View Full Version : Dr Z at it again
burmafrd
06-14-2006, 06:52 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/06/13/injuries/1.html
I really thought he was writing a good column untill he got to Brees. I thought everyone knew that it was the Chargers GM that wanted Brees out of there for his man Rivers. Now I am not saying that Marty loved Brees, but he was pretty clear that he was quite happy to keep him. No coach wants to toss a Pro Bowl QB for an untested kid. ESPECIALLY when you have a team that really is primed for a SB run.
dwmyers
06-14-2006, 10:38 PM
Given how many scouts complained about River's throwing motion, it's highly unlikely that the Chargers would have ever obtained Rivers except for the fact that Schottenheimer coached him in the Senior Bowl. To suggest that Schottenheimer had no interest in the "untested" kid ignores history, doesn't it?
David.
CrazyCowboy
06-15-2006, 06:15 AM
thanks for the report
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 06:21 AM
I am not saying that Marty loved Brees- I am saying that there was plenty of coverage that indicated that Marty wanted to keep Brees and the real pressure to let him go was from White the GM.
Uh-Oh
06-15-2006, 06:45 AM
There was a report earlier this year that Marty and AJ Smith were feuding over Smith's decision to let Brees leave. Apparently Marty wanted Brees to be the QB. He gave him the best chance of winning.
I don't know where Dr. Z came up with this. Marty and Smith both wanted Philip Rivers. And Marty changed his mind when Brees got better at playing. But Smith has a reputation to uphold since it's his players that have to pan out.
MossBurner
06-15-2006, 07:33 AM
I am not saying that Marty loved Brees- I am saying that there was plenty of coverage that indicated that Marty wanted to keep Brees and the real pressure to let him go was from White the GM.
Maybe someone lied. It's happened before.
Dude, they are paying Rivers SOOOO much that they have to play him or they'll look like chumps. 'But Tass, why can't they just cut him?' His signing bonus is guaranteed and it is HUGE. Upwards of 20m bucks.
Yeagermeister
06-15-2006, 07:59 AM
I'm not a huge Brees fan but if you take the money out of it you keep Brees. But since that isn't possible they were stuck with Rivers.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 09:14 AM
Bottom line, Brees was gone because he sucked for so long, that they went and drafted a QB, then after they paid him all that money, he decided oh i tihnk i'm gonna play good now, and well now he's with te saints. Loser, i hate guys who do that.
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 09:24 AM
Brees had a really great year in 2004, and a very good one in 2005. Chargers are going to really regret letting him go. If they think that they have a serious chance at the SB with Rivers they are nuts.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 09:45 AM
Brees had a really great year in 2004, and a very good one in 2005. Chargers are going to really regret letting him go. If they think that they have a serious chance at the SB with Rivers they are nuts.
When you have a QB that sucked for so long, and made ya'll look so bad that people were rufsing to play for you, you go out and get a QB that you think can lead you to the Sb, and pay them lots and lots of money to play for you. Now when that QB that has sucked up the field, decides oh hey, you guys are ognna replace me so now i'm gonna play good, then go choke in the playoffs, then turn around and get hurt the next season, and on your bench is your 25 mil dollar future, you arent left with much of choice. You wanna blame someone for letting Brees go. BLame Brees for sucking so long
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 10:15 AM
Brees did not suck. He just was not very good. BUT he has been very good for 2 straight years- and blaming him for getting injured is STUPID. the Chargers could have gotten something for Rivers if they had traded him.
THEY GOT NOTHING FOR LOSING BREES. THAT was dumb.
Calicowboy
06-15-2006, 10:23 AM
In this case, it matters very little what Brees performed like in the past. What matters is his performance for the past two years.
It's going to be hard for Rivers to pick it up Drew left off. Luckily he has some pretty good pieces in place.
kartr
06-15-2006, 11:34 AM
Brees had a really great year in 2004, and a very good one in 2005. Chargers are going to really regret letting him go. If they think that they have a serious chance at the SB with Rivers they are nuts.
Agreed, Rivers is way overrated. Can't throw deep and is as slow now as is Bledsoe is at 33.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 11:41 AM
Brees did not suck. He just was not very good. BUT he has been very good for 2 straight years- and blaming him for getting injured is STUPID. the Chargers could have gotten something for Rivers if they had traded him.
THEY GOT NOTHING FOR LOSING BREES. THAT was dumb.
First he did, they had the worst record the year the year they dafted Rivers, and were at the bottom of league ever year that Brees was there. THey had LT and the same REcivers, so dont say that changed.
2nd i'm not blaming him for his unjury just saying choking in the playoffs, then getting hurt in route to a wildcard spot, really didnt help his cause.
3rd They werent gonna get anything for Rivers, he was un proven basically rookie, and they werent gonna get anything for Brees, since he was just hurt, and everyone knew that they were gonna cut either him or Rivers, so why trade for him.
BTW caps doesnt make yoru point louder or righter, in fact it does nothing.:cool:
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 11:43 AM
Oh come on of course they could have got something for Rivers.
They could have got something for Brees if they had tried.
He did not have a good game in the playoffs but then again more then a few QB's have that problem. POINT is that he was a pro bowl QB, and deservedly so THAT year, and they let him go for NOTHING.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 11:47 AM
Oh come on of course they could have got something for Rivers.
They could have got something for Brees if they had tried.
He did not have a good game in the playoffs but then again more then a few QB's have that problem. POINT is that he was a pro bowl QB, and deservedly so THAT year, and they let him go for NOTHING.
And how many guys does that happen to every year? Dont lay that BS on me, because besides what the media feeds you, They were shopping Rivers last season, but guess wat no one wanted him, except for a low draft pick, or some PS players. So again your point, even with the caps is still not right
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 01:14 PM
So since no one wanted Rivers he is going to be really good?
that sort of putts forward the point that White blew it big time letting Brees go.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 01:16 PM
So since no one wanted Rivers he is going to be really good?
that sort of putts forward the point that White blew it big time letting Brees go.
No, next time read
I said no one wanted rivers, because he was untested, and his cap number wasnt that freindly. Plus every GM knew if they couldnt trade Rivers they would cut Brees. So who do you think would want to trade for him?
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 01:19 PM
I think they would have been better off eating Rivers contract for and signing Brees for a long term deal.
bayarealightning
06-15-2006, 01:23 PM
The Chargers were never shopping Rivers. Time for a little facts. A.J. Smith had scouted Rivers and liked him prior to the Senior Bowl, and the Charger brass ensured that Rivers was included in the game. Marty fell in love with Rivers during the Senior Bowl practices and game. Brees' problem was that he was not protecting the football. The Chargers drafted Rivers and during the early part of the season, moved Rivers up to the #2 QB over Flutie when the team was 1-2. That is when Brees shortened up his game.
He stopped taking chances and kept to safe throws and completions. Nothing wrong with that. However, Brees cannot throw the short, intermediate or deep outs. I am not sure that it is because he cannot see over the linemen and by the time he is ready to throw that pass, the CB is ready to jump the route. the Chargers was the lowest rated team when it came to completions to WRs. If he is not throwing to the sidelines, teams started to crowd the middle of the field which helps teams scheming to stop Tomlinson. Brees could not make teams pay for stacking the box with 8 men. Also, teams started playing cover 2, and would not move the Safety opposite Gates to cover the sideline. Against Pittsburgh last year, Troy P. was smacking Gates all night long. He wasn't covering Gates, but he was around the seam all night long.
Rivers has to protect the ball and get defenses out of stacking the box or make them pay when they do. He can see the route develope and can get rid of the ball before the WR makes his break. If he can make Safeties respect the sidelines, that is going to open up the middle more for Gates (he will have to beat a LB and Safety vs. two Safeties). I will take our chances. He has been in the system for going on three years now. McNair, Culpepper, Pennington and Palmer all did well their first year after sitting. The first victim... Tha Raidas!
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 01:27 PM
Rivers has shown nothing- I really doubt he will this season. Meanwhile with Brees the chargers had a shot at the SB. Of course it would have helped if the Chargers had gotten themselves a really good WR- their biggest offensive weakness. RIvers is going to find out how hard it is without top WR's.
bayarealightning
06-15-2006, 01:37 PM
Gates is as good as any receiver that is out there. McCardell can still get open and Parker has become clutch (a high potion of he catches were for 1st downs). McNair had showed nothing his first two years. The same with Pennington. Culpepper and Palmer showed nothing after their first year. What are you saying about them right now? He hasn't shown nothing, but that doesn't mean that he is going to suck. We are returning 21 of 22 starters. The Change is the QB. He has the same receivers that Brees had.
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 01:48 PM
You really think that a ROOKIE- and that is what he is for all intents and purposes- is going to be able to do as well as Brees?
dfense
06-15-2006, 01:56 PM
Sucked for so long? How long? He was in the same draft as Vick. Vick has never not sucked in my opinion and isn't half the QB Brees is now.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 01:58 PM
Sucked for so long? How long? He was in the same draft as Vick. Vick has never not sucked in my opinion and isn't half the QB Brees is now.
Last time i checked Vick never lead his team to the worst Record in a season.
oh and BTW Vick might be half the QB brees is but Vick has beaten the Packers in the playoffs at LAmbeu, Even made it all the way to NFC champion ship game.
For all of Brees greatness he has yet to win a playoff game.
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 02:00 PM
Vick is a joke as a QB. He will never win a championship.
bayarealightning
06-15-2006, 02:59 PM
You really think that a ROOKIE- and that is what he is for all intents and purposes- is going to be able to do as well as Brees?
I think you need to go back and check what kind of season 3rd year rookies Pennington and McNair had. Or, second year rookies Culpepper and Palmer had. So your point is?
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 03:16 PM
Vick is a joke as a QB. He will never win a championship.
He may not, but at this point, he has won more than Brees, and the last time i checked winning is everything
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 03:53 PM
ok= first year for both of them- what were there stats compared to Brees last year?
bayarealightning
06-15-2006, 05:45 PM
Pennington:
PASSING
Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate
2000 Jets 1 0 5 2 40.0 67 13.4 62 1 0 1/4 1 1 127.1
2001 Jets 2 0 20 10 50.0 92 4.6 24 1 0 1/8 1 0 79.6
2002 Jets 15 12 399 275 68.9 3120 7.8 47 22 6 22/135 40 3 104.2
McNair:
PASSING
Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate
1995 Oilers 4 2 80 41 51.3 569 7.1 53 3 1 6/63 8 2 81.7
1996 Oilers 9 4 143 88 61.5 1197 8.3 83 6 4 9/45 15 5 90.6
1997Oilers16 16 415 216 52.0 2665 6.4 65 14 13 31/190 36 5 70.4
Culpepper:
PASSING
Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate
1999Minnesota Vikings1000---0---0000/000---
2000Viks 16 16 474 297 62.7 3937 8.3 78 33 16 34/181 56 13 98.0
Palmer:
PASSING
Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate
2003Cincinnati Bengals0000---0---0000/000---
2004Bngls13 13 432 263 60.9 2897 6.7 76 18 18 25/178 34 8 77.3
Brees:
PASSING
Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate
2005SD 16 16 500 323 64.6 3576 7.1 54 24 15 27/223 46 4 89.2
If Rivers has a year comparible to McNair and Palmer or a little better, then we should be a playoff caliber team. I am basing that on the #1 rated rush defense, the 5th best sack team, the best overall RB in the league and the best TE and FB in the league. The secondary has to improve and we will need to have a better take away total. We are going to be tough regardless of who we play.
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 06:57 PM
Rivers has a lot of wood to chop. First year playing - really at all. I just cannot see him doing good enough for the chargers to do much.
If the chargers had kept Brees they would be one of the favorites to reach the SB. Simple fact.
bayarealightning
06-15-2006, 07:47 PM
Returning 21 of 22 starters, 6 Pro Bowl players (including the Defensive Rookie of the Year), the best overall RB in the league, the best TE in the league, the best FB in the league, the #1 rushing defense, 5th in sacks, and a top 3 front 7. I like those odds. Rivers will be able to throw to the sidelines and thus use all of the field. He doesn't have to wait for a lane to pass the ball. If he makes good decisions with the ball, we will be alright. The days of the 6'0" QB in the NFL are over (unless you use the shotgun as the primary formation).
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 07:50 PM
Returning 21 of 22 starters, 6 Pro Bowl players (including the Defensive Rookie of the Year), the best overall RB in the league, the best TE in the league, the best FB in the league, the #1 rushing defense, 5th in sacks, and a top 3 front 7. I like those odds. Rivers will be able to throw to the sidelines and thus use all of the field. He doesn't have to wait for a lane to pass the ball. If he makes good decisions with the ball, we will be alright. The days of the 6'0" QB in the NFL are over (unless you use the shotgun as the primary formation).
They had that last year, and yet they fell just short. It sucks to be in the AFC eh?
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 07:53 PM
Rivers has a lot of wood to chop. First year playing - really at all. I just cannot see him doing good enough for the chargers to do much.
If the chargers had kept Brees they would be one of the favorites to reach the SB. Simple fact.
Lol, are u serious, please people are still riding the colts, that Pats are still sneaking around, Steelers are still there, the bengals, Jaguars are better, i mean they playoffs yes, but your saying that with Brees as a starter, even though he has yet to win a game in the playoffs, and really havent been pressure tested is gonna led his team to the SB. Even big ben with all his mightness and greatness didnt make it to the SB till after he lost in the AFC championship. Dont go voerboard please, your love fest for this guy is really starting to get beside itself
burmafrd
06-15-2006, 08:18 PM
With a veteran good QB YES the chargers would have been in the hunt. Take a good luck- take off your blinders. The Chargers have as complete a team as any of them. Or they did untill they chucked their QB.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 08:35 PM
With a veteran good QB YES the chargers would have been in the hunt. Take a good luck- take off your blinders. The Chargers have as complete a team as any of them. Or they did untill they chucked their QB.
Please, being in the AFC, they would again have been in the hunt for the playoffs, there just are to many "complete" teams in the AFC to say they would be favorites for the SB
Colts, Jax, Pats, Bengals, Steelers, Denver,
Thats six teams right now, that i belive will have a better record than them, you know what that means, they dont make the playoffs, so again, i have on no blinders, they are in contention for a playoff spot, yes for the SB no.
bayarealightning
06-15-2006, 09:32 PM
They had that last year, and yet they fell just short. It sucks to be in the AFC eh?
I think that is one of the reasons why we are starting a new QB this season.
dargonking999
06-15-2006, 09:50 PM
I think that is one of the reasons why we are starting a new QB this season.
at least you have good sense, lol i do think ya'' go .500 or better, but the playoffs, highly dependent on the other teams, and what they do, but of couse you can count the Colts for at least one loss :D:D
big dog cowboy
06-15-2006, 10:16 PM
Please, being in the AFC, they would again have been in the hunt for the playoffs, there just are to many "complete" teams in the AFC to say they would be favorites for the SB
Colts, Jax, Pats, Bengals, Steelers, Denver,
Thats six teams right now, that i belive will have a better record than them, you know what that means, they dont make the playoffs, so again, i have on no blinders, they are in contention for a playoff spot, yes for the SB no.
Last year at this time Pittsburgh was in contention for a playoff spot (at best and still didn't win their division) and NO ONE thought they were a threat to go to the super bowl let alone win the thing.
DWelch1775
06-15-2006, 11:07 PM
I guess i'm the only guy that doesn't care about the Chargers.
burmafrd
06-16-2006, 05:57 AM
Well, when the season ends with Rivers with more INTs then TDs, the Chargers MAYBE at 8-8 sitting home- how happy will you be then?
bayarealightning
06-16-2006, 12:39 PM
Well, when the season ends with Rivers with more INTs then TDs, the Chargers MAYBE at 8-8 sitting home- how happy will you be then?
About as happy as you if he has more TDs than interceptions, an 84 or better passer rating, and the Chargers in the middle of the hunt for the playoffs!
SA_Gunslinger
06-16-2006, 01:45 PM
after picking buffalo 4 times to win the S.B., it's pretty hard for me to take this guy seriously.
RealCowboyfan
06-16-2006, 01:50 PM
I was hoping for the Chargers to trade Rivers to the Cowboys.
1fisher
06-16-2006, 02:42 PM
BTW caps doesnt make yoru point louder or righter, in fact it does nothing.
:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.