Trap QB's

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

But at that point the mere fact they have won the super bowl makes some of them elite QBs. So it is a loop he's an elite QB because he won Super Bowls and he won Super Bowls because he is elite.

I think to be in the elite conversation, outside of a couple of examples, like the Dan Marinos of the world, you need a SB to be considered elite.

But to be a SB caliber qb, I think all you have to be is a top 10 caliber qb. So I think we can evaluate a quarterback prior to him winning a SB to determine if he's good enough to win one. Does that make any sense? I'm not sure if I'm explaining my point properly.

I know Eli will come up as an example against that. Me personally, I've always held Eli to a much higher regard than most people on this forum prior to him winning a SB, but that's also because I watch him every week and know our playbook and offense pretty well.

*shrug*

I just think you need a top 10 qb to compete. Or a guy who looks like he can develop into a top 10 qb.

[brat316]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I think to be in the elite conversation, outside of a couple of examples, like the Dan Marinos of the world, you need a SB to be considered elite.

But to be a SB caliber qb, I think all you have to be is a top 10 caliber qb. So I think we can evaluate a quarterback prior to him winning a SB to determine if he's good enough to win one. Does that make any sense? I'm not sure if I'm explaining my point properly.

I know Eli will come up as an example against that. Me personally, I've always held Eli to a much higher regard than most people on this forum prior to him winning a SB, but that's also because I watch him every week and know our playbook and offense pretty well.

*shrug*

I just think you need a top 10 qb to compete. Or a guy who looks like he can develop into a top 10 qb.

but if a majority of teams end up with top 10 Qbs, wouldn't that push the current top 10 guys in the middle of pack?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

but if a majority of teams end up with top 10 Qbs, wouldn't that push the current top 10 guys in the middle of pack?

It's impossible for the majority of the teams to have a top 10 qb...

[brat316]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

It's impossible for the majority of the teams to have a top 10 qb...

Well play like a top 10, then.


who do you think are top 10 now?

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by hockey619

This may seem a bit premature with the season still going, but its an observation I feel warrants discussion.

Changes in league rules have lead to a large number of successful QB's, and a lot who are good early in their careers. As a matter of fact, most QB's who arent good to begin their careers (first two years) are just not good QB's and should be moved on from right away. As shown recently, guys who dont succeed early with the way the rules are just dont seem to succeed at all. All of these good or better QBs have made it more common to have a 'Franchise QB.'

But are there really more franchise guys? Or guys who are good masquerading as franchise saviors? This leads me to this idea...



Trap QB- a QB whos talent (or circumstance with surrounding talent plus current league rules) is above average/good and allows the team to win games, but simultaneously this QB is also not good enough to win the super bowl. Team believes finding a superior player is unlikely with the draft spot the QB gets them (high teens and 20's) and dont want to invest in moving up for a top talent guy and starting over because they believe they are another piece or two away from winning the big one/believe finding a superior replacement to be unlikely/ etc reasons.
Basically, a trap QB is not good enough to beat an elite guy (Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers) without an all star cast but not bad enough to clearly warrant replacing yet appears to have reached his peak level of success. Thus, his team is "trapped," or stuck with said player and level of success/near success.

current trap QBs:
Romo
Flacco
Cutler
Schaub
Vick
Rivers


Guys who might be but its too early to tell for sure
Stafford
Newton
Ryan

These guys might be trap qbs or might just not be very good at all
Freeman
Bradford
Fitzpatrick



What say you DC? do you agree with the idea of trap Qbs (franchise qb posers, whatever you want to call them)? Do you agree/disagree with the names?

How is it that Manning, Brees and Rodgers are considered elite QBs when they have only a single Super Bowl win each?

Peyton Manning has 14 seasons in the NFL under his belt (still going in 2012)
Drew Brees has a total of 12 seasons completed (his 2012 is done)
Aaron Rodgers has a total of 7 seasons completed (still going in 2012)

In their entire 33 seasons, they have 3 rings between them. How are you so sure that these aren't just lucky QBs like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson?

This whole exercise is started under a false premise that only certain types of QBs can win the Super Bowl, and if one brings up a QBs supporting cast the response is "Well that's why they are trap QBs. They have to have an incredible supporting cast to win."

I have news for you, every Super Bowl winning quarterback had an incredible supporting cast. Kurt Warner had a ridiculously talented offense around him. Trent Dilfer had a great defense and was facing a Bill Callahan coached team. Tom Brady had great defenses in 38 and 39. Do I really need to say anything about Pittsburgh's 2 winning teams? Or New York's winning teams and their defensive lines?

This is an entirely futile exercise. Under these criteria, John Elway would have been considered a trap QB his entire career until the final 2 seasons.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

Well play like a top 10, then.


who do you think are top 10 now?

Right here right now, in no particular order:

Brady
Peyton
Rodgers
Brees
Eli
Roethlisberger
Ryan


I think once we pass those 7 it gets a little cloudy. The old remaining 3 would have been Rivers, Romo, and Stafford, but with the emergence of the 3 rookie qbs, I'm very tempted to already put Luck, RGIII and Cam Newton in the top 10, with Wilson as a fringe guy already. But it's hard for me to do that just yet. I'm just amazed how great this rookie qb class is. Yes, Im aware Cam is 2nd year, but I had to throw him in there.

And that's why evaluation of the qb position is an ongoing process. A guy like Jay Cutler can look like maybe he is that top 10 caliber player but after a couple of years, you need to reevaluate.

You're constantly evaluating the position, and how you stack up at that position relative to the rest of the league.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

But at that point the mere fact they have won the super bowl makes some of them elite QBs. So it is a loop he's an elite QB because he won Super Bowls and he won Super Bowls because he is elite.

Playing elite and winning your team a superbowl does tend to prove that you're elite, yes that's true.

[brat316]

Brad johnson, Bradshaw no where near elite.

[Rosebud]

Brad Johnson also didn't play elite and win the SB for his team.

[Monomach]

I swear to god, if Joe Flacco had a 100-yard passing game with Baltimore's D shutting out the other team and stumbled into a ring this year, you jokers would immediately stop hating on him and say he's elite and "made clutch throws."

People who use Super Bowl wins as an individual player statistic are huge meatballs. They're the same toolbags that call into sports talk radio and mention things like "Bear weather" as a team strength. They're basically these guys:

[bigbluedefense]

Don't worry, that's not gonna happen.

It's Brady/Manning vs Rodgers/Ryan in the SB.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

Playing elite and winning your team a superbowl does tend to prove that you're elite, yes that's true.

Once again falling to a false premise that it takes elite QB play to win a super bowl. Also if a QB say has an average statistical season and doesn't make the playoffs then are they then considered back at non elite?

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

Once again falling to a false premise that it takes elite QB play to win a super bowl. Also if a QB say has an average statistical season and doesn't make the playoffs then are they then considered back at non elite?

No there isn't. Brad Johnson is a fine example that in a previous era you didn't need to play at an elite level to win a QB. But since the rules have changed the superbowl winners have played elite football.

[Monomach]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

No there isn't. Brad Johnson is a fine example that in a previous era you didn't need to play at an elite level to win a QB. But since the rules have changed the superbowl winners have played elite football.

No, they have not always played elite football. Sometimes, they've played somewhere between crappy and a little above average. Doesn't matter, though; once they get that ring they get that elite label and never lose it.

[Brothgar]

Lets put it this way Eli Manning did not play elite football this season. Average statistically and slightly above average winning percentage for the season I don't think you have seen other elite QBs such as Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees. Have such poor statistics and only Brees has missed the playoffs (when healthy) as far as I can remember. So to me that puts a significant discrepancy between the talent level of those four and Eli. Thus there seems to be four elite QBs and only four teams should be able to win the Super Bowl.

EDIT: Quoted wrong post -___-

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by Monomach

I swear to god, if Joe Flacco had a 100-yard passing game with Baltimore's D shutting out the other team and stumbled into a ring this year, you jokers would immediately stop hating on him and say he's elite and "made clutch throws."

People who use Super Bowl wins as an individual player statistic are huge meatballs. They're the same toolbags that call into sports talk radio and mention things like "Bear weather" as a team strength. They're basically these guys:

Originally Posted by Brothgar

Once again falling to a false premise that it takes elite QB play to win a super bowl. Also if a QB say has an average statistical season and doesn't make the playoffs then are they then considered back at non elite?

Originally Posted by Rosebud

No there isn't. Brad Johnson is a fine example that in a previous era you didn't need to play at an elite level to win a QB. But since the rules have changed the superbowl winners have played elite football.

This is good stuff.

On my way home after the Ravens win last night, I immediately thought of this thread. This is amazing that the Super Bowl is Flacco vs. Kaepernick.

[wogitalia]

Year of the trap QB...

[Monomach]

Joe Flacco's a true trap QB; gonna trap his ring finger with some bling.

[descendency]

Originally Posted by wogitalia

Year of the trap QB...

Is that ESPN's draft special?

(please don't kill me Chiefs fans)

[bigbluedefense]

I don't get what all the fuss is about. The point still stands. You are much more likely to go to a SB with a top 10 qb than without one.

Every now and then we get deviations from the norm. It's the case with any statistical data, you get those data points that don't line up with the rest of them. The outliers.

It happens. But just bc it happens doesn't mean it's a good idea to form opinions based off of it. Ask any scientist or engineer what would happen to them if they tried forming opinions based on outlier statistics. They'd get laughed out of the meeting.

Does this SB mean that the Andy Daltons of the world have a chance? I guess. Does it make it a good idea to move forward in this manner? No. It's still much more likely that he doesn't go anywhere near a SB.

Having that said, the whole qb ranking thing is gonna get a bit more difficult. We have a TON of promising young quarterbacks taking the league by storm. We're about to have a logjam of quarterbacks with equal ability and I may have to rethink my stance on this when that happens.

Bc if we have a good 15 qbs of near equal ability, then you have to look beyond the qb position. But for the most part, it still stands that you're gonna be much more likely to win with a top 10 qb.

I don't see how the recent events changes that.

[Monomach]

"Can't compete without a top ten QB" becomes "More likely to compete with a top ten QB."

Goalposts moved.

[bigbluedefense]

I still strongly feel that you can't compete without one. Sure. One year of having 2 qbs who aren't in the top 10 doesn't really change my opinion. I don't see what's the big deal in that.

Youre actually looking pretty foolish right now. You're pimping 1 year of outlier data in the past 8 years as if that's the standard teams should follow.

It's pretty stupid.

[Saints-Tigers]

Eventually, the goalposts have to move if their is a surge in talent. If there was Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, and then the third best QB was Matt Schaub, most teams wouldn't have a chance.

If the guy ranked 7 and 15 are pretty damn close, the top 10 thing becomes a very arbitrary number.

It's hard to find an elite QB, but I'd argue it's much harder to build and hold together a team as ridiculously talented as the 49ers.

[bigbluedefense]

The stay power of that kind of team isn't very good either. You can have a complete team for maybe 2 or 3 years but that's about it.

If you have a top talent at qb you'll be competitive every year.

It's just a dumb way to build your team. I don't get what all the gloating is about.

[bigbluedefense]

This is the first year in 10 years that a Manning, Brady, or Roethlisberger isn't in the SB.

10 years.

We had one blip in 10 years. That doesn't all of a sudden change the trend. The trend will stay on its course.