I knew this day would come...

[Red Fury]

just not so soon. The Cardinals have 3 QB's on their roster and more than likely, in reality, they don't have any. Josh and King will not amount to anything but career backups and based on where Navarro was taken in the draft, he will be lucky to be a backup.

The thing that PO's me is that they had opportunities to take "franchise" QB's in the last two drafts but chose to go a different direction. If they had taken Leftwich two drafts ago they would have been able to focus on the OL and RB positions next year and would have the pieces in place to build a solid team.

As it stands now, they have to find a quality RB,QB, and rebuild the OL. That's alot to ask for in a year or two.

When you have the chance to draft a franchise QB you take it !!![/SIZE]

 

[Lex]

Wouldn't it be nice if all a quarterback had to do to be a "franchise quarterback" is to be drafted in the first round?

Or is the second round ok?

How about the third?

Have there been third round "franchise quarterbacks?"

Is Tom Brady a "franchise quarterback?" Wasn't he drafted in the 6th round out of Michigan, just like Navarre?

What is the exact definition of a "franchise quarterback?"

There's a lot of questions in there.

Personally, I'd like to have a good, cheap, dependable guy behind a great team. I don't give a rats batoot if it's a different guy every year. Spend the money on the team, not the QB.

 

[Pariah]

Personally, I'd like to have a good, cheap, dependable guy behind a great team.

The problem is if it's been proven that a guy is good and dependable, then he's not cheap. In fact, if he's good and dependable, that guy is probably the definition of a "franchise quarterback."

 

[Lex]

Are Pennington and Leftwich dependable?

Since they're both out hurt right now, then they must not be franchise quarterbacks, or, can you be a franchise quarterback if you only play 40-60% of your teams games?

Perhaps when a QB gets "great" as opposed to just "good," he loses dependability?

 

[Pariah]

So you'd rather not have Pennington or Leftwich as the Cardinals' QB--everything else being equal --because you don't think they're "dependable?"

It's like you're a QB-ite. You hate quarterbacks.

 

[Pariah]

Let's focus this agian, thouh: who would you consider "good and dependable?" And, what are you basing it on? (injuries clearly being a factor) Do you think the QBs you have in mind can be had for "cheap?"

 

[spanky1]

So you'd rather not have Pennington or Leftwich as the Cardinals' QB--everything else being equal --because you don't think they're "dependable?"

It's like you're a QB-ite. You hate quarterbacks.

Pariah,

I'm not sure that I would consider either Pennington or Leftwich in an elite class of QB.......personally, I think that the two of them are good but otherwise over rated.

 

[Lex]

Pariah-

Yes. I hate quarterbacks. All of em.

Good and dependable in my head would be most of the QB's firmly in the middle of the pack.

It's like a Lamborghini, awesome, the best, breathtaking, when it runs. Causes a lot of problems in the house when the payment, and insurance bills come due, causes fights with the wife, and is in the shop all the time.

Or a Camry. Fuel efficiant, room for more of the family, never breaks down, costs so little, the wife can have one too. Gets the job done quietly, doesn't hog any attention.

Is the risk worth the reward?

 

[Pariah]

Pariah,

I'm not sure that I would consider either Pennington or Leftwich in an elite class of QB.......personally, I think that the two of them are good but otherwise over rated.

They may be overrated, but overall, they're fairly dependable. They'll deliver the ball to the WRs and RBs pretty consistently. They won't come cheap when their contracts are up.

Just like Brees--he's at best a "good and dependable" QB. Teams will be willing to pay out the nose for him because he has those qualities.

 

[conraddobler]

Pariah-

Yes. I hate quarterbacks. All of em.

Good and dependable in my head would be most of the QB's firmly in the middle of the pack.

It's like a Lamborghini, awesome, the best, breathtaking, when it runs. Causes a lot of problems in the house when the payment, and insurance bills come due, causes fights with the wife, and is in the shop all the time.

Or a Camry. Fuel efficiant, room for more of the family, never breaks down, costs so little, the wife can have one too. Gets the job done quietly, doesn't hog any attention.

Is the risk worth the reward?

Really I am with you, when you get Manning on your team for instance then he breaks the bank so hard that it is really tough to complete a team around him that can stand up in the playoffs.

McNabb had some of the same issues but now they are making a real push for it but is it enough? I don't know there is always a cost for a really good QB.

Brady is very close to your answer when you factor in his cost isn't like Mannings.

Still solid but not flashy QB's require good teams around them and I think we can build that.

 

[chickenhead]

All you have to do is look at the all the QBs who were taken in the first round, factor in the busts, and compare with the non-first rounders who are starting, and it is crystal clear that the opportunity cost for a "franchise QB" is really high. Perhaps even prohibitively high.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Wouldn't it be nice if all a quarterback had to do to be a "franchise quarterback" is to be drafted in the first round?

Or is the second round ok?

How about the third?

Have there been third round "franchise quarterbacks?"

Is Tom Brady a "franchise quarterback?" Wasn't he drafted in the 6th round out of Michigan, just like Navarre?

What is the exact definition of a "franchise quarterback?"

There's a lot of questions in there.

Personally, I'd like to have a good, cheap, dependable guy behind a great team. I don't give a rats batoot if it's a different guy every year. Spend the money on the team, not the QB.

Cheap, dependable? ummm ok name one! Where ya gonna get him?

Why not bring a guy in with talent and mold him into the type of QB that best fits your team and offense? If you find a QB thats solid your gonna have to pay eventually anyway.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Wouldn't it be nice if all a quarterback had to do to be a "franchise quarterback" is to be drafted in the first round?

Or is the second round ok?

How about the third?

Have there been third round "franchise quarterbacks?"

Is Tom Brady a "franchise quarterback?" Wasn't he drafted in the 6th round out of Michigan, just like Navarre?

lex, i guess what you fail to understand throughout ALL our talks regarding qbs in the past is that your percentage of success decreases incrementally each round you wait to draft a qb. if you look at the successful qbs in the league i'm sure you'll see a higher number of successful guys in the higher rounds and it will decrease with each lower round you enter. you can't compare the number of qbs drafted in the first round to all others drafted in later rounds, you have to compare the numbers round by round to determine the percentages. i don't have the energy to look this up and do the percentages, but i'm 99% sure i'll be proven correct.

 

[Lex]

PHXSPORTS4LIFE-

So, what you're basically saying is that the more lottery tickets you buy, the better chance you have of winning?

But no matter how many lottery tickets you buy, you're STILL not guaranteed a winner, and buying lottery tickets in GENERAL, is still not a good way to spend your money?

I agree.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Pariah,

I'm not sure that I would consider either Pennington or Leftwich in an elite class of QB.......personally, I think that the two of them are good but otherwise over rated.

but would you take them over what we have? that's the key question. if we had 'em we'd be head and shoulders over where we are now and we be patiently waiting out their injuries, hoping they returned in time to take us to the playoffs.

 

[Russ Smith]

PHXSPORTS4LIFE-

So, what you're basically saying is that the more lottery tickets you buy, the better chance you have of winning?

But no matter how many lottery tickets you buy, you're STILL not guaranteed a winner, and buying lottery tickets in GENERAL, is still not a good way to spend your money?

I agree.

Next you're going to tell us blackjack and slot machines at Thunder Valley Casino are not a good investment?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

PHXSPORTS4LIFE-

So, what you're basically saying is that the more lottery tickets you buy, the better chance you have of winning?

But no matter how many lottery tickets you buy, you're STILL not guaranteed a winner, and buying lottery tickets in GENERAL, is still not a good way to spend your money?

I agree.

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME BY THAT FORGOTTEN NAME!!!

i think that's a lousy comparison. ALL draft picks are like lottery tix. there are winners and losers at all positions. but the higher you draft someone, the more of an opportunity you have to select one (any position, EVEN QB) that you've graded out as a better risk than others.

if i've got 7 envelopes, and, through my research i've determined that each has the following percentages of having $100 in it:

#1 - 50%
#2 - 25%
#3 - 11%
#4 - 5%
#5 - 4%
#6 - 3%
#7 - 2%

and i got to choose first, i would choose envelope #1.

that's my analogy.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Pariah-

Yes. I hate quarterbacks. All of em.

Good and dependable in my head would be most of the QB's firmly in the middle of the pack.

It's like a Lamborghini, awesome, the best, breathtaking, when it runs. Causes a lot of problems in the house when the payment, and insurance bills come due, causes fights with the wife, and is in the shop all the time.

Or a Camry. Fuel efficiant, room for more of the family, never breaks down, costs so little, the wife can have one too. Gets the job done quietly, doesn't hog any attention.

Is the risk worth the reward?

but when you've paid 'quan and fitz so much (presumably) are you really gonna expect them to drive camrys?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Really I am with you, when you get Manning on your team for instance then he breaks the bank so hard that it is really tough to complete a team around him that can stand up in the playoffs.

McNabb had some of the same issues but now they are making a real push for it but is it enough? I don't know there is always a cost for a really good QB.

Brady is very close to your answer when you factor in his cost isn't like Mannings.

Still solid but not flashy QB's require good teams around them and I think we can build that.

this is only true b/c brady has not yet broken the bank. but he'll do so when yhe next gets the chance. the best qbs end up with the most money. it's that simple.

i wish we had the colts or eagles "problems" sheesh.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

All you have to do is look at the all the QBs who were taken in the first round, factor in the busts, and compare with the non-first rounders who are starting, and it is crystal clear that the opportunity cost for a "franchise QB" is really high. Perhaps even prohibitively high.

no, as i just said you can't compare a first rounder to ALL other rounds, that's ridiculous. you have to compare each round independently to determine which round is the most cost effective. to do otherwise is dumb just b/c you're comparing 31 selections to 180+ selections, of course you have a greater chance at finding more qbs in 180+ selections than you do in 31.

 

[Lex]

Ouchie-

There are also other issues involved in taking envelope #1 too.

#1 may have a 50% chance of having the 100 dollar bill in it, but it also has a 50% chance of having a 100 dollar DUE BILL in it.

 

[Russ Smith]

this is only true b/c brady has not yet broken the bank. but he'll do so when yhe next gets the chance. the best qbs end up with the most money. it's that simple.

i wish we had the colts or eagles "problems" sheesh.

Brady's chance may be this offseason, he's in year 2 of a 4 year 28 million deal but when they signed it, they didn't know if he was a one year wonder or not, now they know. His agent is reportedly already asking to renegotiate.

Don't forgetm, when he signed that deal, they cut Lawyer Milloy, Lex is right the QB contracts eventually do hurt you.

People keep saying it hasn't hurt the Colts, they can sign all their players, but guess why they can't sign any defensive help, and why they lost a solid role player like Macklin?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Don't forgetm, when he signed that deal, they cut Lawyer Milloy, Lex is right the QB contracts eventually do hurt you.

People keep saying it hasn't hurt the Colts, they can sign all their players, but guess why they can't sign any defensive help, and why they lost a solid role player like Macklin?

i don't argue with this, but the fact of the matter is, if you have a good qb, eventually you have to pay him. that's just the facts of life in the nfl these days. i'd rather have the good-great qb and be in every game than watch 90 yards of pure, unadulturated feeecccch or 343 yards of interceptions/fumbles.

 

[Krazykoot]

Good Points.however Any Qb Needs Time.mcown Was Sat Down By Our O-line,king Fumbled Four Times Thanks To Our O-line.none Of The Qbs That Have Been Mentioned Would Be A Success With No Protection At All.say Qb All You Want But I Think Pass Protection And A Running Game Is Where We Start.

 

[Russ Smith]

i don't argue with this, but the fact of the matter is, if you have a good qb, eventually you have to pay him. that's just the facts of life in the nfl these days. i'd rather have the good-great qb and be in every game than watch 90 yards of pure, unadulturated feeecccch or 343 yards of interceptions/fumbles.

agreed. No such thing as a good, cheap QB in the NFL, not for more than one year.

If josh had lit it up this year, he'd have broken the bank next year.