Thanking Rams, Eagles

[Toruk_Makto]

A homer would credit him and JG for the development of Tony Romo, a guy who was the starter here before they arrived. If they knew anything about developing quarterbacks, this team wouldn't fail miserably every single time Romo wasn't there to save them. They have failed at each and every turn without him, but some people just want to blame all those other players while ignoring the constants in the equation that remain.

I don't need a thing 'both ways'. I see Wade Wilson for what he is. A lousy quarterbacks coach who has never developed anyone, who can't even coach backups to the level of competent to run an offense.

He's never accomplished anything anywhere he's ever been and was exiled during Parcells' entire tenure here. He inherited an already established starter, coached by much better coaches than he'll ever be, and has ridden that player's coat tails to a steady, undeserved paycheck.

Tony Romo was already a starter and has needed and gotten nothing from Wade Wilson.

So what you're saying is that despite the fact Tony has been coached by a tandem for roughly 90 percent of his career as a starter and has consistently gotten better... That the duo who coaches him had nothing to do with his development?

You sound like a crazy person.

 

[Stash]

Yes. Worth it to them. And not worth it two the 2 "decision makers" who traded away the picks. You said the word consensus in the thread you got closed. I was wondering where you got that information. Are you not willing to share with us so i can stop being a "clown"?

Do you honestly expect me to scour the Internet for you? Am I on your payroll?

I can give you directions:

There's this place on the Internet called 'Google'.

Go there and type in the words '2016 NFL Draft'

From there, you can look at all of the information pertaining to the draft.

There it will show that everyone associated with it, has both of these players listed in the top 10.

And what's actually happened (two trades!) will actually show you that they are, in fact, going 1 & 2 overall.

I sincerely hope that these instructions will help you in an area where you're obviously struggling

Have a great day!

 

[gimmesix]

I'll do it again, just for you:

I've limited it to QBs taken from 2013 and back simply because I think it's hard to judge how successful QBs like Bortles, Mariota, Winston, Bridgewater and Carr will be at this point

QBs taken in the top five:
2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin
2011 Cam Newton, Jake Locker
2010 Sam Bradford
2009 Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez
2008 Matt Ryan
2007 JaMarcus Russell
2006 Vince Young
2005 Alex Smith
2004 Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers
2003 Carson Palmer
2002 David Carr, Joey Harrington
2001 Michael Vick

That's 17 QBs, with Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Smith, Manning, Rivers and Palmer (tentatively) as successes, which is a success rate of less than 50 percent.

If you want to go back further than that, you can include Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb and Akili Smith from 1999 and Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf from 1998, but it doesn't improve the percentages.


QBs taken in the 30s:
2013 Geno Smith
2011 Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick
2007 Kevin Kolb
2002 Patrick Ramsey
2001 Drew Brees

If you stop there, to go the same years as the top five, you've got three successes (Dalton, Kaepernick and Brees) and three failures for 50 percent.

To get a similar sample size, though, you have to go back further.

1991 Brett Favre, Browning Nagle
1989 Mike Elkins
1985 Randall Cunningham
1984 Boomer Esiason
1981 Neil Lomax
1973 Gary Huff, Ron Jaworski
1970 Dennis Shaw
1969 Terry Hanratty
1968 Gary Baban

That's 17, with Jaworski, Lomax (tentatively), Esiason, Cunningham, Favre, Brees, Dalton and Kaepernick as successes, so the overall success rate would be the same as those taken in the top five. (I think I might have included Carr and Bridgewater the first time I did this, which upped the percentage, or I might have gone further back, but I don't remember.)

I don't think we see getting a better quality QB in the top five, either, since none in the years listed have had better careers to this point than Favre and Brees. You would have to go back to Peyton Manning to find a QB on that level.

 

[DogFace]

No, not at all. Complete difference, and if you don't realize it, you have no right having a conversation on this subject because you obviously know nothing about it.



After the fact became apparent that you didn't know what you were talking about - Jay Cutler - you didn't deserve one.



And "crapshoot" is another term used by the ignorant who don't know the first thing about the draft. Go tell Jerry Jones it's a "crapshoot"! Tell him to stop wasting all that time and money on scouting because, after all, its just a "crapshoot". Tell the guys who travel across this country to stop wasting their time and find a real job. After all, its a "crap shoot".

You know what truly is a "crap shoot"? Uninformed people spewing out nonsense on a subject they clearly, plainly, and obviously know absolutely nothing about.



Just as soon as you stop pretending to know what you're talking about on this subject.

Eaaaaaaaasy!! Eaaasyeee tiger! Calm down. You're really deflecting now. How about you take a deep breath and relax. Maybe next Chritmas if you're good you'll get another QB!

 

[KRochelli]

Says a Melvin who will be crying like a baby when the crippled QB can't play anymore. Whoever they draft at 4? They don't matter without the QB. Completely and totally irrelevant.

Here's the deal, Bathe in this truth while fantasy land is all around you. We have a triple whammy at play here and watch and see if I'm not right as rain.

1) We had a real opportunity to turn the abortion of the 2015 season it's an actual positive with the QB of the future. We've now lost that opportunity. Either the idiots who compose our front office don't believe there's a franchise QB in this draft or they just think it's too soon. Romo can play until it hurts to pee. Either way, I would trust your Mom's opinion on this over those two wastes of space. There is a very good chance we will all look back on this decision with serious regret.

I don't believe this is entirely true - face it, the Rams and Eagles had much more to offer the Titans and Browns. I'm sure we inquired about trading up this week, but it wasn't enough as the Browns got way more value going to 8 than 4. If nobody here is sold on Ramsay/Bosa at 4, why would other teams?

Instead of whining about what could have happened, let's focus on what the Cowboys should do at #4. SD taking Ramsay would be an ideal scenario - so we can trade back.

 

[DogFace]

Do you honestly expect me to scour the Internet for you? Am I on your payroll?

I can give you directions:

There's this place on the Internet called 'Google'.

Go there and type in the words '2016 NFL Draft'

From there, you can look at all of the information pertaining to the draft.

There it will show that everyone associated with it, has both of these players listed in the top 10.

And what's actually happened (two trades!) will actually show you that they are, in fact, going 1 & 2 overall.

I sincerely hope that these instructions will help you in an area where you're obviously struggling

Have a great day!

Thanks!

Google said there's no "consensus"

What now?

 

[Stash]

So what you're saying is that despite the fact Tony has been coached by a tandem for roughly 90 percent of his career as a starter and has consistently gotten better... That the duo who coaches him had nothing to do with his development?

I'm saying to look at the body of work, rather than the one player who was successful before and after they got here. There's a record of failure, not success. Romo is the anomaly, the deviation from the norm. Neither of these clown has ever been able to put even a competent player on the field otherwise.

You sound like a crazy person.

And you sound like a homer who just can't bear to hear any criticism of 'my Cowboys!' In any way, at any level. You can't accept anything being less than perfect with 'your team'. That's your problem.

One of us can see the body of work and complete track record. The other points to one good player (the starter here before either of them arrived) and tries to ignore everything else.

 

[Stash]

Thanks!

Google said there's no "consensus"

What now?

Yeah? Show me where it says that. You do the least bit of work for a change instead of simply requiring it from someone else.

I can produce 10 draft sites that show both in the Top 10, you do the same or admit you don't have a leg to stand on and run away.

 

[DogFace]

I don't think we see getting a better quality QB in the top five, either, since none in the years listed have had better careers to this point than Favre and Brees. You would have to go back to Peyton Manning to find a QB on that level.

Wow. That has to hurt. Could you try to passify him more before showing him that many facts. He's really mad and taking it out on my feelings!

 

[DogFace]

Yeah? Show me where it says that. You do the least bit of work for a change instead of simply requiring it from someone else.

I can produce 10 draft sites that show both in the Top 10, you do the same or admit you don't have a leg to stand on and run away.

Both in the top 10? What about Gimmesix and all his info about failed highly drafted qbs?

Isn't that the data to back up the facts you called claims earlier?

 

[Stash]

Eaaaaaaaasy!! Eaaasyeee tiger! Calm down. You're really deflecting now. How about you take a deep breath and relax. Maybe next Chritmas if you're good you'll get another QB!

What's "deflecting" about someone making false claims? Apparently, it's 'OK' for you when people do it, as long as they're agreeing with you?

Then you seem to accept anything they type as 'facts', even if they're unsupported, or in this case, completely wrong.

Maybe that's not someone else's issue, but yours?

 

[Stash]

Wow. That has to hurt. Could you try to passify him more before showing him that many facts. He's really mad and taking it out on my feelings!

And make sure you don't require him to back up a single thing he claims, since he agrees with you....

But call them 'facts' anyway because you obviously can't tell the difference,

 

[Sydla]

I think it's a reach to call Kap a success at this point (especially when apparently you list Palmer as "tentatively" a success, which was funny). Yeah, he had a nice two year run there but I don't think any team considers him a franchise level QB like others on your list. The 49ers quietly shopped him and no one would touch him.

So the hit rate for QBs in the 30s could be more like 33% than 50%.

 

[Stash]

Both in the top 10? What about Gimmesix and all his info about failed highly drafted qbs?

Isn't that the data to back up the facts you called claims earlier?

Again, where's the proof? I'll continue to give you that line for everyone to see until it shows up. And you can either continue to look foolish and uninformed, or you can run. Your choice.

 

[DogFace]

Again, where's the proof? I'll continue to give you that line for everyone to see until it shows up. And you can either continue to look foolish and uninformed, or you can run. Your choice.

He listed the drafts and when they were picked. Them did the math for you.

I guess it's not fact if they failed or succeeded but, a reasonable person may conclude that.

 

[Stash]

I'll do it again, just for you:

I've limited it to QBs taken from 2013 and back simply because I think it's hard to judge how successful QBs like Bortles, Mariota, Winston, Bridgewater and Carr will be at this point

QBs taken in the top five:
2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin
2011 Cam Newton, Jake Locker
2010 Sam Bradford
2009 Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez
2008 Matt Ryan
2007 JaMarcus Russell
2006 Vince Young
2005 Alex Smith
2004 Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers
2003 Carson Palmer
2002 David Carr, Joey Harrington
2001 Michael Vick

That's 17 QBs, with Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Smith, Manning, Rivers and Palmer (tentatively) as successes, which is a success rate of less than 50 percent.

If you want to go back further than that, you can include Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb and Akili Smith from 1999 and Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf from 1998, but it doesn't improve the percentages.


QBs taken in the 30s:
2013 Geno Smith
2011 Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick
2007 Kevin Kolb
2002 Patrick Ramsey
2001 Drew Brees

If you stop there, to go the same years as the top five, you've got three successes (Dalton, Kaepernick and Brees) and three failures for 50 percent.

To get a similar sample size, though, you have to go back further.

1991 Brett Favre, Browning Nagle
1989 Mike Elkins
1985 Randall Cunningham
1984 Boomer Esiason
1981 Neil Lomax
1973 Gary Huff, Ron Jaworski
1970 Dennis Shaw
1969 Terry Hanratty
1968 Gary Baban

That's 17, with Jaworski, Lomax (tentatively), Esiason, Cunningham, Favre, Brees, Dalton and Kaepernick as successes, so the overall success rate would be the same as those taken in the top five. (I think I might have included Carr and Bridgewater the first time I did this, which upped the percentage, or I might have gone further back, but I don't remember.)

I have a question, and an issue:

Why is this at all limited to the Top 5?

That's a ridiculous qualifier that renders everything else useless.

 

[Stash]

He listed the drafts, when they were picked then did the math for you.

Are you referring to that 'Top 5' thing?

It's useless.

The qualifier he placed on it makes it truly irrelevant.

 

[Sydla]

He listed the drafts, when they were picked then did the math for you.

It's a useless analysis because the sample size is so small that one player would swing the QBs in the 30s from having a 50% hit rate to only a 33% hit rate.

It's HIGHLY debatable that Colin Kaepernick is a franchise QB at this point.

 

[Denim Chicken]

What's "deflecting" about someone making false claims? Apparently, it's 'OK' for you when people do it, as long as they're agreeing with you?

Then you seem to accept anything they type as 'facts', even if they're unsupported, or in this case, completely wrong.

Maybe that's not someone else's issue, but yours?

You said franchise QBs don't become FA. Yet, one won the SB last year while another was signed FROM THE SAME TEAM elsewhere.

So you are completely wrong.

 

[DogFace]

I'll do it again, just for you:

I've limited it to QBs taken from 2013 and back simply because I think it's hard to judge how successful QBs like Bortles, Mariota, Winston, Bridgewater and Carr will be at this point

QBs taken in the top five:
2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin
2011 Cam Newton, Jake Locker
2010 Sam Bradford
2009 Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez
2008 Matt Ryan
2007 JaMarcus Russell
2006 Vince Young
2005 Alex Smith
2004 Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers
2003 Carson Palmer
2002 David Carr, Joey Harrington
2001 Michael Vick

That's 17 QBs, with Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Smith, Manning, Rivers and Palmer (tentatively) as successes, which is a success rate of less than 50 percent.

If you want to go back further than that, you can include Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb and Akili Smith from 1999 and Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf from 1998, but it doesn't improve the percentages.


QBs taken in the 30s:
2013 Geno Smith
2011 Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick
2007 Kevin Kolb
2002 Patrick Ramsey
2001 Drew Brees

If you stop there, to go the same years as the top five, you've got three successes (Dalton, Kaepernick and Brees) and three failures for 50 percent.

To get a similar sample size, though, you have to go back further.

1991 Brett Favre, Browning Nagle
1989 Mike Elkins
1985 Randall Cunningham
1984 Boomer Esiason
1981 Neil Lomax
1973 Gary Huff, Ron Jaworski
1970 Dennis Shaw
1969 Terry Hanratty
1968 Gary Baban

That's 17, with Jaworski, Lomax (tentatively), Esiason, Cunningham, Favre, Brees, Dalton and Kaepernick as successes, so the overall success rate would be the same as those taken in the top five.