletic, mobile QB.

I don't think there's evidence to support this theory. Elite QBs are always rare, but there are plenty of solid starters in the league right now. Part of it is that rules are so pro-passing nowadays. But I'm actually a little surprised how many decent young QBs are around, e.g. Flacco, Matt Ryan, or perhaps even Mark Sanchez. Maybe Flacco or Ryan will never cross over into elite status, but there's a lot of stability at QB considering how little development time many of them have had.

You have a point re: successful college QBs often being phenomenal athletes tailored for different systems but the NFL generally weeds those guys out in the draft (Tebow being an exception for now because Josh McDaniels was a fool).

Let's look at Tony Romo, for example since this thread is calling him out as garbage. As of week 7 (source: Wikipedia) his career passer rating is 95 which is #4 all-time. For comparison HoFer Steve Young's career rating is 96.8, which was the highest when he retired (since surpassed by Rodgers and Philip Rivers). Now I'm not trying to defend Romo (admittedly I don't even follow the Cowboys) and while he just may not be a champion or "winner", the numbers are pretty good.

 

[Via]

I don't have raw data, but it seems like almost every school 15-20+ years ago had a tall, strong-armed pocket passer. The mobile, spread QB was a rarity.

That gave NFL scouts a big pool to choose from as to whom they wanted to develop. Now, with the mobile option-type QB being the norm, that pool is much smaller.

 

[dougp]

I don't think there's evidence to support this theory. Elite QBs are always rare, but there are plenty of solid starters in the league right now. Part of it is that rules are so pro-passing nowadays. But I'm actually a little surprised how many decent young QBs are around, e.g. Flacco, Matt Ryan, or perhaps even Mark Sanchez. Maybe Flacco or Ryan will never cross over into elite status, but there's a lot of stability at QB considering how little development time many of them have had.

You have a point re: successful college QBs often being phenomenal athletes tailored for different systems but the NFL generally weeds those guys out in the draft (Tebow being an exception for now because Josh McDaniels was a fool).

Let's look at Tony Romo, for example since this thread is calling him out as garbage. As of week 7 (source: Wikipedia) his career passer rating is 95 which is #4 all-time. For comparison HoFer Steve Young's career rating is 96.8, which was the highest when he retired (since surpassed by Rodgers and Philip Rivers). Now I'm not trying to defend Romo (admittedly I don't even follow the Cowboys) and while he just may not be a champion or "winner", the numbers are pretty good.

His starting win/loss record is 48-25, which isn't too shabby for being an "experiment."

 

[hclarkjr]

as if sundays humiliating loss was not enough fred davis is hurt now too. uggghhhh

http://www.redskins.com/news-and-ev...ncertain/5a1a7698-c958-4668-81ab-2be58dad8380

 

[manly]

I don't have raw data, but it seems like almost every school 15-20+ years ago had a tall, strong-armed pocket passer. The mobile, spread QB was a rarity.

That gave NFL scouts a big pool to choose from as to whom they wanted to develop. Now, with the mobile option-type QB being the norm, that pool is much smaller.

I don't know the stats, so either of us could be right but scouts have still found Big Ben, Flacco and most recently Andy Dalton at non-BCS programs. It's not like the Chase Daniels of college football are the ones starting as NFL rookies. But plenty of rookie or 2nd year high draft picks are starting, partly due to a preexisting vacuum at QB for the respective teams. And certainly much to do with the guaranteed money they get. Aaron Rodgers was actually an exception carrying a clipboard for as long as he did.

We also know QBs are getting taller/bigger. Mike Vick isn't only because he's such a great tailback (I kid) and Super Joe Montana would be slightly undersized by today's standards.

 

[zinfamous]

as if sundays humiliating loss was not enough fred davis is hurt now too. uggghhhh

http://www.redskins.com/news-and-ev...ncertain/5a1a7698-c958-4668-81ab-2be58dad8380

I have little hope for the game this week.

 

[KMFJD]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_morning_rush_tebow_struggles_103111

Detroit keeping it classy.

 

[KevinCU]

Haha :thumbsup:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes, completely his fault they lost last night ... not the defense or WR problems at all ...

I should've placed a bet on how long it would take dougp to come and defend Romo.

 

[Arkaign]

I should've placed a bet on how long it would take dougp to come and defend Romo.

I think Romo is borderline terrible, and nowhere near consistent enough to ever go all the way to the big show, but last night truly didn't have anything to do with him. That INT was a perfect pass that was bobbled into the hands of a defender, and the rest of the shame was mostly just the defense bending over and taking it up the ass.

 

[dougp]

I should've placed a bet on how long it would take dougp to come and defend Romo.

And I thought the same thing about you posting something negative about the Cowboys. Shocker, huh?

Heck, let me add to this. Who would you take over Romo besides these QBs:

Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers
Philip Rivers
Peyton Manning

Who would you take over him? And give me a frackin' reason, not a "just because." Also, provide the stats of that player vs. Romo.

 

[zinfamous]

Romo is weird. On paper, he looks damn solid. If you only see 30% of his play, you would think he was excellent.

but just watching him, you "just know" that he's useless. I tried for ~1 season to convince my buddy (big Dallas fan) that Romo is pretty damn good, and you could do a lot worse than Romo--plenty of teams do a lot worse than Romo.

I think the main problem is that expectations are so high in Dallas. But, after watching him more, I have come to the inevitable conclusion that Romo is, indeed, horrible.

 

[dougp]

Romo is weird. On paper, he looks damn solid. If you only see 30% of his play, you would think he was excellent.

but just watching him, you "just know" that he's useless. I tried for ~1 season to convince my buddy (big Dallas fan) that Romo is pretty damn good, and you could do a lot worse than Romo--plenty of teams do a lot worse than Romo.

I think the main problem is that expectations are so high in Dallas. But, after watching him more, I have come to the inevitable conclusion that Romo is, indeed, horrible.

Then answer the question I posed to ICF. Every time a fellow Dallas fan bitches about him, I ask them to provide me with an answer. I don't always defend him, but I place blame on him where it's due.

 

[zinfamous]

Then answer the question I posed to ICF. Every time a fellow Dallas fan bitches about him, I ask them to provide me with an answer. I don't always defend him, but I place blame on him where it's due.

that's why I say he's weird. You can't really explain it--you just know he's bad. He does do some smart things from time to time (that shoulder juke at the end of the game to free the defender ahead of the pass for their one useless TD last night), but he makes piles of boneheaded plays...and there's just something int he way that he plays.

I do think, though, even in some fo Dallas's worst games this year, it really hasn't been Romo's fault. I forget the opponent, but they had that one Sunday night game, I think, with about 7 missed snaps. I think only one of those could have been Romo's fault, the rest looked horrible--but then, the QB is supposed to keep everyone together, if they are the one's confused about the count.

 

[dougp]

that's why I say he's weird. You can't really explain it--you just know he's bad. He does do some smart things from time to time (that shoulder juke at the end of the game to free the defender ahead of the pass for their one useless TD last night), but he makes piles of boneheaded plays...and there's just something int he way that he plays.

I do think, though, even in some fo Dallas's worst games this year, it really hasn't been Romo's fault. I forget the opponent, but they had that one Sunday night game, I think, with about 7 missed snaps. I think only one of those could have been Romo's fault, the rest looked horrible--but then, the QB is supposed to keep everyone together, if they are the one's confused about the count.

That would be the Jets game, but it's happened pretty much every game. Dallas's o-line could be as bad as the Bears except Romo seems to save them from a few more sacks than Cutler does.

 

[vi edit]

Then answer the question I posed to ICF. Every time a fellow Dallas fan bitches about him, I ask them to provide me with an answer. I don't always defend him, but I place blame on him where it's due.

Romo has quite a history of 2nd half or 4th quarter meltdowns. He's awesome for like 85% of the game and then just throws an absolutely horrible INT or fumbles it away at the goal line. He just tries to force things too much.

As for others to add to to your list, I'd include Rothlisburger simply because he's been a clutch guy and seems to command his offense better.

I also like Ryan more than Romo because he's a better manager of the game. Also at this very early point in his career I'd rather build around Cam Newton than Romo. So fa much less media hype and the kid can QB a football team.