[DC 86]

Look, there are some QBs that stand out from the rest.  We all know who they are.  Then there is the great mass of QBs whose success or failure depends on a variety of factors, most notably opportunity, coaching/scheme, and teammates' abilities.  Tua is no great shakes.  And is no greater shakes than Book or any number of other QBs in the "great mass."  That is the fundamental point.

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. I gave my evidence for why Tua also belongs in this group: #9 in QBR this year among all quarterbacks, 12-7 career record. I also gave my evidence for why Book doesn't belong in this group at the moment: one of the foremost offensive coaches in the league not playing him until he literally had no-one else on the roster, his horrible performance the only time we've seen him play, his obvious physical limitations. Your only argument for why Book belongs in this tier of quarterbacks has been that "he's a gamer".

Tua has gotten opportunities that Book hasn't. Why? Tua was the H-man trophy runner up, consensus first team All America, SEC offensive player of the year, Maxwell award winner, Walter Comp award winner, Sporting News college football player of the year, Orange Bowl MVP and came off the bench trailing by 13 points and led his team to the national championship. Book was third team all-ACC, never an All America. So Tua was drafted higher and has gotten his opportunity on merit and demonstrated potential, not as a result of randomness as you seem to imply.

You may have the last word, but it would be interesting if you could present tangible evidence on Book's behalf, rather than "he's a gamer and I just know in my heart that he's as good as twenty NFL starters at the moment, and this is why I see something in him that Sean Payton has missed."

[DC 86]

Look, there are some QBs that stand out from the rest.  We all know who they are.  Then there is the great mass of QBs whose success or failure depends on a variety of factors, most notably opportunity, coaching/scheme, and teammates' abilities.  Tua is no great shakes.  And is no greater shakes than Book or any number of other QBs in the "great mass."  That is the fundamental point.

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. I gave my evidence for why Tua also belongs in this group: #9 in QBR this year among all quarterbacks, 12-7 career record. I also gave my evidence for why Book doesn't belong in this group at the moment: one of the foremost offensive coaches in the league not playing him until he literally had no-one else on the roster, his horrible performance the only time we've seen him play, his obvious physical limitations. Your only argument for why Book belongs in this tier of quarterbacks has been that "he's a gamer".

Tua has gotten opportunities that Book hasn't. Why? Tua was the H-man trophy runner up, consensus first team All America, SEC offensive player of the year, Maxwell award winner, Walter Comp award winner, Sporting News college football player of the year, Orange Bowl MVP and came off the bench trailing by 13 points and led his team to the national championship. Book was third team all-ACC, never an All America. So Tua was drafted higher and has gotten his opportunity on merit and demonstrated potential, not as a result of randomness as you seem to imply.

You may have the last word, but it would be interesting if you could present tangible evidence on Book's behalf, rather than "he's a gamer and I just know in my heart that he's as good as twenty NFL starters at the moment, and this is why I see something in him that Sean Payton has missed."

[lex24]

Jimmy has handled the situation about as well as anybody could. Wherever he goes I’ll root for him. Still think Lance won’t survive 17 games next year and the Niners will be up the Salinas River without a paddle.

Agree completely that JG has handled this extremely well. I suspect Niners will look for a veteran back-up. Not so easy to find on the cheap…

[lex24]

Jimmy has handled the situation about as well as anybody could. Wherever he goes I’ll root for him. Still think Lance won’t survive 17 games next year and the Niners will be up the Salinas River without a paddle.

Agree completely that JG has handled this extremely well. I suspect Niners will look for a veteran back-up. Not so easy to find on the cheap…

[Phogge]

Grade 3 sprain. Could play Sunday.

[Phogge]

Grade 3 sprain. Could play Sunday.

[lex24]

Grade 3 sprain. Could play Sunday.

Well, that’s interesting.  Question - can you screw up a QB situation any more than Shanahan has?  Oh gawd, here it comes……. :)

[lex24]

Grade 3 sprain. Could play Sunday.

Well, that’s interesting.  Question - can you screw up a QB situation any more than Shanahan has?  Oh gawd, here it comes……. :)

[Phogge]

They can call him questionable and the Texans have to prepare for both guys.

[Phogge]

They can call him questionable and the Texans have to prepare for both guys.

[Goose]

They can call him questionable and the Texans have to prepare for both guys.

I think you are correct. It sounds to me like he can't actually play, but if a doubt exists, the Texans have to prepare for both. Probably not a big problem for them, but every little bit may help.

[Goose]

They can call him questionable and the Texans have to prepare for both guys.

I think you are correct. It sounds to me like he can't actually play, but if a doubt exists, the Texans have to prepare for both. Probably not a big problem for them, but every little bit may help.

[teejers1]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. I gave my evidence for why Tua also belongs in this group: #9 in QBR this year among all quarterbacks, 12-7 career record. I also gave my evidence for why Book doesn't belong in this group at the moment: one of the foremost offensive coaches in the league not playing him until he literally had no-one else on the roster, his horrible performance the only time we've seen him play, his obvious physical limitations. Your only argument for why Book belongs in this tier of quarterbacks has been that "he's a gamer".

. . .

You may have the last word, but it would be interesting if you could present tangible evidence on Book's behalf, rather than "he's a gamer and I just know in my heart that he's as good as twenty NFL starters at the moment, and this is why I see something in him that Sean Payton has missed."

My last word:  I cannot give you anything more, as I have no "tangible evidence" - only gut feel from what my eyes tell me.  Kind of like my belief all along, from the eye test, that Shaw is not a good (let alone great) college football coach.  [That little detour was for Lex!]. And btw, I don't think Book is as good as 20 NFL starters at the moment, merely that he would be comparable to Tua, if given the same opportunity.

[teejers1]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. I gave my evidence for why Tua also belongs in this group: #9 in QBR this year among all quarterbacks, 12-7 career record. I also gave my evidence for why Book doesn't belong in this group at the moment: one of the foremost offensive coaches in the league not playing him until he literally had no-one else on the roster, his horrible performance the only time we've seen him play, his obvious physical limitations. Your only argument for why Book belongs in this tier of quarterbacks has been that "he's a gamer".

. . .

You may have the last word, but it would be interesting if you could present tangible evidence on Book's behalf, rather than "he's a gamer and I just know in my heart that he's as good as twenty NFL starters at the moment, and this is why I see something in him that Sean Payton has missed."

My last word:  I cannot give you anything more, as I have no "tangible evidence" - only gut feel from what my eyes tell me.  Kind of like my belief all along, from the eye test, that Shaw is not a good (let alone great) college football coach.  [That little detour was for Lex!]. And btw, I don't think Book is as good as 20 NFL starters at the moment, merely that he would be comparable to Tua, if given the same opportunity.

[lex24]

MLB is televising classic WS games. Buddy of mine texted me last night that 2014 Game 7 was on.  Taped last 5 innings.  

You know what a big MadBum fan I am.  He may be done now.  But 2014 was unreal.  270 innings that year.  In Game 7, he went 5 on two days rest. Having already thrown a ton of post season innings.  Got fortunate early, gave up hit to first guy he faced.  Then Aoki slashed one to left that could have tied it.  But the Giants had him defensed correctly.

After the lead off single put down 14 straight.  Then the Gordon debacle.  Thank goodness for Crawford. Came up with short hop and his reputation held Gordon.  

Faced Salvador Perez.  Not the hitter then that he is now.  But still dangerous.  And homered off Bum earlier in the series - the only run Bum has surrender in his WS career.  He threw him 6 high fastballs.   

It’s worth a watch if they play it again. 

The end of the most amazing athletic feat I’ve witnessed.

[lex24]

MLB is televising classic WS games. Buddy of mine texted me last night that 2014 Game 7 was on.  Taped last 5 innings.  

You know what a big MadBum fan I am.  He may be done now.  But 2014 was unreal.  270 innings that year.  In Game 7, he went 5 on two days rest. Having already thrown a ton of post season innings.  Got fortunate early, gave up hit to first guy he faced.  Then Aoki slashed one to left that could have tied it.  But the Giants had him defensed correctly.

After the lead off single put down 14 straight.  Then the Gordon debacle.  Thank goodness for Crawford. Came up with short hop and his reputation held Gordon.  

Faced Salvador Perez.  Not the hitter then that he is now.  But still dangerous.  And homered off Bum earlier in the series - the only run Bum has surrender in his WS career.  He threw him 6 high fastballs.   

It’s worth a watch if they play it again. 

The end of the most amazing athletic feat I’ve witnessed.

[Mick]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

[Mick]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

[82lsju]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

[82lsju]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

[lex24]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

Depends on your definition of “dependent”.   Personally, I think there  are some QB’s that are system  dependent (Drew Brees and Lamar Jackson to give two extremes) others that would thrive in any system (Mahomes and Elway come to mind). Obviously, any is going to win and achieve more with a better supporting cast and system.  There is a reason, for example, that Elway’s Denver teams got trashed in his first three SB’s and won his last two.  

But I am talking about QBs that have the talent etc to be starting NFL QBs. And those are few and far between.  With few exceptions, there is a h. u. g. e. drop off between starting QB’s and their back ups.  It’s not just opportunity.  It’s ability.

---

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

Yes.  And no.  Montana had brilliant skills.  Extremely accurate .  Tremendous vision.  Mobile.   Great feet.  And as cool under pressure as they come.  He didn’t have a big arm (as opposed to Bradshaw).  

Im fairly certain that he would have been a very good to great QB anywhere he played. Would he have been a 4 time SB champ and one of the top 3 QB’s in history had he been drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Probably not.  

It’s the Aaron Rodgers thing that I bring up occasionally. By that I mean his whining about getting passed over by the Niners. Which was the best thing that could have happened to him. Rodgers has incredible talent. Accurate. Great arm. Mobile. He’s got all the tools. But what would his career have been like had the Niners drafted him. 7 years. With 7 OC’s. Bad HC’s and getting the sh-t beat out of him. I still think he’d have been a very good to great QB. But not one of the greatest ever.

Then there is Plunkett. Perhaps the best example. He is, in many ways, wrongly remembered as the plucky guy with guile. Not pretty, but gutsy. Won two SBs. If you only saw him starting in his Raider days, you never really saw him.

Fact is, he was enormously talented. A gun for an arm. Accurate. Not pretty when he ran, but very effective. The greatest college QB in history at the time he graduated. H-Man. No 1 pick. And ROY with NE. A triple that I dont believe had been done up to that point. By the time he left NE he was shell shocked. I will never forget reading a quote from a long time NFL exec who said Plunkett got beaten up more badly than any QB he’d seen. Ever. I hated Chuck Fairbanks. What he did to Plunkett was damn near criminal.

Plunkett showed what he can do when he led the Raiders to two SB Championships with about 50% of his skill set available. Think of what he could have achieved had he started his career on a quality team.

So, yes.  Circumstances always matter.

[lex24]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

Depends on your definition of “dependent”.   Personally, I think there  are some QB’s that are system  dependent (Drew Brees and Lamar Jackson to give two extremes) others that would thrive in any system (Mahomes and Elway come to mind). Obviously, any is going to win and achieve more with a better supporting cast and system.  There is a reason, for example, that Elway’s Denver teams got trashed in his first three SB’s and won his last two.  

But I am talking about QBs that have the talent etc to be starting NFL QBs. And those are few and far between.  With few exceptions, there is a h. u. g. e. drop off between starting QB’s and their back ups.  It’s not just opportunity.  It’s ability.

---

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

Yes.  And no.  Montana had brilliant skills.  Extremely accurate .  Tremendous vision.  Mobile.   Great feet.  And as cool under pressure as they come.  He didn’t have a big arm (as opposed to Bradshaw).  

Im fairly certain that he would have been a very good to great QB anywhere he played. Would he have been a 4 time SB champ and one of the top 3 QB’s in history had he been drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Probably not.  

It’s the Aaron Rodgers thing that I bring up occasionally. By that I mean his whining about getting passed over by the Niners. Which was the best thing that could have happened to him. Rodgers has incredible talent. Accurate. Great arm. Mobile. He’s got all the tools. But what would his career have been like had the Niners drafted him. 7 years. With 7 OC’s. Bad HC’s and getting the sh-t beat out of him. I still think he’d have been a very good to great QB. But not one of the greatest ever.

Then there is Plunkett. Perhaps the best example. He is, in many ways, wrongly remembered as the plucky guy with guile. Not pretty, but gutsy. Won two SBs. If you only saw him starting in his Raider days, you never really saw him.

Fact is, he was enormously talented. A gun for an arm. Accurate. Not pretty when he ran, but very effective. The greatest college QB in history at the time he graduated. H-Man. No 1 pick. And ROY with NE. A triple that I dont believe had been done up to that point. By the time he left NE he was shell shocked. I will never forget reading a quote from a long time NFL exec who said Plunkett got beaten up more badly than any QB he’d seen. Ever. I hated Chuck Fairbanks. What he did to Plunkett was damn near criminal.

Plunkett showed what he can do when he led the Raiders to two SB Championships with about 50% of his skill set available. Think of what he could have achieved had he started his career on a quality team.

So, yes.  Circumstances always matter.

[teejers1]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

Depends on your definition of “dependent”.   Personally, I think there  are some QB’s that are system  dependent (Drew Brees and Lamar Jackson to give two extremes) others that would thrive in any system (Mahomes and Elway come to mind). Obviously, any is going to win and achieve more with a better supporting cast and system.  There is a reason, for example, that Elway’s Denver teams got trashed in his first three SB’s and won his last two.  

But I am talking about QBs that have the talent etc to be starting NFL QBs. And those are few and far between.  With few exceptions, there is a h. u. g. e. drop off between starting QB’s and their back ups.  It’s not just opportunity.  It’s ability.

---

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

Yes.  And no.  Montana had brilliant skills.  Extremely accurate .  Tremendous vision.  Mobile.   Great feet.  And as cool under pressure as they come.  He didn’t have a big arm (as opposed to Bradshaw).  

Im fairly certain that he would have been a very good to great QB anywhere he played. Would he have been a 4 time SB champ and one of the top 3 QB’s in history had he been drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Probably not.  

It’s the Aaron Rodgers thing that I bring up occasionally.  By that I mean his whining about getting passed over by the Niners.  Which was the best thing that could have happened to him.  Rodgers has incredible talent.  Accurate.  Great arm.  Mobile.  He’s got all the tools.  But what would his career have been like had the Niners drafted him.  7 years.  With 7 OC’s. Bad HC’s and getting the sh-t beat out of him.  I still think he’d have been a very good to great QB.  But not one of the greatest ever.

Then there is Plunkett.  Perhaps the best example.  He is, in many ways, wrongly remembered  as the plucky guy with guile.  Not pretty, but gutsy.  Won two SBs. If you only saw him starting in his Raider days, you never really saw him.

Fact is, he was enormously talented.  A gun for an arm.  Accurate.  Not pretty when he ran, but very effective.  The greatest college QB in history at the time he graduated. H-Man. No 1 pick. And ROY with NE.  A triple that I dont believe had been done up to that point. By the time he left NE he was shell shocked.  I will never forget reading a quote from a long time NFL exec who said Plunkett got beaten up more badly than any QB he’d seen.  Ever.  I hated Chuck Fairbanks.  What he did to Plunkett was damn near criminal. 

Plunkett showed what he can do when he led the Raiders to two SB Championships with about 50% of his skill set available.  Think of what he could have achieved had he started his career on a quality team. 

So, yes.  Circumstances always matter.

Another great post, Lex, you're on a roll!
What the Colts' brain trust did to Andrew Luck (trading #1 pick for a freaking used up RB?!? instead of protecting franchise player/asset?!?) was almost as bad as what the Pats did to Plunkett.  With even decent management (as opposed to incompetent), Luck would still be playing and contending for Super Bowls.  Damn shame.

[teejers1]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

Depends on your definition of “dependent”.   Personally, I think there  are some QB’s that are system  dependent (Drew Brees and Lamar Jackson to give two extremes) others that would thrive in any system (Mahomes and Elway come to mind). Obviously, any is going to win and achieve more with a better supporting cast and system.  There is a reason, for example, that Elway’s Denver teams got trashed in his first three SB’s and won his last two.  

But I am talking about QBs that have the talent etc to be starting NFL QBs. And those are few and far between.  With few exceptions, there is a h. u. g. e. drop off between starting QB’s and their back ups.  It’s not just opportunity.  It’s ability.

---

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

Yes.  And no.  Montana had brilliant skills.  Extremely accurate .  Tremendous vision.  Mobile.   Great feet.  And as cool under pressure as they come.  He didn’t have a big arm (as opposed to Bradshaw).  

Im fairly certain that he would have been a very good to great QB anywhere he played. Would he have been a 4 time SB champ and one of the top 3 QB’s in history had he been drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Probably not.  

It’s the Aaron Rodgers thing that I bring up occasionally.  By that I mean his whining about getting passed over by the Niners.  Which was the best thing that could have happened to him.  Rodgers has incredible talent.  Accurate.  Great arm.  Mobile.  He’s got all the tools.  But what would his career have been like had the Niners drafted him.  7 years.  With 7 OC’s. Bad HC’s and getting the sh-t beat out of him.  I still think he’d have been a very good to great QB.  But not one of the greatest ever.

Then there is Plunkett.  Perhaps the best example.  He is, in many ways, wrongly remembered  as the plucky guy with guile.  Not pretty, but gutsy.  Won two SBs. If you only saw him starting in his Raider days, you never really saw him.

Fact is, he was enormously talented.  A gun for an arm.  Accurate.  Not pretty when he ran, but very effective.  The greatest college QB in history at the time he graduated. H-Man. No 1 pick. And ROY with NE.  A triple that I dont believe had been done up to that point. By the time he left NE he was shell shocked.  I will never forget reading a quote from a long time NFL exec who said Plunkett got beaten up more badly than any QB he’d seen.  Ever.  I hated Chuck Fairbanks.  What he did to Plunkett was damn near criminal. 

Plunkett showed what he can do when he led the Raiders to two SB Championships with about 50% of his skill set available.  Think of what he could have achieved had he started his career on a quality team. 

So, yes.  Circumstances always matter.

Another great post, Lex, you're on a roll!
What the Colts' brain trust did to Andrew Luck (trading #1 pick for a freaking used up RB?!? instead of protecting franchise player/asset?!?) was almost as bad as what the Pats did to Plunkett.  With even decent management (as opposed to incompetent), Luck would still be playing and contending for Super Bowls.  Damn shame.

[lex24]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

Depends on your definition of “dependent”.   Personally, I think there  are some QB’s that are system  dependent (Drew Brees and Lamar Jackson to give two extremes) others that would thrive in any system (Mahomes and Elway come to mind). Obviously, any is going to win and achieve more with a better supporting cast and system.  There is a reason, for example, that Elway’s Denver teams got trashed in his first three SB’s and won his last two.  

But I am talking about QBs that have the talent etc to be starting NFL QBs. And those are few and far between.  With few exceptions, there is a h. u. g. e. drop off between starting QB’s and their back ups.  It’s not just opportunity.  It’s ability.

---

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

Yes.  And no.  Montana had brilliant skills.  Extremely accurate .  Tremendous vision.  Mobile.   Great feet.  And as cool under pressure as they come.  He didn’t have a big arm (as opposed to Bradshaw).  

Im fairly certain that he would have been a very good to great QB anywhere he played. Would he have been a 4 time SB champ and one of the top 3 QB’s in history had he been drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Probably not.  

It’s the Aaron Rodgers thing that I bring up occasionally.  By that I mean his whining about getting passed over by the Niners.  Which was the best thing that could have happened to him.  Rodgers has incredible talent.  Accurate.  Great arm.  Mobile.  He’s got all the tools.  But what would his career have been like had the Niners drafted him.  7 years.  With 7 OC’s. Bad HC’s and getting the sh-t beat out of him.  I still think he’d have been a very good to great QB.  But not one of the greatest ever.

Then there is Plunkett.  Perhaps the best example.  He is, in many ways, wrongly remembered  as the plucky guy with guile.  Not pretty, but gutsy.  Won two SBs. If you only saw him starting in his Raider days, you never really saw him.

Fact is, he was enormously talented.  A gun for an arm.  Accurate.  Not pretty when he ran, but very effective.  The greatest college QB in history at the time he graduated. H-Man. No 1 pick. And ROY with NE.  A triple that I dont believe had been done up to that point. By the time he left NE he was shell shocked.  I will never forget reading a quote from a long time NFL exec who said Plunkett got beaten up more badly than any QB he’d seen.  Ever.  I hated Chuck Fairbanks.  What he did to Plunkett was damn near criminal. 

Plunkett showed what he can do when he led the Raiders to two SB Championships with about 50% of his skill set available.  Think of what he could have achieved had he started his career on a quality team. 

So, yes.  Circumstances always matter.

Another great post, Lex, you're on a roll!
What the Colts' brain trust did to Andrew Luck (trading #1 pick for a freaking used up RB?!? instead of protecting franchise player/asset?!?) was almost as bad as what the Pats did to Plunkett.  With even decent management (as opposed to incompetent), Luck would still be playing and contending for Super Bowls.  Damn shame.

 The thing about AL and Indy is they did finally get it right when they brought in Reich and the GM whose name I forget.  But the damage had been done.

How you can invest in a franchise QB and not do everything possible to build up a line to protect him is beyond me.  Talk about a no brainer.  Man, I miss watching him play.

[lex24]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

Depends on your definition of “dependent”.   Personally, I think there  are some QB’s that are system  dependent (Drew Brees and Lamar Jackson to give two extremes) others that would thrive in any system (Mahomes and Elway come to mind). Obviously, any is going to win and achieve more with a better supporting cast and system.  There is a reason, for example, that Elway’s Denver teams got trashed in his first three SB’s and won his last two.  

But I am talking about QBs that have the talent etc to be starting NFL QBs. And those are few and far between.  With few exceptions, there is a h. u. g. e. drop off between starting QB’s and their back ups.  It’s not just opportunity.  It’s ability.

---

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

For scheme, he had the West Coast Offense in its lusty youth.  For coaches, he had The Genius, who was such a great coach that he directly spawned seven 1st generation NFL coaches (Seifert, Green, Wyche, White, Coslet, Holmgren, Rhodes and doesn't even include others who were significantly influenced by Walsh and were in his employ like Tony Dungy and Jon Gruden). 

For defense, the 49ers were ranked in fewest points given up in the NFL during Montana's heyday (starting with the first Super Bowl season) as follows: 2, 23, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 8, 3, 2, 4, 3. In fact, the defense and offense equally split the 1981-1990 time period; five times the defense had a better position, five times the offense had the better position.

For offensive teammates, he played with 12 time pro bowler and arguably the greatest football player in history, Jerry Rice.  Guy McIntyre, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst, Roger Craig, Tom Rathman, Brent Jones, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Fred Quillen, Jesse Sapolu, Harris Barton, Freddie Solomon, Wendell Tyler, John Frank, Russ Francis, Earl Cooper, Terrence Flagler, Ray Wersching, and Mike Cofer; to say nothing of strong role players like Harry Sydney, Mike Wilson, Wesley Walls, Jamie Williams, Dexter Carter, Jeff Kemp, Bill Ring, Matt Cavanaugh, Rickey Patton, Johnny Davis, Lenvil Elliott, Renaldo Nehemiah and Mr. Ken Margerum.

Great coaches, great schemes, great teammates.  Montana wins four Super Bowls with the 49ers (although, arguably, the 49ers don't make it into the playoffs after the 1988 season without this run from Steve Young in a 24-21 win over the Vikings: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0  
During the 1988 season, the Bears were 12-4, the Vikings were 11-5 and there were five 10-6 teams in the NFC including the Saints, Rams, 49ers, Giants and Eagles. Only the top five teams made the playoffs, the Giants and Saints don't make it in.  If the 49ers finished 9-7, they would have been out and Terry Bradshaw would have stood alone with the second most Super Bowl wins at 4.  Montana would have fallen into a tie with Troy Aikman.  I'll bet Montana sends Steve Young a nice holiday card with a thank you note ever year.  But maybe not).  

So...was Montana the product of the coaches, system and defense as you mentioned above?

Yes.  And no.  Montana had brilliant skills.  Extremely accurate .  Tremendous vision.  Mobile.   Great feet.  And as cool under pressure as they come.  He didn’t have a big arm (as opposed to Bradshaw).  

Im fairly certain that he would have been a very good to great QB anywhere he played. Would he have been a 4 time SB champ and one of the top 3 QB’s in history had he been drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Probably not.  

It’s the Aaron Rodgers thing that I bring up occasionally.  By that I mean his whining about getting passed over by the Niners.  Which was the best thing that could have happened to him.  Rodgers has incredible talent.  Accurate.  Great arm.  Mobile.  He’s got all the tools.  But what would his career have been like had the Niners drafted him.  7 years.  With 7 OC’s. Bad HC’s and getting the sh-t beat out of him.  I still think he’d have been a very good to great QB.  But not one of the greatest ever.

Then there is Plunkett.  Perhaps the best example.  He is, in many ways, wrongly remembered  as the plucky guy with guile.  Not pretty, but gutsy.  Won two SBs. If you only saw him starting in his Raider days, you never really saw him.

Fact is, he was enormously talented.  A gun for an arm.  Accurate.  Not pretty when he ran, but very effective.  The greatest college QB in history at the time he graduated. H-Man. No 1 pick. And ROY with NE.  A triple that I dont believe had been done up to that point. By the time he left NE he was shell shocked.  I will never forget reading a quote from a long time NFL exec who said Plunkett got beaten up more badly than any QB he’d seen.  Ever.  I hated Chuck Fairbanks.  What he did to Plunkett was damn near criminal. 

Plunkett showed what he can do when he led the Raiders to two SB Championships with about 50% of his skill set available.  Think of what he could have achieved had he started his career on a quality team. 

So, yes.  Circumstances always matter.

Another great post, Lex, you're on a roll!
What the Colts' brain trust did to Andrew Luck (trading #1 pick for a freaking used up RB?!? instead of protecting franchise player/asset?!?) was almost as bad as what the Pats did to Plunkett.  With even decent management (as opposed to incompetent), Luck would still be playing and contending for Super Bowls.  Damn shame.

 The thing about AL and Indy is they did finally get it right when they brought in Reich and the GM whose name I forget.  But the damage had been done.

How you can invest in a franchise QB and not do everything possible to build up a line to protect him is beyond me.  Talk about a no brainer.  Man, I miss watching him play.

[cardcrimson]

. . . .and one of the top 3 QB’s in history

Okay, I'll bite. Montana and who?

---

What the Colts' brain trust did to Andrew Luck (trading #1 pick for a freaking used up RB?!? instead of protecting franchise player/asset?!?) was almost as bad as what the Pats did to Plunkett.  With even decent management (as opposed to incompetent), Luck would still be playing and contending for Super Bowls.  Damn shame.

The thing about AL and Indy is they did finally get it right when they brought in Reich and the GM whose name I forget.  But the damage had been done.

How you can invest in a franchise QB and not do everything possible to build up a line to protect him is beyond me.  Talk about a no brainer.  Man, I miss watching him play.


Indeed
Yes and yes, too late.
Not a lot of good guys out there to root for. Miss watching him as well.

[cardcrimson]

. . . .and one of the top 3 QB’s in history

Okay, I'll bite. Montana and who?

---

What the Colts' brain trust did to Andrew Luck (trading #1 pick for a freaking used up RB?!? instead of protecting franchise player/asset?!?) was almost as bad as what the Pats did to Plunkett.  With even decent management (as opposed to incompetent), Luck would still be playing and contending for Super Bowls.  Damn shame.

The thing about AL and Indy is they did finally get it right when they brought in Reich and the GM whose name I forget.  But the damage had been done.

How you can invest in a franchise QB and not do everything possible to build up a line to protect him is beyond me.  Talk about a no brainer.  Man, I miss watching him play.


Indeed
Yes and yes, too late.
Not a lot of good guys out there to root for. Miss watching him as well.

[lex24]

. . . .and one of the top 3 QB’s in history

Okay, I'll bite. Montana and who?

Brady.  And in my extremely biased view, Elway. (And I’m actually only talking about about ‘70 on. Heck, there is an argument to be made that Sammy Baugh was the best football player ever. But the game was so different I just don’t think you can compare guys like Baugh, Graham and Unitas to the modern QB’s)

[lex24]

. . . .and one of the top 3 QB’s in history

Okay, I'll bite. Montana and who?

Brady.  And in my extremely biased view, Elway. (And I’m actually only talking about about ‘70 on. Heck, there is an argument to be made that Sammy Baugh was the best football player ever. But the game was so different I just don’t think you can compare guys like Baugh, Graham and Unitas to the modern QB’s)

[cardcrimson]

. . . .and one of the top 3 QB’s in history

Okay, I'll bite. Montana and who?

Brady.  And in my extremely biased view, Elway. (And I’m actually only talking about about ‘70 on.  Heck, there is an argument to be made that Sammy Baugh was the best football player ever.  But the game was so different I just don’t think you can compare guys like Baugh, Graham and Unitas to the modern QB’s)

Fair point. I'm extremely partial to Unitas, as I was born in Baltimore, but your three "modern day" picks align with mine (though Brady still is a bit smug for my liking).

[cardcrimson]

. . . .and one of the top 3 QB’s in history

Okay, I'll bite. Montana and who?

Brady.  And in my extremely biased view, Elway. (And I’m actually only talking about about ‘70 on.  Heck, there is an argument to be made that Sammy Baugh was the best football player ever.  But the game was so different I just don’t think you can compare guys like Baugh, Graham and Unitas to the modern QB’s)

Fair point. I'm extremely partial to Unitas, as I was born in Baltimore, but your three "modern day" picks align with mine (though Brady still is a bit smug for my liking).

[DC 86]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

Joe Montana thrived in an offense that was tailor-made for his skills and he was surrounded by elite talent. In other circumstances he would not have reached the same level of success, but he was an exceptional quarterback with rare athleticism and accuracy, and going to Kansas City and playing extremely well despite his age and injury history confirms for me that he was a Hall of Fame quarterback regardless of the circumstances.

A quarterback benefiting from a system doesn't; make him a product of that system. Joe Montana greatly benefited from Bill Walsh's offense but even The Genius couldn't design an offense that would make Steve DeBerg into a Hall of Famer, or anything close to it. Bad coaching and poor surrounding talent can thwart a potentially great career (e.g. Jim Plunkett or Archie Manning) but great coaching and great teammates can't manufacture a great quarterback unless said quarterback has truly great talent to begin with.

I tend to broadly place quarterbacks into three categories:

1. Elite: can carry a team to the playoffs even with subpar surrounding talent, and can win a championship even without substantial elite talent around him.
2. Legitimate Starters: can lead a team to the playoffs with strong surrounding talent, and can win a championship with enough elite surrounding talent.
3. Others: can lead a team to the playoffs with elite surrounding talent, can't win a championship regardless of surrounding talent.

At any time there seem to only be around a dozen quarterbacks in the elite category. Right now I would put the following in this category: Josh Allen, Tom Brady, Joe Burrow, Justin Herbert, Lamar Jackson, Patrick Mahomes, Kyler Murray, Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers and Matthew Stafford. Russell Wilson is also in this group although at the moment his thumb is clearly impeding him.

Players like Aaron Rodgers are unicorns and in a class of their own; he could be an MVP in any system, which is extremely unusual. Even most elite quarterbacks need the offense to be designed to complement their skills in order to maximize those skills, either because of their mobility (or lack thereof), arm strength (or lack thereof), physical size, etc. This is true even for first ballot Hall of Famers such as Peyton Manning or Drew Brees. Tampa Bay had to adapt their offense over the course of last season to make things work with Tom Brady. That doesn't mean those players aren't elite, just as I don't believe players like Lamar Jackson or Kyler Murray aren't elite just because they play in offenses that have been specifically designed for them; they may be limited to a certain scheme but they can carry their teams within that scheme even when their teammates aren't playing at the highest level.

[DC 86]

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort.

but aren't all QBs dependent on their surrounding cast and coach?  Like say Jim Plunkett....

There indeed is a group (great mass?) of quarterbacks who are not elite and who are dependent on their surrounding offensive teammates, their defense and their coaches in order to win. Garoppolo is obviously in this cohort. 

Not all that interested in this argument, but was interested in your statement regarding quarterbacks who were dependent on their coaches, defense and offensive teammates for success.

I would definitely include 4-time Super Bowl winner Terry Bradshaw in that group.  He never had the best passer rating in the NFL; in fact, he only made the top four once.  He had the Steel Curtain defense and Chuck Noll.

But would you include 4-time Super Bowl winner Joe Montana in that group?

Joe Montana thrived in an offense that was tailor-made for his skills and he was surrounded by elite talent. In other circumstances he would not have reached the same level of success, but he was an exceptional quarterback with rare athleticism and accuracy, and going to Kansas City and playing extremely well despite his age and injury history confirms for me that he was a Hall of Fame quarterback regardless of the circumstances.

A quarterback benefiting from a system doesn't; make him a product of that system. Joe Montana greatly benefited from Bill Walsh's offense but even The Genius couldn't design an offense that would make Steve DeBerg into a Hall of Famer, or anything close to it. Bad coaching and poor surrounding talent can thwart a potentially great career (e.g. Jim Plunkett or Archie Manning) but great coaching and great teammates can't manufacture a great quarterback unless said quarterback has truly great talent to begin with.

I tend to broadly place quarterbacks into three categories:

1. Elite: can carry a team to the playoffs even with subpar surrounding talent, and can win a championship even without substantial elite talent around him.
2. Legitimate Starters: can lead a team to the playoffs with strong surrounding talent, and can win a championship with enough elite surrounding talent.
3. Others: can lead a team to the playoffs with elite surrounding talent, can't win a championship regardless of surrounding talent.

At any time there seem to only be around a dozen quarterbacks in the elite category. Right now I would put the following in this category: Josh Allen, Tom Brady, Joe Burrow, Justin Herbert, Lamar Jackson, Patrick Mahomes, Kyler Murray, Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers and Matthew Stafford. Russell Wilson is also in this group although at the moment his thumb is clearly impeding him.

Players like Aaron Rodgers are unicorns and in a class of their own; he could be an MVP in any system, which is extremely unusual. Even most elite quarterbacks need the offense to be designed to complement their skills in order to maximize those skills, either because of their mobility (or lack thereof), arm strength (or lack thereof), physical size, etc. This is true even for first ballot Hall of Famers such as Peyton Manning or Drew Brees. Tampa Bay had to adapt their offense over the course of last season to make things work with Tom Brady. That doesn't mean those players aren't elite, just as I don't believe players like Lamar Jackson or Kyler Murray aren't elite just because they play in offenses that have been specifically designed for them; they may be limited to a certain scheme but they can carry their teams within that scheme even when their teammates aren't playing at the highest level.

[82lsju]

I tend to broadly place quarterbacks into three categories:

1. Elite: can carry a team to the playoffs even with subpar surrounding talent, and can win a championship even without substantial elite talent around him.
2. Legitimate Starters: can lead a team to the playoffs with strong surrounding talent, and can win a championship with enough elite surrounding talent.
3. Others: can lead a team to the playoffs with elite surrounding talent, can't win a championship regardless of surrounding talent.

so I guess Trent Dilfer is in bucket #2...

[82lsju]

I tend to broadly place quarterbacks into three categories:

1. Elite: can carry a team to the playoffs even with subpar surrounding talent, and can win a championship even without substantial elite talent around him.
2. Legitimate Starters: can lead a team to the playoffs with strong surrounding talent, and can win a championship with enough elite surrounding talent.
3. Others: can lead a team to the playoffs with elite surrounding talent, can't win a championship regardless of surrounding talent.

so I guess Trent Dilfer is in bucket #2...

[DC 86]

I tend to broadly place quarterbacks into three categories:

1. Elite: can carry a team to the playoffs even with subpar surrounding talent, and can win a championship even without substantial elite talent around him.
2. Legitimate Starters: can lead a team to the playoffs with strong surrounding talent, and can win a championship with enough elite surrounding talent.
3. Others: can lead a team to the playoffs with elite surrounding talent, can't win a championship regardless of surrounding talent.

so I guess Trent Dilfer is in bucket #2...

He's the epitome of bucket #2 and gives hope to all the others in bucket #2.

[DC 86]

I tend to broadly place quarterbacks into three categories:

1. Elite: can carry a team to the playoffs even with subpar surrounding talent, and can win a championship even without substantial elite talent around him.
2. Legitimate Starters: can lead a team to the playoffs with strong surrounding talent, and can win a championship with enough elite surrounding talent.
3. Others: can lead a team to the playoffs with elite surrounding talent, can't win a championship regardless of surrounding talent.

so I guess Trent Dilfer is in bucket #2...

He's the epitome of bucket #2 and gives hope to all the others in bucket #2.

[Phogge]

I’m not putting this in the trivia section.

Who do you think shot the Young run?

[Phogge]

I’m not putting this in the trivia section.

Who do you think shot the Young run?