rcaldw
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 7,067
- Reaction score
- 1,181
Ok, here are my quick musings about where we are, would welcome your disagreement/agreement on these items.
1. Bledsoe has been better than I expected, but I don't think he has been as good as many around here want to imagine. I think what has been exposed is how BAD the QB play has been around here for several years, which makes his present play seem GREAT. He has made some great throws, he has also made some miserable throws. All in all, if I'm being objective, I don't think he is really that much different than he has always been.
2. Having said #1, I think we are in danger of getting caught in a bad situation here. If you decide to get younger in positions OTHER than the QB position (which seems to be the Parcells strategy), then you run the risk of playing .500 to sub .500 football while your QB continues to age. You don't get good draft position for future years, yet you are still not playing winning football. The result is that by the time your team grows up, your QB is inadequate for a championship football team. I don't want to debate in this thread whether we are comparing apples to oranges, but the bottom line is that some teams in the league bit the bullet and decided to go young at QB. For the ones who have done this in a determined and wise fashion it is going to pay off handsomely. They will be set at the most critical position on the field for years. (See the Giants, see the Bengals, see the decision the Patriots made with Brady before Brady was Brady)
On #2, spare me some of the stuff you will say, because I know other teams have gone old (see Commanders) and it seems to be paying off, etc, etc, but for a long term strategy, I prefer the Giants approach to our current approach. I can't stand .500 football, and teams who play patch up and rent a QB at the most important position on a football team have to keep patching and keep patching over 10 year periods.
3. I don't like the Parcells style of game day management. I love his discipline, I actually think he has improved our talent level by leaps and bounds, especially on defense. I like the fact that he exercises control. (I do think he tries to control things he shouldn't but at least SOMEONE is in control as head coach for a change), but I HATE, HATE, play it close to the vest and try to win in the end football. Hate it. I am so glad that that was not our style in the 90's. We put people away. We were like a boxer with a killer instinct. Playing his way DOES produce wins that you otherwise wouldn't have, but it also produces losses that didn't have to be losses.
1. Bledsoe has been better than I expected, but I don't think he has been as good as many around here want to imagine. I think what has been exposed is how BAD the QB play has been around here for several years, which makes his present play seem GREAT. He has made some great throws, he has also made some miserable throws. All in all, if I'm being objective, I don't think he is really that much different than he has always been.
2. Having said #1, I think we are in danger of getting caught in a bad situation here. If you decide to get younger in positions OTHER than the QB position (which seems to be the Parcells strategy), then you run the risk of playing .500 to sub .500 football while your QB continues to age. You don't get good draft position for future years, yet you are still not playing winning football. The result is that by the time your team grows up, your QB is inadequate for a championship football team. I don't want to debate in this thread whether we are comparing apples to oranges, but the bottom line is that some teams in the league bit the bullet and decided to go young at QB. For the ones who have done this in a determined and wise fashion it is going to pay off handsomely. They will be set at the most critical position on the field for years. (See the Giants, see the Bengals, see the decision the Patriots made with Brady before Brady was Brady)
On #2, spare me some of the stuff you will say, because I know other teams have gone old (see Commanders) and it seems to be paying off, etc, etc, but for a long term strategy, I prefer the Giants approach to our current approach. I can't stand .500 football, and teams who play patch up and rent a QB at the most important position on a football team have to keep patching and keep patching over 10 year periods.
3. I don't like the Parcells style of game day management. I love his discipline, I actually think he has improved our talent level by leaps and bounds, especially on defense. I like the fact that he exercises control. (I do think he tries to control things he shouldn't but at least SOMEONE is in control as head coach for a change), but I HATE, HATE, play it close to the vest and try to win in the end football. Hate it. I am so glad that that was not our style in the 90's. We put people away. We were like a boxer with a killer instinct. Playing his way DOES produce wins that you otherwise wouldn't have, but it also produces losses that didn't have to be losses.