FireChan Posted January 22, 2017 Author Posted January 22, 2017 They aren't both 27!! That factors in. Rivers with this Chargers team is much less likely to win a Super Bowl than Tyrod. Tyrod has 7 or 8 extra chances potentially. Rivers at 27 was more likely. I'm not sure what that has to do with now? It moves every year. Matt Ryan is more likely to win a Super Bowl now than he was a year ago. Carson Palmer is less likely. I really can't believe you started this thread to try to troll but you can't even figure out what you are asking? It's not that hard!! It has to do with your confidence level when retaining a QB.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 It has to do with your confidence level when retaining a QB.Maybe it would have been best as "how likely is ___ to win a Super Bowl" - extremely likely - likely - possibly - unlikely - extremely unlikely Confidence in a QB and likelihood to win a Super Bowl aren't really the same either. It moves. At 27 I probably would have had Rivers as possibly to likely. Now, he'd be extremely unlikely. Ryan I would have had as unlikely probably. He's 33 was never really a threat. He's probably possibly to likely now. His team has a real shot. I still have confidence that Rivers is a really good QB (I know many others don't) but he almost certainly won't win a Super Bowl. I wouldn't kick him to the curb either.
FireChan Posted January 22, 2017 Author Posted January 22, 2017 Maybe it would have been best as "how likely is ___ to win a Super Bowl" - extremely likely - likely - possibly - unlikely - extremely unlikely Confidence in a QB and likelihood to win a Super Bowl aren't really the same either. It moves. At 27 I probably would have had Rivers as possibly to likely. Now, he'd be extremely unlikely. Ryan I would have had as unlikely probably. He's 33 was never really a threat. He's probably possibly to likely now. His team has a real shot. I still have confidence that Rivers is a really good QB (I know many others don't) but he almost certainly won't win a Super Bowl. I wouldn't kick him to the curb either. That's fair. The grander point was that the call of "how likely this QB is going to win a Super Bowl" matters the most when you are re-signing them. With TT under contract 2 years ago, that wasn't as pressing of a debate, right? But if they are going to get paid, and definitely be your QB for the next 3-5 years, how confident you are they will win a ring is very important. And the converse is true as well. It doesn't really matter how confident you are in Rivers ability to win a ring today, because he's basically impossible to get rid of with his contract. Sometimes you'll be wrong and sometimes you'll be right. Lord knows teams have let guys go who they weren't confident in and it backfired. But I contend that if you're at a cross roads with a QB and you are in that "possible-unlikely" area, you ditch them.
Dragonborn10 Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 Just curious, where would you have put Kelly, Fouts, Marino ? How do you come to the conclusion Dak can win a SuperBowl after one year? And that Dalton can and TT can't? Dalton has had a top 10 defense and a great healthy WR. Give TT the same and the Bills are playing today.
FireChan Posted January 22, 2017 Author Posted January 22, 2017 Just curious, where would you have put Kelly, Fouts, Marino ? How do you come to the conclusion Dak can win a SuperBowl after one year? And that Dalton can and TT can't? Dalton has had a top 10 defense and a great healthy WR. Give TT the same and the Bills are playing today. In their peaks? Absolutely in the "will" list. Dak played at a high level and has a long career ahead of him. Dalton makes the postseason almost every year and has a decent shot of getting hot. Can't prove it.
aristocrat Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 In their peaks? Absolutely in the "will" list. Dak played at a high level and has a long career ahead of him. Dalton makes the postseason almost every year and has a decent shot of getting hot. Can't prove it. so you don't think we would have made the playoffs if our defense was top ten last year?
FireChan Posted January 22, 2017 Author Posted January 22, 2017 so you don't think we would have made the playoffs if our defense was top ten last year? Maybe it would've. Maybe it wouldn't have. Maybe it would've been top ten because it shut out bums all year but still collapsed in big moments. Maybe it would've bailed TT out every game and we went 16-0. Who is to say?
aristocrat Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 Maybe it would've. Maybe it wouldn't have. Maybe it would've been top ten because it shut out bums all year but still collapsed in big moments. Maybe it would've bailed TT out every game and we went 16-0. Who is to say? thats what good defenses do. keep your team in a place to win the game.
FireChan Posted January 22, 2017 Author Posted January 22, 2017 thats what good defenses do. keep your team in a place to win the game. Get a good enough defense and EJ could win a super bowl.
aristocrat Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 Get a good enough defense and EJ could win a super bowl. even tyrod
Maury Ballstein Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) Mortgage the future for Mitch?Yes unless you wanna get pantsed by Mitch and the Jets for the next 10 years. Which backup qb will we annoint starter next after Taylor gets exposed by all the .500 teams again? Edited January 22, 2017 by Ryan L Billz
thebug Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 Wouldn't have it been easier to just name this thread TT sucks?
Maury Ballstein Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 Wouldn't have it been easier to just name this thread TT sucks? I was gonna name a thread that. (Combine all the TT threads into that)
thebug Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 I was gonna name a thread that. (Combine all the TT threads into that) It would sure save some time!
SoFFacet Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 I am not doing that. This has nothing to do with what will actually happen. It has to do with the belief in your QB. If you do not believe your QB will win a Superbowl for your team, they are not worth paying. Whether they do or not is irrelevant. You really need to take ownership of the fact that you misworded the original question. The language that you used ("Will he"), is a specific prediction of the future. Based on how few of the QBs that can win actually do, the answer to this is probably "No," for the vast majority of QBs in the league. This is not a useful question. The language that you apparently mean, but did not use, is "can he." This is a useful question.
FireChan Posted January 22, 2017 Author Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) You really need to take ownership of the fact that you misworded the original question. The language that you used ("Will he"), is a specific prediction of the future. Based on how few of the QBs that can win actually do, the answer to this is probably "No," for the vast majority of QBs in the league. This is not a useful question. The language that you apparently mean, but did not use, is "can he." This is a useful question. It's not because for the vast majority of QB's, the answer is probably yes. I take ownership of nothing. I said what I said and I meant what I meant. Edited January 22, 2017 by FireChan
SoFFacet Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 It's not because for the vast majority of QB's, the answer is probably yes. I take ownership of nothing. I said what I said and I meant what I meant. You have spent this entire thread bending over backward trying to clarify that you actually did mean "can he." "Will he" is a pointless question. Most people would answer "probably not" to every QB in the league except Brady. Nevertheless, some other QBs will win because they are capable and the circumstances may fall in their favor. I would answer "probably not" to the Bills QB whether it is TT or any replacement because the odds are generally so unfavorable.
NewEra Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 It's not because for the vast majority of QB's, the answer is probably yes. I take ownership of nothing. I said what I said and I meant what I meant. You're pure comedic therapy. You didn't misword your question. OK fine, that's what you meant to say. You meant to ask one of the stupidest questions ever. Completely beliavable. You are truly TSWs skip bayless low budget intern
Nihilarian Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 I've gone back and forth a lot on the QB debate. But now I've decided. If you cannot say "yes" to this question, you have to dump him. It doesn't have to be a resounding yes, but if you can't say one or the other, you have to dump him. There is no point wasting years on paying a QB you cannot believe will win you a championship and scrambling to put a team around him. You're better off trying to find the next great top 10 QB by playing in the cellar. QB's that I personally think pass this test in no particular order (including ones that already have, so you have to keep them too basically): Brady- WON 4x-2 Rodgers-WON-1 Big Ben-WON 2x-1 Rivers Romo Eli-WON- 2x Flacco-WON-1 Dalton Bridgewater Carr- Oakalnd-yes Brees-WON-1 Winston-no Mariota-no Dak- Dallas-yes Wentz-no Newton- could be Smith-no Palmer Luck- could be now that they fired the GM Cousins-no Stafford-could be Ryan- could be Russlell Wilson-WON 1-1 QB's that I am iffy on/cannot say Yes: Bradford Cutler McCown Tannehill Bortles Taylor Fitz Kaep Goff Now you may say, "how is Alex Smith in the yes category?" To be honest, I am biased by his recent streak of making the postseason. QB's can get hot and get lucky once they make the dance, and he's shown he can make it repeatedly. If some of the iffy QB's were on that KC team, that list may change, but we can't know that for sure. Obviously lots of those guys are works in progress. Wentz may suck by his next contract, and so could Dak. Goff coul dbe a star in 2 years. But judging today, this is what really matters There's a group of guys that the answer is yes, and a group of guys that you can't answer, and that's how you should dictate who you pay. Good enough to squeak into the playoffs and always being a bridesmaid is not the goal. The same teams keep getting into the playoffs and keep winning the super bowl, Pittsburgh 8x-(6-2), Dallas 8x-(5-3), New England 8x-(4-4), Denver 7x-(2-5), 49ers 6x-(5-1), NY Giants 5x-(4-1), Packers 5x-(4-1), Washington 5x-(3-2), Oakland 5x-(3-2), Miami 5x-(2-3), Indy 4x-(2-2), Vikings 4x-(0-4), Buffalo 4x-(0-4), LA/ ST Louis Rams 3x-(1-2), Ravens 2x-(2-0), Bears 2x-(1-1), Chiefs 2x-(1-1), Seattle 2x-(1-1), Eagles, 2x-(0-2), Bengals 2x-(0-2), Saints 1-(1-0), Jets 1-(1-0), Buc's 1-(1-0), Titans 1-(0-1), Cardinals 1-(0-1), Falcons1-(1-0), Panthers 1-(1-0), Chargers 1-(0-1). Rivers, Romo, Palmer, and Cutler I'd say that window has closed on those QBs in my opinion. First of all, Tyrod Taylor probably could win a SB if given a great team around him like Peyton had in Denver. Given the situation in the Buffalo Bills front office, I'd say those chances are pretty much nil. It's the same teams keep getting to the SB and keep winning it because they know what it takes to get it done and they move the world to do it. With Pittsburgh, it's the same family. Dallas two owners. Denver the same owner and the QB that lost a bunch of those SB's is now the team president. Oakland, it was Al Davis. Minnesota it was Fran Tarkington, Bud Grant. Buffalo it was Bill Polian, Marv Levy. In Miami it was Don Shula and no matter how much money the new owner spends he hasn't gotten it right yet with multiple team presidents, GM's, coaches. Most fans out there think it's all about the QB and that is only one part of it. Atlanta QB Matt Ryan is in his 9th year and has still never seen a SB. Maybe this year for Ryan and the Falcons.
Recommended Posts