could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:



    Seriously Quagmire, we just watched a group of players be handed a golden opportunity to make this team and lay an egg. 

    We have been on this very board for a few months wondering about the LB and TE depth. We also openly questioned what would happen if 1 or 2 DT went down with injury.

    I am not being negative. I am posting what I saw Thursday night, and through out 7 practices attended. 

    Btw, I am one of the few on the board that has continued to state how good Mallett will be, that criticizing Solder is ridiculous, that Boyd is still tantalizing, that Halapio surprised me and played well, that Fleming could be our starting T in 3 years, and on and on.

    If you want to channel your inner Rusty and tell us after Thursday night game that nobody played poorly, please go ahead and do so.



    rkarp, in light of the bolded comments from your post above do you not see a contradiction between your first bolded quote and what followed and your second bolded quote?

    I'm not sure what's up with you but your posts are coming across as much more aggressive and argumentative than I'm accustomed to seeing from you.



    If you actuall read anything I have posted before Thursday and after Thursday, I did not think Mallet laid an egg. I thought Mallett made the correct reads, made some very good throws under pressure, and displayed arm strength not found in many NFL QB's.

    this was done with a patchwork OL that played poorly, and receivers obviously not on the same page as Mallett.

    I have also seen Mallet with the first unit in practice, and he has looked very good.

    So no, I do not see the contradiction




    I'm not going to join the pi$$ parade.  However, a couple of points:

    *I don't respond to posts I haven't read

    *I stand by my post

    *Your reply makes the very point I was trying to make

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Good read. Thank you DJ.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from HelmetofLeather. Show HelmetofLeather's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Good read. Thank you DJ.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    YOU'VE BEEN SCHOOLED!!!!

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Clearly Teddy B has a long way to go before he can be mentioned with the likes of Rohan Davey. Seems having a large dome is the only similarities to date. I scoff at this notion that Klfff Kingsbury, Michael Bishop, Kevin O'Conell and Rohan were not Great!??


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    Seriously though, Ive never felt good about any of the young backups drafted here but didnt care because I had faith that Brady would be there every week. I was much more comfortable when he had veteran backups like D.Huard, V.Testaverde and D.Flutie on the roster. This is why I believe whenever the Pats draft a QB, its with the Idea of Either flipping the pick or being Bradys successor. Otherwise, why not just get a veteran backup and skip the learning curve and "Can he play in the NFL?" questions??


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    I would have to agree more that ANY player that leaves the Pats for free agency is worth than the average guy based on teams always overpaying for talent coming from here. Branch, Givens, Patten, Seymour,etc all enjoyed teams throwing money at them because they were part of the patriot way, which to me, means you are all about football, you have better study habits, you are a better student of the game than most having been coached by BB. Now is this true of everyone? Maybe not but its obvious that players who come here from other teams notice the difference right away. Weve heard Revis already mention it. So I think this holds weight more than the QB thing. Only because we have the GOAT at QB do we have these questions about his backup. Most other teams, I bet you cant even name who it is.


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    "A lot of bookies are probably mad at us right now, but we don't give a damn, ... We're the champs!!"


     


     


     


    Ty Law after his team defeated the Rams in SB 36.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Other teams draft first round QBs and sometimes they fail.  The Pats haven't drafted a first rounder since Drew Bledsoe.  All of the Patriots picks have been second or third day affairs, picked over guys. 


    The average seventh rounder has maybe a 10% chance of making the average team, and with quarterbacks that chance might be even lower because all teams love to take gambles on quarterbacks with any potential at all.  That's what makes Cassel such a find.  That's what makes Brady such a find.


    Mallett went out there behind a seriously silly offensive line on Thursday night, and with no Gronk, with no Edelman, with no Amendola, without even a Hoom, against the Red Skins' defensive starters.  He had Justin Jones as a tight end, a guy who might make a good pave-blocking tackle someday if he adds 50 pounds but a guy who is as clumsy as he is ignorant today.  Mallett didn't throw one pass to Jones.  Finally, BB showed no interest in the actual score all evening.  Fourth and goal from the four?  Go for the pass play.  No, don't challenge that touchdown catch. 


    Don't trust preseason, please.   Washington won seven games all last year, but four of them were preseason games.  Why?


    I get the feeling that Mallett is better than we saw on Thursday night. 


     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to TheRealBustchise's comment:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    My god is RKrap, dumb. He just listed proof of other QBs developed here going off and doing some good things elsewhere and here is asking why there is a reason why some may feel a BB/Brady developed QB who is still here, not cut and progressing, as a potential solution to another team's QB problem.

     

    LMAO

     

    The simple conclusion is no further than looking at Geno Smith taken in the high second rd.

     

    Any rational human would rather have Mallett as a prospect to groom than Geno Smith.  One played in a pro style offense in the SEC and has spent 3 years learning at the University of the New England Patriots by the greatest coach and quite possibly the best QB ever.

     

    The question posed is just so moronically dumb, I can't even continue.

     

    How ironic...The answer lies within the framework of RKrap's favorite team, the Jetsies.

     

    Case closed.

     

     



    Yes, Queen Bean, second round pick QBs who start as rookies and win 8 games are very common.  Are you claiming BB, a defensive guy "developed Brady"?  Oh my.  Surely you have some sort of documentation about regarding this claim.  Did he also "develop" Mallet?  Still waiting on that top 10 pick for the ROI?  Bwahahhahahaha!




    Rustoleum demolished here-again 

    Tom Brady would have been great wherever he landed as would have Peyton, Rogers...these types of talents and intangibles are rare and come along once or twice in a generation...would they be as great or accomplish as much without the coaches they play for? Don't know

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Well, apparently myself and many others on this board are living under a rock as I just don't see this supposed "QB Theory" anywhere.

    Can someone please share a link or story somewhere that is saying this?

    The way the original post came across was making it sound like every media outlet that exists is talking about it.........maybe it's me, but I haven't heard this.....and obviously, I'm not alone.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    I keep hearing how Pats QB's have so much value because they learn at the feet of the HOF TB and in the head of master BB. where are these QB's over the past decade plus?

     

    Ok, I can see Cassel, and his fill in year with the Pats, and even his 1 good year in KC. But really, any one else? Hoyer and his 3 game career in Brownsville?

     

    Where are these QB's that have gone to the school of BB that are groomed for greatness? Where are these QB's that have sat next to TB in meetings and some of his wisdom has made them NFL QB's?

     

    The list is long of failed QB's drafted here that have been non NFL prospects, never mind players. 




    I don't recall anyone other than talking heads saying anything remotely like this. And most of the talking heads I've heard say this are affiliated with ESPN. It is a stupid premise till recently. I believe the Pats are the only team in recent NFL history to have two previous backups take meaningful snaps as starters for other teams.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 

    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.

    do some research, and then come back and comment



    Rkarp I usually enjoy your posts but you have been a very negative and condescending poster lately. No need for it.




    I think he's been hangin with the ESPN crowd too much lately

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 

    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.

    do some research, and then come back and comment



    Rkarp I usually enjoy your posts but you have been a very negative and condescending poster lately. No need for it.




    I think he's been hangin with the ESPN crowd too much lately

     



    I really dont mind you having a laugh at my expense. really.

    But, I do ask you to do some research on the subject. it is a common misconception with in numerous media outlets (WEEI inlcuded) that there is some benefit to being the understudy here.

    I only pointed out that this simply is not true.

    Also, please clarify, do you think it true or not? While you may not have heard of the concept, would you find it true or not?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to tanbass' comment:




    Well, apparently myself and many others on this board are living under a rock as I just don't see this supposed "QB Theory" anywhere.


    Can someone please share a link or story somewhere that is saying this?


    The way the original post came across was making it sound like every media outlet that exists is talking about it.........maybe it's me, but I haven't heard this.....and obviously, I'm not alone.


    Agree.  IMO the OP is misconstruing something that is sometimes said to mean something it doesn't.  It is sometimes said that our backup QB's have the benefit of learning under a HoF QB and coach.  Guys such as Reiss mention that because it's true.  It's really common sense.  Will a given player stand a greater chance of realizing his full potential under a HoF QB and coach or under Geno Smith and Rex Ryan?  However, RKarp seems to be misconstruing this to mean "great school of QB" in the sense that we should produce great QB's.  This is analogous to me attending one of Deon Sander's workshops for DB's and expecting to be a great DB afterwards.  That seems to be the point of this thread.  Some people tout how great it is to study under Brady and BB and RKarp is asking why aren't we producing great QB's if that is the case.  I don't think that's logical.  Being in a great learning environment will increase the odds of maximizing your talents, but it won't make you something you are not.  



    I think the benefit of studying under Brady and BB is self evident and just logical.  How can it not?  Would not a physics student benefit more from studying under a Nobel prize winner instead of your typical community college professor?  Had Cassell and Hoyer landed with other teams it's doubtful they would even be in the NFL today.  Today they are both battling for starting roles.  What contributed to them even being in a position to battle for a starting role and not become some obscure draft pick that comes and goes without ever being noticed?  Likely the experience of being under Brady and BB for several years.  This thread seems to assert that since those two guys didn't evolve into a Brees or Rodgers, there is no validity to saying it is great to study under BB and Brady.  IMHO, that fails the test of logic.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 

    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.

    do some research, and then come back and comment



    Rkarp I usually enjoy your posts but you have been a very negative and condescending poster lately. No need for it.




    I think he's been hangin with the ESPN crowd too much lately

     



    I really dont mind you having a laugh at my expense. really.

    But, I do ask you to do some research on the subject. it is a common misconception with in numerous media outlets (WEEI inlcuded) that there is some benefit to being the understudy here.

    I only pointed out that this simply is not true.

    Also, please clarify, do you think it true or not? While you may not have heard of the concept, would you find it true or not?



    Like I said before it is preposterous. I don't need to nor have the time to do research on this, I've witnessed the NFL for the last 52 years.

    I also said the Pats are the only team in recent NFL history to have two backups take meaningful snaps for other teams. If the talking heads want to call that QB university they can. I would just call it a little bit better than any other team. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Perhaps I'm opening my mouth too early, but aren't the last 2 backups to Brady likely to be starting QB's in the NFL come week 1 this season?  What exactly is this thread about again?  Oh, I remember now.  Our last 2 Brady backups to leave the team, one an UDFA and the other a 7th round pick, probably won't be pro bowl QB's and are ONLY still in the NFL competing for a starting role.  Yes, that doesn't look good (as I pound head against wall).


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Perhaps I'm opening my mouth too early, but aren't the last 2 backups to Brady likely to be starting QB's in the NFL come week 1 this season?  What exactly is this thread about again?  Oh, I remember now.  Our last 2 Brady backups to leave the team, one an UDFA and the other a 7th round pick, probably won't be pro bowl QB's and are ONLY still in the NFL competing for a starting role.  Yes, that doesn't look good (as I pound head against wall).


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    remind me again how good Hoyer has looked this preseason?

    remind me again why the Pats RELEASED Hoyer rather than pay him $750k and use a 3rd round draft choice to replace him?

    remind me again why Cassell has bounced around the league and his team decided to use a 1st round draft choice on a QB?

    I am not picking on either guy, I am simply pointing out that there are many who feel there is a great benefit from sitting at the feet of BB and TB, and what has it been now, 13 years with BB? Other than TB I don't see even an above average QB developed even though some high draft resources have been spent on the position

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Perhaps I'm opening my mouth too early, but aren't the last 2 backups to Brady likely to be starting QB's in the NFL come week 1 this season?  What exactly is this thread about again?  Oh, I remember now.  Our last 2 Brady backups to leave the team, one an UDFA and the other a 7th round pick, probably won't be pro bowl QB's and are ONLY still in the NFL competing for a starting role.  Yes, that doesn't look good (as I pound head against wall).


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    remind me again how good Hoyer has looked this preseason?

    remind me again why the Pats RELEASED Hoyer rather than pay him $750k and use a 3rd round draft choice to replace him?

    remind me again why Cassell has bounced around the league and his team decided to use a 1st round draft choice on a QB?

    I am not picking on either guy, I am simply pointing out that there are many who feel there is a great benefit from sitting at the feet of BB and TB, and what has it been now, 13 years with BB? Other than TB I don't see even an above average QB developed even though some high draft resources have been spent on the position




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    It doesn't matter how Hoyer has looked in pre season. He was awarded the starting job in Cleveland,  like Cassel has been since he left N.E. Anytime 2 of your undrafted QB back ups crack the sacred fraternity of NFL starting QB's then I would say you have been proven wrong on whatever point you were trying to make on this thread. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Also, releasing Hoyer was not an indictment on him. It is just good business and the same reason we will not re sign Mallet. You can't pay a back up QB a 2nd contract doubling his rookie salary when you can just cultivate the next guy for half the price.

    Where is the perspective here? Has the whole damn world gone crazy? 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Perhaps I'm opening my mouth too early, but aren't the last 2 backups to Brady likely to be starting QB's in the NFL come week 1 this season?  What exactly is this thread about again?  Oh, I remember now.  Our last 2 Brady backups to leave the team, one an UDFA and the other a 7th round pick, probably won't be pro bowl QB's and are ONLY still in the NFL competing for a starting role.  Yes, that doesn't look good (as I pound head against wall).


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    remind me again how good Hoyer has looked this preseason?

    remind me again why the Pats RELEASED Hoyer rather than pay him $750k and use a 3rd round draft choice to replace him?

    remind me again why Cassell has bounced around the league and his team decided to use a 1st round draft choice on a QB?

    I am not picking on either guy, I am simply pointing out that there are many who feel there is a great benefit from sitting at the feet of BB and TB, and what has it been now, 13 years with BB? Other than TB I don't see even an above average QB developed even though some high draft resources have been spent on the position




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    It doesn't matter how Hoyer has looked in pre season. He was awarded the starting job in Cleveland,  like Cassel has been since he left N.E. Anytime 2 of your undrafted QB back ups crack the sacred fraternity of NFL starting QB's then I would say you have been proven wrong on whatever point you were trying to make on this thread. 



    the point I was making on this thread is that other than TB, BB has never developed a good starting QB in his entire tenure here in spite of using draft choice resources for the position..

    I guess it is a matter of opinion if Hoyer or Cassell are good starting NFL QB's

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Perhaps I'm opening my mouth too early, but aren't the last 2 backups to Brady likely to be starting QB's in the NFL come week 1 this season?  What exactly is this thread about again?  Oh, I remember now.  Our last 2 Brady backups to leave the team, one an UDFA and the other a 7th round pick, probably won't be pro bowl QB's and are ONLY still in the NFL competing for a starting role.  Yes, that doesn't look good (as I pound head against wall).


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    remind me again how good Hoyer has looked this preseason?

    remind me again why the Pats RELEASED Hoyer rather than pay him $750k and use a 3rd round draft choice to replace him?

    remind me again why Cassell has bounced around the league and his team decided to use a 1st round draft choice on a QB?

    I am not picking on either guy, I am simply pointing out that there are many who feel there is a great benefit from sitting at the feet of BB and TB, and what has it been now, 13 years with BB? Other than TB I don't see even an above average QB developed even though some high draft resources have been spent on the position




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    It doesn't matter how Hoyer has looked in pre season. He was awarded the starting job in Cleveland,  like Cassel has been since he left N.E. Anytime 2 of your undrafted QB back ups crack the sacred fraternity of NFL starting QB's then I would say you have been proven wrong on whatever point you were trying to make on this thread. 



    the point I was making on this thread is that other than TB, BB has never developed a good starting QB in his entire tenure here in spite of using draft choice resources for the position..

    I guess it is a matter of opinion if Hoyer or Cassell are good starting NFL QB's




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Yeah a matter of NFL executives opinion that they are. I guess when you take undrafted QB's and develop them into starting caliber players who actually start for other teams then yes you have failed at developing QB's.....in bizarro world.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Then there was the time BB drafted a back up QB in the 6th round and developed him into a HOFer who took over for a 100 million $ franchise QB the very next year. What's that 3 starting QB's in the NFL? How many coaches can say they developed 3 different starting caliber QB's without the benefit of a high draft pick?

    Not many I'd guess...they .must he doing something right in N.E

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share