ksm7 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ok? So the question is: "How many years do you give a QB?" Is it safe to say that the DOG doesn't think that Manning isn't a 'franchise QB'? And also is it safe to say that the DOG thinks that with Rivers and the 2 players that the Chargers got via Eli trade will help them Chargers win multiple Superbowls, in years to come? If (for example) the Chargers don't win a Superbowl with Rivers, Merriman and the other choice player in that trade....how long would you give a Rivers to do it? The Dog never said that Manning isn'y a potential franchise QB, the Dog is stating that you don't need a franchise QB to win a Super Bowl...which is why it may have proven better to not give up as much for Manning, and take one of the other QBs coming out with high potential, and use the other picks to better the team all around... The Dog thinks that drafting a QB with high potential, and gaining additional picks put the Chargers in a much better track to win a Super Bowl - but as the Dog said, winning Super Bowls takes many factors (specifically, coaching, defense, and a running game - recent history proves that having those factors are more valuable then having a high caliber QB...)...whether or not the Chargers win multiple Super Bowls is impossible to predict, but the trade did leave them in better standing... The last question is the original point of the post...if you have a QB with potential that is under-achieving, be it Manning, Rivers, Romo, Vick, Smith...how long do you ride it out...The Dog wasn't sure, which is why the question was posed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The Dog never said that Manning isn'y a potential franchise QB, the Dog is stating that you don't need a franchise QB to win a Super Bowl...which is why it may have proven better to not give up as much for Manning, and take one of the other QBs coming out with high potential, and use the other picks to better the team all around... The Dog thinks that drafting a QB with high potential, and gaining additional picks put the Chargers in a much better track to win a Super Bowl - but as the Dog said, winning Super Bowls takes many factors (specifically, coaching, defense, and a running game - recent history proves that having those factors are more valuable then having a high caliber QB...)...whether or not the Chargers win multiple Super Bowls is impossible to predict, but the trade did leave them in better standing... The last question is the original point of the post...if you have a QB with potential that is under-achieving, be it Manning, Rivers, Romo, Vick, Smith...how long do you ride it out...The Dog wasn't sure, which is why the question was posed... But you just said that the results of the draft will have no impact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 But you just said that the results of the draft will have no impact! Really? Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The Dog has maintained that regardless of what either team does, the trade was poor for a number of reasons. The Chargers success is irrelevant. Here ya go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Here ya go! Ha ha ha ha ha ha...limited!! Shall we break it down? The statement is that regardless of what either team does, the Dog's opinion is that the trade was poor for a number of reasons. The Charger's success or lack there of is irrelevant to that, although the Dog's opinion, based on fact, is that they put themselves in a better position to be successful. At no point does this indicate that the Dog believes the draft results will have no impact...the Dog has continued to maintain that the results of the trade will have an impact, but regardless of the impact, it was a poor trade for the Giants...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...Limited...L...i...m...i...t...e....d....Limited... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ha ha ha ha ha ha...limited!! Shall we break it down? The statement is that regardless of what either team does, the Dog's opinion is that the trade was poor for a number of reasons. The Charger's success or lack there of is irrelevant to that, although the Dog's opinion, based on fact, is that they put themselves in a better position to be successful. At no point does this indicate that the Dog believes the draft results will have no impact...the Dog has continued to maintain that the results of the trade will have an impact, but regardless of the impact, it was a poor trade for the Giants...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...Limited...L...i...m...i...t...e....d....Limited... Easily riled, are ya?? LOL Sorry to break this to ya, but if the Giants made a poor draft decision, then that means the Chargers got the better of the deal. And if the Chargers have success because of the draft, than it means it was relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Easily riled, are ya?? LOL Sorry to break this to ya, but if the Giants made a poor draft decision, then that means the Chargers got the better of the deal. And if the Chargers have success because of the draft, than it means it was relevant. Me thinks you need to take a long look at your posts. Me thinks you may be agreeing with the Dog, or arguing against yourself. Regardless, you are one of a kind, BigBlue. :worshippy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Easily riled, are ya?? LOL Sorry to break this to ya, but if the Giants made a poor draft decision, then that means the Chargers got the better of the deal. And if the Chargers have success because of the draft, than it means it was relevant. easily riled? not in the least (not sure why you would think that, but then again, the Dog isn't sure about anything you type)...The Dog finds you entertaining, similar to how the Dog finds circus clowns entertaining... anyway, the Dog stands by what was said - the Charger's success is irrelevant to the Dog's ealier point that is, the trade was poor for a number of reasons, and doesn't require the support of the Charger's success, hence making the Charger's success irrelevant to the Dog's initial point...L...i...m...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 easily riled? not in the least (not sure why you would think that, but then again, the Dog isn't sure about anything you type)...The Dog finds you entertaining, similar to how the Dog finds circus clowns entertaining... anyway, the Dog stands by what was said - the Charger's success is irrelevant to the Dog's ealier point that is, the trade was poor for a number of reasons, and doesn't require the support of the Charger's success, hence making the Charger's success irrelevant to the Dog's initial point...L...i...m...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... LMAO!!!!! Whee hee....Im a circus clown!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Me thinks you need to take a long look at your posts. Me thinks you may be agreeing with the Dog, or arguing against yourself. Regardless, you are one of a kind, BigBlue. :worshippy: This, comin from someone who's already been provin to contradict himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The Dog never said that Manning isn'y a potential franchise QB, the Dog is stating that you don't need a franchise QB to win a Super Bowl...which is why it may have proven better to not give up as much for Manning, and take one of the other QBs coming out with high potential, and use the other picks to better the team all around... It maybe true that you don't need a "franchise QB" to win a SB but you do need a franchise QB to have a winning franchise. Winning the SB can be an aberation for a QB such as the case with Dilfer and a few others.. and almost every time these teams had defenses on steroids. Quite frankly, we got tired of watching Kennel, Graham, and Dave Brown (with his behind the back no look passes to the wrong ream)... We NEEDED a shot in the arm offensively.. and the QB position was our weakest point. No one uttered the name Rivers during the 2004 draft.. all we heard was Robert Gallery, Rothlisberger, and Manning... And in 2005, there was no telling we were going to get Marriman... and that Kicker SD got choked som many times. With Eli, we've had far more excitement on offense than we ever did. The Giants ARE capable of scoring.. when was the last time we had that attitide pre-manning? If we don't win Superbowls it's not because of our QB not playing well.. because he is playing very well... it's because our Defense couldn't stop anyone. In essence the "How many years do you give a QB?" question can not be substantiated... it should be "How many years do you give a team?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It maybe true that you don't need a "franchise QB" to win a SB but you do need a franchise QB to have a winning franchise. Winning the SB can be an aberation for a QB such as the case with Dilfer and a few others.. and almost every time these teams had defenses on steroids. Quite frankly, we got tired of watching Kennel, Graham, and Dave Brown (with his behind the back no look passes to the wrong ream)... We NEEDED a shot in the arm offensively.. and the QB position was our weakest point. No one uttered the name Rivers during the 2004 draft.. all we heard was Robert Gallery, Rothlisberger, and Manning... And in 2005, there was no telling we were going to get Marriman... and that Kicker SD got choked som many times. With Eli, we've had far more excitement on offense than we ever did. The Giants ARE capable of scoring.. when was the last time we had that attitide pre-manning? If we don't win Superbowls it's not because of our QB not playing well.. because he is playing very well... it's because our Defense couldn't stop anyone. In essence the "How many years do you give a QB?" question can not be substantiated... it should be "How many years do you give a team?" Very well said, I agree. But all your gonna get is this Bob Dole wannabe tellin ya somethin else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 It maybe true that you don't need a "franchise QB" to win a SB but you do need a franchise QB to have a winning franchise. Winning the SB can be an aberation for a QB such as the case with Dilfer and a few others.. and almost every time these teams had defenses on steroids. Quite frankly, we got tired of watching Kennel, Graham, and Dave Brown (with his behind the back no look passes to the wrong ream)... We NEEDED a shot in the arm offensively.. and the QB position was our weakest point. No one uttered the name Rivers during the 2004 draft.. all we heard was Robert Gallery, Rothlisberger, and Manning... And in 2005, there was no telling we were going to get Marriman... and that Kicker SD got choked som many times. With Eli, we've had far more excitement on offense than we ever did. The Giants ARE capable of scoring.. when was the last time we had that attitide pre-manning? If we don't win Superbowls it's not because of our QB not playing well.. because he is playing very well... it's because our Defense couldn't stop anyone. In essence the "How many years do you give a QB?" question can not be substantiated... it should be "How many years do you give a team?" Fair enough, but the Dog would still stand by the notion that a franchise QB is not needed...if you look at Super Bowls over the years, even most teams with "franchise" QBs won mostly because of some combination of coaching, the system, a running game and/or defense...teams that had the big name QB as the primary piece of the puzzle often found themselves on the losing side... The Dog does recall that several analysts rated Rivers higher then the other two QBs at the time of the draft (even though most liked Manning overall)...he was viewed as having a high upside at the time...and true, the Dog agrees that Merriman was not a lock, but the fact is that not having additional picks when you are team that has several holes to fill hurts in the long run...or at least prolongs the ability to start filling those holes... And we are agreeing on your point about not winning a Super Bowl having to do with a weak defense rather then Manning playing poorly...that is why the Dog still contends that it is wise to draft a team rather then draft a player and make him the team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Very well said, I agree. But all your gonna get is this Bob Dole wannabe tellin ya somethin else. Do you ever have an orginal thought? The Dog welcomes well thought out responses...and has responded appropriately...when responses are silly in nature, well, you know how that goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Fair enough, but the Dog would still stand by the notion that a franchise QB is not needed...if you look at Super Bowls over the years, even most teams with "franchise" QBs won mostly because of some combination of coaching, the system, a running game and/or defense...teams that had the big name QB as the primary piece of the puzzle often found themselves on the losing side... The Dog does recall that several analysts rated Rivers higher then the other two QBs at the time of the draft (even though most liked Manning overall)...he was viewed as having a high upside at the time...and true, the Dog agrees that Merriman was not a lock, but the fact is that not having additional picks when you are team that has several holes to fill hurts in the long run...or at least prolongs the ability to start filling those holes... And we are agreeing on your point about not winning a Super Bowl having to do with a weak defense rather then Manning playing poorly...that is why the Dog still contends that it is wise to draft a team rather then draft a player and make him the team... Thank tou captain Obvious. You just reiterated what Nas just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Fair enough, but the Dog would still stand by the notion that a franchise QB is not needed...if you look at Super Bowls over the years, even most teams with "franchise" QBs won mostly because of some combination of coaching, the system, a running game and/or defense...teams that had the big name QB as the primary piece of the puzzle often found themselves on the losing side... The Dog does recall that several analysts rated Rivers higher then the other two QBs at the time of the draft (even though most liked Manning overall)...he was viewed as having a high upside at the time...and true, the Dog agrees that Merriman was not a lock, but the fact is that not having additional picks when you are team that has several holes to fill hurts in the long run...or at least prolongs the ability to start filling those holes... And we are agreeing on your point about not winning a Super Bowl having to do with a weak defense rather then Manning playing poorly...that is why the Dog still contends that it is wise to draft a team rather then draft a player and make him the team... Thank you captain Obvious. You just reiterated what Nas just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Do you ever have an orginal thought? The Dog welcomes well thought out responses...and has responded appropriately...when responses are silly in nature, well, you know how that goes... Sure, how's this one, You're an idiot. Is that original enough for ya? I didnt say SCHMUCK. Although it fits appropriatley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Thank you captain Obvious. You just reiterated what Nas just said. Oh dear...so if the Dog agrees with someone, you go on the attack...if the Dog disagrees, you accuse the Dog of just wanting to "contradict" everyone...the Dog advises you to take three deep breathes before posting...it will help keep you calm and focused, and will prevent impulsive posts that have no place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Oh dear...so if the Dog agrees with someone, you go on the attack...if the Dog disagrees, you accuse the Dog of just wanting to "contradict" everyone...the Dog advises you to take three deep breathes before posting...it will help keep you calm and focused, and will prevent impulsive posts that have no place... lol....no ones out of shape, you just read it that way. Its hard to truly understand someones point, when they are typing. Peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Oh dear...so if the Dog agrees with someone, you go on the attack...if the Dog disagrees, you accuse the Dog of just wanting to "contradict" everyone...the Dog advises you to take three deep breathes before posting...it will help keep you calm and focused, and will prevent impulsive posts that have no place... lol....no ones out of shape, you just read it that way. Its hard to truly understand someones point, when they are typing. Peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Fair enough, but the Dog would still stand by the notion that a franchise QB is not needed...if you look at Super Bowls over the years, even most teams with "franchise" QBs won mostly because of some combination of coaching, the system, a running game and/or defense...teams that had the big name QB as the primary piece of the puzzle often found themselves on the losing side... The Dog does recall that several analysts rated Rivers higher then the other two QBs at the time of the draft (even though most liked Manning overall)...he was viewed as having a high upside at the time...and true, the Dog agrees that Merriman was not a lock, but the fact is that not having additional picks when you are team that has several holes to fill hurts in the long run...or at least prolongs the ability to start filling those holes... And we are agreeing on your point about not winning a Super Bowl having to do with a weak defense rather then Manning playing poorly...that is why the Dog still contends that it is wise to draft a team rather then draft a player and make him the team... The dog would have to agree that hindsight is 20/20. And while I have no regrets over getting Manning as I think he's been superb for us... he just hasn't lived up to the immense expectations some people have of him. We can argue that we have a very solid QB in place and now we can focus on other holes. And we can argue that simply having a first round pick doesn't guarantee you a superstar like Merriman as evidenced by our Willie Joe, Will Allen, and many other first round busts/averages. And we can argue that you can land some very good players in later rounds as we did with Michael Strahan and the ever so classy Amani Toomer (I don't know what rounds they were picked in but I don't believe either was a first round pick... neither was Tiki for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The dog would have to agree that hindsight is 20/20. And while I have no regrets over getting Manning as I think he's been superb for us... he just hasn't lived up to the immense expectations some people have of him. We can argue that we have a very solid QB in place and now we can focus on other holes. And we can argue that simply having a first round pick doesn't guarantee you a superstar like Merriman as evidenced by our Willie Joe, Will Allen, and many other first round busts/averages. And we can argue that you can land some very good players in later rounds as we did with Michael Strahan and the ever so classy Amani Toomer (I don't know what rounds they were picked in but I don't believe either was a first round pick... neither was Tiki for that matter). Toomer was a 2nd round pick, so was Strahan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayD Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Fair enough, but the Dog would still stand by the notion that a franchise QB is not needed...if you look at Super Bowls over the years, even most teams with "franchise" QBs won mostly because of some combination of coaching, the system, a running game and/or defense...teams that had the big name QB as the primary piece of the puzzle often found themselves on the losing side... The Dog does recall that several analysts rated Rivers higher then the other two QBs at the time of the draft (even though most liked Manning overall)...he was viewed as having a high upside at the time...and true, the Dog agrees that Merriman was not a lock, but the fact is that not having additional picks when you are team that has several holes to fill hurts in the long run...or at least prolongs the ability to start filling those holes... And we are agreeing on your point about not winning a Super Bowl having to do with a weak defense rather then Manning playing poorly...that is why the Dog still contends that it is wise to draft a team rather then draft a player and make him the team... We didnt have alot of holes on Defense, we just had alot of injuries, and a really bad DC. We have eliminated at least one of those problems this off season. We are going to kick some major ass this season, and after words no one will be talking about that draft day anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Fair enough, but the Dog would still stand by the notion that a franchise QB is not needed...if you look at Super Bowls over the years, even most teams with "franchise" QBs won mostly because of some combination of coaching, the system, a running game and/or defense...teams that had the big name QB as the primary piece of the puzzle often found themselves on the losing side... Good point. Not sure about why it's in this thread, but good point. I'm just not emotionally prepared to go back through multiple pages of this thread... The Dog does recall that several analysts rated Rivers higher then the other two QBs at the time of the draft (even though most liked Manning overall)...he was viewed as having a high upside at the time...and true, the Dog agrees that Merriman was not a lock, but the fact is that not having additional picks when you are team that has several holes to fill hurts in the long run...or at least prolongs the ability to start filling those holes... "Several" being the main point here. I recall him moving up to the low first round, but it was kind of surprising he was drafted when he was. And I'm not at all convinced that Rivers is going to have a long glorious career--that Kosar throwing motion he has is going to do a number on his arm, even if he doesn't take a hit while it's in motion. And while we did take a beating in the draft in 2005, we did very well that year in free agency. That offset things a little. I think we were hurt more because of the free agents we got in 2004 (Green, Emmons, Hand, etc) than what we did in the draft. Even if Torbor would have developed a little better, we would have had less holes. Signing guys like Arrington and Short, IRs waiting to happen, didn't help things, either. And we are agreeing on your point about not winning a Super Bowl having to do with a weak defense rather then Manning playing poorly...that is why the Dog still contends that it is wise to draft a team rather then draft a player and make him the team... You Eagles and Cowboy guys are going to miss Accorsi more than we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 lol....no ones out of shape, you just read it that way. Its hard to truly understand someones point, when they are typing. Peace? Peace? Not sure...the Dog is still grappling with the whole "idiot" and "schmuck" reference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now