Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=skinsfan69;795972]I agree, but in todays watered down NFL QB play is magnified cause it's the most important position on the field. [B]Green Bay overcame all those injuries but the one they could never overcome if Rogers [/B]got hurt. Same with Indy. Take Manning off that team and they might be 5-11 or 6-10 every year.[/quote]

Yes Rogers and Peyton Manning are exceptioanl and hard to over come their injury. But Rogers was the starter for two years prior to 2010, it was not until they finished building their 3-4 defense did the make the promise land.
With Peyton Manning it wasn't until he got a running game and a defense to compliment his incredible passing that they made it. Don't believe all the hype. You still have to have a great all around team. Balanced. A franchise Qb is not a cure all. I would rather have the #1 defense then the #1 qb. Just my opinion. In fact I would rather have the best offensive and defensive lines then the best qb. Peyton Manning ONE Superbowl.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=Defensewins;795986]Yes Rogers and Peyton Manning are exceptioanl and hard to over come their injury. But Rogers was the starter for two years prior to 2010, it was not until they finished building their 3-4 defense did the make the promise land.
With Peyton Manning it wasn't until he got a running game and a defense to compliment his incredible passing that they made it. Don't believe all the hype. You still have to have a great all around team. Balanced. A franchise Qb is not a cure all. I would rather have the #1 defense then the #1 qb. Just my opinion. In fact I would rather have the best offensive and defensive lines then the best qb. Peyton Manning ONE Superbowl.[/quote]

However also keep in mind that when they saw in 2008 that they made the right decision with Rodgers over Favre they were able to focus on building the rest of the team. When you don't have a QB it hangs over your head like a dark cloud. The success of Rodgers allowed management to remain patient and took away the pressure to make drastic decisions like changing over the entire coaching staff.

The point is the right QB allows everything else to slow down. Suddenly you're not worried about trading up beyond reason, or drafting the perfect pass catcher that can succeed with any QB, or getting Lawrence Taylor on defense to compensate for your lack of offense.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;796003]However also keep in mind that when they saw in 2008 that they made the right decision with Rodgers over Favre they were able to focus on building the rest of the team. When you don't have a QB it hangs over your head like a dark cloud. The success of Rodgers allowed management to remain patient and took away the pressure to make drastic decisions like changing over the entire coaching staff.

The point is the right QB allows everything else to slow down. Suddenly you're not worried about trading up beyond reason, or drafting the perfect pass catcher that can succeed with any QB, or getting Lawrence Taylor on defense to compensate for your lack of offense.[/quote]

I see your point, but you are talking about the Green Bay Packers. They know how to run a NFL Franchise correctly. The Packers drafted Rodgers when they still had Farve playing at a decent level and they were not too far from being a SB champ. It was not a need pick, but a luxury pick. They were able to draft and sit Rogers on the bench for years and let him learn from a future HOF QB. That is the way you are supposed to do it.
When we lost Bethard and Casserly we somehow lost the right way to run a franchise and started draft crap. We are now full of crap. :)

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;796003]However also keep in mind that when they saw in 2008 that they made the right decision with Rodgers over Favre they were able to focus on building the rest of the team. When you don't have a QB it hangs over your head like a dark cloud. The success of Rodgers allowed management to remain patient and took away the pressure to make drastic decisions like changing over the entire coaching staff.

The point is the right QB allows everything else to slow down. Suddenly you're not worried about trading up beyond reason, or drafting the perfect pass catcher that can succeed with any QB, or getting Lawrence Taylor on defense to compensate for your lack of offense.[/quote]

Well stated. I agree, get a QB that you can have confidence in developing, then the OL & many other positions can be addressed gradually while he develops.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=Mattyk;795140]Not taking a QB at all in this draft?

Research shows that [URL="http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/31/use-caution-when-drafting-a-second-round-quarterba"]2nd round QBs have been mostly disappointments[/URL], so unless you get a top flight guy in the 1st round it's basically a waste to take a QB in later rounds.

Do you trust the likes of Grossman or Beck? Or picking up a stop gap veteran such as Hasselbeck?[/quote]

Personally I'd be ok with it because "if" a QB is taken it will take time for him to get learn the speed, terminology, and build a connection with Receivers. Grossman already has that for part of last season. I'd almost rather they took OL, DL, LB, and WR... not all in that order. Work on getting the OL better aquanted with the zone blocking scheme and better protection for the QB and a bonified #1 WR, build up the defense with NT and a rushing LB and in next yrs draft pick up a QB or try to jump up and take a QB when we have more picks to and can afford to trade up and offer a 2nd rounder also.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=GTripp0012;795968]We also threw more times, I believe, than any other team in football.[/quote]

You maybe pointing it out but the reason is because the OL was not able to create holes for the RB's possibly due to using the zone blocking for the 1st time..... ever. Although I'll say I think it's KS's scheme also... Houston threw a lot also while he was there.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=Defensewins;795976]No, but we were fourth with 605 pass attempts compared to the #1 team the Colts with 679 pass attempts.[/quote]I stand corrected on this.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=skinsfan69;795972]I agree, but in todays watered down NFL QB play is magnified cause it's the most important position on the field. Green Bay overcame all those injuries but the one they could never overcome if Rogers got hurt. Same with Indy. Take Manning off that team and they might be 5-11 or 6-10 every year.[/quote]Green Bay did nearly go on the road and beat the best team in football with Matt Flynn at quarterback.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=GTripp0012;796088]Green Bay did nearly go on the road and beat the best team in football with Matt Flynn at quarterback.[/quote]

Green Bay was the best team in football.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=Monkeydad;796326]Green Bay was the best team in football.[/quote]At the time? I thought that was their sixth loss of the year.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

GTripp is right, at that point Green Bay was on the decline

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=GTripp0012;795957]It depends on how you define horrible O-line. You could make the argument that the Colts and Chargers have awful lines, but those teams succeed because they don't exactly torpedo their offenses by sucking. Some would argue that, because they don't limit their offenses and can be schemed around, they can't be a horrible o-line, they are merely unremarkable.

But I'll also say that Peyton Manning and Philip Rivers didn't develop behind bad OLs. They benefitted from good line play in their developmental years. And the tried and true way to develop a QB is go allow him good line play in his developmental years.[/quote]


One sous think people would have learned from the Patrick Ramsey experiment.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=Defensewins;795966]No disrespect intended but you sound like Vinny Ceratto. I looked at last years team stats for another thread and I was shocked at how bad our offensive line played both visually and statically. We were 28th in giving up sacks with 46 sacks. We were 31st (next to last) in our QB taking hits with 110 Qb hits. Keep in the mind the worst team had 111, we were one hit away from being last. We were 30th in the league in rushing yards.
I think it is great that you are optimistic, but our O-line sucks.
That you mentioned Heyer is scary. You can not polish a turd. :cheeky-sm
Seriously though, we need new young linemen.[/quote]


I agree with you but I also wonder how much of the OL problems were from the players learning the zone blocking scheme and trying to utilize it for the first time. Plus the fact the team only had a couple of zone blocking style OL.

In any event the team needs more zone blocking style OL and having been in the scheme for a second year I'm hoping the OL plays better.

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

[quote=SBXVII;796342]I agree with you but I also wonder how much of the OL problems were from the players learning the zone blocking scheme and trying to utilize it for the first time. Plus the fact the team only had a couple of zone blocking style OL.

In any event the team needs more zone blocking style OL and having been in the scheme for a second year I'm hoping the OL plays better.[/quote]

Seems like they were able to keep the best front 4 at bay on this play
[YT]jVKT9kjVC0A[/YT]

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

Go deep Rexy!

Re: Would you be ok with...
 

the fact that the OL was able to put together a few good games gives me hope that they'll be better next year. I don't think we're as doomed as some think (with some additions of course).