McCown would draw plenty of interest

[spanky1]

Russ,

You made a coment in an earlier thread after the SF game that maybe if Warner was playing in the SF game he would have had less yards because he would have been benched early because it would have been an early blow out. You stated that you think Warner would have hit some of those deep balls McCown missed.

Why do you feel that way? I have seen Warner overthrow or underthrow an uncanny amount of deep balls in the first three games. So what makes you have more confidence in his abilities to get it there with that fluttring ball of his?

Warner's skills are definitiely diminishing. Yup, he is a tough SOB, but can't remain healthy for a long enough stretch anymore to provide the continuity that a team needs at the QB position to compete over a season.

We need McCown......tough to argue that he's not our best chance to win.

 

[40yearfan]

I love Josh threads.They are fun to read. Can you imagine if it would have been Josh that lost the Giants game by not spiking the ball. The guy would still be running on the 101 for his life and the world would be watching as he is tared and feathered on his way out of town. Josh has grown in his ability to motavate a team. He never lost his focus against a bad team that was up 14-0 . Heck he was driving towards what could have been a TD when Shipp dropped the ball and the only person that ran after the guy that picked up the fumble was Josh.

IMO he is a leader. He is learning skills and at the age of 26 has a huge upside. I hope he signs and stays here. I hope he gets a chance in camp next year to show what he has learned. He might lay a bomb against the Panthers and half this board will say I told you so. But if he wins the game with 180 yards and a TD half the board will say see he won the other half will say yea but 186 yards give me a break. Josh must be perfect over 300 yards and at least two TD's to start winning respect from the nay sayers. And then he must do it every week or watch out here the boo's.

I will toast Josh tonight and again on Sunday, the kid has guts, and untapped ability. Here's to you !!!

GBR
40

Thank you seesred. This thread makes you realize how jaded cards fans have become. If it isn't their favorite player, they hope for the other guy to do bad so their favorite can come back in. I guess we've gone without wins for so long, certain people have lost sight of that as a goal and only root for certain players.

 

[spanky1]

If you watch the "6 Days to Sunday" show they discussed the play before it happened and Boldin, Fitz and McCown all did exactly what they said they were going to do. McCown congratulates Boldin for occupying the safety on the play. Boldin didn't say " I was wide open", even though he was.

Very good post.....and 100% accurate

 

[Russ Smith]

Where did I ever say that Josh was a better Qb than Kurt? See this is what kills me about you. You throw completely ridiculous statements around with blatant disregard for truth. I never said Josh was better than Kurt. I just think like others that the guy has some talent and with some more experience he will continue to grow.

I've said that since day one. I've never said any different.

And that's all well and good but it brings up other questions which is at least in my case part of the crux of my "problem" with Josh.

I have no argument he is talented he is improving, it would be a shame to dump him and watch him blossom somewhere else. But, I know I'm not the only one who feels that one of the reasons we've passed on Leftwich, Rivers, Roethlisberger and Rodgers in the last 3 drafts is that people felt Josh just might grow into a good QB. So while yes it's perfectly ok to give him time to develop, at what point do you cut the cord and say look we keep passing on QB's because we're waiting on him we gotta get ourselves a QB that develops a bit quicker?

Then you get the Josh is 7-7 in his last 14 starts argument. Remember last year everytime Ben's name was mentioned someone would say yeah but that guy wouldn't be doing that here, he's not winning those games the team is. Everyone could throw out how good the OL was(FYI Oliver Ross starting RT on that OL) and how great the defense and the run game was. And clearly Ben wasn't winning those games on his arm he was simply not screwing up and making enough big plays to contribute.

But then you look at josh and the first thing you see is that his stats in losses were better than in wins across the board except for picks. Josh had 5.72 YPA in wins last year, I think it's pretty clear Josh wasn't winning those games, he was simply NOT losing them and the defense was winning them. The only game you could look at last year and say Josh was a key reason for us winning was the 31-7 Rams win where he had 287 yards passing 2 TD's, 0 picks. 4 of his 5 highest yardage games last year were losses. He won 4 starts last year where he didn't top 157 yards passing. He won quite a few "ugly" games last year.

This offseason most experts were predicting Ben would fall flat on his face, and after 3 weeks he is the highest rated passer in the NFL, hasn't thrown a pick, leads the NFL in YPA, and throws a TD pass every 10 attempts. He's done all this without his favorite WR, and with a first time starter at RB, behind an OL who lost 2 starters to FA, and with the #1 draftpick TE Heath Miller off to a very slow start( I read yesterday he's dropped 4 balls and caught 2 so far this year).

Yet many of the same people who will still insist Ben is just a lucky guy in a great situation will turn around and point to 7-7 as conclusive evidence on Josh.

That's what confuses me. I'd love to keep Josh AND get a young QB by draft or trade. I'm not naive I know Warner won't be able to play much longer and I have no delusions about Navarre or even Davey. The problem is the Cards keep thinking along the lines of well if we keep Josh, we don't need another young QB. To me that's throwing all our eggs in one basket and is misguided.

 

[Shane]

Enough. Please. He's a four-year veteran. He has 16 starts under his belt and appeared in over 20 games. Enough. Josh McCown no longer can be referred to as "inexperienced". Much less "very inexperienced." How many Super Bowls had Tom Brady won by the time he'd had as many starts as McCown?

Nobody on here has claimed that Mccown is a world beater. But as far as QB maturation goes 20 games isnt a whole helluva lot. There have been many GREAT QBs with a lot more games than that before they became GREAT!

 

[kerouac9]

Your probably right. Everyone that doesn't meet the Tom Brady standard sucks.

No, but did you hear anyone saying "Well, Brady's just a young QB," after the Super Bowl when they went 9-7 or 7-9? Of course not. No one was saying that when Ben Roethlisberger was melting down in the preseason. It's not an excuse when you're a four-year veteran with 16 starts under your belt.

I'm not saying that the guy has to win a Super Bowl--if you got that out of my post, you're not paying attention and trying to distract from the real point: that McCown can't be called an "inexperienced" quarterback anymore. That's the definition of making excuses for a player that's run out of them.

And for the record, our of these guys:

a) David Carr
b) Phillip Rivers
c) Rex Grossman
d) Joey Harrington
e) JP Losman
f) Chad Pennington
g) Kyle Boller

I'd rather have Carr and Rivers than McCown. I'd also rather have Patrick Ramsey than McCown, who isn't on this list (but I'm guessing it's because spanky doesn't consider him a "young gun"). I'd rather have a healthy Chad Pennington than anyone on that list, but that player's gone forever. Anyone who calls McCown a "gunslinger" after seeing him play 16 starts has no idea what they're talking about. McCown may be the most risk-averse quarterback this side of Trent Dilfer.

That being said, I hope he beats the Panthers big.

 

[40yearfan]

Nobody on here has claimed that Mccown is a world beater. But as far as QB maturation goes 20 games isnt a whole helluva lot. There have been many GREAT QBs with a lot more games than that before they became GREAT!

A whole 1 1/4 season of football games and he's not playing like Brady. He must be bad.

Whoops, sorry Shane. I meant to quote K9.

 

[kerouac9]

Nobody on here has claimed that Mccown is a world beater. But as far as QB maturation goes 20 games isnt a whole helluva lot. There have been many GREAT QBs with a lot more games than that before they became GREAT!

But four years is a helluva lot. A whole helluva a lot. Please show me the great QBs who wallowed in mediocrity and showed so little flashes of excellence through their first four years and then sprung to life to have a fabulous career with their originial team. I'd love to see that list.

And the Kurt Warners of the NFL don't count. That guy was money from his first start onward. It remains a fact that guys who suddenly "figure it out" after their first contract is complete are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[Russ Smith]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Josh....he isn't the POS that all his detractors think he is.

And he will make a lot of dough next year......somewhere.

Don't recall any of us calling him a POS but don't let that stop you.

 

[Shane]

Don't recall any of us calling him a POS but don't let that stop you.

You havent. But there have been many who have called him things just as bad or worse.

 

[Shane]

But four years is a helluva lot. A whole helluva a lot. Please show me the great QBs who wallowed in mediocrity and showed so little flashes of excellence through their first four years and then sprung to life to have a fabulous career with their originial team. I'd love to see that list.

And the Kurt Warners of the NFL don't count. That guy was money from his first start onward. It remains a fact that guys who suddenly "figure it out" after their first contract is complete are the exception, rather than the rule.

Heres a short list from the top of my head there are more though. I will find them after some more research.

Terry Bradshaw took 5 years and 59 games befre he started to "get it" (Thanks Sir Chaz!)

Brad Johnson took 5 years and 8 starts before he seemed to "get it"

Trent Green took 8 years and 14 starts before he seemed to "get it"

Rich Gannon took 5 years and 23 starts before he seemd to "get it"

Jake Dellhome 6 years and 17 starts before he "got it"

Warren Moon 4 years and 45 starts before he started to "get it"

Matt Hasselbeck 4 years and 12 starts before he "got it"

Heck Jake Plummer 51 starts and 6 years he now obviously "gets it"

Steve Young took 6 years in 19 starts in his first 2 years with TB and he still didnt "get it"

 

[Russ Smith]

You havent. But there have been many who have called him things just as bad or worse.

I thought I showed great restraint not ripping into Josh for tripping JJ when he FINALLY had a good run going.

 

[Chaz]

But four years is a helluva lot. A whole helluva a lot. Please show me the great QBs who wallowed in mediocrity and showed so little flashes of excellence through their first four years and then sprung to life to have a fabulous career with their originial team. I'd love to see that list.

Terry Bradshaw?

 

[ajcardfan]

I thought I showed great restraint not ripping into Josh for tripping JJ when he FINALLY had a good run going.

Stupid Rowen designing a play where McCown is the lead blocker. Stupid Green for hiring Rowen. Stupid Bidwills for hiring Green.


STUPID CARIDNALS!

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

Winning is all that matters... I do not care what stats are if the QB wins I want them in there.


McCown, Dilfer, whoever. There is something to be said for that.

Lets face it--based on stats--Mike Vick does not rank anywhere near the top QB's. But when he is there the whole team plays better and they win 80% of their games.

I am not comparing the ability of McCown and Vick, so dont get in a huff about it.

W's are all that matter and over the past 18-24 games that Cards have played McCown is the only one to get us a W.

There is something to be said for that.

 

[clif]

And that's all well and good but it brings up other questions which is at least in my case part of the crux of my "problem" with Josh.

I have no argument he is talented he is improving, it would be a shame to dump him and watch him blossom somewhere else. But, I know I'm not the only one who feels that one of the reasons we've passed on Leftwich, Rivers, Roethlisberger and Rodgers in the last 3 drafts is that people felt Josh just might grow into a good QB. So while yes it's perfectly ok to give him time to develop, at what point do you cut the cord and say look we keep passing on QB's because we're waiting on him we gotta get ourselves a QB that develops a bit quicker?

Then you get the Josh is 7-7 in his last 14 starts argument. Remember last year everytime Ben's name was mentioned someone would say yeah but that guy wouldn't be doing that here, he's not winning those games the team is. Everyone could throw out how good the OL was(FYI Oliver Ross starting RT on that OL) and how great the defense and the run game was. And clearly Ben wasn't winning those games on his arm he was simply not screwing up and making enough big plays to contribute.

But then you look at josh and the first thing you see is that his stats in losses were better than in wins across the board except for picks. Josh had 5.72 YPA in wins last year, I think it's pretty clear Josh wasn't winning those games, he was simply NOT losing them and the defense was winning them. The only game you could look at last year and say Josh was a key reason for us winning was the 31-7 Rams win where he had 287 yards passing 2 TD's, 0 picks. 4 of his 5 highest yardage games last year were losses. He won 4 starts last year where he didn't top 157 yards passing. He won quite a few "ugly" games last year.

This offseason most experts were predicting Ben would fall flat on his face, and after 3 weeks he is the highest rated passer in the NFL, hasn't thrown a pick, leads the NFL in YPA, and throws a TD pass every 10 attempts. He's done all this without his favorite WR, and with a first time starter at RB, behind an OL who lost 2 starters to FA, and with the #1 draftpick TE Heath Miller off to a very slow start( I read yesterday he's dropped 4 balls and caught 2 so far this year).

Yet many of the same people who will still insist Ben is just a lucky guy in a great situation will turn around and point to 7-7 as conclusive evidence on Josh.

That's what confuses me. I'd love to keep Josh AND get a young QB by draft or trade. I'm not naive I know Warner won't be able to play much longer and I have no delusions about Navarre or even Davey. The problem is the Cards keep thinking along the lines of well if we keep Josh, we don't need another young QB. To me that's throwing all our eggs in one basket and is misguided.

That is where I agree with you. I would have loved to have gotten Big Ben, or Leftwich, but I don't think it makes Josh any less of a Qb because I wanted a franchise type guy.

This is where people get lumped together for unknown reasons. I never said that Big Ben was a product of the Steelers system or anything near that. Some have implied that, but I don't agree with that completely. I think he has certainly benefited from better team play, but I think he has some special talent that would have been nice to see displayed here.

The question though is would it have been enough to matter in the win loss column or better yet would he make more of an impact on this team than Fitz?

The problem I have is when people makes statements like "he will never get it" or "he is the worst Qb in the league" or "he only had 3 good performances out of 15". How do you quantify that? How can anyone say that with an degree of certainty?

I say he should get the season. The same thing I said last year until Denny benched him. I don't think he will though. If he stinks it up this weekend, then I have no problem jumping on the Leinart bandwagon. Not because I think Josh can't improve, but because he won't get another opportunity here.

 

[Russ Smith]

Winning is all that matters... I do not care what stats are if the QB wins I want them in there.


McCown, Dilfer, whoever. There is something to be said for that.

Lets face it--based on stats--Mike Vick does not rank anywhere near the top QB's. But when he is there the whole team plays better and they win 80% of their games.

I am not comparing the ability of McCown and Vick, so dont get in a huff about it.

W's are all that matter and over the past 18-24 games that Cards have played McCown is the only one to get us a W.

There is something to be said for that.

It's actually not that hard to see why Atlanta wins more with Vick. First off his replacements were Doug Johnson and then a rookie. Second, vick greatly improves their run game, they keep the ball longer, keep their defense fresher, and thus win more games.

Stats do show why, you just have to look at the rushing and time of possession not passing yards to see it.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I see it. And it's because of the games he's played so far.

See, this is one of the two things that mystifies me. First of all, you have no reason to believe what I said was a personal attack on you or anyone else. Please don't take it personally. Second of all, no matter what the measurables, Josh has never shown to me (with the exception of the SF game, which can be attributed to extenuating circumstances) that he will be a quarterback that will lead this team to where it wants to go. Here is an excellent read about the QB situation in the NFL. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/051007

(excerpt)Ranking the top 10 teams in the National Football League, the list currently looks like this:

1. Indy (Manning)
2. Philly (McNabb)
3. San Diego (Brees)
4. Atlanta (Vick)
5. Cincy (Palmer)
6. New England (Brady)
7. Denver (Plummer)
8. Pittsburgh (Roethlisberger)
9. N.Y. Giants (Manning)
10. Carolina (Delhomme)

If Arizona ever makes it into this territory, I doubt the name McCown won't be to the right of Arizona. For all of you getting all huffy puffy about our distain for McCown, all of us have said on multiple occasions that we would love for McCown to step up and be the man. He showed flashes of it in the SF game, but let's see how the season plays out. Regardless, we can no longer ignore the obvious problems that we have at QB and OL anymore. These are issues that must be addressed in the offseason, and I believe they will be. Either way it should be interesting, hopefully the McCown lovers are right.

 

[Slacker]

I'll take the wins. Nothing shuts everyone up faster than some Double U's.

Josh has done that more than anyone else. And you can go to the bank that Mr Green won't bench him this year if he keeps winning no matter how ugly those wins are. This city will hang him if he does.

 

[Redsz]

You havent. But there have been many who have called him things just as bad or worse.

I agree. I really don't understand some of the 'venom' that gets spat at Josh on here. It seems some people take this personally.

 

[Redsz]

hopefully the McCown lovers are right.

So if you have a different opinion than someone else on Josh your suddenly a 'josh lover' or a 'josh jocker'?

 

[ASUCHRIS]

So if you have a different opinion than someone else on Josh your suddenly a 'josh lover' or a 'josh jocker'?

Well, since we're playing the name game, I figured I would attach a label...

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

McCown is 7-7 in his last 14 games for a lousy team. That's good. And your claiming otherwise every day doesn't change reality.

Oh, and in that same 7-7 period, all other AZ QBs are a combined 0-6.

So you go ahead and wait forever if you want. Either that or just flee back to the Dolphins boards.

skorp, are you saying that mccown is a good qb? are you saying that you believe that mccown will become a good qb? what are you saying? if he's only bound to be adequate we need to pass on him (pun intended). we've invested so much in our WR corps that to only have an adequate qb getting them the ball turns out to be a tremendous waste of investment.

yes, he's 7-7. i'll give him that. he's kept us in games. but other than the other night, has he won any? i'd say that even given his night our defense won that game. they shut out the opponent. if our offense hadn't given up 14pts our defense could have won with only a fg from the O.

i want our team to be a serious contender, not just a .500 team (and i know we have to take baby steps). i just don't think mccown has the makings of a qb of a contender. a .500 team? maybe. a contender? no.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

On the other hand you could contend that the other QBs with 0 wins on their resume were playing with the same other 10 offensive guys McCown was couldnt you? So whats the common denominator here?

that mccown is better than navarre, king, and an old washed up warner? some serious bragging rights there boy . . . WHOOO!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

IMO he is a leader. He is learning skills and at the age of 26 has a huge upside. I hope he signs and stays here. I hope he gets a chance in camp next year to show what he has learned. He might lay a bomb against the Panthers and half this board will say I told you so. But if he wins the game with 180 yards and a TD half the board will say see he won the other half will say yea but 186 yards give me a break. Josh must be perfect over 300 yards and at least two TD's to start winning respect from the nay sayers. And then he must do it every week or watch out here the boo's.

I will toast Josh tonight and again on Sunday, the kid has guts, and untapped ability. Here's to you !!!

GBR
40

i don't need 300 yards. i want 240 yards and 1.5 td's per game from him. those are average - to - good qb numbers. i also want no more than 1 turnover (ints and fumbles added) per game. we've invested so much in our passing game that an adequate qb doesn't make sense. not with our running game.