Foles will be a FA after Chiefs unlikely to pick up option

[Maury Ballstein]

He also has, by far, the fewest amount of attempts at 436.

For a reason no ?

[Just in Atlanta]

Yes. Because, as I stated, we were a run first offense, because, as I also stated, Rex wanted a ground and pound.

 

For a reason no ?

[Maury Ballstein]

Yes. Because, as I stated, we were a run first offense, because, as I also stated, Rex wanted a ground and pound.

 

Also a qb that can't throw slants screens or anything over the middle. Jmo.

[Reed83HOF]

Yep.

 

I'm baffled at some that want to get rid of Tyrod for a Hoyer or Foles because it will be cheaper.

 

Keep Tyrod and draft one early.

 

And you will end up with roughly the same number of wins, give or take a game. Why spend more money on that position for the same result?

Also a qb that can't throw slants screens or anything over the middle. Jmo.

 

No need for Jmo; it is pretty much a fact...

[BADOLBILZ]

 

 

 

 

Yeah and very fortunate to get the banged up Panthers in the SB

 

That team was the truth Badol. Player for player, they were better than the Bills. They caught some breaks but so does everybody who wins a Super Bowl. Including the Pats.

 

 

They played a great game against the Pathers.........but that was all they needed......one excellent game.

 

The Steelers and Pats were seriously beat up..........no Leveon Bell, Antonio Brown also out from the Burfict hit and Roethlisberger was a gametime decision........that was essentially a bye week........and the Pats stumbled to the finish........even Rex D held Brady in check in their second meeting, without Gronk and Edelman and with a porous OL.

 

The truth? The truth is that they were punchless on offense and HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they go thru that gauntlet if Pitt and NE were healthy.

 

[rm -rf /*]

 

And you will end up with roughly the same number of wins, give or take a game. Why spend more money on that position for the same result?

 

No need for Jmo; it is pretty much a fact...

 

If they choose to address the QB situation this season; Regardless of the way they do it will essentially just be polishing a turd.

 

I am all in on the tank. Get rid of Tyrod and Shady, start Cardale and draft the best QB in the draft in 2018. There are several to choose from. Hell you could even add Chad Kelly in the late rounds this season for kicks.

[JohnC]

The problem with moving up to get Watkins ... remember, this was kind of a doubling down on EJ Manuel, who was and always will be the death of Whaley as a GM. After that rookie year, Whaley and his team believed they saw an NFL QB in Manuel, but one who wouldn't be able to show his talent until he had the talented targets to work with. Hence, Sammy. Which in retrospect makes it all the more weird that he (and probably Marrone) suddenly saw the light and abandoned EJ for Kyle Orton just a few games into EJ's second year.

Whaley was late to see the light on EJ. Marrone made a quick determination on EJ and forcefully let him know that the qb situation was untenable. No one now is disputing Marrone's quick judgment on the qb this organization wanted him to rely on wasn't right.

 

Nix made the EJ selection. But make no mistake about it that Whaley and his staff did the scouting and ranking of qbs in that poor qb crop. The qb selected in dropped down first round selection was a third to fourth round caliber of player. The failure in that evaluation and selection is as much on Whaley as it was on Nix, the GM who officially made the pick.

 

When the argument is made that a qb has to have elite or very good receivers to make the qb presentable then that is an admission that your qb is inadequate. The issue should center around having a good enough qb to make your average receiver corps better. This organization as usual has it backwards.

[BADOLBILZ]

Whaley was late to see the light on EJ. Marrone made a quick determination on EJ and forcefully let him know that the qb situation was untenable. No one now is disputing Marrone's quick judgment on the qb this organization wanted him to rely on wasn't right.

 

Nix made the EJ selection. But make no mistake about it that Whaley and his staff did the scouting and ranking of qbs in that poor qb crop. The qb selected in dropped down first round selection was a third to fourth round caliber of player. The failure in that evaluation and selection is as much on Whaley as it was on Nix, the GM who officially made the pick.

 

When the argument is made that a qb has to have elite or very good receivers to make the qb presentable then that is an admission that your qb is inadequate. The issue should center around having a good enough qb to make your average receiver corps better. This organization as usual has it backwards.

 

FWIW......we were having this discussion in another thread.......the Pats really struggled at the end of 2015 with Gronk and Edelman out.

 

Brady is generally regarded as THE BEST at making bad receivers look good but even he couldn't keep up the pace without both of his go-to's.

 

Taylor struggled this year with Watkins and Woods injured but looked like a different QB with them healthy.......heck just having Sammy ACTIVE made a big difference on his ypa......receiving talent matters to all QB's.

 

And the Bills had very little of it and EJ was coming off a "decent" 2013 rookie season.....getting him a go-to was important........and it's not like he was playing as bad in all of 2013 as he did early in 2014.

[FireChan]

Listen, you guys constantly harp on various statistics as a reason why Tyrod isn't good enough. It's reasonable to assume you want someone better, and you want said better QB to be consistently better. If you get a QB that is better in total yards, completion percentage, total TDs, etc, they will be easily a top 10 QB in many metrics. And if said QB is top 10 in those metrics for multiple years, it's pretty likely they're going to the HoF (unless you happen to be hated like TO).

 

So again, how long do you give a GM before they find a top 10/potential HoF QB?

Again, a question dodge. You're really good at saying nothing in an attempt to look superior.

 

What metrics? What QB's in the top 15 aren't good enough for you?

[Dorkington]

Again, a question dodge. You're really good at saying nothing in an attempt to look superior.

 

What metrics? What QB's in the top 15 aren't good enough for you?

I have no desire to look superior, and fully acknowledge that I'm an uneducated idiot on most topics.

 

The general consensus of this forum tends to lean towards the need of a top 10 QB in order to carry this team to the playoffs/superbowl. You say what metrics? And gave examples, and I said 'yes' meaning all of the ones you listed.

 

So again, how long do you (not specifically you, but anyone who wants to answer) give a GM before they find a QB that can carry the team to the playoffs/superbowl, put up top 10 QB numbers, etc?

 

For *me* personally, I'm 'fine' with a middle of the road QB (which I consider Tyrod) as long as the rest of the team is strong (meaning a good defense, good running game, and good coaching).

 

I feel like it's a pretty simple question for those who require a certain performance metric. 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? What's a realistic time frame to get an elite QB?

[FireChan]

I have no desire to look superior, and fully acknowledge that I'm an uneducated idiot on most topics.

 

The general consensus of this forum tends to lean towards the need of a top 10 QB in order to carry this team to the playoffs/superbowl. You say what metrics? And gave examples, and I said 'yes' meaning all of the ones you listed.

 

So again, how long do you (not specifically you, but anyone who wants to answer) give a GM before they find a QB that can carry the team to the playoffs/superbowl, put up top 10 QB numbers, etc?

 

For *me* personally, I'm 'fine' with a middle of the road QB (which I consider Tyrod) as long as the rest of the team is strong (meaning a good defense, good running game, and good coaching).

 

I feel like it's a pretty simple question for those who require a certain performance metric. 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? What's a realistic time frame to get an elite QB?

Is Derek Carr a HoFer? He carried his team to the playoffs once.

 

Just admit you made your original post with the "Hall of Famer" nonsense to try to make anyone who "disagrees" with you look stupider than you.

 

As to your actual question, it depends on :

 

A. How many QB's your GM drafts

B: How many successful QBs are found during that period

C:How many egregious mistakes are made in that period

 

I'd say 6 years, but 4 gets worrisome when they don't take shots.

Edited February 20, 2017 by FireChan

[OldTimer1960]

Half the fan base buys the baloney right along with the Pegulas. Look at them all putting Mike Williams and Corey Davis on their boards at 10. Hey wait a minute!! You already invested multiple 1st's and a mid round pick on your "superstar" WR, your telling me he isn't good enough that Whaley can just add a complementary side kick?! Another often downplayed failure.

When Watkins has been healthy, he has been outstanding. Nothing in Watkin's college history suggested that he would miss a lot of time due to injury. So, a GM has failed if he drafted a player who has played very very well when healthy, but has been injured?

[Dorkington]

Is Derek Carr a HoFer? He carried his team to the playoffs once.

 

Just admit you made your original post with the "Hall of Famer" nonsense to try to make anyone who "disagrees" with you look stupider than you.

 

As to your actual question, it depends on :

 

A. How many QB's your GM drafts

B: How many successful QBs are found during that period

C:How many egregious mistakes are made in that period

 

I'd say 6 years, but 4 gets worrisome when they don't take shots.

That's all I was looking for

 

As far as Carr? Early to tell, no? Would you be happy with him if he only takes a team to the playoffs once? I wouldn't. So then we'd probably start harping on the GM again, if that were the case. The 'replace the GM counter' resetting at each playoff appearance?

 

I know I'm in the minority in thinking that a mid level QB is 'good enough' to get a team to the playoffs and even a Superbowl victory, and since I'm in the minority, that means I'm likely the stupid one. Ideally I'd love to have a 'hall of fame' QB or 'top 10 qb' or whatever term suits you, since that's the more sure-fire way of getting to our goals. But I simply think it's easier said than done, so I'm not sure how angry I'm supposed to be at a GM failing in that regard (hence the question). As it is, most of the top 10 QBs in the league right now are on the older side.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Dorkington

[FireChan]

 

 

 

 

They played a great game against the Pathers.........but that was all they needed......one excellent game.

 

The Steelers and Pats were seriously beat up..........no Leveon Bell, Antonio Brown also out from the Burfict hit and Roethlisberger was a gametime decision........that was essentially a bye week........and the Pats stumbled to the finish........even Rex D held Brady in check in their second meeting, without Gronk and Edelman and with a porous OL.

 

The truth? The truth is that they were punchless on offense and HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they go thru that gauntlet if Pitt and NE were healthy.

 

No, they played excellent against the Pats too. Twice.

 

The Pats had Brady, Gronk and Edelman all healthy in the postseason, and they got beat worse than when they played the Brocketship in the regular season with those guys missing. That Broncos team stopped playing offense in the third quarter of the AFCCG and still won that game. Ridiculous to say they got "lucky."

 

The Pats would have been "unlikely" to have beaten the Broncos if Peyton was in 2014 or 2013 form too. They got the opportunity to face an anemic offense and lost straight up.

 

 

FWIW......we were having this discussion in another thread.......the Pats really struggled at the end of 2015 with Gronk and Edelman out.

 

Brady is generally regarded as THE BEST at making bad receivers look good but even he couldn't keep up the pace without both of his go-to's.

 

Taylor struggled this year with Watkins and Woods injured but looked like a different QB with them healthy.......heck just having Sammy ACTIVE made a big difference on his ypa......receiving talent matters to all QB's.

 

And the Bills had very little of it and EJ was coming off a "decent" 2013 rookie season.....getting him a go-to was important........and it's not like he was playing as bad in all of 2013 as he did early in 2014.

The Pats struggled at the end of 2015, but got healthy for the postseason. Gronk put up 250+ yards and 3 TD's in the postseason. Edelman had 10 catches for 100 yards versus KC the week before.

 

The argument that the Pats lost in the playoffs because of lack of health is ludicrous.

That's all I was looking for

 

As far as Carr? Early to tell, no? Would you be happy with him if he only takes a team to the playoffs once? I wouldn't. So then we'd probably start harping on the GM again, if that were the case. The 'replace the GM counter' resetting at each playoff appearance?

 

I know I'm in the minority in thinking that a mid level QB is 'good enough' to get a team to the playoffs and even a Superbowl victory, and since I'm in the minority, that means I'm likely the stupid one. Ideally I'd love to have a 'hall of fame' QB or 'top 10 qb' or whatever term suits you, since that's the more sure-fire way of getting to our goals. But I simply think it's easier said than done, so I'm not sure how angry I'm supposed to be at a GM failing in that regard (hence the question). As it is, most of the top 10 QBs in the league right now are on the older side.

Too early to tell? Yes. Do I like his odds of being the 10 year starter in Oakland? Yes. If his last 3 years were on the Bills, would I be calling for Whaley's head? Absolutely not.

 

The stupid question you keep posing is not valid. It's never been "Whaley needs to find a HoF QB or he sucks and should be fired." It's been that Whaley routinely passes on upper QB prospects when we don't have a clear cut guy on the roster. It's not that he hasn't found a guy in 3 years. It's that he does not try enough.

 

Do you not yet understand that Whaley has only drafted 1 QB in the first 3 rounds in 4 seasons? Like come on dude. Are we that stable at QB? The Raiders took Cook in the fourth round and they had plenty of reasons to be hopeful with Carr for Christssake. If you think Whaley has tried his best to find a QB, you are clearly content with mediocrity for eternity.

 

Imagine if we went into the 2017 training camp with Chase Daniels, Cardale, and Aaron Murray at QB. That's what we did in 2015. How is that even remotely acceptable?

Edited February 20, 2017 by FireChan

[Rocky Landing]

I have no desire to look superior, and fully acknowledge that I'm an uneducated idiot on most topics.

 

The general consensus of this forum tends to lean towards the need of a top 10 QB in order to carry this team to the playoffs/superbowl. You say what metrics? And gave examples, and I said 'yes' meaning all of the ones you listed.

 

So again, how long do you (not specifically you, but anyone who wants to answer) give a GM before they find a QB that can carry the team to the playoffs/superbowl, put up top 10 QB numbers, etc?

 

For *me* personally, I'm 'fine' with a middle of the road QB (which I consider Tyrod) as long as the rest of the team is strong (meaning a good defense, good running game, and good coaching).

 

I feel like it's a pretty simple question for those who require a certain performance metric. 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? What's a realistic time frame to get an elite QB?

Personally, I wouldn't put a number on this, because it really depends on who is available. And, as should be obvious to everyone, there ain't much available at the moment. (Hence, a discussion on the wisdom of acquiring Nick Foles.) I think the mistake is to scrap a team's current middling QB in search of a diamond in the rough. I don't fault anyone for the EJ pick-- it was a relatively low-risk pick, as first round picks go. We traded down for him, and he certainly, at the time, seemed to have potential to become something special. And, the idea of holding on to Fitz was a non-starter. But, it was the lack of Fitz (or even Trent Edwards, for that matter) that made the EJ pick so risky. Coming out of the draft without an established starting QB, even with one of those rare, superstar draft picks, like Andrew Luck (or RGIII!!!, remember his prognosis?) is shaky ground, indeed.

 

We should keep Taylor, and stop looking for other, equally mediocre QBs to replace him. Draft a QB high, keep developing Cardale, and move forward.

[GunnerBill]

The Raiders took Cook in the second rnd and they had plenty of reasons to be hopeful with Carr for Christssake. If you think Whaley has tried his best to find a QB, you are clearly content with mediocrity for eternity.

 

Imagine if we went into the 2017 training camp with Chase Daniels, Cardale, and Aaron Murray at QB. That's what we did in 2015. How is that even remotely acceptable?

The Raiders took Cook in the 4th not the 2nd.

[Dorkington]

No, they played excellent against the Pats too. Twice.

 

The Pats had Brady, Gronk and Edelman all healthy in the postseason, and they got beat worse than when they played the Brocketship in the regular season with those guys missing. That Broncos team stopped playing offense in the third quarter of the AFCCG and still won that game. Ridiculous to say they got "lucky."

 

The Pats would have been "unlikely" to have beaten the Broncos if Peyton was in 2014 or 2013 form too. They got the opportunity to face an anemic offense and lost straight up.

 

The Pats struggled at the end of 2015, but got healthy for the postseason. Gronk put up 250+ yards and 3 TD's in the postseason. Edelman had 10 catches for 100 yards versus KC the week before.

 

The argument that the Pats lost in the playoffs because of lack of health is ludicrous.

Too early to tell? Yes. Do I like his odds of being the 10 year starter in Oakland? Yes. If his last 3 years were on the Bills, would I be calling for Whaley's head? Absolutely not.

 

The stupid question you keep posing is not valid. It's never been "Whaley needs to find a HoF QB or he sucks and should be fired." It's been that Whaley routinely passes on upper QB prospects when we don't have a clear cut guy on the roster. It's not that he hasn't found a guy in 3 years. It's that he does not try enough.

 

Do you not yet understand that Whaley has only drafted 1 QB in the first 3 rounds in 4 seasons? Like come on dude. Are we that stable at QB? The Raiders took Cook in the second round and they had plenty of reasons to be hopeful with Carr for Christssake. If you think Whaley has tried his best to find a QB, you are clearly content with mediocrity for eternity.

 

Imagine if we went into the 2017 offseason with Chase Daniels, Cardale, and Aaron Murray at QB. That's what we did in 2015. How is that even remotely acceptable?

 

We've had quite a few QBs come through, though most of them via free agency/trade. I'm not sure if taking shots at QBs in the draft is a luxury we had when we had holes to fill elsewhere and the immediate goal was a playoff appearance. I suppose that's an argument to be had 'Would you rather get a play off appearance or two sooner, or would you rather focus on being a consistent participant at an unknown future date?'

 

So far we've approached the QB situation with getting a vet that's available to us, and having one or two young guys in development

 

2013: Kolb (vet)/EJ (developmental)/Tuel (developmental)

2014: Orton (vet)/EJ (developmental)

2015: Cassel (vet)/Tyrod (developmental)/EJ (developmental)

2016: Tyrod (vet)/EJ (vet)/Cardale (developmental)

 

I do agree, that in either 2014 or 2015 we should have taken another shot at someone, but IMO probably not early in the draft. Also, I'm not sure who was available to us after Kolb got injured, but ideally another vet should have been brought in. Also the lack of QB coach in 2013 was stupid.

 

I don't know what the answers are, I have certain beliefs, but again, I'm kind of an idiot. This is why I pose questions, even if they are 'stupid'. I have no idea if taking a QB early in every draft would net us a long term guy, or if it'd just screw with development and near term success. I'm open to ideas, because clearly what we've been doing for 17 years has not been working.

[FireChan]

The Raiders took Cook in the 4th not the 2nd.

You're right.

 

Whoops.

 

We've had quite a few QBs come through, though most of them via free agency/trade. I'm not sure if taking shots at QBs in the draft is a luxury we had when we had holes to fill elsewhere and the immediate goal was a playoff appearance. I suppose that's an argument to be had 'Would you rather get a play off appearance or two sooner, or would you rather focus on being a consistent participant at an unknown future date?'

 

So far we've approached the QB situation with getting a vet that's available to us, and having one or two young guys in development

 

2013: Kolb (vet)/EJ (developmental)/Tuel (developmental)

2014: Orton (vet)/EJ (developmental)

2015: Cassel (vet)/Tyrod (developmental)/EJ (developmental)

2016: Tyrod (vet)/EJ (vet)/Cardale (developmental)

 

I do agree, that in either 2014 or 2015 we should have taken another shot at someone, but IMO probably not early in the draft. Also, I'm not sure who was available to us after Kolb got injured, but ideally another vet should have been brought in. Also the lack of QB coach in 2013 was stupid.

 

I don't know what the answers are, I have certain beliefs, but again, I'm kind of an idiot. This is why I pose questions, even if they are 'stupid'. I have no idea if taking a QB early in every draft would net us a long term guy, or if it'd just screw with development and near term success. I'm open to ideas, because clearly what we've been doing for 17 years has not been working.

Most QB's who are available through FA or trade are because they aren't that good. There are notable exceptions, but most of them are available because they've proven to not be good enough.

 

Not all developmental QB's are the same. A 26 year old 5 year vet is barely a "developmental" QB. Jeff Tuel didn't have the same odds of succeeding as Cardale. This franchise obviously is gun shy of devoting any kind of significant resource to the QB position. What have we spent, in terms of draft picks/assets and money on QB's since 2013? A 1st, a 4th, a 5th and a 7th and about 10 vet minimum contracts. That's ridiculous. It's ridiculous to pretend bringing in Matt Cassel/Kevin Kolb/Jordan Palmer/Jeff Tuel/TT/Thad Lewis is anything but basement bargain shopping.

 

If you don't want to take a guy every year, fine. I disagree, but if you aren't using your first round or second round pick on a QB every 3 years when you don't have "the guy," I have to honestly wonder if you deserve a job in the modern NFL.

[BADOLBILZ]

No, they played excellent against the Pats too. Twice.

 

The Pats had Brady, Gronk and Edelman all healthy in the postseason, and they got beat worse than when they played the Brocketship in the regular season with those guys missing. That Broncos team stopped playing offense in the third quarter of the AFCCG and still won that game. Ridiculous to say they got "lucky."

 

The Pats would have been "unlikely" to have beaten the Broncos if Peyton was in 2014 or 2013 form too. They got the opportunity to face an anemic offense and lost straight up.

 

The Pats struggled at the end of 2015, but got healthy for the postseason. Gronk put up 250+ yards and 3 TD's in the postseason. Edelman had 10 catches for 100 yards versus KC the week before.

 

The argument that the Pats lost in the playoffs because of lack of health is ludicrous.

Too early to tell? Yes. Do I like his odds of being the 10 year starter in Oakland? Yes. If his last 3 years were on the Bills, would I be calling for Whaley's head? Absolutely not.

 

The stupid question you keep posing is not valid. It's never been "Whaley needs to find a HoF QB or he sucks and should be fired." It's been that Whaley routinely passes on upper QB prospects when we don't have a clear cut guy on the roster. It's not that he hasn't found a guy in 3 years. It's that he does not try enough.

 

Do you not yet understand that Whaley has only drafted 1 QB in the first 3 rounds in 4 seasons? Like come on dude. Are we that stable at QB? The Raiders took Cook in the fourth round and they had plenty of reasons to be hopeful with Carr for Christssake. If you think Whaley has tried his best to find a QB, you are clearly content with mediocrity for eternity.

 

Imagine if we went into the 2017 training camp with Chase Daniels, Cardale, and Aaron Murray at QB. That's what we did in 2015. How is that even remotely acceptable?

 

I'm not going to argue with you........Pats were cruising to homefield advantage before the injuries........less than great teams can win a SB with some luck.

 

This year even the Pats caught a break when Derek Carr got injured........otherwise it might have been an AFC Championship game against a rested Raiders team in Oakland rather than against a worn down Steelers team........same goes for Falcons drawing a tired GB team.

[FireChan]

 

I'm not going to argue with you........Pats were cruising to homefield advantage before the injuries........less than great teams can win a SB with some luck.

 

This year even the Pats caught a break when Derek Carr got injured........otherwise it might have been an AFC Championship game against a rested Raiders team in Oakland rather than against a worn down Steelers team........same goes for Falcons drawing a tired GB team.

You know what they say, BADOL. The better you are, the luckier you get