October 17, 201114 yr History doesn't lie. The NFL is obviously now more of a passing league than ever. There have been some very very good rushing QBs and how many super bowls do they have to their name? Convince me I am wrong if it's a terrible argument. I wasn't arguing for or against Dalton or Cam, I was talking about in general. I think its a terrible arguement because of the pool that you have to pull from. Currently there are 2 good rushing QBs for the most part (I don't consider McNabb one because he just doesn't have the legs as much, but let's just say 3 then for the arguement). The percentage of rushing QB's is so small, that of course it makes it much less likely that one wins a Super Bowl. Maybe this is a stretch, but you could probably say that you shouldn't have a left handed quarterback since only 3 have even started in a Super Bowl (Stabler, Esaison, and Young).
October 17, 201114 yr I think its a terrible arguement because of the pool that you have to pull from. Currently there are 2 good rushing QBs for the most part (I don't consider McNabb one because he just doesn't have the legs as much, but let's just say 3 then for the arguement). The percentage of rushing QB's is so small, that of course it makes it much less likely that one wins a Super Bowl. Maybe this is a stretch, but you could probably say that you shouldn't have a left handed quarterback since only 3 have even started in a Super Bowl (Stabler, Esaison, and Young). I am failing to see how I am wrong? People don't do it because typically it's not that successful. You don't put a 6'3 guy at center because usually they don't excel. You don't play a rushing QB because typically the results of a pocket passer are better.
October 17, 201114 yr Author I think its a terrible arguement because of the pool that you have to pull from. Currently there are 2 good rushing QBs for the most part (I don't consider McNabb one because he just doesn't have the legs as much, but let's just say 3 then for the arguement). The percentage of rushing QB's is so small, that of course it makes it much less likely that one wins a Super Bowl. Maybe this is a stretch, but you could probably say that you shouldn't have a left handed quarterback since only 3 have even started in a Super Bowl (Stabler, Esaison, and Young). You don't think there's a reason there's been so few rushing QBs in the league? It's because it overwhelmingly doesn't work.
October 17, 201114 yr Colin likely didn't elaborate much. I'm sure he just gave his opinion, re-stated it about 5 times with different words and left it at that. Something to consider... Both teams have played Jacksonville, although Cam's game against the Jags was in a monsoon. The Panthers have faced Chicago and Green Bay, the Bengals have played San Francisco. Those are the good defenses they've faced. Cam has had his team in the Red Zone 22 times through 5 games. The end result is this, followed by Cam's stats in the red zone: 10 TD 8 FG/9 FGA 2 Int 1 TO on Downs 12/32, 100 yards, 4 TD/2 Int (17 rush, 59 yards, 5 TD) Dalton has had the Bengals in the Red Zone 17 times. Here's his results: 8 TD 7 FG 1 TO on downs 1 End of game 16/27, 130 yards, 5 TD/0 Int (3 rush, 2 yards, TD) The only two times the Bengals haven't scored, they were running the clock out. One they got stopped on downs and the other they kneeled three times. Both of Cam's picks came against Atlanta, and the last one was meaningless on the last play with the Panthers down 14. TD percentage is the big thing in the red zone and there's not much difference. 8/17 (47.1%) for Dalton, 10/22 (45.5%) for Newton. Dalton's passing stats are better, but you can't just throw out Newton's 5 rushing TD's like they don't count. Getting in the end zone is what matters...how you get there doesn't. You could also point out that Newton has given his team more chances down close. I'm a big fan of Dalton, but I'm not buying Colin's assertion this time. The numbers don't back it up. Both guys have been very good for rookie QB's. And, while I dismiss the schedule as pretty much a wash with regards to the defenses they faced, that's not true with regards to wins and losses. Carolina has faced better teams and better offenses (4 playoff teams from a year ago with a combined record of 16-8 this year, none worse than .500). Cincy has faced only one playoff team from a year ago, the 0-6 Colts:D, but to be fair, Buffalo and San Francisco are tough teams this season. Their non-Jacksonville opponents are a combined 10-13.
October 17, 201114 yr I would take QB A based on those stats because of the INT's. Turnovers are the most important stats in football. I actually thought Dalton had thrown fewer than 5 INT's. Regardless, take the QB with half as many INT's. Second of all, TD's vs INT's is a good stat to measure a QB by and Dalton wins that stat.
October 17, 201114 yr Yes, and better completion % for QB A. I just figured that the INTs weren't the QBs fault. They aren't in Cincinnati:D
October 17, 201114 yr Author I just figured that the INTs weren't the QBs fault. They aren't in Cincinnati:D I don't know who's more obsessed with CP9, you or FC. :lol:
October 17, 201114 yr I think its a terrible arguement because of the pool that you have to pull from. Currently there are 2 good rushing QBs for the most part (I don't consider McNabb one because he just doesn't have the legs as much, but let's just say 3 then for the arguement). The percentage of rushing QB's is so small, that of course it makes it much less likely that one wins a Super Bowl. Maybe this is a stretch, but you could probably say that you shouldn't have a left handed quarterback since only 3 have even started in a Super Bowl (Stabler, Esaison, and Young). OK, your a GM and have to start a team. You get to pick one of the following as your QB. All are in their prime... Brady Vick McNabb McNair Who you got?
October 17, 201114 yr OK, your a GM and have to start a team. You get to pick one of the following as your QB. All are in their prime... Brady Vick McNabb McNair Who you got? That doesn't do a very good job of making your point. I could easily substitute Rex Grossman for The Brady and while you'd have the same premise the answers would be markedly different.
October 17, 201114 yr That doesn't do a very good job of making your point. I could easily substitute Rex Grossman for The Brady and while you'd have the same premise the answers would be markedly different. Other than he was taking the top tier from the runners and top tier from the passers.
October 17, 201114 yr Author That doesn't do a very good job of making your point. I could easily substitute Rex Grossman for The Brady and while you'd have the same premise the answers would be markedly different. I think his point is you can put the best of the best "mobile QBs" up against the best of the best traditional QBs and no one would ever take the mobile guys. At least not if they were trying to win. Substitute Brady for Big Ben, Brees, Rodgers, heck even Matt Ryan and Eli and the answer to me doesn't change. I'm taking the traditional QB every time.
October 17, 201114 yr I think his point is you can put the best of the best "mobile QBs" up against the best of the best traditional QBs and no one would ever take the mobile guys. At least not if they were trying to win. Substitute Brady for Big Ben, Brees, Rodgers, heck even Matt Ryan and Eli and the answer to me doesn't change. I'm taking the traditional QB every time.I'm leaning towards McNair over all of them except The Brady...
October 17, 201114 yr So, McNabb wasn't as successful as a pocket passer, but did he still not lead his team (without great or even good WRs except for the one year he had TO...and even then he missed a decent amount of games) to 4 straight NFC Championships and a Super Bowl? I'd say the Eagles did pretty solid those years with a mobile QB. I don't think you can base it just on Super Bowl titles.
October 17, 201114 yr Other than he was taking the top tier from the runners and top tier from the passers.He took the best QB in the league, period vs the top 3 "runners". If you expand the "passers" out to some of the guys that UKMF talks about then I think you start to see McNair get picked and maybe even some Vick picks as well. The way the grouping was done lends itself to a "less is more" type of thing. Where just showcasing the best QB in the league helps the cause more than if you add other "passers".
October 17, 201114 yr Not that it really adds to the arguement... But the QB who holds the record for most consecutive completions (24) was a mobile QB. So was the first QB to ever throw for 30+ TD's with less than 10 INT's in a year. Both took place in the 2004 season.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.