That falls into the category imo, of completely underrating what the player was accomplishing from the first year to now, and the signs of great Qb'ing along the way that made me feel confident about his ascension, even though a lot of folks were criticizing him during the exact time. I think at this point you could say he proved the doubters wrong..
Of course he did, but that's not the point. I had both Flacco and Ryan rated highly coming out. I thought they were both QBs with a chance to be elite. I didn't think their chances were as good as the chances of better prospects like the Mannings or Big Ben (or Tannehill for that matter), but I liked them. (In fact, I even lobbied for a trade up for Flacco). But the reality is that both of those guys benefitted from being on teams that were good enough to win a good number of regular season games without needing the QB to carry them. I don't think they would have won anywhere near as many games in Miami had we drafted them. And without those regular season records they would both probably have moved on from Miami and been seen as bust picks for us. That's the point I made earlier and I stand by that assessment.
but who does that really indict?, if we're grading the player on the way he plays the position then it still would be the right move regardless of where he plays and who he has around him, sure the dolphin team at the time may not of won as many games as the falcons did, but who cares, it's about filling the position with a Qb with great potential to build your team around..Im just not a believer that a Qb who knows how to play will regress because of where he winds up, of course I understand that stats can be affected by variables and talent surrounding but when evaluating the individual you must take those things into account to project the players future as accurately as possible.. There are so many relative theory's involved if your projecting a player in a different situation..One theory I subscribe to is talent will usually overcome and be evident regardless of situation, as long as you can properly put into context surrounding variables.
I don't agree that talent overcomes all. Reality is that the talent level in the NFL is pretty high across the board. The difference for +99% of the players is drive and opportunity to be in a good situation and a good fit.
So how truly good is Jan Brady and Matt Cassel then? Brady goes down, Cassel goes 11-5 with the same team, then leave N.E. and POOF! How would Brady do elsewhere?
He's saying that if Flacco or Ryan came here they wouldn't have fared all that better then Henne and be gone by now. He's saying that because they are good QBs but not put the team on their back elite QBs.
My point is, imo, if your a talented player with a good work ethic, and intelligence, like that of a Ryan or Flacco, those kind of guys change environments, not the other way around, now if your a bad talent evaluator and you fail at surrounding the player with adequate talent, then it should become evident who's responsible for what..great players become great because of their talent, work ethic, and intangibles, conversely players who have an inherent weakness mentally with great talent physically can regress depending on the environment and scheme they are placed in.
your basically saying Rafs believes that Flacco, Ryan, and Henne have comparative talent levels..I disagree with that, very strongly, if indeed he's saying that.. That's actually silly if you ask me..Flacco and Ryan have enough talent to overcome poor teams and poor environments.. Joe Flacco can carry a team on his back, he can run any two minute offense against any defense with explosive plays from pure arm talent plays, scrambling plays.
I did want fisher but not with nearly as strong as conviction as i wanted Harbaugh, because I knew nothing about Philbin, Fin d talked me off the ledge.
No he's saying, if Brady, Manning, etc. are 10s, Henne is a 5 and Ryan & Flacco are 6.5s. They need good teams and the right system around them to thrive. He's saying it isn't likely that Flacco or Ryan would have improved this team dramatically. Instead of 7-9s we'd have been 8-8s. Which means we probably would have had a philosophy change like with Sparano to Philbin, and very likely been looking to upgrade the QB anyway. ....or I am wrong and I shouldn't be talking for Raf.
Just because they wouldn't of done that much better than a Henne in their first comparative years, doesn't mean the jump from the team wouldn't of been bigger in the 2nd year, comparatively speaking, the additional tools in the skillset that a Ryan and Flacco bring to the table eventually would make the team better than a Henne, why?, because their way better qbs. Your grading system is whacked.. Of course Brady, Brees, Rodgers and Mannings are 10's...Flacco and Ryan are 8's..Henne's are 5's.. You can win superbowls and change the direction of a culture with 8's
I don't know why, but I never got the impression that Henne was smart enough to be a quality NFL starter.
I think that Flacco and Ryan have talent that needed years to develop before it could carry a team. They needed experience that they would not have had time to get in a bad environment. Their talent level wasn't so high that they could have walked into a bad team and carried it from day one. As for Henne, I maintained all along that we shouldn't have drafted him b/c I did not believe he had the potential to be a franchise guy.
