Future QB

Discussion in 'The Warroom' started by Mark87, Jun 13, 2017.

  1. realitybytes

    realitybytes Member

    1,422
    381
    Ratings:
    +797 / 0
    i don't really care about his ego, but i'd sure rather see a blue-chip defensive playmaker that could contribute right away than a top ten pick that's going to sit for three years before we even know what we have. yes, it worked out well last time. but that's no guarantee that it would happen again. then again, there's no guarantee that capers would know how to use a blue-chip defensive playmaker either.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. 57packer

    57packer 2017 Draft Guru

    1,140
    358
    Ratings:
    +609 / 1
    I agree. That is the big Catch-22 in all of this. If you draft a QB in Rd 1 and he's good, but not as good as AR, what do you do if AR decides to pull a Brady and play for another 5-7 years. Trade AR and get some picks for him? Trade the largely unproven youngster for a pick or two? I don't know the answer, but I know that nothing about any of this is definite. You could of course draft a QB in round one and he could stink up the joint and the pick is wasted.

    You could pass on the QB and go the BPA route to improve the team "now" as long as you have arguably the best NFL QB . . . and that player could flop and you aren't any better and still haven't fixed the QB issue long term. Same dilemma.

    That's why I won't carp too much no matter which direction they go in. I'll be annoyed if they use an early pick on an o-lineman, but other than that get me a player at any position who can be a playmaker - CB, OLB, ILB, DE, RB, WR, TE would all be welcome if you aren't going the QB route. My personal preference is to not go QB in Rd 1 until I have a much better idea that AR is on his way out. I could be wrong but only time will tell. I could also be right. Nobody knows.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Crease Creature

    Crease Creature Lifetime Member

    1,088
    210
    Ratings:
    +432 / 2
    Especially if he's a 4-3 DE that they plug in at OLB

    Or a good 4-3 OLB who's got some speed but they put him at ILB and he's undersized...
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. TW

    TW Moderator

    903
    409
    Ratings:
    +844 / 11
    Lesson number one on Capers defense. Constantly try to put square pegs in round holes!

    Maybe we're just spoiled. But, we need to face reality. The time isn't too far off when being at the top of the heap isn't going to be easy, unless we can find the third HOF type QB in a row, to guide the Packers. It's a foregone conclusion that the reason the Patriots have been so good is that Belichick has had Brady, except for his first year as HC with the Pats. That year, they had a losing record. Belichick's run of winning football has come only while his career was locked in step with Brady. Before that, he wasn't considered a super coach, but a second tier coach pretty much suited to be a coordinator.

    That pretty much tells us that today's NFL success stories on the sideline deals with the success story on the field. If you have a HOF destined QB, you win games, and do well consistently. If you don't, you may success some years, but don't count on it being often enough to make it look like you're a coaching genius. Brady makes Belichick a winner, just like I've always believed - Rodgers is the only reason that McCarthy has succeeded.

    That said, the difference between the two is a chasm of coaching capability. Belichick has been able to turn lost time from Brady into a coaching moment, where he's utilized other facets of the team to pick up at least part of the slack that's there, because Brady is gone. McCarthy doesn't know how to do that. If you look at the "replacement QBs" used by McCarthy, the only one to have a .500 record is Matt Flynn, and that's because he was developed into a good system QB. He learned much with Rodgers, and he'll even tell you that his record 480 yard, 6 TD passing game Packer record had a lot to do with Rodgers having the head phones on over on the sideline calling the plays. He kept Matt loose, and on track.

    The disdain the Packers seem to show towards even considering bringing Matt back to finish this year is the height of refusing to let your ego take a back seat. He could play, and has been working out. He knows the system, and his field of vision may not be as good as Rodgers, but he can still find open guys well enough to keep this team afloat, and possibly make the playoffs, so Rodgers "could" come back, and make a difference.

    As far as drafting a QB, and developing them, not so easy now that the guys who were so good at it are gone. I know everyone wants to say it's McCarthy, but I don't believe that for a heartbeat. I've watched the guys over the year who worked with Rodgers, and Flynn. I saw what they brought to the table, and even Tom Clements, who left last year, was far superior to McCarthy in working with fundamentals and gamesmanship, when it comes to the position.

    With McCarthy, drafting a QB and grooming them isn't an option. He is not going to be the guidance a young guy needs to develop. His career is locked at the hip with Rodgers, just like Belichick's is with Brady. I expect both coaches to walk away when their QBs do.

    In the meantime, Belichick will always be better than McCarthy on the sidelines, because Belichick does everything possible to surround himself with excellent assistant coaches, not friends, and knows how to inspire players to do better, unlike McCarthy who believes it's the players' jobs to motivate themselves.

    Just my opinion here. Have at it! sb(tc(coffee(
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Crease Creature

    Crease Creature Lifetime Member

    1,088
    210
    Ratings:
    +432 / 2
    I agree with most except this part. I don't consider it 'inspiration' that Pats players know they'll be cut, traded, or benched if they can't do their jobs to BB's standards.

    Belicheck very much strikes me as one of those coaches who is is feared, ND that fear keeps the players in check, for the most part.
     
  6. TW

    TW Moderator

    903
    409
    Ratings:
    +844 / 11
    Actually you're right, and so am I. Belichick is a Lombardi style coach. You put team ahead of individuals, and you use negative review of how players perform to give them motivation to play better. It's always out there, unsaid, that if you don't play up to expectations, you're history, as soon as they find someone to replace you.

    Two guys, that I know, who spent quite a bit of time in his meetings that he will put you in a corner by exposing the things you did wrong to the rest of the team. He holds that up as a point for players to see that everyone is held accountable. He's used this approach on Brady and Gronk as often has he has with others, thereby showing he doesn't play favorites, and is saying that nobody is above reproach.

    But, what you take away from all of this is the fact that when you're exposed to a little embarrassment, you're also be given a coaching moment, and everyone in the room should learn from it, because they aren't immune.

    In many ways, it's a lot like it is in the military. You're broken down to become part of a team, then built up as a valuable part of that team that others count on to do his job, or they all fail, and could lose or die. You either fall into the program, and accept it, or end up out of it, because you can't adapt, or live within that regimentation. At stake, with Belichick, is a ring, and in the military, your very life depends on everyone performing their job the best they can.

    When you hear soldiers double-timing, and singing cadence, in unison, they're shouting it out to let everyone know they're one of the best, and part of that unit. It's the voice of the unit, and their commitment not only to their country, but each other, and they're proud of it.

    Belichick insists on that same level of commitment from his players. It's a huge motivational tool.
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page