Le'Veon Bell

[Captain Lemming]

For myself and other teams in the league it isn't simply about winning the Superbowl. It's about winning games and having the opportunity to win the Supberbowl. Teams have different formulas to achieve that goal.

Given that “goal” the best option is to get a run first QB. Nearly every one of them get you to the playoffs. Drop back passers have a higher “fail” rate as many dont make the playoffs. But think about the names. Run first QBs get teams to the playoffs PLENTY....nearly ALL do. Including Tebow who beat us in the playoffs. Is THAT a formula to follow if you want to win a SB?

Teams are always going to pay the players that they believe can help them achieve that goal. All of the teams in the league probably have a certain amount of dollars that they will spend in mind per position.

YES, yes THIS is my point. Teams that allocate high salaries to flashy big number receiver and backs overrate the “value” of the position relative to others. In a LEAGUE where this is the norm ANY TEAM that signs a big name player at those positions are overpaying because someone in the league overvalues the position.

It would probably be bad for business if teams simply traded away a proven franchise QB in his prime for the unknown. Fans of the team would probably deem the organization incompetent for trading away a franchise QB in his prime.

I agree. I say the only way to do this is the Packer way, draft the QB first, if he impresses, let the vet go.

It's so easy to say that if teams do this or do that they will win. There is more than one way to achieve the goal of winning games and ultimately the Superbowl. If a team is good enough to make it into the playoffs then that team can play well enough to win the Supberbowl.

Again.....would you draft run first QBs in that quest?

[Captain Lemming]

I can go on with examples:
ADRIAN PETERSEN
BEST BACK OF THE ERA (not Bell BTW) and the most surefire HOFer of ANY runningback in the league;

Vikings 2017 the year after AP was gone......better record than the EVER had with him in his prime.

[hawaiiansteel]

would you draft run first QBs in that quest?

no, I wouldn't. aside from Russell Wilson, what other run first QB has ever won a Super Bowl?

I'm pretty sure there aren't many and you'll go have to go back many years...

[Steel Maniac]

Steve young but he learned to check down to the third option.

[BURGH86STEEL]

Given that “goal” the best option is to get a run first QB. Nearly every one of them get you to the playoffs. Drop back passers have a higher “fail” rate as many dont make the playoffs. But think about the names. Run first QBs get teams to the playoffs PLENTY....nearly ALL do. Including Tebow who beat us in the playoffs. Is THAT a formula to follow if you want to win a SB?



YES, yes THIS is my point. Teams that allocate high salaries to flashy big number receiver and backs overrate the “value” of the position relative to others. In a LEAGUE where this is the norm ANY TEAM that signs a big name player at those positions are overpaying because someone in the league overvalues the position.



I agree. I say the only way to do this is the Packer way, draft the QB first, if he impresses, let the vet go.



Again.....would you draft run first QBs in that quest?

Again it's not simply about winning the Supberbowl. It's about having the ability to win games, make the playoffs, and make it to the Supberbowl. There is more than one formula that can accomplish those goals. Every team in the league can't have the same players, strengths, weaknesses, ect. So teams invest in the players that they believe can help them achieve their goals. Doesn't make them wrong or right.

At the end of the day there are a lot of variables involved in building winning teams and Supberbowl winner. The Rams invested a lot of money into skill position players. As a result they had the opportunity to compete for the Supberbowl. IMO Goeff didn't play well enough in that game. Goeff didn't make the necessary plays to give the Rams the best chance to win. The Rams formula won a lot of games and they gave themselves the opportunity even though they fell short.

Players are worth what teams believe they are worth. That goes for any position. You don't have to agree. It also doesn't make you 100% right in terms of building a winner. Many different types of teams won games and the Supberbowl in the NFL.

I am not sure what you mean by run first QB? A QB won't be a QB if he can't throw the ball.

Teams won a lot of games and the Supberbowl with mobile QB's. Winning with a mobile QB might not be what's ideal but winning can be done. To believe that a team can't win with different types of players and by using different variables is ignorance. It has been done and can be done. I believe that there are many different ways to achieve goals and win in the NFL.

[BURGH86STEEL]

no, I wouldn't. aside from Russell Wilson, what other run first QB has ever won a Super Bowl?

I'm pretty sure there aren't many and you'll go have to go back many years...

There really isn't such a thing as a run 1st QB. QB's are QB's because they have the ability to pass. QB's that can run have the added dimension of running with the football when plays break down. I don't believe there is a team in the league that drafts a QB simply because of his ability to run. They draft those players because they believe they have the potential to pass the ball.

John Elway was a mobile QB that could pass. Ben is a mobile QB that can pass. Newton is an mobile but inconsistent passer.

A lot of the QB's in the league today can run. It's just an added dimension for an offense. That being said I doubt teams want their QB's running with the ball on a regular basis. Teams can win games with mobile QB's.

[Captain Lemming]

Steve young but he learned to check down to the third option.

As a Hawaii fan I watched Steve Young in person from when he was at BYU. He was an outstanding runner for a QB. He was record setting PASSER in college.

He could run, but he was a better PASSER... historical, among the most accurate ever.

I do not consider him a run first QB.

[Captain Lemming]

no, I wouldn't. aside from Russell Wilson, what other run first QB has ever won a Super Bowl?

I'm pretty sure there aren't many and you'll go have to go back many years...

Wilson holds franchise records for career completion percentage (64.2), career passing touchdowns, passing touchdowns in a single season (35), touchdowns in a single-game (5), lowest career interception percentage (1.9), highest career passer rating (100.3), highest passer rating in a single game (158.3), single season passing yards (4,219), and single game passing yards (452).

Yes he can run. But he is the most effective PASSER in that teams history.

[Captain Lemming]

Every team in the league can't have the same players, strengths, weaknesses, ect. So teams invest in the players that they believe can help them achieve their goals. Doesn't make them wrong or right.

Actually, that is not true. The Pats acquired not one but two elite corners they did not draft. If you don't pay certain positions elite money, you can get yourself elite talent elsewhere.

At the end of the day there are a lot of variables involved in building winning teams and Supberbowl winner. The Rams invested a lot of money into skill position players. As a result they had the opportunity to compete for the Supberbowl. IMO Goeff didn't play well enough in that game. Goeff didn't make the necessary plays to give the Rams the best chance to win. The Rams formula won a lot of games and they gave themselves the opportunity even though they fell short.

Players are worth what teams believe they are worth. That goes for any position. You don't have to agree. It also doesn't make you 100% right in terms of building a winner. Many different types of teams won games and the Supberbowl in the NFL.

Teams won a lot of games and the Supberbowl with mobile QB's. Winning with a mobile QB might not be what's ideal but winning can be done. To believe that a team can't win with different types of players and by using different variables is ignorance. It has been done and can be done. I believe that there are many different ways to achieve goals and win in the NFL.

Yes the Rams "invested" in offense. In a kid who likely is DONE as and elite player.

And if they let him play out his rookie deal he STILL plays last season. Smart move?

You said Geoff had a bad game. Yes he did. You know why?

The Pats made THIS far wiser investment.

[Captain Lemming]

I am not sure what you mean by run first QB? A QB won't be a QB if he can't throw the ball.

My definition of a run first QB is one who's overall effectiveness DEPENDS on his ability to run. You can be able to run like Adrian Peterson in his prime.....but if you are also an elite passer, that is not what I mean. The "ability" to run is indeed an asset.

Old man Randall Cunningham, lost a step and had his best all pro seasons. Not my definition. While never winning it all he was capable in my opinion.

Mike Vick, Tim Tebow? That kid in Baltimore? Not starters without elite run skills. That is what I mean by run first.

They ALL make the playoffs.
They NEVER win SBs.