Recruiting Football Talk VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still at 11.5 on FanDuel. It was down to 10.5 earlier today tho. Very interesting
it's at 12.5 on DK and I'm guessing all the others will move up too.

It's very strange.

Winning by 2 TD's would mean that we played a complete game and dominated them. Will this be the game that we DON'T have a bad quarter? I hope so! Just hard to trust us to put it all together given what we've seen.

I would be immensely happy putting Beamer away by 2+ TD
 

but everyone thinks Zach Arnett was God's gift to defensive coaching and Banks is garbage. How can this be?

Miss State got torched by both USC (430) and LSU (+500). Vols haven't really been "torched" by anyone yet. We actually had more yards than UF and UF only had ~350 total yards. South Carolina got torched by MSU (+500), Georgia (450), and UNC (440).

We've held teams to 200 yds and none more than 350. Averaging like 300yds a game.

South Carolina allowed 320 to Furman...
 
No, a scrub QB cannot win a SB. You don't have to go to the absolute extreme though. A good qb (Wilson, Flacco, Foles, Dilfer, Manning in Denver wasn't elite anymore) behind a great OL and defense can be successful. Look at San Fran. You think Purdy is really that elite? Or is the team around him making him look really good?

There's a reason Brady took a lot less than max money in New England. He knew he couldn't be the GOAT without money to pay for OL.
A scrub QB doesn’t GET you to the conference championship game…much less a SB. And for a merely good one to get you there? Then you need a generational defense for a one-off. And that hasn’t happened for quite awhile. We’re talking about building a team and no Purdy isn’t elite…yet. Neither was Brady when the Pats won their first. Belichick took that job after failing in Cleveland because Kosar was pretty much done and he never found a QB to win for him. In Foxboro, he had Drew Bledsoe already established so he was able to take flyers on a guy like Brady. That peace of mind allows you to build and develop a suitable core and when you identify your guy, you maintain and adjust that surrounding cast. Won six SB with Brady. Who ELSE from that “built” team collected all five other rings? And funny you mention Peyton in his last hurrah with a generational defense that carried him to his second ring. A couple of years after setting records, he’s hurt and Brock Osweiler is getting it done week to week, but they NEED a win against the Raiders and their starter isn’t getting it done. In comes Peyton and he does JUST ENOUGH to get them into the playoffs and to the SB. We know what happened AFTER they got there but why did that team that only lost Peyton implode in every year afterwards…never to return? Already BUILT…just needed to get a QB. Easy enough? And I think we glimpsed how vital a QB who could do the job was needed when Purdy went out…total 180 in game result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knoxvol52
No, Need the elder crew of 65+ to stay at home… likewise fewer children as well need to be at the game. Max out the 15-60 population and you’ll get the max potential. Neyland suites people in those west and east chairbacks took out a huge chunk of that demographic and replaced them with mostly country club fans. That’s why I always sit near the student section or up top in PP. Was told to sit down on the opposite end so I’ll never sit over there again.
All hands on deck!
 
No, top draft pick does not determine it. Great has nothing to do with accomplishment (in this argument anyway). It's just talent. A super great amazingly talented QB will fail on a bad team. Top draft pick is a fairly decent correlation for talent. Not perfect, but certainly not completely uncorrelated.

Stafford is the best example probably, he's a very talented QB. Doesn't accomplish anything (by your definition not great, but great by my definition) on a bad Detroit team, but gets on a good team and wins it all (even though he was way past his prime).

It's just discussion man, no need to get all "I'm done here you're just trying to find an argument."

Yeah good example in Stafford. I mean I'm done as in not much else to discuss. I think the original point was just that it makes sense to pay a great QB and I agree with that and with how rookie deals are structured every good GM can now risk a top draft pick on more borderline QBs than ever before because of what you've said. Land a good QB on a great team and you're set it's why Russell Wilson has made the SB, he's still a great QB even in Denver but it's obvious he's on a bad team (not even good).

Great QB on bad team = good luck
Great QB on good team = you're always in the mix
Great QB on great team = dynasty
Bad QB on great team = good luck

But because a QB is a single position GMs and teams will ALWAYS risk it. Jets did in Rodgers, Bucs did in Brady, Denver did in Peyton, Indy did in Rivers THEN Ryan hell Chiefs did in Montana... all those did workout (excluding Rodgers, but no one can predict injuries) to some extent for the teams who paid the great QB to take their good team to the next level.
 
I know everyone wants to talk about SCAR but what's the thought on AM kick time?
I'm hoping for 7, wouldn't be too mad at 330, just don't want noon.
 
A scrub QB doesn’t GET you to the conference championship game…much less a SB. And for a merely good one to get you there? Then you need a generational defense for a one-off. And that hasn’t happened for quite awhile. We’re talking about building a team and no Purdy isn’t elite…yet. Neither was Brady when the Pats won their first. Belichick took that job after failing in Cleveland because Kosar was pretty much done and he never found a QB to win for him. In Foxboro, he had Drew Bledsoe already established so he was able to take flyers on a guy like Brady. That peace of mind allows you to build and develop a suitable core and when you identify your guy, you maintain and adjust that surrounding cast. Won six SB with Brady. Who ELSE from that “built” team collected all five other rings? And funny you mention Peyton in his last hurrah with a generational defense that carried him to his second ring. A couple of years after setting records, he’s hurt and Brock Osweiler is getting it done week to week, but they NEED a win against the Raiders and their starter isn’t getting it done. In comes Peyton and he does JUST ENOUGH to get them into the playoffs and to the SB. We know what happened AFTER they got there but why did that team that only lost Peyton implode in every year afterwards…never to return? Already BUILT…just needed to get a QB. Easy enough? And I think we glimpsed how vital a QB who could do the job was needed when Purdy went out…total 180 in game result.
Flacco and Dilfer were on defensive driven teams, Wilson was somewhat though he was a better QB than other previous 2 mentioned.....throw Brad Johnson in there as well...
 
Does anyone know what Cam Seldon was doing on that punt???

Did he not know the rules? Why would he try to touch it?
From my vantage point it looked like he thought it had been touched already and tried to recover it, or he thought that since it was blocked that someone on the return team had to touch it
 
I don't think I ever said a scrub QB could win, so the goalposts are unmoved. How many first round QB picks have failed? You really think ALL of them were bad, or was it maybe that their GM incorrectly believed a great QB could carry a bad team?

Those qb were not ever great (except manning of course, but I don't think even the most biased Tennessee fan would credit Manning more than the rest of the team for that Denver win), they looked great because of the team around them. We all saw how different they looked once the team around them wasn't as good. You think they just got bad all of a sudden? You think Wilson and Dilfer and Flacco and Foles forgot how to play QB? They didn't change, the team around them did.
Why didn’t Osweiler and subsequent QBs “look great” after Peyton was gone? Everything else was there! And the argument has never been that elite QBs can make SCRUB TEAMS SB contenders…that’s dishonest. But you when you HAVE a contender, you don’t win when it counts if your QB is outclassed by the other team’s guy. You can have the best OL and defense but if your QB doesn’t at least keep pace…it’s all for naught.
 
Posters on here acting like USCe has looked awesome or something.

They have not.
People are focused on:
1. Rattler and his WRs have looked great this season.
2. He killed us last year.
3. Our secondary still doesn’t seem like it can cover anyone.

All the other aspects of the game (where we appear to have advantages) are being overlooked. And it’s hard to blame them, because it worries me too.
 
Last edited:


spinal-tap-numbers-go-to11.gif
 
Flacco and Dilfer were on defensive driven teams, Wilson was somewhat though he was a better QB than other previous 2 mentioned.....throw Brad Johnson in there as well...
Yes…one offs! And Flacco counts as an established QB. First rounder who made the plays. Had to for them to beat Peyton and Denver and beat a prime Kaepernick and San Francisco. Try to do the Dilfer model nowadays with the litany of elite duelists out there. Why not cite Brian Griese and the undefeated Dolphins if we’re throwing modern science out the window? 😎
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top