With Shurmur's offense, Weeds had a foot in a bucket and the offense was not going to be stellar. I don't know if Chud's offense will set the world
on fire but if Norm Turner can't get Weeden to near a 90 passing rating, then look to find someone else next year. I just think with the investment (the past regime)
made at least, give Weeden a shot at improving instead of going and finding a retread and start over again in year two of his developement no matter how old he is.
You really don't see a difference in today's NFL, JD? You think it's an accident Cam Newton (who will never be considered a cerebral QB) was able to put up impressive passing numbers (never mind his running) as a rookie, while Manning's numbers were nothing short of awful (at least by today's standards) in his rookie season, along with Elway, etc.?Never said I didn't see a difference in "Today's NFL"... But I don't see much of a change at the QB position... Every season there are rookie QB's that put up sub par numbers and rookies that put up great numbers... happens every year! Nothing out of the oridinary! Is it an accident that Aaron Rodgers sat on the bench his first three years in the league, came in and hit the ground running? Then guys like Weeden, get thrown into the fire immediatlely and stumble?
Does Newton strike you as a rocket scientist, TD? I also said I didn't think Weeden was all that bright, but you didn't jump to his defense. It's really not so much about the position changing, but the changes in defensive schemes and the rules that make passing easier than it was in the past.
I don't think you need a flux capaciter to simply look at the numbers from the 90s and now. But, if you are inclined to find one, don't forget the plutonium, as well.
No, Newton doesn't strike me as a "Rocket Scientist"... But to even think for one second the the QB position is any less cerebral 15 years ago than it is today... is a rediculous statement to make! Do I think Weeden is all that bright? He's no dumber than Newton that's for sure! And let's just compare numbers of JUST the 1998 season for a second!
Randall Cunningham - 106.0
Vinny Testaverde - 101.6
Steve Young - 101.1
Chris Chandler - 100.9
Horseface Elway - 93.0
There's your top 5 QB Ratings
Kerry Collins - 62.0
Donald Hollas - 60.6
Craig Welihan - 48.0
Bobby Hoying - 45.6
Ryan Leaf - 39.0 (Wow, he was just baaaaaaad!)
There's your bottom 5
Peyton Manning (23rd in the league) - 71.2
These numbers are based on a min of 224 pass attempts... Apples to Apples... Manning WAS NOT GOOD his rookie season!!! Wow, you're right, no time machine needed! 
You really don't see a difference in today's NFL, JD? You think it's an accident Cam Newton (who will never be considered a cerebral QB) was able to put up impressive passing numbers (never mind his running) as a rookie, while Manning's numbers were nothing short of awful (at least by today's standards) in his rookie season, along with Elway, etc.?Never said I didn't see a difference in "Today's NFL"... But I don't see much of a change at the QB position... Every season there are rookie QB's that put up sub par numbers and rookies that put up great numbers... happens every year! Nothing out of the oridinary! Is it an accident that Aaron Rodgers sat on the bench his first three years in the league, came in and hit the ground running? Then guys like Weeden, get thrown into the fire immediatlely and stumble?
Does Newton strike you as a rocket scientist, TD? I also said I didn't think Weeden was all that bright, but you didn't jump to his defense. It's really not so much about the position changing, but the changes in defensive schemes and the rules that make passing easier than it was in the past.
I don't think you need a flux capaciter to simply look at the numbers from the 90s and now. But, if you are inclined to find one, don't forget the plutonium, as well.
No, Newton doesn't strike me as a "Rocket Scientist"... But to even think for one second the the QB position is any less cerebral 15 years ago than it is today... is a rediculous statement to make! Do I think Weeden is all that bright? He's no dumber than Newton that's for sure! And let's just compare numbers of JUST the 1998 season for a second!
Randall Cunningham - 106.0
Vinny Testaverde - 101.6
Steve Young - 101.1
Chris Chandler - 100.9
Horseface Elway - 93.0
There's your top 5 QB Ratings
Kerry Collins - 62.0
Donald Hollas - 60.6
Craig Welihan - 48.0
Bobby Hoying - 45.6
Ryan Leaf - 39.0 (Wow, he was just baaaaaaad!)
There's your bottom 5
Peyton Manning (23rd in the league) - 71.2
These numbers are based on a min of 224 pass attempts... Apples to Apples... Manning WAS NOT GOOD his rookie season!!! Wow, you're right, no time machine needed!
Looking at guys in the top 10, they range from 106-87 in rating with 4 above 100 in 1998, 108-90 with 4 above 100 (122-90 in 2011) last season
yards - 4200-3200 with 2 above 4000 in 1998, 5177-4020 with 11 above 4000 in 2012
TDs - 36-21 with 3 above 30 in 1998, 43-26 with 5 above 30 in 2012
completion % - 63-59% in 1998, 69-63% now
See a difference? Obviously without the FC we can;t know for sure, but my guess is Manning would put up better numbers in today's NFL as a rookie.
I think it shows you it all depends on the QB. Did RG3 or Wilson appear to "struggle"? That's the point...seemed QBs all either sat the bench or struggled in the past. Now they can get thrown into the fire and succeedNow they get thrown into the fire and succeed? How did you come up with that, cuz a couple exceptions come in and do well? I think we can all agree that 2008 would qualify as "Today's NFL", so here's a look at QB's taken in the first (high Second) round and "Thrown into the fir"
You're right... they passed the ball less in 1998... No arguments here... You're right again, the rule changes favor the passing game, I 100% agree with that.... BUT in 1998 Manning was the 23rd best QB in the league, in that year, when every QB was playing "The same NFL" in an Apples to Apples comparison, Manning was 23rd best, period, plain and simple, only better than 8 other QB's... So, regaurdless of your view of how the NFL is played today, Manning just wasn't a good Rookie in 1998!!!
Looking at guys in the top 10, they range from 106-87 in rating with 4 above 100 in 1998, 108-90 with 4 above 100 (122-90 in 2011) last season
yards - 4200-3200 with 2 above 4000 in 1998, 5177-4020 with 11 above 4000 in 2012
TDs - 36-21 with 3 above 30 in 1998, 43-26 with 5 above 30 in 2012
completion % - 63-59% in 1998, 69-63% now
See a difference? Obviously without the FC we can;t know for sure, but my guess is Manning would put up better numbers in today's NFL as a rookie.
2012 - Andrew Luck - 26th - FAIL
Really? The dude got his TEAM into the playoffs. Granted, his stats weren't great but, (IMHO) he was far from a "FAIL".I agree, really I do, I'm not saying that Andrew Luck isn't a good QB... Not by any stretch... and there's alot more to a QB than just stats, I'm just saying that all the "Weeden Sucks" people need to realize that yes, his Rookie Year SUCKED... but he ain't the first Rookie QB to suck his first year, and he sure as hell won't be the last!!! Luck, RG3, Wilson... all had phenominal seasons... but they are the EXCEPTIONS, not the rule, I don't give a chit what "Era of the NFL" we're in! If anyone thinks this years crop of QB's is gonna light it up like last years, I have a feeling they'll be very disappointed!
The same could be said of Andy Dalton in 2011 (whom you have rated as "Avg"). Not great stats (close to McCoys if I recall correctly) but, the Bengals were in the playoffs last year and this year.
I think the question that begs to be asked here is do we want a Stats machine at QB or a QB that leads the TEAM into the playoffs and (hopefully) beyond?
I think it shows you it all depends on the QB. Did RG3 or Wilson appear to "struggle"? That's the point...seemed QBs all either sat the bench or struggled in the past. Now they can get thrown into the fire and succeedNow they get thrown into the fire and succeed? How did you come up with that, cuz a couple exceptions come in and do well? I think we can all agree that 2008 would qualify as "Today's NFL", so here's a look at QB's taken in the first (high Second) round and "Thrown into the fir"
I agree, really I do, I'm not saying that Andrew Luck isn't a good QB... Not by any stretch... and there's alot more to a QB than just stats, I'm just saying that all the "Weeden Sucks" people need to realize that yes, his Rookie Year SUCKED... but he ain't the first Rookie QB to suck his first year, and he sure as hell won't be the last!!!JYD,
Was actually paying close attention until you listed Luck as a fail. Perhaps you'd like to tell us the difference in the Colts which improved them from 1 win to the playoffs. The guy threw for 4400 yards and 23 TDs AS A ROOKIE. This is a fail in your eyes?I was speaking of individual stats, not TEAM success... as far as JUST Andrew Luck, he was the 26th best QB in the league, he threw 23 TD's yes, also threw 18 INTS and only posted a a 54.1% comp percentage AND took 41 sacks... that's not great!!! Compare to Weeden 57.4% and 28 sacks.. now, I'm not saying Weeden had a better season, but as far as INDIVIDUAL stats, Luck was Avg... the TEAM made it to the playoffs
Sorry, must have misunderstood because of this statement YOU MADE:
And perhaps you'll need to brush on your comprehension skills as I said they get thrown into the fire and can succeed. Who said they ALWAYS succeed?
...seemed QBs all either sat the bench or struggled in the past. Now they can get thrown into the fire and succeed
No one said rookie QBs will be top 10 from the start in QBR. To me, a success as a rookie is showing you belong in the NFL and in time look like you will become a solid (or better than solid) QB. And why no Russell Wilson from this season? Not enough passes, so we can't call him a success?Maybe you should brush up on YOUR comprehension skills as I clearly stated that I was taking a look at QB's drafted IN THE FIRST or EARLY SECOND ROUND... Wilson was a THIRD ROUND (he also benefitted greatly because of Lynch, one hell of a defense, and a "Fail Mary" play, that without that "win" might not have even made the playoffs... not sure who would've won the tie breaker between them and Minnesota)
