1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dolphins’ QB Josh Rosen solid in first start with Miami

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Sceeto, Sep 26, 2019.

  1. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Well I dont think it's all surrounding cast personally. I just believe there is some capability to either make a "good" player look better or an "above average to great" player look worse. Especially in extreme circumstances where that cast is awful beyond what is normal for a team trying to compete.

    I do believe certain players transcend the surrounding cast, like Peyton. However, those guys are so rare that I don't believe you can plan on landing one even if you had the #1 pick for five years in a row.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You don't think Gino would look better throwing to Rice?
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You act like they only try to get elite players at the QB position. Would you rather have an elite QB and average receivers, or an average QB with an elite receiver and two other above average receivers? Which is easier to assemble?
     
  4. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Comedy Central on Jets message board with a reference to the Dolphins tanking for a QB:
    LOL
     
    cuchulainn, KeyFin, Sceeto and 2 others like this.
  5. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Q&A concerning Rosen:

    Starting at 20:43...
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    cbrad, if you would, please post again the data regarding the likelihood of winning a Super Bowl as a function of passer rating.

    I think teams approach the situation such that 1) they are well aware of that likelihood, perhaps if only intuitively, and 2) they attribute passer rating predominantly to quarterbacks' individual ability. Consequently, they prioritize quarterbacks far and away above all other positions.
     
  7. keypusher

    keypusher Well-Known Member

    1,351
    448
    83
    Nov 29, 2007
    This guy would agree. In his list of top 100 QBs, Montana was #7, Brady #3, Marino #2, and Peyton #1. Montana was "only" #7 pretty much for the reasons stated on this thread.

    http://www.footballperspective.com/top-100-qbs-20-1-by-brad-oremland/#more-38590
     
    The Guy likes this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Even if you concede that Montana is "only" #7 all-time, how is the seventh-best quarterback in history -- of the thousands who've played -- not "one of" the best of all time? Where is the cutoff for "one of" the best? The top three?
     
  9. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    To be honest, I probably wouldnt put Montana in the top 50 myself. Hes a system QB and I have an 8ssue rating system QB's that highly.

    He gets points for running the system and making plays. I'm not saying Montana wasnt a "great" player either, but I prefer guys who can succeed in different situations and I dont see Joe that way.
     
    resnor likes this.
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I would agree with that viewpoint if the system he was in resulted in mediocre or worse offensive success. But when the system he was in dominated the league offensively over a relatively long period of time, I think you have to start attributing that success not only to the system, but also to the individual ability of the players in it.

    In other words, if you put a quarterback in a system that’s very easy for the quarterback to run, and consequently the simplicity of the system gets it eaten alive by the opposing defenses around the league, then obviously you can argue that the quarterback involved may not have much individual ability.

    But when the system results in a dynasty on the other hand, again I think you have to start attributing success not only to the system, but also to the individual ability of the players in it.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex and Hooligan like this.
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't care what they prioritize, if they are fundamentally overvaluing the role of the QB, then they're incorrect. I look at QBs like the run game, in a way. You need at least an above average QB. You don't NEED an elite QB, but you certainly need at least average players around whatever QB you have, for the team to be successful. Obviously teams want elite players all over the field, and given how rare it is to have elite QBs available, they're more sought after. Doesn't mean that they're necessarily more important than other players.
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The "SD" in the equations stands for standard deviation. A zero SD is precisely league average, and if you plug 0 into SD in those equations you get a 31.61% probability of making the playoffs in any year you have average QB play (measured by passer rating) and a 2.719% probability of winning the SB in any year you have average QB play.

    [​IMG]
     
    The Guy and Irishman like this.
  13. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Cough cough Steve Young cough cough.

    And perhaps Walsh's system was effective because it was different and new.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  14. keypusher

    keypusher Well-Known Member

    1,351
    448
    83
    Nov 29, 2007
    You're right, I was sloppy. I should have said "this guy doesn't rate Montana quite as high as most would" -- my guess is most would put him top 5 at minimum, but maybe not.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  15. keypusher

    keypusher Well-Known Member

    1,351
    448
    83
    Nov 29, 2007
    I think there had to be more to it than that, because it worked for so long, and in fact the whole NFL eventually moved toward that kind of offense. But of course a scheme by itself is never enough. I think Walsh's first Super Bowl team didn't have really outstanding offensive talent, other than Montana himself. But later you had Roger Craig, Jerry Rice, Steve Young...they would make any offense look good. Like Michael Jordan w/the triangle.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Look at 2008 and our success with the Wildcat. Tons of other teams now include Wildcat concepts, but the idea being that an offensive scheme that is different enough can be wildly successful...even without top notch players all over the field. Then put above average to great players in that system, and it's going to be awesome.
     
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Steve Young finished second in the voting for the Heisman Trophy. Did you think you went to San Francisco with very little individual ability?
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That’s part of the issue: there are very few significantly above-average quarterbacks in the league at any one time. So if as you said, that’s what you need, then the scarcity of those players will make them be prioritized.

    Perhaps we stumbled on where the disagreement hinges: you may believe there are more above-average quarterbacks in the league than there really are.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  19. keypusher

    keypusher Well-Known Member

    1,351
    448
    83
    Nov 29, 2007
    Well, the Wildcat worked in part because it got two outstanding offensive players, Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams, on the field at the same time. But it was never going to be more than a gimmick, because Ronnie Brown couldn't throw. Nobody bases their offense on the Wildcat. The West Coast Offense, on the other hand, transformed football. It was roughly as big a deal as the T-formation was back in the 40s.

    Re the other discussion, I think the perceived shortage of elite quarterbacks is simply a function of how valuable elite quarterbacks are believed to be.
     
  20. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    IMO the Wildcat type offense would be the only offense Tebow could have succeeded in.
    I would be interested if a team could be successful in a mostly running team.
     
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Please don't disregard Steve Young's individual stats and team success prior to moving to an innovative offense in San Fran.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No... I've been pretty clear for years that trying to get an elite QB is a valid strategy, but that's harder than finding an above average QB to pair with better players.
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Right. But the longevity is a different piece. The West Coast offense was innovative at the time, and as such, was very successful. Even more successful when you have Rice and Craig and Montana. I wasn't saying that the Wildcat could ever be as effective long term as the Walsh system...just that it was innovative for the time, and effective because it caught everyone off guard. Of course, with tape and training time, it lost effectiveness very quickly.
     
    keypusher likes this.
  24. keypusher

    keypusher Well-Known Member

    1,351
    448
    83
    Nov 29, 2007
    I think you're right about Tebow. Lamar Jackson or (healthy) Cam Newton presumably could do it now, but I think they're perceived as too valuable to take the kind of pounding a Wildcat tailback would absorb if you used the formation all the time. When the 49ers used the original Shotgun back in 1961, they ran a lot, and they alternated three tailbacks. When Landry brought back the shotgun in the 70s, it was just a passing formation.
     
  25. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Yea. I think you would need 5 qb/rb with giving the starter plenty of time off. Like pulling if game is over or up by two touchdowns
     
  26. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Well like I said, his abilities fit well within that system and I give him credit for being able to run it effectively.

    Hes also a player from a time where it wasnt as hard to build a dynasty. Not to say it was easy, but their roster was basically loaded beyond what most teams were at the time.

    Again I'm not saying he wasnt great or didnt deserve credit, but the reality is that the difference between Montana and Steve Young isnt very big.

    In fact, Young had a better career completion %, YPA and QB rating though his winning percentage was lower.

    I might honestly take Steve Young before Joe.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If anybody said Montana and Young are two of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, I would readily agree with that.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In this day and age it’s far better to take advantage of the rules that protect the quarterback when he’s in the pocket, and have a quarterback who’s highly effective from that area on the field, rather than one who is taking off on running plays.

    Notice the team that’s in the midst of a dynasty at the present time has done just that for the past nearly 20 years.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I mean, I'd probably consider anyone in the top 100 to be one of the best ever. Obviously not all to the same level, but I wouldnt argue they arent great.

    Also I think the original question needs more framework. Like, in this scenario where I'm picking between Rice and Montana who else is on my roster and who else can I pick up?

    If you're telling me I have absolute trash at QB or no hope of obtaining a QB later on that would impact my decision some.
     

Share This Page